Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Appeal filed by CIM & Huntington Beach Cares - f7 /f NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGARDING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY TO CIM/HUNTINGTON, LLC. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City Council") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency")will hold a joint public hearing on Monday, October 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers at Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Sections 33000, et seq.), for the purpose of considering the proposed disposition of property to CIM/HUNTINGTON, LLC (the "Developer"), in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law and pursuant to a proposed Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement, by and between the Agency and Developer. The proposed Third Implementation Agreement supplements, modifies or incorporates by reference the terms of that certain Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of June 17, 1999 (the "DDA"), as previously supplemented by that certain First Implementation Agreement dated as of April 6, 2000 and that certain Second Implementation Agreement dated as of March 5, 2001 (the DDA and the First, Second and Third Implementation Agreements shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Agreement"). The property proposed to be transferred to the Developer (the "Property") is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street in Huntington Beach, California, but does not include Ocean View Promenade,the retail buildings fronting on Main Street,the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut(Blocks 104 and 105). The Property consists of parcels that are presently owned by the Agency(collectively, "Parcel A")and a parcel currently owned by third parties, but which is subject to a Ground Lease and Option to Purchase Fee dated as of March 8, 2000, by and between the owners of the parcel , the Agency, and CIM/HUNTINGTON, INC., Developer's predecessor in interest(the "Leased Premises"). The public hearing will be held to consider: 1. The proposed transfer of the Property by the Agency to the Developer,to be accomplished pursuant to the Agreement through a Sale of Parcel A and a Sublease with Option to Purchase Fee of the Leased Premises; and 2. The proposed Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement submitted to the City Council, which provides for the proposed sale of the Property by the Agency to the Developer. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 Two levels of subterranean public parking are proposed beneath the project area on both blocks. A total of 405 parking spaces are proposed with ingress and egress to the structure via a controlled entrance and exit off Sixth Street. Of the 405 proposed parking spaces, a total of 24 spaces or 5.9% are proposed to be compact. In addition, six spaces and two loading spaces are provided at grade along the private access easement on block 105. The project also proposes a valet parking plan for the hotel and restaurant uses utilizing the parking structure with an attendant stationed at the drop-off and pick-up areas located mid block along 5th Street. Pedestrian access from the parking structure to the street level and above is provided by two sets of stairs and elevators. One set of stairs/elevator provides public access to the hotel and uses on block 105 and the other set of stairs/elevator provides public access to the uses on block 104. Delivery access to the existing and new uses of block 104 (Main St. properties, Ocean View Promenade, El Don Liquor) will be provided by the existing 19.5 ft. wide public alley (after dedications) and the proposed 24 ft. wide private easement. The delivery access to the hotel and other uses of block 105 will be provided by an 18 ft. one-way private access easement between the proposed project and the existing Helme-Worthy site. Reciprocal access easements will be provided between all the affected public alleys, public streets, and private easements. The 80 ft. ultimate right of way of Fifth Street is proposed to be reduced to a 65 ft -wide public access easement for both pedestrian and vehicular purposes. Within the 65 ft. easement will be a 24 ft. wide roadway for vehicular purposes consisting of two 12 ft. wide vehicular travel lanes between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. The applicant then proposes sidewalks on both sides of the roadway ranging in width from a minimum 12 ft. at the 5th St. stairs to the terrace to a maximum of 22 ft. 6 in. at buildings C and E. The vehicular roadway is designed in such a manner to be closed to through traffic for selected temporary outdoor events. Public open space is provided in several areas within the two-block project area as depicted on the site plan. The two most significant open space areas are the courtyard between buildings A & B and the public terrace on the 2►,d level of the hotel. Clear and dedicated access for the public from 5th Street via stairs and elevators is provided to the terrace. The terrace design allows for the public to access the terrace without the need to enter the hotel. The public terrace will also provide enhanced coastal views because of its 2"d level location and design. B. BACKGROUND With the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area in the early 1980's there have been several plans proposed for what is commonly referred to as Blocks 104/105 or Main-Pier Phase II. In January 1992, the City Council on appeal approved Conditional Use Permit No. 91-39 with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-21, Conditional Exception PL02-37 •al- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM aJ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 i (Variance) No. 91-45, Tentative Parcel Map No. 91-235 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-6 for the construction of a 48,000 sq. ft. four story commercial/office building (Abdelmuti/Oceanview Promenade). The special permits were to site coverage, upper story setbacks along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and the build to line along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The request also included a 132 space parking variance. The required parking was temporarily approved and provided on the Terry Buick lot, on 5th Street, on Walnut Avenue, and on a Redevelopment Agency owned parcel on 5tn Street. A permanent parking arrangement was to be provided on Block 105 when the remainder of Block 104 was to be developed. A detailed discussion of parking is provided in the Analysis section of this report. The project was considered Phase A of the overall Main-Pier Phase II project and construction was completed in 1993. In July 1993, the City Council, on appeal, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 92-17 with Special Permits, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 92-28, Coastal Development Permit No. 92-14, Tentative Tract Map No. 14666 for the construction of new and rehabilitated buildings totaling approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant/office on block 104 and the construction of 80 condominiums with a 193 space two-level semi-subterranean parking structure on block 105 (Coultrup Plan /Phase B of Main-Pier Phase II). A total of 15 special permits were requested and six were approved. The approved special permits were for a reduction to the build to line along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, a reduction of the upper story setbacks along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, a reduction of the upper story setbacks along interior property lines, and a reduction of a sideyard setback along 5th Street. The request also included a 406 space parking variance includes the 132 spaces of Phase A The project was conditioned to provide parking (� P )• p j p P g consistent with a future parking strategy, which ultimately became the adopted Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The DPMP required a total of 75 commercial parking spaces for both phases of the Main-Pier Phase II projects. As noted earlier, a detailed discussion of parking is provided in the Analysis section of this report. The project was subsequently appealed to the California Coastal Commission and ultimately approved. The project was never constructed. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the September 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting a total of 17 speakers spoke during the public hearing on the EIR and project entitlements. All of the speakers spoke in support of the EIR and project entitlements. The Planning Commission discussed several issues pertaining to the project entitlements and the EIR. After discussion and debate the Planning Commission certified the EIR and the responses to comments as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA. The Planning Commission requested staff respond to a series of questions about the project entitlements and continued the project to a special meeting on October 1, 2002. At the October 1 2002 meeting, a total of 9 speakers spoke regarding the project. Five of P p 9 9 p J the speakers spoke in support of the project and four spoke in opposition. The speakers in support of the project expressed the need for the completion of the two-block area, the need PL02-37 4- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM 7 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 for the proposed retail, restaurant, office and hotel uses in the downtown, and the quality tenants proposed for the project. The opposition to the project was based primarily on the issues of adequate parking and impacts to residents and businesses during the construction of the project. Staff presented a response to the Commission questions (14 total) raised at the September 24th meeting in the October 1st staff report (Attachment No. 6). The Commission took a series of straw votes pertaining to the recommended staff modifications and major issues. In addition, the Commission amended six conditions of approval to reflect their recommendations. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission modifications and amended conditions of approval. D. APPEAL: On October 2, 2002, John Given, CIM Group, appealed the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 (Attachment No. 2). The appeal of the project entitlements is based on the mitigation measure and conditions of approval that address the setback of the proposed project to the Helme-Worthy historical site and the condition of approval requiring an additional 2.5 ft. setback for buildings along 5th Street. Specifically, the following conditions of approval have been appealed: Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 1. The tentative tract map received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications:. b. The service drive entrance and easement at 6th Street shall be designed to provide two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal entrance point to the Helme-Worthy site. f. The 20-foot wide reciprocal access drive for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive adjacent to the southerly boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105 and through the setback area and relocate the 24-foot wide service driveway to conform to the new design. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be employed in the design of the access. (PW) Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45, etc. 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The plans shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy PL02-37 -0- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 buildings along the southern property line, a 10-15-foot average upper-level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. (MM 3.3-3) The 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with turf and trees except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point. b. The service drive shall be enclosed adjacent the southerly property line of the Helme-Worthy site with compatible materials, except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point, and shall have an attached trellis with vine landscaping treatment. C. A 20 ft. reciprocal access drive shall be provided from the service drive to the Helme-Worthy site. The service drive shall be designed for two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal access drive. g. Incorporate an additional 2.5 ft. setback for buildings (A, D, E) fronting 5th Street to provide additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining (minimum 10 ft. width) and public open space purposes. The upper levels shall maintain their setbacks and terraces to maintain the integrity of the architectural upper level design. The conditions of approval listed above all pertain to the setback and design between the, proposed project and the Helme-Worthy historical site except for condition of approval #1g listed under the conditional use permit. A detailed discussion of the setback issues is found under the Analysis section of this report titled "Helme-Worthy Property." A detailed discussion of the 2.5 ft. setback is found under the Analysis section titled "Design of 5tn Street." Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council. approve the project with the suggested conditions of approval. Staff does not support the project without the suggested conditions of approval. On October 3, 2002, James A. Lane, HB CARES Co-Chair, appealed the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 01-02 and approval of the project entitlements (Attachment No. 3). The appeal of the EIR certification is discussed in a separate report. The appeal of the project entitlements is based on the comment letter submitted by Jeffrey M. Oderman of Rutan and Tucker, LLP on behalf of Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess (CARE) dated September 3, 2002, that was submitted during the public comment period for the EIR. Staff supports the response to comment provided in the EIR appeal report and no further appeal analysis is necessary. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As discussed below, there are numerous issues for analysis in this unique mixed-use redevelopment project. The Strand has been studied with regards to land use compatibility, parking, public improvements, and analysis of special permit requests. The following is an analysis of the primary issues of the proposed project. PL02-37 -yd- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 Land Use Compatibility: Site Planning A total of six buildings are proposed for the two-block project. Buildings A, B, and C are located along the east side of Fifth Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway on Block 104. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants along the ground floors, and office uses above the first floor. A pedestrian bridge at level two between Buildings A and B is an option the applicant is proposing to include in the design of the buildings. Development on this block excludes the Main St. properties, Ocean View Promenade and the El Don Liquor store. Buildings are proposed at two (B & C) and three stories (A) situated primarily along the 5th Street frontage. In reviewing the site plan, the proposed buildings are designed in a manner to take advantage of 5th Street and the public alleys. The 5th Street frontage can accommodate both retail and restaurant uses by providing buildings situated in a manner that are adjacent to the street and provide a continuous pedestrian activity consistent with the Design Guidelines and the pedestrian overlay designation of the General Plan. This pattern of development is compatible with the urban nature of the downtown. The buildings located adjacent the alley are proposed at a zero setback. Because of the one lot configuration, and the definition of yards, no rear yard setback is required. However, staff is recommending that buildings A & D comply with the rear yard setback of three feet and the allowance of the upper levels to be cantilevered to zero. This recommendation is consistent with the DTSP setback requirement and provides the buildings adequate area to permit exit doors and protection from delivery vehicles and activities. Buildings B & C will be required to provide design alternative to recess utilities and exit doors. Buildings D, E, F, and G cover the entire Block 105 with the exception of the Helme- Worthy historical property at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants on the ground floor and with a 152-room hotel occupying the second, third, and fourth levels. Access to the hotel is provided from hotel elevators at 5th Street to a second level hotel lobby and courtyard. A public terrace is provided on the 2"d level adjacent to but not a part of the hotel. In reviewing the site plan, the proposed ground floor retail component of the buildings are designed in a manner to take advantage of PCH, 5th Street, 6th Street, and Walnut Ave. All the buildings are proposed in close proximity to the street in a manner to accommodate both retail and restaurant uses and provide a continuous pedestrian activity consistent with the recommendations of Design Guidelines and the pedestrian overlay of the General Plan. The hotel is situated above the ground floor and is designed to take advantage of the views of the beach, Pier and ocean. The proposed private easements will serve-as alleys and provide delivery access to the retail/restaurant buildings as well as the hotel. The proposed pattern. of development and site planning is compatible with the urban nature of the downtown. PL02-37 -yr- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM /O REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 Mediterranean Architecture The applicant is proposing a "contemporary" Mediterranean architecture. The Huntington Beach Downtown Design Guidelines describe contemporary Mediterranean architecture as a mixture of many influences — images from the coastal portions of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece combined with elements of contemporary Mexico and Southern Californian architecture. The proposed project has been designed as a melding of styles appropriate to the character of downtown. The architecture proposes to create the impression of multiple developments that have grown together over time, in the manner of a Mediterranean village and consistent with the concept envisioned by the DTSP. The result is an architecture that provides a project of expressive massing, forms, colors and materials consistent with the Mediterranean theme. The massing of the project is scaled to the surrounding development (see Helme-Worthy below), and follows the recommendations of the Downtown Design Guidelines to break building masses into the appearance of multiple buildings in a village-like appearance. Facades are varied in articulation, color, and height and the use of upper story setbacks and recesses to make the buildings less imposing and more human-scaled. A variety of roof heights and forms are used to achieve the varying roofline of a village. The creation of a courtyard opening off Fifth Street adds another Mediterranean village feature promoted in the Guidelines The Guidelines recommend incorporating characteristic Mediterranean form such as deep structured overhangs, arches, deeply recessed windows, balconies and terraces. The project features a grand entrance as its;principal hotel entry on Fifth Street and uses recessed windows throughout the project to create a play of light and shadow on all facades. Also, the proposed balconies and activity terraces enliven the appearance of the buildings as seen from its surroundings and provide views of the ocean and the downtown. At the street level, proposed awnings offer shade and create an arcade-like sense for the pedestrian along the building frontages. The proposed colors and materials are consistent with the Guidelines. The surfaces of the buildings are light-colored stucco with accent areas of wood in reference to traditional beachfront architecture. The deep overhangs at the tops of the buildings with their heavy beamed supports recall classical Mediterranean motifs. The street level proposes shop windows of multi-paned glass with painted metalwork as recommended_ in the Guidelines. Staff and the Design Review Board are in support of the proposed architectural concept but are recommending that final design concepts return to the DRB for final review and approval. Helme-Worthy Property The Helme-Worthy historical site is located at the southeast corner of Sixth and Walnut on i block 105. The development on 105 is proposed on the east and south sides of the historical site. The proposed ground level development at the eastern boundary consists of a 15 ft. wide one-way easement and a 2.5 ft. setback to building D for the 1st and 2"d PL02-37 412- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM i Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Alternative 3: Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks,substituting residential units for hotel rooms). These findings examine. the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effects. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City of Huntington Beach is not required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts which are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. In addressing the No Project/No Action Alternative,the City of Huntington Beach followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions,as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current.plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). No ProjectlNo Development Alternative Aesthetics Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the current aesthetic condition would not change. Although the site would remain deteriorated and underutilized, no visual elements incompatible with surrounding development would be introduced onto the project site. Additionally,public coastal views across the project site from Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street would be preserved and the full width of the public view corridor provided by Fifth Street would be maintained. This alternative would create no new, significant aesthetic impacts; however, considering the existing condition of the site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered less than that of the proposed project. Nonetheless,aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less severe overall than those associated with the proposed project. Air Quality Under the No Project/No Build Alternative,the same number of cars would continue to use the surface parking lots on Blocks 104 and 105, and vehicle trips associated with existing uses would continue. Additionally, construction, demolition, and operational traffic impacts would not occur, as no development would occur and no uses would change. Air quality would, therefore, remain the same as on the existing condition of the site and impacts would be reduced from those of the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 15 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise This alternative would not result in any construction-related noise or change the existing operational noise levels on the site. Noise impacts would, therefore, be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. ReducedlRevised Project Alternative (Hotel and Commercial Development on Block 105 only) Aesthetics Under the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative, redevelopment of Block 105 would increase the visual quality of the project site by eliminating vacant lots and deteriorating surface parking lots and would eliminate the impact of vehicular headlights upon the residences on the east side of Sixth Street. The lack of sufficient setbacks would exist as in the proposed project plans and the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way would occur;however, Special Permits would be requested for this alternative. However, the introduction of a parking structure to Block 104 could result in the introduction of an incompatible visual element into the project vicinity. Nonetheless,aesthetic impacts would generally be less severe than the proposed project. Air Quality Under the Reduced/Revised Alternative, the current site would be developed to the same site coverage but not the same intensity of commercial development as the proposed project. Air Quality impacts associates with demolition/site preparation activities would be the same as under the proposed project; however, fewer operational trips by consumers and/or delivery trucks would occur, and air quality impacts would be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Noise Because the ultimate development potential would be reduced under this alternative, operational vehicle trips would be reduced, and roadway noise impacts would be less intense than those described for the proposed project. A level of development similar to the proposed project would occur,resulting in short-term exposure of persons to the same level and duration of demolition, sire preparation, and construction noise. Similar to the proposed project, construction-related impacts would remain significant, despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project,as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. However, on-site noise impacts related to the reduced commercial development of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed 16 City of Huntington Beach A I T ACI- ENT IN.Oe -TO4 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project, with fewer visitors arriving and departing from the project site than with the commercial intensity of the proposed project. Overall, noise impacts would be less intense under this alternative than under the proposed project. Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks, substituting residential units for hotel rooms) Aesthetics As with the proposed project this alternative would have a beneficial impact upon the current aesthetic qualities of unattractive, underutilized vacant uses and parking lots that currently characterize Blocks 104 and 105, by replacing existing, deteriorating urban uses with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Although the property would generally restrict public coastal views through the project site, this impact would be mitigated by the provision of upper level setbacks,pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan,which would reduce the feeling of increased intensity. The provision of these setbacks would also serve as a visual buffer for, and would provide visual consistency with, surrounding, smaller-scale residential and commercial uses. As with the proposed project, this alternative would infringe upon public views of the coast from the Fifth Street right-of-way,but would do so according to the allowed limits specified in the Downtown Specific Plan. Increased nighttime lighting levels would still occur, as would impacts of vehicular headlights upon neighboring residences on Sixth Street. Overall, the aesthetic impacts of this alternative are slightly less severe than those of the proposed project. Air Quality Under this alternative, the current site would be developed to a lower overall intensity than the proposed project. Restaurant, retail and office development intensity is identical to the proposed project, and the same number of vehicle trips by consumers and/or deliveries would be expected to occur. Construction activities would also be similar in scope, and air quality impacts associated with demolition,site preparation,construction,and construction worker and truck trips would not be substantially reduced from those expected from the proposed project. However, residential development, assuming primarily low-rise apartments, generates 6.59 daily trips per unit versus hotel development, which generates 8.23 daily trips per unit, and 89 dwelling units would generate a total of 587 daily trips,versus 1,251 daily trips anticipated from a 152-room hotel development. This residential generation of approximately half the vehicle trips of the hotel results in lower-intensity.operational air quality impacts under this alternative than under the proposed project. Therefore,this alternative would result in less severe impacts to air quality than the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 17 _. _ Sl"n F hni .., h f Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise Construction activities, which would result in short-term exposure of persons to construction noise, would still occur under this alternative, and would be substantially similar to the impact anticipated under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, such impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project, as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. As described above,under Air Quality,less project-generated traffic would be anticipated under this alternative than under the proposed project, and operational traffic noise impacts would be reduced from those anticipated from the proposed project. However, multi-family residential uses are considered to be higher noise generators than hotel uses, and on-site noise levels under this alternative would be greater than those anticipated under the proposed project: Overall,noise impacts under this alternative would be less severe than those under the proposed project. 9. Statement Of Overriding Considerations When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision making body of the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable,adverse environmental effects,the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific responses to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impact The Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Aesthetics ■ Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. ■ Cumulative Impact Air uali ■ Impact 3.2-2: The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could exceed established thresholds. Noise ■ Cumulative Impact 18 City of Huntington Beach I -13 N"i-ENT NO. TO S Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Public Services and Utilities ■ Cumulative Impact The City of Huntington Beach has adopted all feasible Mitigation Measures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures may lessen the impacts,they would not reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. As a result, to approve the Project, the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been mitigated to a less-then- significant level. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. 10. Independent Review and Analysis Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR, (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment,. and (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The City of Huntington Beach independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and determined that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making this determination, the City of Huntington Beach circulated the Final EIR, as described above. With the adoption of these findings, the City of Huntington Beach concludes that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 19 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level, the City of Huntington Beach, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project (which includes the Final EIR and Responses to Comments), and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain,finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion(in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to the greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the project,or do not provide the overall benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following. Project implementation will: Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. Add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. Improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people outside the area. Enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. Contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping,dining,and entertainment. 20 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. Implement many of the goals,policies and development standards of the City's Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 21 ATTACHMENT N. • •ZI_ AT,TA�C --L MENT ---5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Purpose As identified by Section 15097(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of the Northam Ranch House Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures and/or project revisions identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant, adverse, environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The implementation of this MAW shall be accomplished by Lead Agency staff(City of Huntington Beach), the project developer's consultants and representatives, and the property owner. The program shall apply to the following phases of the project: ■ Plan and specification preparation Pre-construction activities ■ Construction of the site improvements ■ Post-construction activities Monitoring ensures that project compliance is verified on a regular basis during and, if necessary, subsequent to project implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving agency is informed of compliance with the mitigation measures. Responsibilities and Duties The Applicant shall designate a representative to coordinate on-site compliance efforts, and to serve as the primary point of contact with the City Planning Department. The representative shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of this MMRP, and shall have authority over the monitors/specialists retained by the developer and/or contractor, as well as construction personnel for actions that relate to the items listed in this program. Any problems or concerns shall be addressed by the Applicant's representative and the City Planning Department. The Applicant shall prepare a construction schedule for review and approval by the City Planning Department, and shall provide the Department with at least 48 hours'notice of any major revisions to or deviations from the schedule. The Applicant's representative shall also ensure that an information packet—which shall include a copy of the MMRP,the construction schedule,a monitoring log/sign-in sheet,and the The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program plot plan delineating all sensitive areas to be avoided—is present on-site during all demolition, grading, and construction activities. All on-site personnel shall be informed of the packet's presence and contents, as well as the duties and responsibilities of each participant, communication procedures,monitoring criteria,and compliance criteria. Once construction commences, field meetings between the Applicant's representative, project consultants, and contractors shall be held on an as-needed basis in order to address unanticipated circumstances,assess potential effects,and resolve conflicts. Implementation Procedures Three types of activities will require monitoring: (1) review of the Conditions of Approval and Construction Plans and Specifications; (2) demolition, grading, and construction activities; and (3)ongoing monitoring activities during operation of the project. Monitoring Procedures The Applicant's representative, required consultants, and appropriate City staff (identified in the MMRP Matrix) shall monitor all field activities. The authority and responsibilities of the Applicant and City are described above. Reporting Procedures A schedule and two types of reports shall be prepared,as described below: 1. Schedule The contractor shall prepare a construction schedule to be submitted to the City prior to or at the pre-construction briefing. -This schedule shall be updated, as necessary, and submitted to all involved parties,including the Lead.Agency. 2. Bi-weekly Progress Reports The Applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting bi-weekly written progress reports during grading, excavation, and construction activities to the City Planning Department. These progress reports shall document field activities,compliance with project mitigation measures (such as dust control and sound reduction), and the monitors and monitoring activities during the preceding two-week period. 3. Final Report A final report shall be submitted to the City Planning Department when all monitoring (other than long-term.operational)has been completed and shall include the following: 2 City of Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT NO. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a. A summary of all monitoring activities; b. The date(s) that monitoring occurred; c. An identification of any violations and the manner in which they were resolved; d. Any required technical reports,such as noise measurements;and e. A list of all project mitigation monitors. MMRP Matrix The following MMRP Matrix describes each Initial Study and EIR mitigation measure,the entity responsible for ensuring compliance with each mitigation measure, the entity responsible for the actual monitoring or reporting activity, the action taken by the monitor to ensure compliance with the mitigation measure, the timing and frequency of monitoring or reporting activity, and the department of the Lead Agency that is responsible for verifying ultimate compliance with the mitigation measure. The MMRP Matrix is intended for use by all parties involved in monitoring the project mitigation measures, as well as project contractors and others working in the field. The Matrix should be used as a compliance checklist to aid in.compliance verification and monitoring requirements. A copy of the MMRP matrix shall be kept on-site and in the project file to verify compliance with all mitigation measures. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3 ATI-A r W A PKIT Kin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification AestheticsNisual Quality Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: The Applicant City City Planning Plan review At plan check City Planning shall use minimum light levels required for Redevelopment Department Department safety,and exterior lights,shall be directed Agency/Developer downwards and away from surrounding uses,onto the project site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: To the extent City City Planning Plan review At plan check City Planning feasible, the Applicant shall use non- Redevelopment Department Department reflective facade treatments,such as matte Agency/Developer paint or glass coatings. Air Quality ■ Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The project City City Planning Site inspection Periodically during City Planning developer(s) shall develop and Redevelopment Department, construction Department implement a construction management Agency/Developer Development plan, as approved by the City of Services Director Huntington Beach, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD,or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: ■ Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference ■ Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person) •Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable ■ Consolidate truck deliveries when possible ■ Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions ■ Use methanol- or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel to the extent available and at competitive prices 4 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ MitigationMeasm Responsible Entity Monitor ActionbyMonitor Frequeruy Compliance Check Verification ■ Use propane- or butane-powered on- site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: The project City City Planning Plan Check,and During City Planning developer(s)shall implement all rules and Redevelopment Department/City verification of construction Department regulations by the Governing Board of the Agency/Developer Engineer implementation activities SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402—Nuisance and Rule 403—Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: ■ Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations ■ Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated,in the late morning and after work is completed for the day ■ All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications ■ The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or S The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach I 1 I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequemy Compliance Chuck VMficarirnt have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas ■ Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip ■ Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads • Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site ■ All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period ■ A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads(if any) on the project site ■Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust on the surrounding area. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Solar or low- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning emission water heaters shall be installed in Redevelopment Department verification of Department all new buildings within the project site to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.24: Built-in energy- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning efficient appliances shall be provided in all Redevelopment Department verification of Department new buildings within the project site to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated rn emissions. Mitigation Measure 32-5: Air City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning conditioners installed in all new buildings Redevelopment Department verification of Department z within the project site shall be energy- Agency/Developer implementation efficient and shall have automated controls 6 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING.AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Ven4fication to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-6: Double-glass- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning paned windows shall be installed in new Redevelopment Department verification of Department buildings within the redevelopment area to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-7: Lighting City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning installed in new buildings within the Redevelopment Department verification of Department project site shall be energy-efficient and Agency/Developer implementation shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: The new City City Planning Design Review,and At plan check City Planning buildings within the project site shall Redevelopment Department verification of Department exceed Title 24.wall and attic insulation Agency/Developer implementation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-9: The new City City Planning Design Review,and At plan check City Planning buildings within the project site shall use Redevelopment Department verification of Department light-colored roof materials to reflect heat Agency/Developer implementation and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Monitor during City City Planning Visual Prior to City Planning grading and excavation for archaeological Redevelopment Department/ inspection/Inform construction,and Department _ and paleontological resources: Agency/Developer archeological and construction during grading and •The Applicant shall arrange for a paleontological personnel excavation activities �+ qualified professional archaeological consultant and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching,and other excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the 7 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Ti-hw Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMonftor Frequency Compliance Check Verification identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. ■ If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources n consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County- certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South s Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission,and the City of Huntington Beach ■In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial,human bone,or ® susnected human bone. all excavation ..y 8 City of Huntington Beach ClA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human,or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. § 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Mitigation Monitoring 3.3-2: Building C City City Planning of the proposed project shall incorporate Redevelopment Department/City ground-level and second-story design Agency/Developer Design Review features of the Ocean View Promenade Board Structure and,to the extent feasible,of the building containing El Don Liquors. These features shall include,but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be reviewed by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to City City Planning Plan check Prior to recordation City Planning submittal for building permits, the Redevelopment Department of the final map Department Applicant shall incorporate a 20-foot Agency/Developer setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line,a 10-15- =s foot average upper-level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. 9 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl MitigafionMeasure ReWonsrbleEntify Monitor ActionbyMonitor Frequency Complianmawck Verification Geology and Hydrology Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: The grading City City Planning Review of grading Prior to City Planning plan prepared for the proposed project Redevelopment Department,City plan construction/at Department shall contain the recommendations Agency/Developer Engineer plan check included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure,foundation design,concrete slabs and pavements,cement type and corrosion measures,surface drainage,trench backfill, plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Prior to City Geotechnical Review of final Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a grading permit, the final Redevelopment consultant/Public grading and a grading permit Department grading and foundation plans shall be Agency/Developer Works Department foundation plans reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: The proposed City City Public Works Review of final Prior to issuance of City Planning project shall include flatwork design and Redevelopment Department grading and a grading permit Department structural BMPs to isolate contamination Agency/Developer foundation plans from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a trash separator,an oil and grease separator, and/or other filtration system as required to meet water quality standards. Land Use No mitigation required 10 City of Huntington Beach d Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure ResponsibleF.wty Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Noise Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: The project City City Planning Site Inspections Periodically during City Planning contractor(s) shall implement, but not be Redevelopment Department construction Department limited to,the following best management Agency/Developer activities practices: ■Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays ■ All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential,including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines,shall be muffled or controlled ■ All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses ■ Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use ■ Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences ■Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible " for responding to any local complaints .� regarding construction noise; the coordinator(who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included.on the notification ■ I I The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Tin&%l Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. Population and Housing No mitigation required Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to City City Planning Site inspection Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department a building permit Department Applicant shall demonstrate that. the Agency/Developer project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security shall be provided. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to City City Planning Review and Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department/ incorporate a building permit Department Applicant shall consult the Huntington Agency/Developer Huntington Beach adequate crime Beach Police'Department regarding the Police Department prevention provision of adequate Crime Prevention measures into plan Design measures,and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to City City Planning Plan check/visual Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department/ inspection a building permit Department Applicant shall demonstrate that the Agency/Developer Maintenance project includes adequate access for Services disposal collection vehicles including 55 Department feet to pickup and drop off containers on a straight shot and a minimum turning diameter of 86 feet. a M. c� 0 12 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX 7imingl MitigationMeas:rre Res;r sibleEntity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: Prior to City Environmental Plan check Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of building permits for the first Redevelopment Services Division/ building permits Department project component, the Applicant shall Agency/Developer Public Works submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to Department the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include,but shall not be limited to the following: ■ Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum,and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project •Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases ■ Bins for cardboard recycling during construction •Scrap wood recycling during construction ■Green waste recycling of landscape materials Transportation and Circulation MM 3.9-1 Prior to issuance of an City City Public Works Review and Prior to issuance of City Planning occupancy permit, the applicant shall Redevelopment Department approve second an occupancy Department,City restripe the eastbound approach to provide Agency/Developer eastbound lane permit Public Works a second eastbound turn lane at the Department Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department. 13 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach W Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Prior to City City Planning Verification of the Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit,the applicant Redevelopment Department/City provision of a building permit Department,City shall demonstrate the provision of two Agency/Developer Public Works inbound and Public Works inbound lanes and one outbound lane for Department outbound lanes Department the proposed subterranean parking structure. Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Delivery City City Planning vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the Redevelopment Department size of or smaller than a medium or small Agency/Developer semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet. Mitigation Measure 3.9-4: Prior to City City Planning Review parking Prior to issuance to City Planning issuance of a building permit,the applicant Redevelopment Department management plan a building permit Department shall submit a parking management plan, Agency/Developer consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5: During City City Planning Periodic site Ongoing inspection City Planning ongoing operations of the project, the Redevelopment Department inspection during Department applicant shall• provide valet and/or Agency/Developer special events/peak remote parking for special events and seasons activities,and during peak summer season. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6: Prior to City City Planning Site inspection Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of occupancy permits, the Redevelopment Department occupancy permits Department applicant shall develop an on-site signage Agency/Developer program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. Mitigation Measures Incorporated by Reference from the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2 Population and Housing Mitigation Measure 4.2-A: The Agency City City Planning Verification of Prior to project City Planning shall relocate any persons or families of Redevelopment Department provision and approval/at plan Department low and moderate income displaced by a Agency implementation of a check redevelopment project. The Agency shall relocation plan adopt and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. 14 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Respons Ie Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Ver4ication The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further,housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displace household, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4.5-D: In larger areas City City Planning Site Inspection Prior to and City Planning of both surface and subsurface Redevelopment Department/City during Department and contamination, a site assessment will be Agency/Developer Engineer and construction DOGGR(California conducted before any construction takes DOGGR(California Department of Oil, place at that locale. At locations where Department of Oil, Gas,and Geothermal spillage of fluids from the petroleum Gas,and Resources) extraction process has occurred, the soils Geothermal will be remediated using appropriate Resources) techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during excavation activities,these activities would y be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate. Cultural and Scientific Resources ■ Mitigation Measure 4.12-A: Prior to City the commencement of new construction Redevelopment that would displace or require Agency/Developer demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete assessment shall 15 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach v� Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Tinting/ Mitigation Measum Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Venfreation be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation: ■ A full description of each building architectural style,roof design,window design,type of foundation,exterior wall treatments, special architectural features,etc. ■ Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each building ■ A determination of construction date from existing records such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. ■ A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. Mitigation Measure 4.12-B: Should any City y cultural artifacts, archaeological resources Redevelopment or paleontological resources be uncovered Agency/Developer during grading or excavation,a County of Orange certified archaeologist or C) paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource,2) rn establish protocol with the City to protect such resources,3)ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if zdeemed appropriate. 7 16 City of Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT 6 �J City of Huntington Beach Planning Deparfinen STAFF."PORT HUNTINGTON BEACH - - - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Senior Planner/Herb Fauland,Principal Planner DATE: October 1, 2002 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-06, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 99-16, (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach - Blocks 104/105 — Continued from September 24, 2002 with Public Hearing Closed) CO-APPLICANT: C1M/Huntington, Inc. John Given, Vice President 6922 Hollywood Boulevard,Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 CO-APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs, Deputy.Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs,Deputy Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting .on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut(Blocks 104 and 105). STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 were continued from the September 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to respond to several comments raised as part of the Planning Commission's discussion of the proposed project. The comments are addressed by staff below. Staffs recommendation for approval remains the same as stated in the Planning Commission staff report dated September 24,2002(Attachment No. 3). Planning Commission Comments: Public Open Space Signs The Commission requested that signs be posted to indicate public open space is available on the 2nd level terrace. Staff recommends that condition of approval #6 dd. be amended to include this requirement. Please see Attachment No. 1.28 of the attached staff report (Attachment No. 3). The condition of approval requires a planned sign program for the project. Staff supports the inclusion of public open space signs as part of the planned sign program. Tower Element Lighting The Commission requested information as to the lighting proposed for the tower element and the amount of lumens the lighting will emit. The applicant has provided a response to this issue in the attached letter dated September 25, 2002 (Attachment No. 1). The proposal is to have up lighting inside the tower with 150-watt lamps that provide 95 lumens per watt. Staff supports the concept and does not believe this will impact the downtown. Standard conditions of approval regulate light spillage to prevent impacts to adjacent properties. Please see condition of approval #1 n. on Attachment 1.14 and mitigation measure 3.1-1, condition #21 on Attachment No. 1.35 of the attached staff report (Attachment No. 3). Please note the EIR includes a statement of overriding considerations that identifies nighttime lighting as a significant and unavoidable impact. This is due primarily to the fact that new light sources are being introduced into the area by the overall project and not only by the tower element. Design Review of Subterranean Garage The Commission requested Design Review Board review of the subterranean garage to ensure adequate lighting and aesthetic treatment to provide a pleasant and safe experience for the parking customer. Staff recommends that condition of approval #6 k./mitigation measure MM 3.8-2 be amended to include a specific reference to the parking structure. The condition of approval requires the Police Department review the entire project for Crime Prevention Design. Please see Attachment No. 1.27 of the attached staff report (Attachment No. 3). In addition, staff recommends condition of approval #6 gg. (Attachment No. 1.29 of the attached staff report) be amended to include a specific reference to the parking structure. The condition requires Design Review Board review and approval of-the final project design. Staff supports the inclusion of the Police Department and Design Review Board review of the parking structure. Public Art The Commission requested information as to the public art element proposed for the project. A standard condition of approval (#6 gg., Attachment No. 1.29 of the attached staff report) requires the Design Review Board review the public art element. Staff believes the standard condition of approval is adequate and no further action is necessary. The applicant has provided a response to this issue in the attached letter dated September 25,2002 (Attachment No. 1). PC Stag Report—10/01/02 -2- (02sr41 a CUP 99-45) Helme-Worthy Property The Commission requested additional clarification regarding the setback between the Helme-Worthy site and the proposed project along the southerly edge of the historical site. The development proposes a 12 $. setback from the 18 ft. one-way service drive easement from 6th Street. The 2nd 3ra and 4`h levels of the hotel are atop the service drive along this portion of the project. The service drive along this edge is primarily open and serves to support three levels of the hotel above. As is noted in the EIR, the proposed mitigation measures recommend that this edge be redesigned to provide the separation and necessary transition from the historical site. The mitigation measures recommend a minimum ground level setback of 20 ft. for the ls` and 2"d levels. The measure further requires an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback for the 3rd and 4`h levels. Please refer to condition of approval No. 1. a., Attachment No. 1.12, of the attached staff report for the mitigation measure (MM 3.3-3). The implementation of this mitigation measure will provide the necessary separation, transition, and a compatible design from the historical site. This is consistent with the previously approved Coultrup plan. Staff recommends the condition of approval/mitigation measure as is and does not support any encroachment into this 20 ft. setback. The Commission also requested staff provide a drawing of the staff recommendation. The section below has been noted with a cross hatched pattern to delineate the staff recommended setbacks. f ,� to-is Av&•- SErb�1c.. 3 I tom- . 8s�evro� ' girl" �X Id'Tfr/B'iDdr. eXt('lFr'D>tlr 14 — s����o _� ... __ - NeNI dgC�✓wilw L—--———-- —— V'�'IC� K tiMMJCIG°t B Traffic Analysis and 30%Reduction Factor The Commission expressed concern over the use of a 30% reduction factor for the traffic analysis. The concern was also expressed in two comment letters (Caltrans &Environmental Board)received during the 45 day EIR public comment period. Staff responded to both letters in Volume I, Response to Comments, in the Final EIR. Staff supports the responses and rationale provided to both comment letters and believes the EIR Traffic analysis is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Please refer to Volume I of Final EIR PC Staff Report-10/01/02 -3- (02sr41a CUP 99-45) No. 01-02, which includes the responses to comments. Staff will be available to provide any additional verbal responses necessary to explain the methodology. Please note the Planning Commission certified EIR No. 01-02 as adequate and in compliance with CEQA at their meeting of September 24, 2002. The certification of the EIR included the determination that the response to comments were adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Maximum Development for the Downtown Parking Master Plan The Commission expressed concern that this project would impact the maximum development potential allowed under the Downtown Parking Master Plan(DPMP). The DPMP allows a maximum development threshold of 715,000 sq. ft. under the shared parking concept. The DPMP does allow development to exceed this threshold but requires any development that exceeds the threshold to provide parking consistent with the citywide parking standards. The proposed project is located in a two-block area referenced in the DPMP and the Kaku and Associates Report as Block A (Attachment No. 3). The following table compares the proposed project's land use and square footage with the Block A analysis: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN (LAND USE COMPARISON) PROPOSED USES , PROPOSED SQ, M.. BLOCK A -DPMP Retail 32,568 89,860 sq. ft. - 57,292 Restaurants 40,000 44,210 sq. ft. -4,210 Offices 33,621 6,430 sq. ft. + 27,191 Total Commercial 106,189 140,500 sq. ft. - 34,311 Hotel 120,347 152 Rooms 103,110 sq. ft.* + 17,237 Total Project 226,536 sq. ft. 243,610 sq. ft. - 17,074 *The original project concept proposed 149 rooms As can be seen in the Block A—DPMP land use comparison, the overall project is approximately 17, 074 sq. ft. below the 243,610 sq. ft. threshold anticipated for Block A. Therefore, the proposed project does not impact the overall DPMP threshold of 715,000 sq. ft., it does not exceed the Block A threshold, or impact any other development potential for the remaining blocks in the DPMP. Compliance with Downtown Parking Master Plan The Commission expressed concern that the proposed project is not in compliance with the DPMP. The proposed project is providing parking consistent with and in compliance with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The proposed project requires 403 spaces and provides a total of 411 spaces in a combination of a 405 space two level subterranean public parking structure and six on-site parking spaces (plus two loading) located behind the buildings on block 105. In addition a total of 24 on-street parking spaces will remain on Main St., 6th St. and Walnut Ave. The DPMP and the Block A land use analysis requires a total of 417 total spaces at buildout. This total includes both on-street and off-street parking spaces within the two-block area of the project. As noted above, the proposed project provides 411 on- site parking spaces along with 24 on-street existing spaces, for a total of 435 parking spaces. PC Staff Report—10/01/02 -4- (02sr41 a CUP 99-45) El Don Liquor Store Windows During the oral communications portion of the September 24th.meeting, the El Don property owner stated that the project may impact window locations on his existing building. A field investigation of the site does reveal that three windows are on the westside of the EL Don Liquor store building. It should be noted that past development adjacent to this building was constructed at a zero setback and obstructed the windows. Any development adjacent to these windows is required to be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Codes (UBC) to provide the necessary light, air, and ventilation. Design alternatives for building C may have to be incorporated to address this issue and will be evaluated during the Design Review Board process. The applicant has provided a response to this comment in the attached letter dated September 25,2002 (Attachment No. 1). Banquet Facility in the Proposed Hotel The Commission expressed concern over the possible traffic and parking impacts of a banquet facility in the proposed hotel. The proposed hotel is a limited services hotel and does not include a banquet facility. The applicant has provided a response to this comment in the attached letter dated September 25, 2002 (Attachment No. 1). Access to Oceanview Promenade The Commission wanted to ensure that proper access is provided to the Oceanview Promenade building during the construction phase for the proposed project. A standard condition of approval for any construction project requires the applicant submit an interim parking and materials storage plan to ensure adjacent properties are not impacted. This condition ensures that access will be provided to adjacent properties. Staff and the applicant will ensure that access to the Oceanview Promenade building and all adjacent properties will be maintained to the greatest extent possible during the construction phase of the project. Please see condition of approval #6 bb., Attachment No. 1.28, of the attached staff report (Attachment No. 3). Helme-Worthy Public Improvements The Commission indicated the possibility that the public improvements adjacent the Helme-Worthy site only be repaired and not replaced with improvements consistent with the Oceanview Promenade site. The City has always envisioned this two-block area as one site; therefore the public improvements should be consistent. Staff believes the improvements for block 105 shall be for the entire block, including the frontage for the Helme-Worthy historical site. The provision of consistent public improvements was previously required as a condition of approval for the Coultrup plan. Staff believes it is important that this treatment be required of this.development proposal. As a possible alternative, the improvement could incorporate some of the historical aspects (such as the horse rings) into the public improvements. The public improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. Please see condition of approval#6 gg.,Attachment No. 1.29.of the attached staff report(Attachment No. 3). PC Staff Report—10/01/02 -5- (02sr41 a CUP 99-45) Possible Closure of S`h Street The Commission expressed an interest in possibly closing Fifth Street and or allowing one-way traffic. Staff does not support the concept of full closure or one-way traffic at this time. The project concept currently relies on the two-way traffic pattern and accommodates the valet parking system. In the future the activities may dictate a closure of 5` Street. The closure of the street will require an amendment to the plan and additional analysis by the City. However, the applicant is proposing to close 5`h Street on occasion to vehicular traffic to host special events. The applicant does not know the full extent of the special events at this time but will be required to obtain all permits necessary to conduct such events. Staff supports the proposal to design 5`h Street to restrict vehicular traffic for select outdoor events at this time. Staff has including a suggested condition of approval to require the applicant to obtain all necessary permits for any temporary outdoor event that may require the closure of 5`h Street. Please refer to condition of approval # 17, Attachment No. 1.34 of the attached staff report (Attachment No. 3). Staff suggests that additional language be added to this condition to require a 5`h Street closure plan be submitted to Public Works, Fire, Police and Planning for review and approval as part of any event that requires the temporary closure of 5`h Street. Use of In-Lieu Parking Fees The Commission expressed the possible use of the in-lieu fees for additional parking. An option stipulated in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant is the possible provision of additional parking in the subterranean parking structure. The option is currently one of several alternatives staff is exploring for the City Council as a potential use of the in-lieu parking fees. Staff believes it is important to explore this option before the project commences the excavation of the site for the parking structure. This will permit the applicant and the City to determine the additional costs and total number of spaces that could be provided. Staff is recommending the option be explored with the City Council and has conditioned the project to have the City Council make this determination prior to the issuance of grading permits. Please see condition of approval No. 3. 111, on Attachment No. 1.22 of the attached staff report (Attachment No. 3). If the City decides not to pursue this option, staff will continue to analyze other alternatives for use of the in-lieu parking fees. Compact Parking The Commission expressed concern over the use of compact parking. The HBZSO, Section 231.20, permits non-residential development to have a maximum of 20% of the total spaces to be compact subject to CUP review and approval. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 24 (5.9%) spaces to be compact in size. In reviewing the request, staff analyzed the distribution and circulation pattern of the proposed parking structure. Staff believes the proposed circulation pattern has been improved by strategically locating the compact spaces to efficiently layout the parking. In addition, by dispersing the location of the compact parking spaces on both levels, the layout complies with the code requirement that compact parking must be distributed throughout the parking structure. Staff supports the use of 24 spaces or 5.9% of the total required parking because the overall pattern and distribution are effective and the circulation pattern is efficient and maximizes the capacity of the parking,structure. PC Staff Report—10/0 1/02 -6- (02sr41 a CUP 9945) Due to the short turn around time for the production of the staff report, staff will provide a legislative draft (strike out & bold) of the amended conditions as suggested above at the October 1, 2002 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Response letter from CIM Group dated September 25, 2002 2. DPMP Block A- Existing and Proposed Development table: Kaku and Associates dated 9/27/02 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 24,2002 PC Staff Report—10/01/02 -7- (02sr41 a CUP 99-45) AT�TA:CHMEN- :. . . l CIMU P September 25, 2002 Herb Fauland, Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Herb: Below is a list of the questions from the Planning Commission and suggested responses that you may include or attach to your report. 1. Provide signage to inform the pubic that the terrace areas adjacent to the hotel lobby are open to the public. Project will include a coordinated wayfinding signage program to direct patrons to amenities, including second level public open space area, and parking.. 2. What is the level of lighting is proposed for the tower at 5t' and PCH? Up lights will provide an indirect light source focused on the tower and to reflect light off the ceiling. The lamps will be 150-watt ceramic metal halide lamps, which will provide 93 lumens per watt. The ceramic metal halide provides a stable color over the life of the lamp. The light will be contained within the tower, so there will be no light pollution. 3. DRB review of the parking garage interior design The parking garage will be designed to achieve an experience for the public of safety, convenience, and cleanliness. Walls and surfaces will have a smooth finish and reflective coloration to maximize light distribution and minimize shadows. Lighting will be selected and located for full coverage of all surfaces and coordinated with the reflectivity of the wall surfaces. Sheer walls will be minimized to achieve maximum sight lines and visibility for the public and security systems. Directional signage and graphics will assure safe travel, ease of identifying and remembering parking locations, and orientation to pedestrian exits to the street. 4. Public Art CIM.has identified opportunities for public art that can be associated with the design of the paseo plaza, Fifth Street sidewalks, and directional signage and graphics associated with pedestrian transitions into the parking structure. The work will be coordinated with our design team. Selection of an artist and specific art work(s) will be submitted concurrently with the architectural building permit application. 5. Re: Worthy property setbacks. Attached (and transmitted separately by PDF) are plan diagrams and sections which demonstrate the proposed setback at each level, as well as the necessity of locating the service driveway and structural columns within the 20 foot setback. These diagrams and a three dimensional illustration was presented to Susie and Guy on Wednesday. 6. Feasibility of additional space to the parking garage If additional area is excavated on the 2 proposed levels, up to approximately 30 spaces per floor could be added for a total of 60 additional spaces. 6. Are there windows on the side of the Bagstad building? Yes, three 2"d floor windows on property line are existing non-conforming. 7. Provide access for Oceanview Promenade, Eldon Bagsted's property and Main Street businesses during construction. Access to the Main Street businesses, Bagsted and the Oceanview Promenade building will be maintained during constriction. 8. Is there going to be a banquet facility at the hotel? No — the hotel will provide a small meeting room and breakfast area for guest only 9. Beach spaces parking spaces. While beach spaces are not considered as part of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, during off-peak beach times the spaces are available to patrons of the Downtown. It is a fairly typical practice that downtown parking and beach parking facilities are often used interchangeably by visitors to both destinations. 10. 5th Street should be restricted to one-way traffic The 24' roadway on 5th Street can accommodate two-way traffic as proposed, one-way traffic with on street parking, or pedestrian only traffic with bollards at PCH and Walnut. The traffic flow on Vh should be considered in conjunction with an overall review of the traffic patterns in the downtown area. We view this as an operational or management issue that is accommodated in all scenarios by the current design. _ h 11. How many compact spaces are provided and how many spaces would we lose if compact spaces were eliminated? 24 of the 405 (5.9%) parking spaces are compact. Elimination of the compact spaces would result in the loss of 16 spaces. 12. Existing sidewalk around Worthy property. City to determine condition of sidewalk and need for repairs. We would urge support for the Worthy's position that the existing sidewalks be maintained. The proposed curb cut and driveway on both Walnut and Sixth provides a very natural break from the new sidewalk design. 13. Sidewalk widening. Attached(or separately transmitted by PDF) are the alternative sidewalk sections from the Gensler power point. As noted we would request Planning Commission consideration of the following alternative: The proposed 21 — 22 foot sidewalks are satisfactory for retail and typical outdoor dining requirements. Outdoor dining establishments shall preserve the 10 foot horizantal clear zone.for public passage. Dining establishments that are unable to meet this requirement will only be permitted to increase their outdoor area by creation of a patio recessed within the building line. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and the Commission at the next meeting. Sincerely, David Martin Cc: David Biggs, City of Huntington Beach Marty Borko, Gensler Jack Fong, Gensler John Given, CIM Keven Doherty, CIM ATTACHMENT 2 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK A PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT 2000 BUILDOUT 2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME I USE SIZE PARKING NAME _1--R-E-TA-I-LF RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 101 Main Retail 2,500 0 ceanview Promenade Abdelmuti Oceanview Promenade Abdelmuti Residential Retail 13,953 13,953 2,798 30,299 2 (13 DU) Restaurant. 2,798 109 Main Retail 2,500 0 Office 30,299 111 Main Retail 2,500 0 2 113 Main . Retail 2,500 0 115 Main Retail 2.500 0 Office 2,500 06 PCH Restaurant 2,200 0 10 PCH Retail 4.000 10 117 Main Restaurant 2,500 0 1.17=123 Main Block:1041105 Office 2,500 Retail 9,525 89.860. 44,210 6,430 103.110 403 119 Main Retail 2,500 0 Restaurant 4.685 Hotel 121 Main Retail 2,500 0 Office 4,050 123 Main lRetail 1,500 2 416 PCH Retail 3,000 12 16 PCH Retail 3.000 12 Residential Residential (4 du) (4 du) 122 5th Auto Sales 12,000 12 122 5th Auto Sales 12,000 12 1515th Theatre 5,500 50 1515th Theatre 5,500 50 501 Walnut Office 1,500 0 1501 Walnut Office 1,500 0 505 Walnut Residential 1,200 0 505 Walnut Residential 1,200 0 . (1 du) (1 du) 504 PCH Retail 1,250 0 504 PCH Retail 1,250 0 508 PCH Restaurant 1,250 8 508 PCH Restaurant 1,250 8 Residential 2 Residential 2 (1 du) (1 du) I'520 PCH Retail 1,500 16 520 PCH Retail 1,500 16 Residential Residential 1 du) 1du 127 Main lRelail 3 500 6 127 Main lRetail 3.500 6 Lane/Terry 5,000 NIA 513 Walnut Retail 2,500 0 Worthy Project Worthy Pro ect Residential B&B 12 B&B (12 du) (12 du) (12 du) 12 519 Walnut Retail 800 0 128 6th Residential 1 du 111 - - TOTAL, 66,700 118 TOTAL: 96,010 120 TOTAL: 108,813 47,008 36,729 103,110 417 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Source: City of Huntington Beach �1ENT N.O. 2- r ATTAC HMENT 3 JJ � City of Hunttngton Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT H i nNLTON BEACH .. - -.. .. .. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Senior Planner/Herb Fauland, Principal Planner DATE: September 24, 2002 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-06, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 99-16, (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach—Blocks 104/105) CO-APPLICANT: CIM/Huntington,"Inc. John Given, Vice President 6922 Hollywood Boulevard,Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 CO-APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs, Deputy Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs, Deputy Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut (Blocks 104 and 105). STATEMENT OF ISSUE: i • Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 request: - Construct an approximately 226,500 sq. ft. mixed-use development consisting of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a 405 space two-level subterranean public parking structure. - Allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the 405 total parking spaces in the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size. - Allow valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking structure. - 3 s ®, WAWm PROJECT WSW SITE ' ' L4 !y�� .L't• `.` WN40UApg �• 4NB 11 v70,,% ': .\•: 0 F P ♦\ y t\ ��: VICINITY MAP TTM N.O. 16406/CUP NO. 99-45 with SP NO. 02-06/CDP NO, 99-16 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) September 24, 2002 i • Special Permit No. 02-06 request: - Encroach into minimum ground floor setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway(0 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.), Sixth Street(6.5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.), and Walnut Avenue (5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) - Encroach into minimum upper story setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway minimum 9 ft./average 11 ft. 4 in. in lieu of min. 15 ft./average 25 ft. - Exceed maximum building height with hotel (49.5 ft. in lieu of 45 ft.) and architectural tower feature(70 ft, in lieu of 55 ft.) - Reduce,the ultimate right of way and view corridor on Fifth Street(65 ft. in lieu of 80 ft.) • Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 request: - Allow development within the appealable jurisdiction of the coastal zone consisting of a mixed- use project with a two-level 405 space subterranean public parking structure. • Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 request: A subdivision map to consolidate multiple existing parcels on portions of two blocks into one 2.97-acre parcel for condominium purposes. • Staff's Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 with modifications based upon the following: • The project as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce impacts will not be detrimental to the general health,welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed mixed-use project as conditioned will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties because of proper ground level and upper story setbacks. • The proposed project as conditioned will provide additional open space and outdoor dining opportunities along 5th Street, provide additional ground level and upper story setbacks with added architectural treatment adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site, and therefore enhance the overall aesthetic appearance of the project design. • The proposed project as conditioned will provide a design that will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation of downtown and along 5th Street. • The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-3.0 FAR/35 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay)Land Use designation of the General Plan. • With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, exceed maximum building height, and reduce the 5ch Street view corridor will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. • Staffs Suggested Modifications: Conditional Use-Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 - Incorporate a minimum 20 ft. setback between the historic Helme-Worthy southerly property line and the fagade of the service drive and the 2nd level of the hotel Bldg. G. The 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with turf and trees except at the reciprocal access point. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -3- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) - Incorporate an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback on the third and fourth levels of the hotel Bldg. G adjacent to the historic Helme-Worthy property. This recommendation results in an average 10-15 ft. setback from the project's 1" and 2nd story facades adjacent the Helme-Worthy property. - Incorporate a minimum three ft. ground floor setback for all portions of first floor buildings (A, B, C,D) abutting alleys or easements. Setbacks above the ground floor may cantilever to a zero ft. (0 ft.) setback. - Incorporate an additional 2.5 ft. setback for buildings (A, D, E) fronting 5th Street to provide additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining(min. width of 10 ft.) and public open space. - Enclose the service drive adjacent to the Helme-Worthy property except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point. The enclosure adjacent to the Helme-Worthy property shall be provided with a trellis vine landscape treatment. - Require a 20 ft. reciprocal access driveway to the Helme-Worthy property from Sixth Street and the service drive. The service drive shall be re-designed for two-way traffic from Sixth Street to the eastern edge of the reciprocal access driveway. - Require an 8 ft. high wall on the Helme-Worthy site for additional noise mitigation. - . Reduce the hotel square footage or provide additional parking to comply with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, and Coastal Development No. 99-16 with recommended staff modifications, findings, and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 10)." C. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 11)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such.as: A. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, and Coastal Development No. 99-16 with findings and suggested conditions of approval" (Applicant's Request) and, "Approve a revised CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(Attachment No. 5)." B. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, Coastal Development No. 99-16, and Tentative Tract Map No. 1640.6 with findings for denial." PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -4- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45, pursuant to Section 4.5.01 (b) of the DTSP and Coastal Development No. 99-16, pursuant to Chapter 245 of the HBZSO represent requests for the following: A. To construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152-room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet pursuant to Section 4.5.01 (b) Permitted Uses of the Downtown Specific Plan. B. To allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size pursuant to Section 231.20 A. Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(ZSO). C. To permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage, pursuant to Section 231.18 E. 2. Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions, of the ZSO. Special Permit No. 02-06, pursuant Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), is requested for the following: A. A zero ft. (0 ft.) ground floor front building setback along Pacific Coast Highway in lieu of minimum 15 ft. (15 ft. reduction) pursuant Section 4.5.06 Setback(Front Yard) of the DTSP; and B. A five ft. (5 ft.) ground floor front building setback along Walnut Avenue in lieu of minimum 15 ft. (10 ft. reduction) pursuant Section 4.5.06 Setback(Front Yard) of the DTSP; and C. A six foot, six inch (6 ft., 6 in.) ground floor exterior side yard setback along Sixth Street in lieu of minimum 15 ft. (8 ft., 6 in. reduction)pursuant to Section 4.5.07 Setback(Side Yard) of the DTSP; and D. A minimum nine ft. (9 ft.), average 11 ft. 4 in. upper story building setback along Pacific Coast Highway from the ultimate right-of-way for all stories above the second story in lieu a minimum of 15 ft. (6 ft. reduction), with an average of 25 ft. (15 ft. 8 in. reduction), pursuant to Section 4.5.09 Setback(Upper Story) of the DTSP; and E. A 49.5 ft. building height to the proposed flat roof of the hotel and a 70 ft. building height to the midpoint of the tower element in lieu of maximum 45 ft. (4 ft., 6 in. and 25 ft. ft. increase, respectively)pursuant to Section 4.5.04 Maximum Building Height of the DTSP; and F. A 65 ft. wide view corridor on Fifth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue in lieu of the ultimate right of way of 80 ft. (a 15 ft. reduction) pursuant to Section 4.2.16 (e) Street Vacations of the DTSP. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -5- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions, of the ZSO represents a request for the following: A. To consolidate the existing parcels on site and create a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes. The map includes right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the alley on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5`h Street for a 65 ft. wide public access easement including a 24 ft. wide reciprocal easement for vehicular purposes. A total of six buildings are proposed for The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach. Buildings A, B, and C are located along the east side of Fifth Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway on Block 104. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants along the ground floors, and office uses above the first floor. A pedestrian bridge at level two between Buildings A and B is an option the applicant is proposing to include in the design of the buildings on block 104. Development on this block excludes the Main St. properties, Ocean View Promenade and the El Don Liquor store. Buildings D,E,F, and G cover the entire Block 105 with the exception of the Helme-Worthy historical property at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants on the ground floor with a 152-room hotel occupying the second, third, and fourth levels. Access to the hotel is provided from hotel elevators at 5`h Street to a second level hotel lobby and courtyard. A public terrace is provided on the 2nd level adjacent to but not a part of the hotel. 1 DOTM T.0.Ox WALNUTS AVENUE <� Y-8——_—_ H86 AVA8d1 NIORRtt 1![ I P8aP9ttt l8d 11MAIE R0R:A11'187E > I •• _ 302.62'IT Mv i N I I �I l W � O 1 E70 NO '%// ' I I IAM 6t •NOT T Xt{II' L4NL[Ap,1� �+ I i I I ::.`Lb19kRdAl i �N,GI'PR�FINY IlE �t r I 1 B�n N X„ :. s!r'i r I r`'' RETAIURESfAt1RANT/ B tl r 1, OFFICE €:'> sfl9eol ? `L I II I I >gk4T�'1.�!hr �SLS�1ryG3r I 128./3' H�• 1711 0. 13 BUM 13 1 All/REIITAURANf •.:. ?i,:ir.,':z 84u N NIf l ti r1- I ff I a- BLDI� HOTEL AB VE OR naly 1 ;i• //„f�a!;t:;;r:s` BL M E3 =E NO r • 1°UJ 410 PAOOIO j:::•'Y::,::.>:.;::.;;NOT A PrNT yy All'�'+: DEM 1 'F,•:.i::.:ii:;:;:: I TI RETAIURESTAgRMtT RETI�IL/RESTAURAHT�_ -- ' o o �, r!: ::;':7......:.,::`::• I OLDna 6Tr - 7 /?:�•:':j1•¢�Ig,I�c<EiiSDnic4:` 1❑ RETAIN .C8tl0.lIlONAI .Y ITAU N+.. I :; F[:S::: :u::2:?::'r• I _ I r uat P� I I '�''�pOET{yIT'Cy'1 '.} • I t I f 1 !: 1 a. 360.28' 1 ULTIMATE R✓MM I8d 1 PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY , aoTmlTa r xar.IFPMJ,TmI GROSS SITE AREA(bldl ftg Sth St.) 128M SF.(t2.98 AC) C COAST HI AY(VOO'R/W)_ IRS STE� '�———— — — ———NET SITE AREA(D(QU9MG 5fh.St.and 011 alleel dedk9tlAq)= 1039 Sr _—_ ____--__—_ _ _ _ _— _T . 16EY PACIFIC CO kST HIGHWAY ACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - 245.27' 47.25' PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -6- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) The following table provides a breakdown of the square footage based on the proposed uses: PROPOSED USES . ;PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE Retail 32,568 Restaurants 40,000 Offices 33,621 Total Commercial 106,189 Hotel 120,347 (152 Rooms Total Project 226,536 s . ft. Of the 106,189 square feet of commercial space, up to 40,000 square feet may be devoted to restaurant uses and at least 28,000 square feet must be devoted to office use in order to maintain consistency with the Traffic Impact Analysis completed for Draft EIR No. 01-02. Any amount of the total commercial square footage allotted to restaurant use but not utilized for such use may be devoted to retail. Two levels of subterranean public parking are proposed beneath the project area on both.blocks. A total of 405 parking spaces are proposed with ingress and egress to the structure via a controlled entrance and exit off Sixth Street. Of the 405 proposed parking spaces, a total of 24 spaces or 5.9% are proposed to be compact. In addition, six spaces and two loading spaces are provided at grade along the private access easement on block 105. The project also proposes a valet parking plan for the hotel and restaurant uses utilizing the parking structure with an attendant stationed at the drop-off and pick-up areas located mid block along 5th Street. Pedestrian access from the parking structure to the street level and above is provided by two sets of stairs and elevators. One set of stairs/elevator provides public access to the hotel and uses on block 105.and the other set of stairs/elevator provides public access to the uses on block 104. Delivery access to the existing and new uses of block 104 (Main St. properties, Ocean View Promenade, El Don Liquor) will be provided by the existing 19.5 ft. wide public alley (after dedications) and the proposed 24 ft. wide private easement. The delivery access to the hotel and other uses of block 105 will be provided by an 18 ft. one-way private access easement between the proposed project and the existing Helme-Worthy site. Reciprocal access easements will be provided between all the affected public alleys, public streets, and private easements. The 80 ft. ultimate right of way of Fifth Street is proposed to be reduced to a 65 ft -wide public access easement for both pedestrian and vehicular purposes. Proposed within the 65 ft. easement will be a 24 ft. wide roadway for vehicular purposes consisting of two 12 ft. wide vehicular travel lanes between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. The applicant then proposes sidewalks on both sides of the roadway ranging in width from approximately 12 ft to approximately 22 ft. 6 in. The proposed vehicular roadway is designed in such a manner to be closed to through traffic for selected temporary outdoor events. Public open space is proposed in several areas-within the two-block project area. Public open space is proposed adjacent to building F along 6th Street, adjacent to buildings D & A along Walnut Avenue, the courtyard between buildings A & B, the ground level between buildings D & E, and the 2nd level of the hotel in the form of a public terrace. The public terrace on the 2nd level is provided with clear and dedicated access for the public from 5th Street via stairs and elevators. The terrace design allows for the PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -7- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) public to access the terrace without the need to enter the hotel. The public terrace will also provide enhanced coastal views because of its 2nd level location and design. .The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary (Attachment No. 6) because the proposed project will implement the City's Redevelopment Plan by eliminating blight, providing necessary public improvements and providing construction opportunities. In addition, the proposed project implements the Downtown Specific Plan by providing visitor-serving commercial uses such as retail, restaurants, and a 152-room hotel. By the provision of such uses, the project will enhance the downtown as a destination, provides an evening attraction for visitors and residents, and provides the highest and best use of previously underutilized and vacant downtown properties. Backeround: With the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area in the early 1980's there have been several requests for proposals and concept plans proposed for what is commonly referred to as Blocks 104/105 or Main-Pier Phase H. In January 1992, the City Council on appeal approved Conditional Use Permit No. 91-39 with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-21, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-45, Tentative Parcel Map No. 91-235 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-6 for the construction of a 48,000 sq. ft. four story commercial/office building (Abdelmuti/Oceanview Promenade). The special permits were to site coverage, upper story setbacks along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and the build to line along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. .The request also included a 132 space parking variance. The required parking was temporarily approved and provided on the Terry Buick lot, on 51h Street, on Walnut Avenue, and on a Redevelopment Agency owned parcel on 5ch Street. A permanent parking arrangement was to be provided on Block 105 when the remainder of Block 104 was to be developed. A detailed discussion of the parking is provided in the Analysis section of this report. The project was considered Phase A of the overall Main-Pier Phase II project and construction was completed in 1993. In July 1993, the City Council, on appeal, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 92-17 with Special Permits, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 92-28, Coastal Development Permit No. 92-14, Tentative Tract Map No. 14666 for the construction of new and rehabilitated buildings totaling approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant/office on block 104 and the construction of 80 condominiums with a 193 space two-level semi-subterranean parking structure on block 105 (Coultrup Plan /Phase B of Main-Pier Phase II). A total of 15 special permits were requested and six were approved. The approved special permits were for a reduction to the build to line along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, a reduction of the upper story setbacks along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, a reduction of the upper story setbacks along interior property lines, and a reduction of a sideyard setback along 5`h Street. The request also included a 406 space parking variance (includes the 132 spaces of Phase A). The project was conditioned to provide parking consistent with a future parking strategy, which ultimately became the adopted Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The DPMP required a total of 75 commercial parking spaces for both phases of the Main-Pier Phase II projects. As noted earlier, a detailed discussion of the parking will be provided in the Analysis section of this report. The project was subsequently appealed to the California Coastal Commission and ultimately approved. The project was never constructed. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -8- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) i ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION ` GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND:USE. Subject Property: MV-F12-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Papa Joe's Vertical —3.0 FAR—specific District 3 —Coastal Zone Pizza, 1 plan overlay—pedestrian (Visitor-Serving Residential overlay) Commercial) Unit, Parking Lot, Vacant North of Subject MH-F4/30-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Police Property(between 6th St. Horizontal— 1.25 FAR/30 District 4—Coastal Zone Substation and alley between 6th St. du/ac—specific plan overlay (Mixed-Use; Office (Shank and 51h St.) —pedestrian overlay) Residential) House) North of Subject MV-F6/25-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Retail, Red Property(between Main Vertical—2.0 FAR/25 du/ac District 5 —Coastal Zone Pearl Kitchen St. and alley between 6th —specific plan overlay— (Mixed-Use; Commercial St. and 51h St.) pedestrian overlay) Office/Residential) West of Subject Property MV-F8-d-sp (Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Java Jungle (across 6th St. and Vertical— 1.5 FAR—design District 1 —Coastal Zone fronting PCH) overlay—specific plan (Visitor-Serving overlay) Commercial) West of Subject Property RH—30-d-sp (Residential Downtown Specific Plan— Residential (across 6th St, and north High Density—30 du/ac— District 2—Coastal Zone of parcels fronting PCH design overlay—specific (Residential) to Walnut) plan overlay) South of Subject OS-S (Open Space— Downtown Specific Plan— Pier Plaza, Property(across PCH) Shoreline) District 11 —Coastal Zone Pacific Ocean (Beach Open Space) East of Subject Property MV-F12-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Retail, Ocean (to Main St.) Vertical—3.0 FAR—specific District 3 —Coastal Zone View plan overlay—pedestrian Promenade, El overlay) Don Liquors General Plan Conformance: I The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical—3.0 FAR—specific plan overlay-pedestrian overlay). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -9- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy L U 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. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. Polices 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 American's with Disabilities Act. Policy LU 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal(NEPA) and State(CEQA)regulations. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2: Require 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, as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal L U 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -10- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Policy 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, in accordance with the appropriate principles. The retail, restaurant, office, and hotel uses proposed for the site represent development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement retail and restaurant uses. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of creating an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as retail, restaurant, office, and hotel development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and'commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high- quality visual image and character that are intended to expand the existing pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The proposed project utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density within the Land Use Plan Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments and restaurants are proposed along all street levels of the project, while hotel and office uses are proposed at the upper stories. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends preliminary approval of the design concept. The project provides for adequate access along Fifth Street, code required parking in a two-level subterranean public parking structure, supporting functions such as delivery entrances along Sixth Street, at public alleys and private easements. B. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -11- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) c • • The following documents are available for public inspection and copying during regular office hours at the offices of the City Clerk at 2000 Main Street, Second Floor, Huntington Beach, California, 92648: 1. A copy of the proposed Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement. 2. A summary report that describes and specifies: (a) The costs to be incurred by the Agency under the proposed Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement; (b) The estimated value of the interests to be sold and/or leased pursuant to the Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement, determined at the highest and best uses of the Property permitted by applicable law; (c) The estimated value of the interests to be sold and/or leased pursuant to the proposed Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement, determined at the use and with the conditions, covenants and development costs required by the Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement; (d) The sale price and/or the rent that the Developer will be required to pay pursuant to the Third Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement; (5) If the sale price and/or rent and other consideration is less than the fair market value of the interests to be sold and/or leased, determined at the highest and best use, an explanation of the reasons for the difference; (f) An explanation of why the sale and/or lease of the Property will assist in the elimination of blight in the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project. 3. A copy of Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02, certified by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2002, which relates to the proposed development of the Property. At the joint public hearing you may appear and be heard, or you may write to the City Clerk's Office at 2000 Main Street, Second Floor, Huntington Beach, California,92648, in support of or in opposition to this matter. If you plan to attend the hearing, staff suggests that you contact the City Clerk's Office at(714)536-5227 the Friday prior to the scheduled date to confirm that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If you challenge this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that were raised at this joint public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or before the hearing. D:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\EHRINGL\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLKbA\NOTICEOFJ PH.DOC f r • Ehring, Liz From: Duran, Gus Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:06 AM To: 'lily_montes@notes.freedom.com' Cc: Brockway, Connie; Ehring, Liz; Biggs, David Subject: Notice of Joint Public Hearing Lily: NoticeofJPH.doc Please publish the attached Notice of Joint Public Hearing in The Register on Saturday, October 5, 2002 and on Saturday, October 12, 2002. Please confirm that The Register will publish this legal notice by replying to this e-mail. If you have any questions, please call me at(714)374-1529. Thank you, Gustavo A. Duran Housing and Redevelopment Manager City of Huntington Beach I 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved &1160nditionally Approved ❑ Denied Cit�ClerW�sSig5ure�� Council Meet' g Date: October 21, 2002 7Department ID Number: PL02-37 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION q n 1i SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator e2a­1 PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, Coastal Development Permit YV951No. 99-16 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach — Blocks 104/105) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by John Given, CIM Group, co-applicant and James A. Lane, Huntington Beach CARES Co-Chair, of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16. The applications represent a request by CIM Group and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to develop a mixed-use project consisting of approximately 226,500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a two-level 405 space subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. The Planning Commission approved the project and is recommending approval (Recommended Action - A) because the project as modified will be consistent with the Village Concept of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Master Plan, completes the Main Pier Phase II development concept, complies with the General Plan land use designation and the pedestrian overlay, and is consistent with coastal policies by providing visitor-serving commercial uses and preserving and enhancing public views. Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending the City Council approve the request as modified by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting approval without modifications (Alternative Action — 1) because they believe the PL02-37 see �G2 �- � % / 10/9/2002 4:43 PM ' REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 project without the modifications complies with all applicable General Plan documents and zoning ordinances. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, and Coastal Development No. 99-16 with recommended modifications, findings, and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)", and 2. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 4)", and 3. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 5)." Planning Commission Action on October 1, 2002: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY HARDY, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16 WITH MODIFICATIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: STANTON, KERINS, HARDY, LIVENGOOD, KOKAL, PORTER NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHOMAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 with findings and revised conditions of approval (Applicant's Request)." 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 and direct staff accordingly." PL02-37 -2'- 10/10/2002 1:43 PM oZ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicants: CIM/Huntington, Inc. John Given, Vice President 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs, Deputy Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut (Blocks 104 and 105). Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45, pursuant to Section 4.5.01 (b) of the DTSP and Coastal Development No. 99-16, pursuant to Chapter 245 of the HBZSO represent requests for the following: A. To construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152- room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet pursuant to Section 4.5.01 (b) Permitted Uses of the Downtown Specific Plan. B. To allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size pursuant to- Section 231.20 A. Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). C. To permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage, pursuant to Section 231.18 E. 2. Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions, of the ZSO. Special Permits No. 02-06, pursuant Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), is requested for the following: A. A zero ft. (0 ft.) ground floor front building setback along Pacific Coast Highway in lieu of minimum 15 ft. (15 ft. reduction) pursuant to Section 4.5.06 Setback (Front Yard) of the`DTSP; and PL02-37 4- 10/10/2002 1:45 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 B. A five ft. (5 ft.) ground floor front building setback along Walnut Avenue in lieu of minimum 15 ft. (10 ft. reduction) pursuant Section 4.5.06 Setback (Front Yard) of the DTSP; and C. A six foot, six inch (6 ft., 6 in.) ground floor exterior side yard setback along Sixth Street in lieu of minimum 15 ft. (8 ft., 6 in. reduction) pursuant to Section 4.5.07 Setback (Side Yard) of the DTSP; and D. A minimum nine ft. (9 ft.), average 11 ft. 4 in. upper story building setback along Pacific Coast Highway from the ultimate right-of-way for all stories above the second story in lieu.a minimum of 15 ft. (6 ft. reduction), with an average of 25 ft. (15 ft. 8 in. reduction), pursuant to Section 4.5.09 Setback (Upper Story) of the DTSP; and E. A 49.5 ft. building height to the proposed flat roof of the hotel and a 70 ft. building height to the midpoint of the tower element in lieu of maximum 45 ft. (4 ft., 6 in. and 25 ft. ft. increase, respectively) pursuant to Section 4.5.04 Maximum Building Height of the DTSP; and F. A 65 ft. wide view corridor on Fifth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue in lieu of the ultimate right of way of 80 ft. (a 15 ft. reduction) pursuant to Section 4.2.16 (e) Street Vacations of the DTSP. Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions, of the ZSO represents a request for the following: A. To consolidate the existing parcels on site and create a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes. The map includes right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 61h Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the alley on Block 1,04 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5th Street for a 65 ft. wide public access easement including a 24 ft. wide reciprocal easement for vehicular purposes. A total of six buildings are proposed for The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach. Buildings A, B, and C are located along the east side of Fifth Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway on Block 104. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants along the ground floors, and office uses above the first floor. A pedestrian bridge at level two between Buildings A and B is an option the applicant is proposing to include in the design of the buildings on block 104. Development on this block excludes the Main St. properties, Ocean View Promenade and the El Don Liquor store. Buildings D, E, F, and G cover the entire Block 105 with the exception of the Helme-Worthy historical property at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants on the ground floor with a 152-room hotel occupying the second, third, and fourth levels. Access to the hotel is provided from PL02-37 -8_ 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 hotel elevators at 5th Street to a second level hotel lobby and courtyard. A public terrace is provided on the 2"d level adjacent to but not a part of the hotel. A site plan is provided for reference: —'-- ----- rf------_ RaanuWALNUT-AVENUE RIoerRuc_--� 1 r I4Ra>E Rlaoellf IK <> 4-1 1Y 1 aa- ti It 11•JI r 1 n:1 BLM-AD 17WOf17 UE @' r r 1 1 IETA�YI QfAt�UgiP <> 151 vl OFFICE 13 ftAMAURW #Y..,;•. o ' h v`c ry us IW .J 1 OLiAi� sIQ ...v I , 1 _g�l pp MM r_---- _1 -1 I ❑ :i:j:`i'::•::''J f s M M-M ! D • /.1 NA710 %r`<.i}}:'?:i::ii' VW\i..fi_...1I,I f I.r` 11 RGDf PMIf' .�Jl..•i::::.v?.v::: I._ I man UgY1E tgi4 f UE - 1 - PRoeosEu PR=cr==ARY t AMOK a �Rmanr i,c �+oss s�wsA(hd dlp wl V- IMMY W:(*296 Ac)' 7FlC OOAST N - AY(100'R/N)- ---------_ MET SIXAAA f6'M(OMoollrni)>< - J tier PALM IltdiwAr ACIFlC COAST K,HWAY 245.2T 47.25` The following table provides a breakdown of the square footage based on the proposed uses: PROPOSED USES PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE Retail 32,568 Restaurants 40,000 Offices 33,621 Total Commercial 106,189 Hotel 120,347 152 Rooms Total Project 226,536 s . ft. Of the 106,189 square feet of commercial space, up to 40,000 square feet may be devoted to restaurant uses and at least 28,000 square feet must be devoted to office use in order to maintain consistency with the Traffic Impact Analysis completed for Draft EIR No. 01-02. Any amount of the total commercial square footage allotted to restaurant use but not utilized for such use may be devoted to retail. PL02-37 10/10/2002 8:03 AM i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 level. The total ground floor setback is 17.5 ft. The existing alley shall be vacated and 7.5 ft. of alley area will become part of the Helme-Worthy property. The 7.5 ft will provide additional separation from the proposed development and is recommended to be a landscaped planter. Because of the delivery access and potential noise impacts it is important to provide a physical separation from the development. Staff recommends an 8 ft. high wall be constructed along the easement line within the landscaped planter on the Helme-Worthy site. The landscaped planter and 8 ft. high wall will provide additional defined separation from the 15 ft. wide alley/easement. In addition, staff is recommending that building D be setback a minimum of 3 ft. from its-current setback of 2.5 ft. to provide the necessary setback from an alley/easement. The staff recommendations will provide a total separation from the Worthy site of approximately 23 ft. Finally, the height and bulk of Building D above the 2"d level along this eastern edge provides a 30-foot upper-story setback consistent with the mitigation measures of the EIR. Staff believes the modifications and the recommendations will provide the necessary separation and transition from the Helme-Worthy site. W A-vNU.7 "07. 7� =11 a o.� crone =- -=r•.: •' Y = L�.ii -- ors Ti Bss.,✓ . .f. 51 The development adjacent the southerly property line proposes a 12 ft. setback from the 18 ft. one-way service drive easement from 6th Street. The 2"d 3�d and 4th levels of the hotel are atop the service drive along this portion of the project. The service drive along this edge is primarily open and serves to support three levels of the hotel above. As is noted in the EIR, the proposed mitigation measures recommend that this edge be redesigned to provide the separation and necessary transition from the historical site. The mitigation measures recommend a minimum ground level setback of 20 ft. for the 1st and 2"d levels. The measure further requires an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback for the PL02-37 - 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 3rd and 41h levels. The implementation of this mitigation measure will provide the necessary separation, transition, and a compatible design from the historical site. This is consistent with the previously approved Coultrup plan. See section below: to-ts' /tv�. SETt3tic.1� ra ,� - r mall,80tw o_Ay pFGSA l3') L3 day" �zld'11r s�tr. sx,�r�r,?�elr i Ll i4l! !y a Pibgq�MrRMtP 0 -_'.SL�I_L]C_�- ..-__....... NM/3MabDM/V✓hw L— ———_.—_�—— n[ K k*tV4WdW BW /�yam• Staff recommends the 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with turf and trees and an 8 ft. high wall is proposed along the southerly property line to address noise. The noise concern can further be mitigated by the partial enclosure of the service drive. Staff believes it is important to enclose the service drive (except for the reciprocal driveway easement) adjacent to the historical site to mitigate the possible noise impacts. The enclosed wall shall be of a compatible material and provide a trellis with vine landscape treatment to soften the visual appearance. The suggested conditions of approval and the mitigation measures are included to address the separation, building design, and noise impacts. I Staff and the applicant have met with the adjacent Helme-Worthy property owners to discuss several of the above-mentioned issues. In addition, staff discussed access to their property, trash pick-up, and utility relocation. Currently the owners take access from a driveway along Sixth Street. Staff is 'recommending a reciprocal access driveway be provided at a point along the service drive and eliminate the Sixth Street driveway. This will require the applicant to design a 20 ft. wide reciprocal driveway along the 20 ft. landscaped setback and provide an opening in the service enclosure. This will require the one-way traffic design to be re-designed to provide two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal driveway. In addition, the applicant is proposing to provide a dedicated trash enclosure on their site for the property owners and to relocate utilities as necessary. The recommended reciprocal access drive, dedicated trash, and utility relocations are suggested conditions of approval. Design of 5th Street In reviewing the design of 5th Street, staff believes it is important to provide the necessary width for the anticipated activities that will occur. The design of 5th Street provides a cross PL02-37 10/10/2002 8:03 AM /3 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 section, which includes a 24 ft. wide roadway and sidewalks on both sides ranging in width from 21.5 ft. to 22.5 ft adjacent to buildings A, C, D, and E. The two-way traffic design of the roadway is adequate to provide access and circulation for the project but the concern of staff is the sidewalk widths. . . --------------------------------.----.......... --------- ----- .. WALNUT AVENUE ............._.-.................-..........,;:........-:........ ...... "WOO M Rn IWA LKF. ew -r V "NOT r7 �, B�.oa_>* ;; ti � a i BED( Di E y - �I it NOT A PART S ry PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDA E'NEA-FNROIIX lIE - PACMC COAST HIGHWAY The proposed sidewalk widths include a 5 ft. landscape/street furniture zone, a minimum 10 ft. pedestrian path, and a setback of 6.5 ft. to 7.5 ft. to the buildings for potential outdoor dining space. Staff strongly believes that in order to create an active and vibrant street life on 5 Street, outdoor dining areas should be wide enough to accommodate this activity. The addition of 2.5 ft.-will allow a minimum of 10 ft. for increased outdoor dining space, which historically is in demand in the downtown. The added width will also provide public open space credit for the project, while increasing view opportunities for patrons of the restaurants. The applicant has stated their goal is to provide quality retail uses in some of the buildings fronting 5tn Street and the proposed sidewalk width is sufficient for all proposed activities. The applicant notes the increased sidewalk space will reduce the proposed buildings leaseable space. Staff shares the applicants concerns, however, the history of downtown indicates that the benefits of an increased sidewalk space should always take precedence. PL02-37 -1,6- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 To address this, staff believes it is important to design the street section to accommodate potential outdoor dining, carts and kiosks, and the display and sale of retail merchandise. Staff is recommending that buildings A, D & E provide an additional 2.5 ft. setback, which shall be measured from the 65 ft. easement. By implementing this recommendation, staff believes that it is important to keep the overall architectural integrity of the buildings. Staff recommends that the upper levels maintain their proposed offsets and upper story setbacks. The buildings upper level terraces or setbacks should not be reduced by the provision of the additional ground level setback. The applicant is also proposing to close 5th Street to vehicular traffic to host special events. The applicant does not know the full extent of the special events at this time but will be required to obtain all permits necessary to conduct such events. The planning for such occasions is another reason to carefully design the street section to adequately provide the space for such temporary outdoor events. Staff supports the proposal to design 5th Street to restrict vehicular traffic. Staff is including a suggested condition of approval to require a 5th Street closure plan be submitted to Public Works, Planning and the Police Department for review and approval. Open Space The DTSP requires all projects in this district to provide a minimum of 10% of the net site area in public open space. The project proposes to meet the public open space requirement in the following manner: Open Space Summary Location Area (s.f.) Corner of Sixth St. & PCH at Bldg. 1,107 F Walnut Avenue North 625 At elevators/stairs lobby 916 Walnut Avenue South 554 Plaza and passage 4,051 NE corner of Bldg. C 116 Subtotal: Ground level 7,369 Level 2 (terrace) 3,183 Total Open Space 10,552 ' Net site area 103,935 Required open space (10%) 10,394 The public open space may include plazas, view areas accessible to the general public, and open-air commercial activities on the street level. In analyzing the proposed public open space, staff has encouraged the applicant to demonstrate locations that provide quality and functional public open space. Public open space is proposed in several areas within the two-block project area as noted in the table above. The project meets the minimum open space requirements but staff is concerned over the quality of some of the PL02-37 -15 10/10/2002 8:03 AM i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 proposed areas. The two areas that staff believes provide the quality and functionality is the plaza area between buildings A & B and the 2nd level terrace along 5th Street. Staff believes both areas are configured in such a manner that can accommodate public seating, open air commercial activities and in the case of the terrace new and improved coastal views. To ensure the coastal views, the public terrace on the 2nd level is provided with clear and dedicated access for the public from 5th Street via stairs and elevators. The design allows the public to access the terrace without the need to enter the hotel. The terrace is envisioned to have public seating areas for the enjoyment of the coastal views and the urban atmosphere. The terrace is not a part of the hotel or a restaurant therefore no private commercial use is anticipated. As noted above, staff is recommending additional setbacks for the buildings on 5th Street for the provision of additional sidewalk width and public open space. . Staff supports the public open space plan with the recommended conditions of approval. Parking: Compliance with Downtown Parking Master Plan The proposed project is providing parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The proposed project requires 403 spaces and provides a total of 411 spaces in a combination of a 405 space two level subterranean public parking structure and six on-site parking spaces (plus two loading) located behind the buildings on block 105. In addition a total of 24 on-street parking spaces will remain on Main St., 6th St. and Walnut Ave. When analyzing any development in the downtown subject to the DPMP, staff utilizes the land use and parking analysis prepared for each block for compliance and consistency with the total buildout and parking figures assumed in the DPMP. The proposed project is located in a two-block area referenced in the DPMP and the Kaku and Associates Report as Block A. The following table compares the proposed project's land use and parking figures with the Block A analysis: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN (LAND USE COMPARISON) PROPOSED USES PROPOSED SQ. FT. BLOCK A- DPMP Retail 32,568 89,860 s . ft. - 57,292 Restaurants 40,000 44,210 s . ft. -4,210 Offices 33,621 6,430 s . ft. + 27,191 Total Commercial 106,189 140,500 s . ft. -34,311 Hotel 120,347 152 Rooms 103,110 s . ft.* + 17,237 Total Project 226,536 s . ft. 243,610 s . ft. - 17,074 *The original project concept proposed 149 rooms. As can be seen by the above table, the overall building size has been reduced in comparison to the DPMP and the Block A analysis. However, the mix of uses has also been altered. The DPMP permits the City to shift square footage between one or more individual land use categories as long as the total square footage does not exceed the 715,000 sq. ft. anticipated in the DPMP. In this instance, staff believes the shift between PL02-37 -111- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM ' REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 retail and office can be accommodated and is offset by the different parking demands identified for office and retail in the DPMP. In addition, the net reduction between the proposed retail/office space of the project and the anticipated retail/office space identified in Block A is 30,101 sq. ft. This overall reduction between these two land use categories is a further indication that the proposed parking demand can be accommodated by the provision of the 411 parking spaces. The one land use category where this cannot occur is the hotel. There is no offsetting category to permit the increase of 17,237 sq. ft. of hotel square footage from the original Block A land use assumption. It should be noted that the adopted square footage figures in the Block A land use analysis were based on 149 rooms not the gross square footage of the hotel. However, to offset the increase, staff is recommending the hotel room count be reduced to a maximum 149. Staff believes that some of the hotel building square footage can be reduced with the staff recommendations for the additional upper story setbacks at the 3rd and 4th levels of the hotel. However, additional hotel square footage would have to-be eliminated through an alternative design to comply with the DPMP. As an alternative to the total reduction of hotel square footage, the applicant may pursue the provision of additional parking spaces in the parking structure and the expansion of the valet parking program. Staff recommends the applicant submit a revised hotel plan and square footage analysis in conjunction with the provision of additional parking and the expansion of the valet parking program to demonstrate compliance with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The Planning Director and Public Works Director must approve the plan prior to issuance of building permits. Main-Pier Phase 11 Parking Obligations As discussed earlier in the background section of this report, parking for the two-block project area has been a major consideration for all phases of proposed development. The Abdelmuti/Oceanview Promenade building was approved in 1992 with a 132 space parking variance. The project provided two parking spaces on-site. In approving the variance, the City placed two conditions on the project: 1) to provide a parking plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council, and 2) to designate or construct the required parking for the project within 350 ft. of the project site and permit occupancy as the parking spaces become available. The City approved two parking plans based on the approved conditions of approval. The two parking plans are outlined below: Temporary Plan Permanent Plan On Street 32 On Street 25 Terry Buick 75 Terry Buick 50 Vacant Lot (214 5th) 13 Block 105 57 Lot @ 5th & PCH 12 Totals 132 Totals 132 PL02-37 -68- 10/16/2002 8:03 AM f' REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 The temporary parking plan was to be implemented until such time as the Coultrup project was approved and constructed. The permanent plan was to be implemented through the Coultrup project and the implementation of the parking strategy (Downtown Parking Master Plan). The Coultrup project was never constructed and the parking for the Abdelmuti/Oceanview Promenade continued to be provided through the temporary plan. Again, as noted earlier, the Coultrup project included a 406 space parking variance (includes the 132 spaces of Phase A). The project was conditioned to provide parking consistent with a future parking strategy, which ultimately became the adopted 1995 Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The DPMP analyzed both projects under the shared parking concept and required a total of 75 commercial parking spaces for both phases of the Main-Pier Phase II projects. The residential development of block 105 was required to provide 100% of its parking on-site. The most recently adopted DPMP again analyzed all development potential for the Main- Pier Phase II or Block A development. The Block A land use analysis included the Oceanview Promenade, the Main Street properties, The Strand, and all other potential development in the two-block area. The DPMP and the Block A land use analysis requires a total of 417 total spaces at buildout. This total includes both on-street and off-street parking spaces within the two-block area of the project. As noted above, the proposed project provides 411 on-site parking spaces along with 24 on-street existing spaces, for a total of 435 parking spaces. The proposed project complies with the Block A land use and parking analysis and therefore complies with all parking requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan's DPMP. The provision of the required parking in compliance with the DPMP addresses the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency's parking obligations for the Ocean View Promenade development pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 18 of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-35. Valet Parking In an attempt to provide efficient use of the new parking structure and provide the hotel and prospective restaurant tenants with quick and easy parking the ap�licant is proposing a valet parking plan. The proposal is to have two turnouts on 5t Street with valet attendants to service both north and southbound traffic. In addition, the turnouts also provide public pick-up and drop-off as necessary. The valet will take either PCH or Walnut to Sixth and enter the parking structure. The plan calls for either the use of the first or second level for the valet system with the ability to stack cars to maximize the number of cars using the valet system. The valet plan could accommodate 40-55 stacked cars on level one or 50-65 on level two (lower level). The parking level not used for valet will be accessible for the general public. The uncertainty of which level is to be used is due primarily to the fact that the mix of uses hasn't been identified. However, staff believes the general public parking should be easily accessible and available and therefore recommends the valet system utilize the lower or 2"d level of the parking structure. This recommendation has been added as a suggested condition of approval. PL02-37 -0 10/10/2002 8:03 AM t9 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 One concern that has been raised by both Public Works and Police is the northbound queue turnout for the valet system. The concern is the number of cars that may queue on Fifth Street and impact through traffic and possibly PCH. Staff recommends the applicant submit a revised valet plan prior to the issuance of building permits for review and approval. The review may require the modification to the turnout or propose an alternative to address the conce.rns to the satisfaction of the City. Staff believes the valet system provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the number of cars that can be parked in the parking structure, and provides quick and easy access to the uses within the project site. Compact parking The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 24 (5.9%) spaces to be compact in size. Under the parking standards of the HBZSO, a compact parking space is 8 ft. x 17 ft. The ZSO permits non-residential development to have a maximum of 20 % of the total spaces to be compact subject to CUP review and approval. In reviewing the request, staff analyzed the distribution and circulation pattern of the proposed parking structure. Staff believes the proposed circulation pattern has been improved by strategically locating the compact spaces to efficiently layout the parking. in addition, by dispersing the location of the compact parking spaces on both levels, the layout complies with the code requirement that compact parking must be distributed throughout the parking structure. Staff supports the use of 24 spaces or 5.9% of the total required parking because the overall pattern and distribution are effective and the circulation pattern is efficient and maximizes the capacity of the parking structure. Option by City to provide additional parking An option stipulated in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant is the possible provision of additional parking in the subterranean parking structure. The option is currently one of several alternatives staff is exploring for the City Council as a potential use of the In-Lieu Parking Fees. Staff believes it is important to explore this option before the project commences the excavation of the site for the parking structure. This will permit the applicant and the City to determine the additional costs and total number of spaces that could be provided. Staff is recommending the option be explored with the City Council and has conditioned the project to have the City Council make this determination within 60 days of conditional use permit approval. If the City decides not to pursue this option, staff will continue to analyze other alternatives for use of the in-lieu parking fees. Special Permits: The applicant is requesting approval of six special permits. Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows the City Council to grant special permits for deviations from the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. Special permits may be approved when the City Council determines that significantly greater benefits from the PL02-37 0- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met. In addition, the City Council must determine that the project and related special permits will also: 1. Promote better living environments; and 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; and 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and 4. Be consistent with objective of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment; and 5. Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act; and 6. Comply with State and Federal law. Special Permit No. 1 is a request to encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Pacific Coast Highway. The required setback Js 15 ft and the applicant is proposing to setback the building facades fronting PCH at a zero foot setback. This is a consistent special permit request granted for the Oceanview Promenade building. The PCH frontage does not lend itself to greater setbacks due to traffic, associated noise and the elements (wind). The placement of the building facades at a zero setback provides both the pedestrian and the traveling motorist an opportunity to view the proposed retailers and restaurants. The sidewalk width along this frontage is 15 ft. 8 in. and provides the necessary width for the pedestrian who may walk between Main St. and Sixth Street, both of which are signalized intersections. The need to comply with or increase the required setbacks is typically recommended when outdoor activities are appropriate. Staff supports the requested special permit because the reduced setback is consistent with the recently constructed buildings fronting PCH and provides the necessary sidewalk width for the pedestrian. Special Permit No. 2 is a request to encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Sixth Street. The required setback is 15 ft. and the applicant is proposing to setback the building facades at six feet six inches. The sidewalk width along this frontage will be 21 ft. 9 in. up to the parking structure entrance and then narrows adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site. In reviewing this request, staff analyzed the need for a wider sidewalk at this Sixth Street edge and the potential activity along this frontage. Staff believes the proposed setback is appropriate because Sixth Street is a signalized intersection and will provide the necessary width for pedestrian activity at this intersection. The placement of the buildings PL02-37 - 10110/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 closer to the street provides the pedestrian interaction with the retail buildings. The need to comply with or increase the required setbacks is typically recommended when outdoor activities are appropriate. In this instance staff does not believe the increased setback is required or necessary because the edge does not lend itself to these activities due to the potential impacts of traffic,, noise, and the elements (wind). Staff supports the requested special permit because the reduced setback is appropriate and provides the necessary sidewalk width for the pedestrian. Special Permit No. 3 is a request to encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Walnut Avenue. The required setback is 15 ft. and the applicant is proposing to setback the building facades at five feet. The proposed sidewalk width along the Walnut Ave. frontage is 15 ft. 2 in. from the alley on block 104 to the service drive of block 105 and then narrows adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site. In reviewing this request, staff analyzed the need for a wider sidewalk along the Walnut Ave. edge and the potential activity along this frontage. Staff believes the proposed setback is appropriate because Walnut Ave. is envisioned as primarily a retail frontage. By providing the buildings closer to the setback it provides pedestrian level interaction with the retail buildings. The need to comply with or increase the required setbacks is typically recommended when outdoor activities are appropriate. In this instance staff does not believe the increased setback is required or necessary because the edge does not lend itself to these activities. Staff supports the requested special permit because the reduced setback is appropriate and provides the necessary sidewalk width for the pedestrian. Special Permit No. 4 is a request to encroach into the minimum upper story setback along Pacific Coast Highway. The required upper story setback is a minimum of 15 ft. with an average of 25 ft. and e applicant is proposing a minimum setback of nine feet with an average of 11 ft. 4 in. The 3'd the and 4th floors are identical in their request for the special permits based on the hotel design. It is important to remember that the majority of new buildings in downtown have received some relief from the strict application of the upper story setback requirements. In reviewing the request, staff acknowledges the hotel design and the potential for the views. The basis for the upper story setback requirement is to provide a break in the building facade from the first two stories to the 3rd and 4th stories above and eliminate a shear wall design. Staff supports the reduced upper story setbacks because the applicant provides a distinctive break between the lower floors and the upper floors by the use of setbacks (9 ft./average 11 ft:4 in.), a variety of roofline treatments and quality colors and materials providing an interesting and articulating facade. Special Permit No. 5 is a request to exceed the maximum building height with the hotel at 49 ft. 6 in. in lieu of 45 ft. and the architectural tower feature at 70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft. Staff has provided a breakdown of downtown buildings that have received special permits to exceed the maximum building height. As is demonstrated, the building height for most of the existing buildings exceeds the proposed project's special permit for height. The following is provided: PL02-37 -22- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM 071 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 A) Plaza Almeria - 54 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 64 feet to the peak of the highest tower B) Second Block Parking Structure - 35 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 60 feet to the peak of the highest towers C) Pierside Pavilion - 71 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 84.5 feet to the top of the tower D) Oceanview Promenade (Abdelmuti Project) 67 feet to the peak of the fourth floor - 85 feet to the top of the clock tower In analyzing the request, the project provides a variety of roofline treatments, and elevations ranging in height from 41 ft. 8 in. (Bldg. B) to 49 ft. 6 in. (Bldg G/Hotel). The rooflines provide an interesting combination of styles and treatments recommended by the Design Guidelines and the building heights complement and provide a compatible design transition to the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. The one area of concern is the transition treatment of the hotel and the Helme-Worthy property. The Worthy/Hotel transition is being addressed by implementation of upper story setbacks through suggested conditions of approval. With the suggested conditions of approval staff supports the special permit request because of the incorporation of varied rooflines and varied building heights that complement and provide the necessary transition between buildings consistent with the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines recommend focal elements as landmarks and orientation points for the community. In addition, corner building treatments are recommended to provide a prominent design element. The proposed hotel tower height at 70 ft. is approximately 14- 15 ft. lower than the two towers in the immediate vicinity. The proposed tower will provide the development on block 105 with a complimentary focal element to the tower element on block 104 (Oceanview Promenade). By allowing the tower with an additional 15 feet, the tower will serve its purpose as a focal element and anchoring point for the project consistent with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines. Staff supports the tower height and the special permit because the tower element is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and compliments other tower features in the downtown. Special Permit No. 6 is a request to reduce the ultimate right of way on Fifth Street from an ultimate right of way of 80 ft. to a proposed 65 ft. The function of 5th Street will remain basically the same as it is designed today. As discussed above, 5th Street is proposed as an easement for pedestrian and vehicular right of way purposes. In reviewing the reduced right of way, staff has discussed several issues pertaining to potential activities within the 65 ft. wide easement. The cross section is provided below: PL02-37 -28= 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 s s s a ® a rr a m a a 5th- S-r_ R - '�d _ _ •.WKgQUG.: .ANAtIOMr'" - �l NOTES.. NOTEL O'.:C3: RETwtt T/ niv m - ,lP.ARKtNG.tE. �,8_ _ EASEMENT _ - 'U.L.NlD0.'SEtiHnCK u H i a It is important to remember the design concept of the Downtown Specific Plan and that precedent has been set. The design of the Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony project included the vacation of 3rd Street between Walnut and PCH. A reduced view corridor is provided in that project. The design concept for the core area of downtown always envisioned large multi-parcel consolidated development with greater intensities and density. The vacation of 5tn Street has been contemplated in several past concepts but not pursued. Staff believes that reducing the ultimate right of way from 80 to 65 ft. will not diminish any views currently provided by the existing right of way. Staff believes the proposed cross section will preserve existing views while enhancing future views with the design of the project. The project proposes all the amenities of a typical downtown street section and also includes design features of upper story setbacks for the buildings that front the street. The incorporation of all the design features will provide the views for the pedestrian at the street level. In addition, the 2"d level terrace adjacent to the hotel provides an enhanced view of the beach, ocean and pier. Staff supports the special permit in conjunction with the condition of approval requiring the additional building setbacks (Buildings A, D and E). Tentative Map: The proposed subdivision will consolidate the existing parcels on site and create a one-lot subdivision for condominium Purposes. The map includes right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6 h Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the public alley on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5th Street. The City will retain an easement for pedestrian and vehicular right of way purposes for 5th Street. Any areas not currently owned by the City that are needed for the new 5th Street right of way will be dedicated to the City as an public right of way easement. PL02-37 24- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 In addition the City will own fee title to the public parking facility located under the public and private portions of the site, including under the 5th Street right of way. As part of the map, public improvements around the entire development are recommended to have a similar treatment as was approved around the Oceanview Promenade building. The two-block area has always been envisioned to be developed as one site; therefore the public improvements should be consistent. The consistent public improvements on block 104 shall .include the frontage of El Don Liquor to complete the PCH frontage, excluding the Main Street properties. The improvements for block 105 shall be for the project area only and exclude the frontage for the Helme-Worthy historical site. The provision of consistent public improvements was previously required as a condition of approval for the Coultrup plan. Staff believes it is important that this treatment be required of this development proposal and has included a recommended condition of approval. In addition, a license and maintenance agreement will be required for the maintenance of the public improvements. The public improvements and the landscape plan will be presented to the Design Review Board for final review and approval. F. SUMMARY As conditioned, the project will be consistent with the Village Concept of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Master Plan, completes the Main Pier Phase II development concept, complies with the General Plan land use designation and the pedestrian overlay, and is consistent with coastal policies by providing visitor-serving commercial uses and preserving and enhancing public views, therefore, staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, for The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach — Blocks 104/105 for the following reasons: The project as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. The proposed mixed-use project will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties because of proper ground level and upper story setbacks. The proposed project as conditioned will provide additional open space and outdoor dining opportunities along 5th Street, provide additional ground level and upper story setbacks with added architectural treatment adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site, and therefore enhance the overall aesthetic appearance of the project design. The proposed project as conditioned will provide a design that will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation of downtown and along 5th Street. The proposed mixed-use project_ is consistent with the MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-3.0 FAR/35 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) Land Use designation of the General Plan. PL02-37 ;:i8- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM a REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, exceed maximum building height, and reduce the 5th Street view corridor will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, Coastal Development No. 99-16, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 01- 02. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 be certified as adequate and complete with mitigation measures, findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to. AestheticsNisual Quality, Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the formal documentation required by CEQA to implement and monitor compliance with all mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and .Reporting Program establishes which City departments are responsible for ensuring completion and compliance with all adopted mitigation measures Following approval of the tentative tract map, conditional use permit with special permits, and coastal development permit, the City Council must approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 4), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 5). I PL02-37 -28- 10/10/2002 8:03 AM o� REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-37 i Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval —TTM No. 16406, etc. 2. Appeal Letter dated October 2, 2002 from John Given, CIM Group 3. Appeal Letter dated October 3, 2002 from James A. Lane, HB CARES 4. CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts - Statement of Overriding Considerations 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 1, 2002 7. 1 Letters in Su pport/Op position of the Project RCA Author: Herb Fauland/Howard Zelefsky PL02-37 - 10/10/2002 8:03 AM oc� T - y.. •-�: _= .:v to ;:. �^. Y ^" .�-+'CY vfe''� -� }"g-. ��°F` : + FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16406: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 for the consolidation of existing parcels into a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes and the right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the alle�r on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5 h Street for a 65 ft. wide public access easement including a 24 ft. wide reciprocal easement for vehicular purposes is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use Vertical - 3.0 Floor Area Ratio—Specific Plan Overlay— Pedestrian Overlay on the subject property because the subdivision will provide a consolidated development consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan and will provide the necessary public improvement to complete the Main-Pier Phase II development. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 2.97-acre project site provides the necessary area for development by consolidating multiple parcels consistent with the intensity and density of District#3, Visitor-Serving Commercial, of the Downtown Specific Plan, The General Plan Land Use designation, and with the implementation of mitigation measures is suitable for development. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental'damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The tentative map provides all the necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, alleys, and easements with reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. i FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 to construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152-room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet; to allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size; and to permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, will provide adequate public open space (02c11001) Attachment 1.1 and open air commercial amenities, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the provision of compact parking spaces and a valet parking plan provides an efficient use.of the parking structure, maximizes the total number of parking spaces and provides a quick and easy parking alternative to customers of the site. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed* with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project as conditioned, incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the two-block project area. 3. The proposed request to construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152-room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet; to allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean.public parking structure to be compact in size; and to permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision .Ordinance. The proposed project as conditioned and with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition . of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvement for the two-block Main-Pier Phase li development. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical — 3.0 FAR—specific plan overlay— pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy 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. (02c11001) Attachment 1.2 Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. Policy 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 American's with Disabilities Act. Policy LU 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations. Goal LU 7. Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2: Require 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, as appropriate. I Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy 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, in accordance with the appropriate principles. The retail, restaurant, office, and hotel uses proposed for the site represent development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement retail and restaurant uses. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of creating an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Pacific Coast Highway (0 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) b. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Sixth Street (6.5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) c. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along and Walnut Avenue (5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) d. Encroach into the minimum upper story setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway 9 ft./average 11 ft. 4 in. in lieu of min. 15 ft./average 25 ft.) e. Exceed'the maximum building height with hotel (49.5 ft. in lieu of 45 ft.) and the architectural tower feature (70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft.) f. Reduce the view corridor on Fifth Street (65 ft. in lieu of 80 ft.) (02c11001) Attachment 1.3 These Special Permits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the design of the project provides a consistent development pattern along PCH, provides the necessary and consistent sidewalk width for the types of pedestrians level activities at PCH, Sixth, and Walnut, and promotes the pedestrian scale envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. In addition, the project provides an architectural style that provides a distinctive break between the two lower floors and the two upper floors by the use of upper story setbacks, the provision of varied roofline treatments, the use of quality colors and materials and including building heights and a tower that is compatible with the surroundings and provides a focal element encouraged by the Design Guidelines. Finally, the project will not diminish any existing coastal views for the pedestrian at the street level, and it will enhance future views by providing 2nd level terrace views of the beach, ocean and pier. The incorporation of the special permits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown core. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by placing buildings in a relationship to the street and pedestrian, the use of contemporary Mediterranean architecture, the incorporation of compatible upper story setbacks, the use of proper building heights, the provision of a tower as a focal element, and the design of 5th Street that enhances public views. 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed, the project will be-designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, will provide adequate public open space, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the provision of compact parking spaces and a valet parking plan provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the total number of parking spaces and provides a quick and easy parking alternative to customers of the site. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The proposed project is physically suitable for the site, it consolidates multiple parcels for an adequate mixed-use development site, provides parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, is consistent with the type and intensities of proposed uses, complies with the Downtown Specific Plan, is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and provides consistent public improvements to complete the Main-Pier Phase II development envisioned for the two-block area of downtown. 5. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the following Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies: Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. (02c11001) Attachment 1.4 Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a'range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. Reducing the ultimate right of way of 51h Street from 80 to 65 ft. will not diminish any views or view corridors currently provided by the existing right of way. The proposed cross section of 5th Street will continue to preserve existing views while enhancing future views with the design of the project. The project proposes all the amenities of a typical downtown street section and also includes design features of upper story setbacks for the buildings that front the street. The incorporation of all the design features will provide the views for the pedestrian at the street level. In addition, the 2"d level terrace adjacent to the hotel provides an enhanced view of the beach, ocean and pier. The proposed special permits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45, Coastal development Permit No. 99-16, Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final EIR No. 01-02 will comply with State and Federal Law. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 for the development project, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies: Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. (02c11001) Attachment 1.5 Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1.. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. Additionally, the proposed project would develop visitor-serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area, which has been targeted for redevelopment as a destination location. Portions of the downtown core have already been established, and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the project, with the exception of a hotel, which would help further establish the area. The project site is also located near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed project as conditioned and with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvement for the two-block Main-Pier Phase II development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measure will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary (02c11001) Attachment 1.6 public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, alleys, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. I 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project maintains all exiting and proposed public access and does not conflict with any public recreation policies by the provision of a development consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, Downtown Specific Plan, and Downtown Parking Master Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The tentative map shall be revised to accurately reflect the redesigned project as conditioned by Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16. b. The service drive entrance and easement at 6"' Street shall be designed to provide two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal entrance point to the Helme-Worthy site. c. The existing driveway entrance to the Helme-Worthy site on Sixth Street shall be closed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. d. Remove the proposed water lines as shown on the tentative map: 12-inch in Fifth Street, 8- inch in alleys parallel to Pacific Coast Highway, 6-inch in alley east of Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105. (PW) e. The following water lines are minimum requirements to meet the project's demands: (PW) 1) Approximately 450.LF of 8-inch water pipeline in Walnut Avenue (between Sixth Street and Main Street). 2) Approximately 900 LF of 12-inch water pipeline in Sixth Street (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). f. The 20-foot wide reciprocal access drive for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive adjacent to the southerly boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105 and through the setback area and relocate the 24-foot wide service driveway to conform to the new design. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be employed in the design of the access. (PW) g. The Fifth Street public access easement shall be 65-feet in width. (PW) In. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal access easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties and shall be noted on the map and required to all affected and adjoining parcels from the private access easements. The location and width of the reciprocal driveway easement and all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making all necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal easements/driveway. (02c11001) Attachment 1.7 2. Prior to submittal of the tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. The CC&Rs shall include the following: (PW) i. Provide for operation, maintenance and replacement of all common area landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, public and reciprocal access easements (Fifth Street, alley, parking, driveway, truck access, sidewalk, and street lighting) and open space. (PW) ii. Implementation, inspection, maintenance, periodic upgrade and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. (PW) iii. Maintenance, repair and replacement of structures, facilities and utilities within the parking structure as defined by the agreement for operation and use of the parking structure by the City. (PW) iv. Provisions for the implementation, management, operation and maintenance of the valet parking and access program. (PW) V. Prohibit the blocking or screening of fire hydrants located in the public right-of-way, easements or within the property. (PW) vi. Implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. (PW) 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. All vehicular access rights to Fifth and Sixth Streets, Walnut Avenue and the public alleys shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. (PW) b. All vehicular access rights to Pacific Coast Highway shall be released and relinquished to the State of California, except at the intersection of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) c. The rough grading plan and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (PW) d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.8 e. A sewer study for on and off-site facilities shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (PW.) f. Prior to first plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis (on H2O Net) for this project, pursuant to City of Huntington Beach requirements. (The applicant shall coordinate this effort with the Water Division prior to beginning this endeavor.) The analysis shall consider the impacts and mitigation, if necessary, to the existing water services off of the 8-inch water pipeline in the alley west of Main Street, which shall be maintained. If the analysis shows that project demands cannot be met with the City's current water infrastructure system, the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project at no cost to the City. (PW) g. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off-site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. Runoff from the site shall be restricted as directed by the-Department of PW to minimize impacts to downstream facilities. (PW) h. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: is The domestic water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. Easement widths shall conform with the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 300. ii. The sanitary sewer system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. iii. Five feet along entire Pacific Coast Highway frontage. iv. 2.5-feet along the entire Sixth Street frontage. v. 4.5-feet of additional alley right-of-way along the easterly property line west of Main Street and south of Walnut Avenue. i. Fifth Street shall be quitclaimed by the Redevelopment Agency. An easement of 65-feet in width shall be conveyed by the Developer to the City of Huntington Beach for drainage, utility, pedestrian and vehicular access purposes. Quitclaim and the grant of easement must occur at the same time to maintain full use of Fifth Street without interruption of existing uses and activities. (PW) j. Vacation and abandonment of portions of alley rights-of-way in Block 105. (PW) k. 20-foot wide reciprocal access for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive adjacent to the south boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be observed in the design of the access. (PW) I. All street lighting, excluding Fifth Street, shall be conveyed to Southern California Edison Co. for maintenance and operation. (PW) m. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. (PW) n. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: (PW) i. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. (02c11001) Attachment 1.9 ii. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. o. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: (PW) i. Design Specification: 1) Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system — STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. 2) Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits). 3) Digital data shall have units in US FEET. 4) A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. 5) Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. 6) Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. ii. File Format and Media Specification: 1) Shall be in compliance with the following file format: . • AutoCAD (version 13 or later) drawing file: ;DWG 2) Shall be in compliance with the following media type: • CD Recordable (CD-R) 650 Megabytes p. The developer shall provide a Maintenance and License Agreement for maintenance of all public improvements within the public right-of-way for Fifth and Sixth Streets, Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) q. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) r. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor & Material and Monumentation Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Department of Public Works and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) s. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406: 1. Tentative Tract No. 16406 shall not become effective until the ten-calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Tentative Map No. 16406 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval which is October 4, 2004. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. (02c11001) Attachment 1.10 4. All applicable fees shall be paid from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments fees prior to map recordation. (PW) 5. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. 6. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Fire Chief shall be notified in writing if any changes to the approved tract map conditions of approval are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Fire Chief have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-06, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The plans shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line, a 10-15-foot average upper-level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. (MM 3.3-3) The 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with turf and trees except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point. b. The service drive shall be enclosed adjacent the southerly property line of the Helme-Worthy site with compatible materials, except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point, and shall have an attached trellis with vine landscaping treatment. c. A 20 ft. reciprocal access drive shall be provided from the service drive to the Helme-Worthy site. The service drive shall be designed for two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal access drive. d. The 7.5 ft. vacated to the Helme-Worthy site shall be designed to provide a landscaped planter with an 8 ft. high wall along the easterly property line adjacent to the 15 ft. one-way easement at Walnut Ave. The landscaped planter and wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the eastern edge and designed to comply with any necessary vision clearance and setbacks requirements from Walnut Ave. e. An 8 ft. high wall shall be constructed along the entire southerly property line of the Helme- Worthy site. The design shall comply with any necessary vision clearance and setbacks requirements from Sixth Street and the point of intersection at the easement. f. -Incorporate a minimum three ft. ground floor setback for all portions of first floor buildings (A & D) abutting alleys. Setbacks above the ground floor may cantilever to a zero ft. (0 ft.) setback. g. Incorporate an additional 2.5 ft. setback for buildings (A, D, E) fronting 5th Street to provide additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining (minimum 10 ft. width) and public open space (02c11001) Attachment 1.11 purposes. The upper levels shall maintain their setbacks and terraces to maintain the integrity of the architectural upper level design. h. The hotel (Bldg. G) square footage shall be reduced or additional parking shall be provided to reflect compliance with the Block A Existing and Proposed Development table in the Kaku Associates study dated September 27, 2000. i. The two-level subterranean public parking structure, ramps, and all required parking spaces and striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. The applicant shall analyze to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department that the proposed parking lot access and loading configuration will operate satisfactorily. The close proximity of the service drive and the parking garage access must be separated. (PW -Code Requirement) j. Depict all utility apparatus and cabinets, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of- way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in any setback and shall be screened from view. No above ground utility cabinets of any kind shall be located in any sidewalk or block pedestrian access (Code Requirement) k. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) I. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. m. The maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2) inches. Buildings designed to be located near to property line(s) must have their exterior wall adjacent to the property line(s) designed for 2" maximum out of plane displacement resulting from prescribed lateral forces specified by the Uniform Building Code. Maintenance agreement may be required for any zero lot line construction. n. If,outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. The lighting for the tower shall be within the tower element and shall not spill onto adjacent properties. o. The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) for a depth of 8 ft. p. The public access drive from Sixth Street to Walnut Avenue shall include adequate access and turning room for disposal collection vehicles, including 55-feet to pickup and drop-off containers (02d1001) Attachment 1.12 on a straight shot, a minimum turning diameter of 86-feet and total height for lift operations and clearance. (MM 3.8-3) q. Building C of the proposed project shall incorporate ground level and second story design features of the Ocean View Promenade Structure and, to the extent feasible, of the building containing El Don Liquors. These features shall include, but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be review by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. (MM 3.3-2) r. To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use non-reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. (MM 3.1-2) s. The new buildings within the project site shall use light-colored roof materials to reflect heat and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-9) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead,-and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. Pursuant to Section 65590 of the California Government Code, the applicant shall submit a plan for replacement of any existing residential units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income that are converted or demolished as a result of this project for review and approval by the Planning Department. (02c11001) Attachment 1.13 + 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit: a. Separate plans for demolition and removals, stockpiling, surcharge and other independent or phased remedial or earth moving operations, rough grading, and precise grading, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, and be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (PW) b. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2600. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill, plan review, and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. (MM 3.4-1) c. The final grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. (MM 3.4-2) d. Southern California Edison, Verizon, The Gas Company and Time Warner shall be contacted to remove their facilities from the existing alleys. The utilities shall be undergrounded. Utilities in the alley serving Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105 shall be reconfigured/relocated. (PW) e. Street Improvement Plans, per City of. Huntington Beach standards, for Fifth and Sixth Streets and Walnut Avenue shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, and submitted to the Public Works Department for review,and approval. The following improvements shall be shown on the plans: (PW) f. Fifth Street improvement plans shall be in accordance with the tentative tract map, these conditions of approval and approved Parking Access and Valet Parking plans. The plan shall include a minimum 24-foot wide roadway for public access and 9-foot wide valet turnout areas. The curb return radius at Fifth Street at Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street at Walnut Avenue shall be 35-feet. Curb returns shall have ADA compliant access ramps. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Additional modifications may be required to gain Caltrans approval for improvements at Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) g. Removal of curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and base aggregate as required along Fifth Street frontage. Replace with new curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving structural section. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) h. Remove and replace the existing alley drive approach in Fifth Street with an ADA compliant alley driveway approach. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) i. Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, alley driveway and half-street paving along the Sixth Street frontage. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project: Curbs shall be painted red to prohibit parking as directed"by the Transportation Manager. (PW) j. Remove the existing driveway on Sixth Street, located on Lot 22 and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Remove and replace half street paving on Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue adjacent to Lots 22, 24, 26, and 28. The southeast corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be ADA compliant with an access map. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.14 k. The curb return radius at Sixth Street at Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street at Walnut Avenue shall be 35-feet. Curb returns shall have ADA compliant access ramps. Additional modifications may be required to gain Caltrans approval for improvements at Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) I. A new catch basin and lateral on Sixth Street at Pacific Coast Highway sized to intercept the 100- year storm event. The existing catch basin and lateral on Main Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway shall be removed and a new manhole installed. (PW) m..Portions of Sixth Street adjacent to driveways and intersections between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue shall be red curbed as directed by the Transportation Manager. (PW) n. Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk and half-street paving along the Walnut Avenue frontage. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) o. The intersection of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be redesigned to eliminate the existing corner cross drains. (PW) p. Curb returns at Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall have ADA compliant access ramps. (PW) q. Remove and replace the two existing alley approaches on Walnut Avenue with ADA compliant alley driveways approaches. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) - _ r. Pavement for half-width of existing alley including the center concrete v-gutter, plus pavement for 4.5-feet of additional alley dedication along the easterly property line and the southerly property line between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, easterly of Fifth Street. (PW) s. The truck access driveway entry off Sixth Street shall be a minimum of 24-feet in width, with an ADA compliant driveway approach and able to accommodate outbound vehicles from Lot 22 of Block 105. The Transportation Manager shall approve the width of the reciprocal access driveway, upon submittal of truck turning templates for the driveway. The width of the drive aisle shall also accommodate egress traffic from Lot 22 of Block 105 and eastbound trucks. (PW) .t. Remove curb, gutter, sidewalk and all driveways along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage including the El Don Liquor site (lots 7, 8, and a portion of 9, block 104) and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Newly constructed curbs shall be painted red. If necessary, Pacific Coast Highway shall be repaved per Caltrans requirements. Plans shall be per Caltrans standards and submitted concurrently to the City and Caltrans for approval. (PW) u. A separate signing and striping plan for Fifth and Sixth Streets and Walnut Avenue, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and be submitted to Public Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall address the truck access in Block 105 for one-way traffic along the easterly boundary of Lots 22, 24, 26, and 28 of Block 105. The plans shall be prepared according to the Signing and Striping Plan Preparation Guidelines. A separate signing and striping plan for Pacific Coast Highway per Caltrans standards and submitted concurrently to the City and Caltrans for approval. The plans shall incorporate appropriate provisions as required to gain any necessary Caltrans approvals. (PW) v. Street lighting plans for all streets adjacent to the project, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer, and be submitted to Public Works Department for review and approval. Lighting shall be per the Downtown Specific Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach guidelines. Street lighting calculations shall be provided to support the design. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.15 i i w. Street lighting on Fifth Street shall be removed completely from Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) x. New street lighting for Fifth Street shall be operated and maintained by the Developer as provided in the CC&Rs. (PW) y. New street lighting for Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be owned and operated by Southern California Edison. (PW) z. New street lighting for Pacific Coast Highway shall be owned and operated by Southern California Edison and shall be prepared to Caltrans standards. (PW) aa. Depict sewer mains, manholes and laterals existing and proposed on plan and profile sheets. All sewer improvements proposed within Caltrans right-of-way will be subject to their review and approval. Sewer mains shall be within public easements. The sewer plan shall address grease traps and accessibility for pumping and maintenance. (PW) bb. New sewer and water mains in the alleys behind Lot 22 of Block 105 alley east of the project. (PW) cc. Separate, new domestic meter(s) and service(s) sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code shall serve the proposed development. The service laterals shall be a minimum of two-inches in size. The development shall be master-metered to the fullest extent possible. The quantity of public water meters shall be minimized. Sub-metering with private water meters is allowed. (PW) dd. Fire service(s) shall be separate from the domestic service and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Fire Code, and shall include an appropriate backflow protection device. (PW) ee. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, irrigation and fire water services. (PW) ff. The public water system and appurtenance shall be located within the public right-of-way or within a public easement dedicated to the City. (PW) gg. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Any rare species of trees identified on-site shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (PW) hh. The existing public water pipelines located within the proposed project area shall be removed per Water Division standards. The existing water services to the buildings for these lines shall be maintained. The pipelines to be relocated include the following: (PW) i. Approximately 500 LF of 6-inch pipeline located in the alley approximately 150 feet north of and parallel with Pacific Coast Highway. ii. Approximately 200 LF of 12-inch pipeline in Fifth Street. iii. Approximately 250 LF of 8-inch/4-inch pipeline located in the alley approximately 150 feet i west of and parallel with Fifth Street. (02c11001) Attachment 1.16 ii. Signal modification plan for the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street, as needed to accommodate corner improvements (new curb ramp, sidewalk, utility relocations, etc.). (PW) jj. All existing utilities including sewer and water shall be relocated to adjacent perimeter streets from alleys being vacated and abandoned and from Fifth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. (PW) kk. If there are any existing water services (including fire hydrants) outside of the limits of the proposed construction, that will be impacted by the water pipeline removals as stated above; it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate and effect the relocation of these services to the proposed new water pipelines. (PW) II. Approximately 450 LF of 8-inch pipeline in Walnut Avenue, (between Sixth Street and Main Street). (PW) mm. Approximately 900 LF of 12-inch water pipeline in Sixth Street, (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). (PW) nn. New fire hydrants on Pacific Coast Highway, if required by the Fire Department, shall connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline in Pacific Coast Highway. Alternatively, the applicant may construct a new 12-inch water line (approximately 450 LF) in Pacific Coast Highway between Fifth and Sixth Streets and shall be constructed per Water Division standards (i.e., water pipeline shall NOT be constructed underneath the sidewalk and shall be a looped water system) to serve the fire hydrants. oo. A traffic control plan for all work within the City right-of-way and Caltrans right-of-way shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The City's plans shall be prepared according to the Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines. Plans for Pacific Coast Highway shall be per Caltrans requirements and subject to their review and approval. (PW) pp. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Park, Tree and Landscape Division. Irrigation demands shall also be submitted to ensure proper sizing of irrigation services. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. The landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval. A consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW-Code Requirement) qq. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.17 rr. To the greatest extent feasible, low flow urban runoff from the project shall be directed to a gross pollutant removal device. The developer shall incorporate Best Management Practices conforming to the requirements at the time of construction. ss. Gross pollutant removal devices (CDS or equivalent)for the removal of debris, sediment, oil and water separation, etc., shall be installed as part of the treatment train for the main line systems. Access to these devices for maintenance shall be provided and included within an easement to the City. tt. A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. uu. A WQMP shall be prepared, maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall incorporate water quality measures for all improved or unimproved phases of the project. All structural BMPs shall be sized to infiltrate, filter, or treat the 85-percentile 24-hour storm event or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The WQMP shall include an extensive Association education program, including information booklets and packages for each business owner, and periodic information programs to keep owners current with WQMP practices and requirements. vv. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment. (PW) ww. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, City contact (Sudi Shoja (714) 536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800- CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) xx. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW) yy. A truck-staging plan shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for approval. Staging of trucks on the streets on the perimeter of the site or within the downtown area will not be permitted. Appropriate truck staging areas shall be identified to minimize impacts to vehicle circulation, area residents and businesses. Truck staging areas identified on Pacific Coast (02c11001) Attachment 1.18 Highway shall be coordinated with Caltrans including obtaining any appropriate encroachment permits. (PW) zz. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (PW) aaa. The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402— Nuisance and Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403— Fugitive Dust. These measure have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation. (MM 3.2-2) bbb. The parking meters surrounding the project shall be removed and returned to the Beach Services Division. The cost of relocating any on-street parking meters and re-striping of on- street parking spaces shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant. All re-striping and parking meter relocation shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. (PW) ccc. The project developer(s) shall develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: (MM 3.2-1) i. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. ii. Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person). iii. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable. iv. Consolidate truck deliveries when possible. v. Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper time as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions. vi. Use methanol- or butane-powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices. ddd. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification #431-92. (FD) eee. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells (714) 816-6847. (FD) fff. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a DOGGR Site Plan Review application. (FD) ggg. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification #422, Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) hhh. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit as a prerequisite in obtaining a Huntington Beach Fire Department UST permit. (FD) iii. Vapor extraction treatment areas may require conformance to City Specification #431, Gas Fired Appliances. (FD) (02c11001) Attachment 1.19 . jjj. 5th Street shall be designed to support.an imposed load of a 72,000 lb. apparatus with a clearance of 13'-6" minimum. (FD) kkk. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. III. The option to provide additional parking in the subterranean parking structure shall be explored with the City Council within 60 days of conditional use permit approval in compliance with the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the Applicant. mmm.A revised hotel square footage and parking plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Director, Public Works Director and the Transportation Manager to indicate compliance with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The plan must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The following conditions of approval shall be complied with during grading operations: a. The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402—Nuisance and Rule 403—Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: (MM 3.2-2) i. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. ii. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. iii. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. iv. All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period. V. A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site. vi. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. vii. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications. viii. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (02c11001) Attachment 1.20 ix. All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications. X. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. xi. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. xii. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads. xiii. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. xiv. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. xv. Remediation operations, if required,shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding area. xvi. The SWPPP, Erosion control and dewatering plans shall be revised and updated as necessary through the phases of the project. Copies of the current plans shall be maintained on-site for review by City or State inspectors. (PW) b. The project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management practices: (MM 3.6-1) i. Outdoor_construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays. ii. All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled. iii. All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses. iv. Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use. v. Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences. vi. Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator"who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. c. Monitor during grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: (MM 3.3-1) i. The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching,.and other excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to (02c11001) Attachment 1.21 protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. ii. If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and finding, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach. iii. In the event of the discover on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. of§5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for. -review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. c. Submit for review a final parking access and valet parking program to the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Police. The plan shall encourage the use of the 1st. level for public parking. The program shall be approved prior to final building permits or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (PW) d. The applicant shall provide a dedicated trash enclosure for the Helme-Worthy property on their site across from the eastern edge of the historical site in conformance with city requirements. e. The applicant shall relocate the utilities for the Helme-Worthy property at the eastern edge of the historical site in conformance with city requirements. f. Names of streets shall be submitted to and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department in accordance with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 409. (FD) g. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) (02c11001) Attachment 1.22 I h. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) i. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed to minimize potential odor impacts to the hotel and surrounding residential homes. Any external venting or mechanical equipment not screened to the satisfaction of the City shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of building permits. j. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (BD) k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 6.. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Grading Permit shall be issued. (PW) b. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee of 10% of the environmental impact report cost shall be paid to the Planning Department. c. A Downtown Specific Plan (SP-5) fee for new construction in the Downtown Specific Plan area shall be paid to the Planning Department. d. The City Council approved Final Map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. (PW) e. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications.. (PW) f. The applicant shall demonstrate the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. (MM 3.9-2) g. Delivery vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller that a medium or small semi-trailer with a1ength of 50-feet. (MM 3.9-3) h. The applicant shall submit a parking management plan, consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. (MM 3.9-4) i. The Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the _project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to: (MM 3.8-4) i.Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition.. ii. Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project. iii. Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases. (02c11001) Attachment 1.23 iv. Bins for cardboard recycling during construction. V. Scrap wood recycling during construction. vi. Green waste recycling of landscape materials. j. The Applicant shall demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems,automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24- hour security shall be provided. (MM 3.8-1) k. The Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan (MM 3.8-2). The subterranean parking structure shall be reviewed for adequate lighting, location and directional signing, use of colors, and use of crime prevention design. I. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Department. (Code Requirement) m. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map (preliminary grading plan) by more than one (1) foot. (PW) n. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit'a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) o. All onsite oil well abandonments must be Fire Department approved per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements, and all abandoned oil well document/inspection fees must be paid. (FD) p. For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification 426. (FD) q. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification #401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. (FD) r. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. Your project requires a minimum of U hydrants. (FD) s. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. (FD) t, Class III wet standpipe systems shall be utilized. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) u. Class I, Division 2 electrical installation shall be utilized. (FD) v. A subterranean air handling system will be required. (FD (0W1001) Attachment 1.24 w. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. (FD) x. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide the following: (FD) ■ Manual pulls, horns & strobes ■ Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection ■ 24-hour supervision y. For Fire Department approval, food preparation fire protection systems plans shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for.permits. (FD) z. New street or access road names must be approved by the Fire Department. Please refer to City Specification #409. (FD) aa. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and access easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent (southerly,.easterly, northerly, westerly) properties. The location and width of the reciprocal driveway easement and all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making all necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal easements/driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. (Code Requirement) bb. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. Customer and employee access to all adjacent properties and businesses shall be maintained and provided to the greatest extent possible during all construction phases. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. cc. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. dd. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of the first sign permit. The program shall include signs directing the general public to the public open space on the second level terrace. The signs shall also be located at the terrace level indicating that the terrace is for public open space purposes. ee. The applicant shall plan to identify a location within the city for the replacement of low and moderate income unit(s) displaced by the project. Said plan shall comply.with Section 33413.5 of the California Community Development Law. The displaced unit(s) must be replaced within four years of approval of this conditional use permit. The replacement unit(s) must remain available at an affordable housing cost of low and moderate income persons for the duration of the (02c11001) Attachment 1.25 redevelopment plan. The plan shall be approved prior to the first certificate of occupancy request for the project. ff. The applicant shall contact the property owner(s)of the residential units across Sixth Street from the entrance/exit to the subterranean parking structure to attempt to mitigate the car headlights impacting the residential units. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall work with the property owner(s) to develop a plan in conformance with the DTSP for landscaping and/or any other means to screen the lighting impacts of vehicles leaving the parking structure. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. In the event no plan is acceptable to the property owner(s), the applicant shall seek written confirmation from the property owner(s) and submit the letter to the Planning Department. gg. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: 1) Final elevation and site layout details on colors, materials, design, and architectural concepts upon Planning Commission action. In comparison to the conceptually approved architecture and layout of the site plan, floor plans, building elevations, colors and materials received and dated January 9, 2002, supplemental plans and information dated March 4, 2002, and onion skin drawings presented at the June 13, 2002 Design Review Board meeting. 2) A public art element shall be integrated and be in a publicly accessible place within the proposed project. Public art shall include art of: ■ Artistic excellence and innovation, ■ Appropriate to the design of the project, ■ Reflective of the community's cultural identity, (ecology, history, society). The public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Community Development Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final inspection. 3) The landscape and public improvement plans shall be reviewed for approval. The public improvements are required to be consistent with the Oceanview Promenade site. 4)' The subterranean parking structure shall be reviewed for crime prevention design and incorporation of the improvements identified in condition #6 k. 7. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Complete all improvements as shown on the Grading and Improvement plans. (PW) b. The applicant shall restripe the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department. (MM 3.9-1) c. The applicant shall develop an on-site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. (MM 3.9-6) (02c11001) Attachment 1.26 i d. The applicant shall provide a Landscape License Agreement for maintenance of all landscaping within the public rights-of-way. (PW) e. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) f. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) g. All agreements, CC&Rs, covenants and transfers shall be reviewed, executed and completed. (PW) h. Condominium plans in conformance.with the requirements of the Department of Real Estate and other appropriate agencies shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. All airspace and structures to be owned shall be delineated with bearings and distances for all ownerships described, and shall show relationships to property lines and adjacent ownerships and structures. (PW) i. If the applicant intends to have outdoor dining affecting the public right-of-way, Public Works Department will need to review a plan with the proposal. j. Existing street tree(s) to be inspected by the City of Huntington Beach, Park, Trees and Landscape Inspector during.removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof. Tree replacement or root/tree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system. (PW) k. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) I. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) m. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) n. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification 428. (FD) I o. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 415. (FD) p. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Dept. City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD) q. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification No. 429 for new'construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) (02c11001) Attachment 1.27 r. Security gates shall be designed to comply with City Specification #403. (FD) s. All project pool areas must have a KNOX access installed on the entry gates. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411. (FD) t. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification #424. (FD) u. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428. (FD) v. Exit signs and exit path markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Low level exit signs will be included. (FD) w. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) x. Solar or low-emission water heaters shall be installed in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-3) y. Built-in energy-efficient appliances shall be provided in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-4) z. Air conditioners installed in all new buildings within the project site shall be energy-efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-5) aa. Double-glass-paned windows shall be installed in new buildings within the redevelopment area to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-6) bb. Lighting installed in new buildings within the project site shall be energy-efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-7) cc. The new buildings within the project site shall exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2- 8) dd. The proposed project shall include flatwork design and structural BMPs to isolate contamination from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a trash separator, an oil and grease separator, and/or other filtration system as required to meet water quality standards. (MM 3.4-3) ee. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. (PL) ff. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. (02c11001) Attachment 1.28 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered.to: a. All applicable requirements of Condition of Approval No. 3A, i-xvi shall apply during this phase of activity. In addition the following shall apply: i. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) ii. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. iii. Use low sulfur (0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. iv. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. v. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) vi. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. vii. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. viii. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity.- ix. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) b. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) c. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (Fire Dept. City Specification 407) (FD) i d. On-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. i e. The property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Public Works Department. f. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. g. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within Caltran's right-of-way. h. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (02c11001) Attachment 1.29 i. Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC.CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until . the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for the coastal development permit. Because the project is located in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years (Tentative Tract Map No. 16406) of the date of final approval which is October 4, 2004 or such extension_of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 7. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s). shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. (02c11001) Attachment 1.30 10. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 11. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 12. Outdoor dinning is not permitted unless a conditional use permit for this specific use is reviewed and approved. 13. Any restaurant use (greater than 12 seats) shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 14. Any outdoor dining use shall require review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. All outdoor dining shall be located adjacent to the buildings and the restaurant uses they serve and shall be provided with a metal enclosure. 15. Any proposed alcohol sales shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 16. Any proposed live entertainment.shall require review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 17. Any proposed temporary outdoor events for 5th Street shall obtain all necessary City permits in compliance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. A street closure plan shall be submitted to the Department's of Police, Fire, Public Works and Planning for review and approval prior to the closure of 5th Street as part of any event that requires the temporary closure of the street. 18. During ongoing operations of the project, the applicant shall provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during peak summer season. (MM 3.9-5) 19. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 20. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 21. The Applicant shall use minimum light levels required for safety, and exterior lights shall be directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site. (MM 3.1-1) i i 22. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 23. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 24. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$123 per net new added daily trip. (PW) j (02c11001) Attachment 1.31 25. All parking along the frontage of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue may be required to be accommodated on-site to accommodate future street configurations as determined necessary by the Planning Director and Public Works Director. (PW) 26. The Mitigation Measures from Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR No. 96-2 shall apply and are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (02c11001) Attachment 1.32 _. ,� � , ��.- :� � :�,� � :� , as-,�� � �` ���� - � � = � � � rli-I CA 100Z OCT -2 P i CIM G R O U P October 2, 2002 Mayor Cook and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99- 45, Special Permit No. 02-06 and Coastal Development No. 99-16 Dear Mayor Cook and City Council: On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 the Planning Commission approved our application for development of the Strand in Downtown Huntington Beach by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention. While we are extremely pleased with the Commission's approval.of the project, there are two issues that create conditions that could undermine the success of The Strand, while providing little if any tangible public benefit. These two issues are listed .below. We therefore submit this letter and the attached filing foe to appeal conditions TTM 1 b, TTM_1f, CUP 1 a, CUP 1 b, CUP 1 c and CUP 1 g. We appreciate City Council's timely review of this appeal and look forward to a hearing on October 21, 2002. Service drive and 20' setback from the Worthy Property The setback from the Worthy property has been increased from 12' to 20' and additional upper story setbacks which average 25' on the second floor, 30' on the third floor and 35' on the fourth floor have been provided. However, the service drive and structural supports project to within 12' of the property line. Conditions approved by the Commission prohibit such encroachments into the 20' setback. The subject conditions include TTM 1 b, TTM 1 f, CUP 1 a, CUP 1 b and CUP 1 c. Prohibition of the encroachment of the service drive and structural support columns into the 20' setback would require that the service drive and access into the subterranean parking garage be shifted, which would result in the reduction of floor area and the possible redesign of the subterranean parking garage layout. 6922 Hollywood Blvd. Ninth Floor Hollywood,CA 90028 323/860-4900 main 323/860-4901 fax CIM 5th Street Outdoor Dining Area G R o u P The width of the sidewalks on 5th Street range from 21.5' to 22.5'. CUP condition 1g, as approved by the Commission, requires the width of the sidewalks adjacent to Buildings A, D, and E to be increased by 2.5 . The additional sidewalk width would result in the losg of valuable square footage and excessively wide sidewalks for the predominantly retail activity upon which our plan is based. We will present viable alternatives to ensure that there is adequate protection of the Helme Worthy historic buildings and sufficient outdoor dining space without the conditions recommended by staff and approved by the Commission, and we look forward to discussing these options with the City Council. Sincerely, John Given Sr. Vice President AT-TACHME- T 3 October 3 2002 Cry Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess (CARE) - 637 Frankfort Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk,Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway, The Community Group Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess(CARE) are filing an appeal of the recent Planning Commission approvals of the CIM- Strand development project on Block 104& 105 in downtown Huntington Beach. CARE believes that both the draft Environment Impact Report for the Strand(EIR No, 01-02) and the proposed CIM Strand project itself are Inadequate and inappropriate for the Site. We therefore Appeal both the EIR(No, 01-02)and project approval for the Strand, to the Huntington Beach City Community Redevelopment Agency. This includes the Tentative Tract Map No- 16406,Conditional Use Permit No-99-45 with Special Permit No- 02-06 and Coastal Development No- 99-16 all approved on Oct 1,2002 by the Planning Commission The reasons for our appeal are outlined in letters from our attorney,Mr. Jeffrey M. Oderman, (Rutan&Tucker)to Jane James, Senior Planner dated September 3, 2002 and June 16,2000. These letters attached. Sincerely, games A Lane HB CARES CO—Chair 637 Frankfort Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - ` A.W.RUYAN 11880.19731 IAr ES B.TUCKER.SR.11888•19501 JAMES A. LARRY A. R U TAN R CHARDPAUL DA.CURNUTT RANDALL M.BAOBBUSH'ON PATR CK D.MCCAILLA NATAL EKAREN ly BBALD OUNpAS SFTHRLS E.HAN505 vORTH JOHN B.HURLBU..JR MARY M.GREEN pCMARD K.HOWFII JONN W.MAMILTON,JR. _ AI EJANDRO S.ANCULO A.RAMIREZ.- ANTHONY L. H. CHNER CKER IOSONK HD URRUI{NICE IR' THO AS CRANE A.R08ERTDHFOUMOZ E„E CE1. AtIDEIA M. GAVGANE0. �AOCLUESFBRECMON RICHARD P.SIMS PE NELOPE PARMES S.DANIEL HARBISHOTTLE DENISE L.MESTER DAMON D.MIRCHEFF SAME 1.O'NEAL M.KATHERINE JENSON PAUL 1.SIEVERS W.ANDREW MOORE LONA LAYMON A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ROBERT C.BRAUN DUKE F WAHLOUIST JOSEPH L MACA,ill CHARLES A.DAVENPORT.III CATHERINE AI.OH THOMAS S SALINGE0.• RICNARp G.MONTEVIDEO KRAIG C.KILGER 0.1CHAR0 D.ARKO P000.NIMA IAYAPRACASX DAVID C_LARSEN' LORI S.ARNER SMITH KENT M.CLAYTON MARK M MALOVOS CLIFFORD E.FRIMEN ERN EST W.KLATTE.III STEVEN I GOON NIKKI NGUYEN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MICHAEL O.RUSIN KIM D THOMPSON DOUGLAS J.OENNINGTON SANDRAP THOMPSON IRA G RIVIN' JAYNE TAILOR RACER MARTIN W.TAYLOR IENMFER S.ANDERSON OF COUNSEL: 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR JEFFREY M.ODERMAN' DAVID 8 COSGROVE DAN SLATER IOHN T BRADLEY LEONARD A HAMPEL STAN WOLCOTT HANS VAN LIGTEN MARK J.PAYNE ALLISON LEMOINE;BUI EDWARD O.SYSESMA,Ill. COSTA.MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-7931 ROBERT E BOWER - STEPHEN A.ELLIS MARK BUDENSIEK KAREN L.KEATING SENATOR DICK ACKERMA.r MARCIA A'FORSTTH JEFFREY WERTHEIMER TREGA JULANDER TLAN NGUYEN DAVID] GARIBALDI.ill DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA ROBERT O OWEN TODD O.LITFIN LISA NICHOLAS NEAL WILLIAM I CAPLAN COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 JAMES L.MORRIS ADAM N.VOLKERT KERRA S.CARLSON MARK J.AUSTIN MICHAEL T.HORHAK JEFFREY A GOLDFARB CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER ROBERT H MARCERE.AU MARTIN FESSENMAIFR" TELEPHONE 714.641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 PHILIP D KOHN F.KEVIN BRAZIL JEFFREY T.MELCHING STEVEN W.HURT _ JOEL D KUPERBERG LAYNE H.AIELZER DAVID 1.ZOETEWEY NOAM I.DUZMAN 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com STEVENA NICHOLS L.SKI HARRISON MARLENE POSE JURGFNSEN MITCHMILSTEIN "PATENT AGENT Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan.com September 3, 2002 VIA FACSINIILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Jane James, Senior Planner City.pf Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105); Comments,on Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact.Report Dear Ms. James: On behalf of the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am submitting the following comments on the Draft EIR for the Strand project(the BBProj ect"). CARE welcomes this long-overdue EIR. CARE continues to believe, however, that an EIR that fully addresses the impacts of the Project should have been prepared and certified prior to the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 3483 on November 20, 2000, amending the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment, after all, was designed to accommodate' the Project now at hand by increasing the maximum permitted development cap within the City's Downtown Parking Master Plan area from 500,000 to 715,000 square feet. of commercial building area and by slashing the off-street parking requirements for new development in that area by approximately one-third, both changes that fit hand-in-glove with the Strand project. The City has wrongfully prejudged the Strand project by approving its enormous size, its uses, and its parking arrangements before the subject EIR was even prepared. i The validity of the City's 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment is currently pending before Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in CARE v. City of Huntington Beach, Appellate No. G030388. Since the validity of the City's action on the EIR for the Strand project hinges upon the outcome of the pending lawsuit, CARE believes it would be appropriate for the City to defer action on the EIR for the Strand project until after the appeal is decided. 112/019483-0001 316443.01 aO9/03/02 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTOINEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 2 If the City elects instead to move forward with certification of the EIR and consideration of the Strand project at this time, CARE requests that full written responses be provided to the following comments on the Draft EIR. CARE also requests that all of the documents and testimony that were submitted to the City and included in the Administrative Record of proceedings in the lawsuit involving the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment be incorporated into the record of proceedings concerning the subject Draft EIR and the Strand project. In general, CARE finds the EIR to be deficient in the following respects: it understates or fails to adequately address several significant environmental impacts of the Strand project; it fails to set forth adequate and enforceable mitigation measures to eliminate the significant environmental impacts of the Project or reduce them to a level of insignificance; and it fails to set forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts. CARE's specific comments on.the Draft EIR are as follows: 1. Pleas_a explain how the.determination was made that the Strand project complies. with the maximum floor area ratio provisions of the City's Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand project qualifies neither as a"full block" or"half block" development under the City's applicable land use regulations. The Project is far out of compliance with City codes even before any"special permits".are considered. (See in this regard 11.2 of my June 16, 2000, letter to you on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, another copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A.") 2. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project complies with applicable building height limits under the City's Municipal Code and Downtown Specific Plan. Once again, the Strand project does not qualify as a "full block" development under the City's codes, and the Project is far out of compliance with applicable building height limits even before considering whether"special permits"should be granted. (See¶ 1.3 of my June 16, 2000, letter.) 3. The adequacy of parking for the Strand project and nearby developments is not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR or any other documents incorporated by reference and summarized in accordance with applicable CEQA Guidelines. Virtually none of the comments or questions raised by CARE with regard to the 2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan update and Downtown Specific Plan amendment have been addressed in the Draft EIR. Instead, all the Draft EIR does is to gloss briefly over the Kaku Report. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-15 to 3.9-17.) All of CARE's previous comments on the parking issue, the Kaku Report, and the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment are incorporated herein, including ¶2 of my June 16, 2000, letter (attached) and the letters I submitted to the City that are included at pages 04065-04078 and I I V019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03102 ..UTAN &TUCKERS ATYORN EYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 3 04410-04497 of the Administrative Record in the pending lawsuit. Responses to each-of the comments and concerns raised in those earlier communications are requested. 4. The Draft EIR should address the adequacy of parking for existing businesses in the Downtown during the approximately 2-year construction period for the Strand project. The Draft EIR (at p. 2-6) deals vaguely with parking for construction workers but does not address the impact of the loss of almost 200 existing surface parking spaces within Blocks 104 and 105 during the lengthy construction period. 5. The Draft EIR fails to address how access to the existing businesses along Main Street and PCH will be maintained for service and delivery vehicles during the construction period. 6. The Draft EIR fails to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of ground shaking, excavation, and loss of lateral and subjacent support for the Worthy building in Block 105 and the existing buildings along Main Street and PCH within Block 104. The Draft ..EIR indicates (in Figures 2-6 and 2-7) that there will be 2-level vertical excavations right to the property line adjacent to existing businesses and that.pile-driving is expected throughout the Project site (see, e.g., p. ;x). The City/Agency will recall -that pile-driving activities at the municipal pier over a decade ago basically destroyed the building that was formerly located on the site of the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 104. While the existing buildings in this area have either been demolished and rebuilt or seismically reinforced since that time, it seems highly probable that substantial damage will be done by extensive excavation and pile- driving activities much closer to the existing structures. 7. .The Draft EIR understates the extent of the impact that a four-story hotel enveloping the much smaller historic Worthy Building will have on that significant cultural resource. The Draft EIR should acknowledge the significance of this impact and address a legitimate mitigation measure and/or project alternative that provides a compatible adjacent development. 8. The Draft EIR should acknowledge that loss of the 5ffi Street view corridor — caused by reducing it from the minimum 80 feet width required in the Downtown Specific Plan .to only 65 feet — is a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR should address a mitigation measure and/or project alternative that would maintain the current minimum view corridor. 9. A second-story "public" terrace within the hotel does not mitigate the loss of the public view corridor along 51 Street (see Draft EIR,pp. 3.1-7 and 3.1-9). As a practical matter, the general public does not have the opportunity to utilize a terrace that is part of a hotel and the loss of the existing view corridor would be significant. I I V019483-0001 '416"1.01 R09/03/02 RUTAN &TJCKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 4 10. The Draft EIR identifies a supposed "mitigation measure" of restricting delivery vehicles to vehicles the size of or smaller than a medium or small semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet. (Id, p. 3.9-18.) Is this "mitigation" measure imposed on the Strand project only or also on the existing businesses operating within Block 104? If the latter, it most certainly is not a mitigation measure. These businesses do not have the luxury of dictating to their suppliers what size of delivery vehicles they must use. The Draft EIR does not adequately address the impact on delivery/service vehicles for the existing businesses and what effect such a so-called "mitigation"measure would have upon those businesses. 11. The Draft EIR contains vague mitigation measures requiring the applicant to submit.a parking management plan for review and approval by the City Planning Department and tb provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities and during the peak summer season. (Id, at p. 3.9-18.) These mitigation measures contain no specificity or enforceable standards and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. 12. The Draft EIR fails to. address the potential blighting influences of overbuilding commercial square footage within the Downtown area. As I pointed out at page 3 of my September 5, 2001, letter on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR (included in Appendix A), there have been numerous business failures in the past few years and there are also a substantial number of business vacancies. The businesses in Downtown Huntington Beach are generally beach-related if not beach-dependent and are highly seasonal in nature. By greatly expanding the square footage devoted to retail and restaurant uses while requiring potential customers to rely upon higher- and higher-priced public parking in greatly restricted locations, the City and Redevelopment Agency will be placing much greater pressure on already marginal existing businesses. This subject should be thoroughly addressed. 13. The Draft EIR indicates that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to quitclaim a portion of the 5a' Street right-of-way to CIM. (Id, at 2-5.) CARE submits that this appears to be a proposed gift of public property(see, e.g., Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 150) and it was not addressed in the CIM Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") or in the mandatory financial disclosure report that accompanied the DDA (see Health and Safety Code § 33433).. Has a secret deal been made to provide even more financial benefits to CIM? 14. The Draft EIR fails to consider or address the accessibility of the subterranean parking, the adequacy of ingress to and egress from the structure, and the public's acceptance of subterranean parking in general. There is only one vehicular entrance and exit to the subterranean parking structure — on 6th Street. This is two blocks away from the existing businesses along Main Street. How will frustrated customers even find the parking? The City has noted for years that the subterranean parking at Pierside Pavilion is greatly underutilized. I 1121O19483-00O1 aTreai ni ano/nvm RUTAN &TUCKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 5 Has it occurred to the City that the reason is the public's lack of acceptance of subterranean parking? 15. The Draft EIR fails to address the Strand project's impact on the availability of convenient parking for nearby office tenants, including the three stories of offices (constructed at the Redevelopment Agency's insistence) in the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 104. Offices are particularly dependent upon the continuous availability of convenient and accessible parking. 16. In light of the inadequate parking that will be available within Blocks 104 and 105 at Project build-out, the Draft EIR should thoroughly analyze a mitigation measure that would allow existing businesses within Block 104 to reserve a minimum number of parking spaces at reasonable rates in the portion(s) of the structure closest to the existing businesses. and/or in the parking structure in the 200 block of Main Street. 17. The Draft EIR fails to identify:the numerous amendments to the City's General Plan (Coastal.Element) and Downtown Specific Plan that.would have to be approved in order to eliminate conflicts and violations in the areas of floor area ratio, height limits, the visual corridor along 5th Street, open space, and setback requirements.' 18. The traffic analysis accompanying the Draft EIR appears to include only a few of the related projects identified in the cumulative impacts section. (Compare Appendix G, pp. 6 and 24, with pp. 2-7 to 2-11.) 19. Policy C4.2.3 in the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan, dealing with preservation of public views, requires "strict application of local ordinances . . . including defined view corridors." (Emphasis added.) The Draft EIR should address a modified project that eliminates this clear violation. 20.. The air quality mitigation measures set forth at pp. 3.2-15 to 3.2-16 of the Draft EIR contain no performance.standards and are therefore-inadequate under CEQA. 21. The Cultural Resources Element of the City's General Plan "[e]ncourage[s] new development to be compatible with adjacent existing historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials, and general architectural treatment." There is no substantial evidence for the statement at p. 3.3-11 of the Draft EIR that the Strand project is compatible with this policy. How can a four-story, 55-foot tall Mediterranean-style building shoved up as close as 20 feet away from a two-story historic wooden structure such as the Worthy Building be considered compatible with any of those criteria? 22. The Draft EIR fails to provide the information needed to calculate the Strand project's compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan requirement (at § 4.5.10) that a minimum 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 RUTAN &TUCKER; ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3,2002 Page 6 of 10% of the net site area must be aside for a public open space amenity. (See Draft EIR,p. 3.5-21.) How can a hotel terrace qualify as either "public" or "open space" under the City's codes? 23. The Draft EIR states that construction noise impacts will be less than significant because the City exempts them from the requirements of the City's noise ordinance. (Id, at p. 3.6-11.) This is a gross non-sequitur. Pile-driving and other loud construction activities occurring on the site will have a significant adverse impact on adjacent businesses (including the upper-floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade Building) and residences. 24. The proposed noise mitigation measures do not address and may even increase noise impacts on the upper-floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade building. 25. The cumulative air quality impact analysis in the Draft EIR does not identify the other projects that were considered. (Id,p. 3.2-14.) 26. The cumulative traffic impact analysis section. of the Draft EIR is inadequate since it considers only four"committed"projects instead of all of.the reasonably anticipated and related future projects. (See,Draft EIR,pp. 3.9-2 and 2.9-7.) 27. It is inappropriate for the Draft EIR to refuse to consider significant traffic and parking impacts occurring during the summer and on weekends simply because the City doesn't want to invest in additional infrastructure. (See p. 3.9-6.) The Draft EIR should instead acknowledge that the impacts are significant and unmitigated and address the failure or refusal to fully mitigate impacts as part the "overriding considerations" analysis if indeed the City believes it is not feasible to mitigate the impacts. 28. The Draft EIR incorrectly assumes (at p. 3.9-16) that private off-street parking is available for shared public use.. An accurate inventory of true"public" spaces is needed. 29. .There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 that "the Project is considered fully parked." Even assuming for the sake of argument that the reduced parking requirements of the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment were used, the Kaku study acknowledged a 245-parking deficiency in Area 1 of the Downtown Parking Master Plan area (the first 3 blocks inland from PCH along either side of Main Street, including Block A). (See p. 04406 of the Administrative Record in the above-referenced litigation.) 30. There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 of the Draft EIR that "the proposed project will replace the 150 spaces lost [in Block A] on a one-for-one basis . . . ." In the first place, the City's own parking inventory prepare as part of the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment identified significantly more than 150 existing parking spaces in Block A. In addition, the City staff itself acknowledged the CIM project generates a 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 BUTAN &TUCKERS AT TORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 7 parking requirement somewhere between 834 and 878 spaces (see pp. 04324 and 04557 from the Administrative Record in the pending litigation). With less than half of the Strand project's own parking needs accommodated on-site before the loss of the existing on-site parking is considered, it is grossly deceptive to state that existing parking is being replaced on a one-for-one basis. 31. The Draft EIR seems to indicate that the Strand project maximizes its square footage relative to available parking in Downtown Huntington Beach. (Id, at p. 3.9-17.) The Draft EIR does not address the constraints that approval of the Strand project apparently would place on the rights of other property owners in the Downtown, particularly existing property owners within Block A, to redevelop their properties. 32. The Draft EIR's refusal to acknowledge a substantial number of significant environmental impacts - dealing with violation of City development standards, impacts on cultural resources (i.e., the Worthy building), scale and massing, inadequate parking, inadequate open space, loss of the 5`h Street view corridor, and height and setback violations, to name a few —results in a truncated discussion of mitigation measure&and alternatives that could avoid those impacts. 33. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's assertion (at pp. 4-6 to 4-7) that there is no alternative site for a project similar to the Strand project that would enable the City to realize the basic project objectives. The property at the corner of PCH and lst Street is also available for additional commercial, retail, and restaurant development. There are several existing and planned hotels already located in and immediately adjacent to Downtown Huntington Beach, including without limitation the Waterfront Hilton,the Hyatt Regency Resort currently under construction, and hotels that CARE understands are planned.for the property at the comer of PCH and 1st Street. CARE requests that the record of proceedings on this EIR include the City files on those other projects. Without the Strand project there are approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial development existing and approved for the"core"Downtown Huntington Beach area. The Draft EIR does not explain how the additional square footage in the precise location identified is necessary and cannot be compromised in order to achieve project objectives. 34. There is no substantial evidence to justify the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project/ Reasonably Foreseeable Use" alternative. (See p. 4-7.) The Draft EIR should consider a development scenario in accordance with the existing City development standards. The Draft EIR improperly states that such a development would not "substantially lessen environmental impacts" compared to the Strand project by simply misstating (or not stating) what those development standards are. It is not a justification for the Draft EIR to state that "the City Redevelopment Agency owns the property and has entered into an agreement with CIM to develop the site . . . ." Indeed, this smacks of precisely the sort of prejudgment and pre- commitment to the CIM development in the absence of environmental review that CARE has IIV019483-000I 316443.01 a09/03/02 RUT &TAN UCKER ATTOAM EYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 8 been complaining about for the past three years. It is also no excuse to state that"the City has no other existing plans for the redevelopment of the project site," as stated in the Draft EIR. The purpose of the alternatives section of an EIR is that the City must develop and consider reasonable alternative uses. There also is no substantial evidence to support the EIR's claim (at p. 4-7) that the City "has received no proposals" for development other than the CIM project. In fact, the City itself approved a much smaller scale development for Blocks 104 and 105 in 1992-1995 and that development project did not proceed only because of the developer's lack of financing and the real estate recession at the time. At a minimum, the City should consider that previously approved plan or a plan substantially similar to it as one of the reasonable alternatives to the grossly overbuilt CIM project. In this regard, CARE respectfully requests that the City and Redevelopment Agency's entire file relating to the previously approved Coultrup project be included in the record of these proceedings to show what a true reasonable alternative to the CIM project would be. Finally, there .is no substantial evidence.to.support the vague claim _in the Draft 'EIR (at p. 4-7) that the."no project".alternative is infeasible because of unnamed "social and political. constraints." What does this mean? At a minimum, further explanation of this statement is warranted. 35. There is already substantial retail, restaurant, and office. development within the "core" area of Downtown Huntington Beach. If the City's basic Project objective is to locate a hotel in the "core" Downtown Area, a reasonable alternative to the Strand project would be to downsize the Project by limiting the additional development to a hotel and leaving enough surface area for parking to reduce the huge financial burden of subterranean excavation and parking. 36. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project/No.Development" alternative on the basis that the existing property and parking lots within Blocks 104 .and 105 would deteriorate and "little active maintenance would be undertaken." (Id. at pp. 4-7 to 4-8.) As the Draft EIR notes, the Redevelopment Agency, an arm of the City, owns the Project site. The Redevelopment Agency cannot use its own failure to maintain its property in decent condition — the requirement the City/Agency would impose on any private owner—as a justification for massive over-development of the property. 37. The "Reduced/Revised Project" alternative in the Draft EIR is a complete sham. In fact, this alternative is not "reduced" at all — it adds a three-story above-ground parking structure in Block 104 (with an undefined amount of building square footage) and deletes only one small building (Building C)with only 7,715 of gross building area as now proposed by CIM — only about 3% of the total of 226,245 square feet of commercial buildings in the CIM 1121019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 f RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 9 development. (Compare pp. 4-10 and Figure 2-5.) The Draft EIR correctly notes that this so- called "Reduced"project alternative actually generates "identical" land use impacts to the Strand project itself. (Id. at p. 4-12.) The Draft EIR is inadequate unless and until it considers a true legitimate alternative development consistent with existing development standards (including the parking requirements and maximum building square footage included within the City's own 1995 Downtown Specific Plan amendment). 38. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of the Reduced/Revised Project" alternative on the basis it "would not meet the Applicant's objective of providing a financially viable commercial project." (Id, at p. 4-11.) Moreover,.the DDA the Redevelopment Agency previously approved called for the City and Redevelopment Agency to contribute well over $30,000,000 of public revenues to the development over a period of 25 years — how is the financial feasibility of the project being evaluated when enormous public funds already are being contributed to make it work? Finally, the economics of the DDA approved in 1999 are no longer valid since CANT is no longer being required to incur the expense of acquiring properties along Main Street and PCH within Block 104 (which are now excluded from the Project site). What is the amount of the City and Redevelopment Agency subsidy to the development at this time? Have the City/Agency and CIM taken into consideration that development of the Project will be required to comply with California's prevailing wage laws (i.e., SB 975)? 39. The "Alternative Mix of Uses" also fails to provide a reasonable alternative to the Strand project since the only physical changes are adjustments to upper-story setbacks on Building G. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-13 to 4-14.) Once again, the alternative addresses almost none of the significant environmental impacts of the Project. A true downsized alternative should be considered. 40. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's purported justification for rejecting the "Alternative Mix of Uses" on the basis it would not achieve the "basic project objectives of adding a hotel to the Downtown core area." As previously noted, the Waterfront Hilton exists within the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Hyatt Regency Resort is under construction, CARE understands that there are at least two planned hotel developments for the vacant property at 151 Street and PCH, and other hotels exist immediately to the north of the proposed Project site along PCH. SO 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 RUT AN &,TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 10 CARE submits that in light of the serious inadequacies of the Draft EIR a new revised Draft EIR should be prepared and circulated for public review and comment. At a minimum, the new revised Draft EIR should acknowledge the significant environmental impacts of the Strand project which are dismissed as insignificant in the current document, adequate and enforceable mitigation measure should be identified and imposed for the Project, and a proper range of reasonable alternatives to the Project (including a development similar to the previously approved Coultrup plan and at least one other alternative development consistent with the 1995 Downtown Specific Plan) should be considered. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUT &TUCKER,LLP J f M. Oderman JMO:ctm Enclosure cc: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney 1 12/0 1 94 83-000 1 316443.01 a09/03/02 Am A.W.RUTAN II66B.19711 B.TUCKER.SR IIBE•195DI ES R.ADC)RE. MICHAEL T. TREG A. RUTAN RICHARD CURNUT[ OEIU KUa EERGK HN ROBERT NOVO KFRiER KARAS CAIISONR RICHAtOD ARSO aJ LEONARD A.HAMPEL STEVEN A.NICHOLS I[FFREY A.GOLDFARB ERIC L.DUNN MARK M.MALOVOS 1.KEVIN BRAZIL F PARKER MATTHEW L.NILSON FORD OW &TUCKER J �OaO E1.WALLACI FR.. IRA,SNID LL M.GREEN DBUSNS L.SKI HARRISON N `^RED`C YNU SI S P.FREY T.AR EMELCWR([NSFN IEFF ENCT BRAAN ERSON IOSEPH D-CARRUTH GREGG AMBER CAROL D.CARTY APRIL LEE WALTER ALISON L.ROSSMAH RICHARD P.SIMS MICHAEL F.SITZER PATRICK D.MZCALLA KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER ALLISON LEMOINE•BUI A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W FAMES B.O'NFAL THOMAS I•CRANE RICHARD K.HOWELL NATALIE SIBIALO DUNOAS BILL M.IHRKE ROBERT C.8RAUN MARK B.fRAZ1[R TAMES S.WEISZ. ALISON M.BARIAROSM KAREN L MARTINEZ THOMAS S.SALINGIR- PENELOPE PARMES OAVID H.HOCHNER IOHN W,HAMILTON,IR. CHY1 G.CHEN DAVID C.LARSFN• M.KATHERINE I[NSON A.►ATRK:X MUI+OZ IOMN A. "MIREZ T.LAN NGUYEN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CLIFFORD E.FRIEOFN OUKF F.WAMLOUIST S.oANIEL MARBoTT U14"LE LYNN LOSCMIN LISA V NICHOLAS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR MICHAEL o.RUBIN RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO PAUL I.SIEVERS PHILIP 1.BtANCHARD GEORGEA GALLEGOS -ItA G,RIVIN- LORI SARN[R SMITH IOSEPN L MAGA,III TERENCE 1.GALLAGNER COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 IEFFREY M.ODERMAN• IRNEST W KLATTE.III KRAIG C.KILGER ROBERT E.KING OF COUNSEL: STAN WOLCOTT' ELIZABETH L.MARIYN MICHAEL K.SLATTERY DEN M.MEMING—T EDWARp O.SYI[SMA.IR.• DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 - ROBERTS BOWER RIM D.TMOMPSON D[BRA pVNN ST[El IUUE K.WHANG DAVID I GAMBAL DI,III COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 DAVID 1.ALESHIRE IAYNE TAYLOR RACER DAN SLATER DENISE L.MISTER MARCIA A FORSYTH DAVID 8.COSGROVE LENT M.c"'TON W.ANDREW MOORE -A PROFESSIONAL TELEPHONE714.641-S100 FACSIMILE714.546.9035 WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA HANS VAN LIGTEN MARKBUDENSLEK ALISON I.TSAO CORPORATION TAMES L.MORRIS STEPHEN A[LLIS STEVEN 1.GOON CNARL[S A.DAVENPORT,III INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com WILLIAM 1.CAPLAN MATTHEW X.ROSS DOUGLAS 1.OFNNINGTON DANIEL L.GEBFAT Direct Dial: (714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan.com June 16, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Jane James, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) Dear Ms. James: On behalf of Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") and the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am writing to provide you with our views as to the scope and content of the environmental impact information which should be included in the above- referenced EIR. My clients welcome the City's decision to prepare a full EIR for this project. We agree with the City's conclusion that the proposed project will result in significant environmental impacts necessitating the preparation of an EIR. We do continue to believe, however, that the City and Redevelopment Agency already have violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by approving the Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") and Cooperation Agreement with CIN4 and thereby contractually committing the City and Agency to the project before the environmental review process has even commenced. If the City is truly committed to an open-minded consideration of the significant environmental impacts of the CIM project and mitigation measures and feasible alternatives that could reduce or eliminate those impacts, we believe the City and Agency should rescind their approvals of the DDA and Cooperation Agreement before the EIR process proceeds any further. Without prejudice to my clients' existing legal claims regarding the CEQA violations that have already occurred, I would like to make the following additional comments at this time. EXHIBIT 112/014820-0001 99198.01 a06/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 2 1. The Initial Study states that the project, as proposed is compatible with the existing general plan designation and zoning requirements for the project site with the possible exception of the need for special permits to encroach into minimum ground floor and upper story setbacks. We believe that this statement is incorrect in at least three respects, which we believe should be addressed in the EIR: 1.1 The proposed project violates City off-street parking requirements. At the time the DDA and Cooperation Agreement were approved last year, CIM proposed to provide approximately 400 on-site parking spaces (380 subterranean spaces and 20 surface spaces) as compared to a minimum parking requirement pursuant to City standards of approximately 800 spaces (a 400-space deficiency), not even considering the approximately 123 existing on-site surface parking spaces that the Agency is contractually obligated to maintain for the benefit of ADC's Oceanview Promenade development that would be eliminated (resulting in a total parking deficiency of 533 spaces). Since then, the parking deficiency appears to have increased even further due to an increase in the size and scope of the project (by our calculation, resulting in an increase of 16 required parking spaces, or 816 total) and a reduction of 54 spaces to be provided (including a reduction from 380.to 331 subterranean spaces and a reduction from 20 to 15 surface spaces).. Thus, the parking deficiency has mushroomed to.a total of 470 spaces for CIM's proposed uses and 593 spaces if the existing on-site spaces that are to be eliminated are included in the count. This extreme violation of the City's Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance should be addressed in the EIR. 1.2 The proposed CIM project also violates the maximum floor area ratio or "FAR" requirement in the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The CIM project does not qualify as either a "full block" development or a "half block" development within the meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan since it is neither "bounded on all sides by public streets"nor "bounded on all sides by public streets and/or alleys containing at lease one-half(1/2) the net area of the full block." Accordingly, the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the CIM project is 2.0. (Downtown Specific Plan at Section 4.5.03(a).) While the square footage of total building area of the revised CIM project (including the structured parking) is not disclosed on the face of the Notice of Preparation, it.clearly is well over the maximum 2.0 FAR permitted by Code. This discrepancy should be fully addressed in the EIR. 1.3 The CIM project would also exceed the maximum height limit permitted under the City's land use regulations. Section 4.5.04 of the Downtown Specific Plan prescribes a maximum building height in District No. 3 (which encompasses Blocks 104 and 105) of"three stories/35 feet" for projects "less than full block" in size. Our understanding is that the project exceeds this height limit. This discrepancy should be fully addressed in the EIR. 2. The EIR should address the following issues relating to traffic and parking: 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT 89198.01a06/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER; A T T O■N[T f AT LAW Jane James June 16,2000 Page 3 2.1 The EIR must address the massive parking deficiency referred to in paragraph 1.1 above. 2.2 Our understanding is that the Project will also necessitate the elimination of a certain number of existing on-street parking spaces along Fifth and Sixth Streets. If so, the impacts of this loss of parking will need to be addressed. 2.3 Our understanding is that at some point in time an additional travel lane or lanes are proposed along PCH through Downtown Huntington Beach which will eliminate even more existing on-street parking. If so, this needs to be addressed as a cumulative impact of the Prc j ect. 2.4 Office developments need convenient and accessible parking for tenants and clients. The Oceanview Promenade building within Block 104 has substantial upper-floor office space and the revised project description proposes additional office uses within the 2-block area. What accommodation will.be made to satisfy this need? 2.5. The revised CIM project description includes a 20,000 square foot market. Markets also require designated nearby parking for customers. How will this be provided? How will designated parking for the market impact upon the pool of available of parking for the balance of the project and the Oceanview Promenade uses? Is adequate area being set aside for shopping cart storage within the portion of the parking structure that is proposed to be used by .the market? Does this further reduce the number of available parking spaces? 2.6 The City's documents contain conflicting and sometimes ambiguous statements regarding the distances that people will walk from parking spaces to their destination in the Downtown. The proposal to construct this project with grossly inadequate on-site parking is obviously premised upon an assumption that people will park "wherever" and walk long distances to their destination. This assumption should be tested empirically and addressed in full in the EIR. 2.7 Many people resist parking in a parking structure if they can find on-street of surface parking instead. In addition, since the project plan proposes only a single point of access into and out of the parking structure along the least commercialized Sixth Street frontage as much as two blocks away from many of the uses within the Project site, it can be anticipated that many people driving to the project will drive around in circles before they ultimately find the entrance to the parking structure. Traffic studies for most projects assume a perfect efficiency of traffic movements (i.e., only one traffic movement approaching the project site). The traffic and parking study for this project should carefully examine the lack of efficiency created by the undesirable and difficult-to-locate parking, which inevitably will add further congestion to the nearby streets. 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT. A 89198.01 a06/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT L A W Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 4 2.8 Our understanding is that the on-site parking structure will be operated by the City and that it will charge for parking. What will the parking fees be? Depending on the level of the fees, people will be incentivized to park on the street, further adding to traffic congestion Downtown, as people drive around looking for an available space, and further impacts on otherwise available parking. This issue should be addressed in the EIR. 2.9 In addition to the previous comments, the parking study should address the adequacy of the single ingress/egress point for the parking structure on Sixth Street from the standpoint of adequacy of emergency access and problems of congestion (and air pollution) as people back up trying to get into or out of the structure. 2.10 The EIR should re-examine the assumption in the Downtown Parking Masfer Plan regarding the total demand and supply of parking, including the assumptions regarding the amount of development in each land use category within the Downtown area. 2.11 The parking and traffic studies should address the unique situation with a major commercial development. immediately across the street from the Pacific Ocean, the Municipal'Pier, and one of the most popular beaches in Southern California. Typical weekday moming/aftemoon peak hour commute analyses are not nearly as relevant to this situation. The City's EIR consultants should closely examine traffic and parking needs in the Downtown based on existing and anticipated future Summer, weekend, and holiday peaks. Business in Downtown Huntington Beach is highly seasonal, and it is critically important that a major new project not be designed in such a fashion that tourists and casual beach-goers will be unable to conveniently access the Downtown businesses during the few times of the year when business is normally brisk. 2.12 We understand that the EIR will address traffic and parking problems during the construction, and we would urge that this issue be carefully considered. With subterranean parking, de-watering, and the sort of mid-rise construction that is proposed, it is safe to.assume that on-site parking will be entirely lost for a period of at least two years. Where will businesses such as the business as Oceanview Promenade obtain parking during that lengthy period? 2.13 The latest plan we saw for loading/unloading for the businesses within Block 104 was entirely inadequate. Basically, trucks would have to park in the middle of "parking court," block access, and then back out onto Fifth Street to exit the site. This presents obvious circulation and public safety concerns. The EIR should fully address this issue, including alternatives to enable trucks to pull all the way through this loading area back on to Fifth Street or out to Walnut. A designated loading dock that does not block access for other vehicles needs to be provided. It is totally impractical to expect that deliveries will be made in 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT- A. 89198.01 206/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER I ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 5 smaller van-size vehicles. Oceanview Promenade's businesses, for one, cannot accommodate this sort of wishful thinking. These issues should be fully addressed in the EIR. 2.14 There are a number of existing vacancies and under-utilized properties in the Downtown area. For purposes of the traffic and parking impact analyses, it should be assumed that at some point in the near future those properties will be fully utilized and their additional impacts on the parking and traffic problems in the Downtown should be taken into account'in the EIR analyses. 2.15 As potential mitigation measures to address parking deficiencies, the EIR should consider (i) the impact of requiring all employees and hotel guests within the new project to park off-site, perhaps in the City-owned parking structure on the east side of the 200 Block of Mairi'Street, and (2)reserving an adequate number of on-site parking spaces for Oceanview Promenade and any other existing properties/business (i.e., Bagstad) that will remain within Block 104). 3. We understand the EIR,will address the significant impacts that the proposed Project would have onvloss of ocean views, massing, etc. This is a significant concern for ADC, since it will further impair its ability to lease upper-floor office. space in the Oceanview Promenade building, adding to its existing problems which are related primarily to the lack of convenient, accessible, and designated parking). 4. The EIR should address alternatives and mitigation measures that will eliminate these significant impacts. One alternative that should be considered is a project that meets all of the applicable City code requirements (including FAR, height, and off-street parking), without adversely impacting ADC's existing parking rights. A lower intensity project such as the one that was proposed by the Coultrup Companies and approved by the City and Redevelopment Agency in 1993 should..be addressed. In addition, since the Redevelopment Agency does not have the power of eminent domain to acquire the residentially-occupied property owned by the Bagstads within Block 104, one .alternative project that should be considered would be a reduced-scope project that does not encroach onto the Bagstad property, and perhaps a project that is confined entirely to Block 105. 11 2/0 1 4 8 20-000 1 EXHIBIT 89198.01 a06/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS ATIORN EYS At LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 6 Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP J f y M. derman JMO:ctm cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT A 89198.01 a06116100 � � , . � � . . ��\���\�dad<��.1��«»ems«?_®.��. : a y. - > . . . . . �: . w.s«®. : . . . . � � mur>�: �� a�z . � . . . := � � v a.. « � � . . � : «62wat�» <� . �=/f2 � ~��~^� � ` � � w . ? ,�:. � : < � . ^ .< »z . � « �. z .-! w a9\b � < %�5� . �w�a�a. . «. : . � � � . : . -� �« r�f a �Z �Sw « , \� : �. . , � � .: . «w- . a. : : ® x a ® , } R ys \�# . - : � . . � «2/ dm< 6� � � �m� . � . � . � ��§���\�\\. . . : s: «©./��f �� �:Z ., � , \f¥ a - m < © v.�». � - » .:,y �_ � � ` � 2 / �~ �) ��z � . § \ !��y . . _ . . . . . . . � ~�� ^� %»`» � � ,» 2 �/J� �/ ���� ���� \ . � . . 2>�y . . . _< _ �: � - . . . . �� � .>. . . . . y y y.» y��p �?���a FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Introduction And Background This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations required for the approval of the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) project,as defined in the Draft EIR. As required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) EIR was distributed on August 16, 2001 to responsible and trustee agencies as well as private organizations and individuals that may have an interest in the project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the Lead Agency planned to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the EIR. The NOP included a brief description of the project and identified those areas where the project could have potentially significant effects, as well as those areas where the project would have no effect. It also identified alternatives that were dismissed from further consideration. The NOP and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. On July 19,2002,the City of Huntington Beach issued a Draft EIR for public review for a period, of 45 days ending on September 3,2000. A Notice of Availability was issued which announced the release of the Draft EIR, identified where it was available for review, described the project, and its location, and summarized the significant environmental effects. The notice stated where documents referenced in the EIR are available for review,and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City of Huntington Beach distributed the Draft EIR to interested individuals, agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and businesses. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the Huntington Beach Central Library. The City received nine (9) letters commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The Draft EIR included a detailed description of the Proposed Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects,and an analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: ■ No Project/No Development Alternative; ■ Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only); The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks,substituting residential units for hotel rooms). The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects,and significant and unavoidable impacts. In September 2002, the City of Huntington Beach released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the text of the Draft EIR and includes responses to the nine letters commenting on the Draft EIR,and corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. 2. Project Objectives And Description The Project has the following primary objectives(see Draft EIR,p.2-3): Applicant ■ Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. ■ Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. City of Huntington Beach ■ To add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. ■ To improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area. ■ To enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. ■ To contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping,dining,and entertainment. ■ To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. ■ To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. ■ The proposed project consists of the hotel and commercial redevelopment of 2.97 acres of the 6.31-acre property Block 104/105 site located in the downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach,California,which is currently occupied by retail,commercial,office,and residential uses. Seven buildings ranging in height from two to four stories and containing a total of 226,245 gross square feet (gsf) are proposed as mixed-use vertical, visitor-serving development. The 2 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project site currently contains small surface parking lots, vacant lots, and a one-story commercial structure occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza. The Papa Joes's Pizza structure would be removed to allow the proposed construction of Block 105. In addition, and to accommodate development of the project on both blocks 104 and 105, a 54-foot-wide easement for pedestrian and vehicular traffic between PCH and Walnut Avenue along Fifth Street would be provided in lieu of the existing 80-foot-wide right-of-way. Parking would be provided in a two-level subterranean parking garage located below the entire project site,and six spaces of surface level parking would be provided on Block 105, for a total of 403 parking spaces at the site. The proposed project would require the following approvals by the City of Huntington Beach: ■ Condition Use Permit for new construction within Downtown Specific Plan District Three; ■ Special Permits for encroachment into the minimum ground floor and upper-story setbacks, exceeding maximum building height, and reduction of the Fifth Street View corridor; ■ Coastal Development Permit for development within the City's designated Coastal Zone, and ■ Tentative Tract map to consolidate properties into one lot for condominium purposes. The findings(Section 4 of this document)describe the effects of the project as defined above. 3. Record Of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Huntington Beach's decision on the project consists of the following documents: ■ The Initial Study/NOP prepared for the project; ■ Other public notices in conjunction with the project; ■ The Draft EIR; ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; ■ The Final EIR for the project; ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; ■ All findings and resolutions adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project,and all documents cited or referred to therein; ■ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Huntington Beach's consultants, or Responsible or Trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Huntington Beach action on the project; The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 3 i Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ All documents submitted to the City of Huntington Beach by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; ■ Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all information sessions,public meetings,and public hearings held by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project; ■ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City of Huntington Beach at such workshops,public meeting,and public hearings;and ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Huntington Beach, including, but not limited to federal,State,and local laws and regulations. The custodian of the documents is the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4. Findings Required Under CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code(PRC)§21081,subd. [a]); ■ Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC §21081, subd. (b));and ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report(PRC§21081,subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal.Rptr.4101.). 4 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433,442,445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency,after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 and §15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta 11,52 Cal.3d 553, 576(276 Cal. Rptr.4011.) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines§15091.). 5. Legal Effects Of Findings To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,superseded or withdrawn,the City of Huntington Beach, in the adopting the findings,commits to implementing these measures. In other words,these findings are not merely informational,but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City of Huntington Beach approves the project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be affected through the process of constructing and implementing the project. 6. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) has been prepared for the project,as required by PRC Section 21081.6. The City of Huntington Beach will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City of Huntington Beach will consider the The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 5 41MIMOHMENT --}� S� Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations MMRP during its certification of the Final EIR. The final MMRP will incorporate, under separate cover,all mitigation measures adopted for the project. 7. Significant Effects, Mitigation Measures, And Findings Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels are listed below. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements,standards,and codes,as well as mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Air Quality Impact Impact 3.2-1: Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions on a daily basis. (Final EIR,p.3.2-10) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to air quality would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of developing and implementing a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes recommended or equivalently i effective measures approved by the SCAQMD regarding construction parking, traffic, and equipment, as well as implementing all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD which are applicable to the development of the project (such as Rule 402-Nuisance and Rule 403-Fugitive Dust)and which are in effect at the time of development. I 6 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cultural Resources Impact Impact 3.3-1: The proposed project could result in the destruction of paleontological resources. (Final EIR,p. 3.3-15) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of monitoring during grading/construction by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological or paleontological deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Impact Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project could result in the destruction of archeological resources. (Final EIR,p.3.3-15) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of monitoring during grading/construction by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological or paleontological deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Impact Impact 3.3-3:Potential Historical Degradation of El Don Liquors(Final EIR,p.3.3-16) The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 7 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of incorporating the design features of the adjacent Ocean View Promenade and El Don Liquors structures into the architectural and scale design concept for proposed Building C. Impact Impact 3.3-4: Potential Historical Degradation of the Helme-Worthy Property (Final EIR,p. 3.3- 16) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of incorporation of a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy property and proposed Buildings D/G and F/G, a 15-foot upper- level setback for the third and fourth floors, and creation of a walkway connecting Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street as a buffer zone around the historic National Register property's southern and western borders. Geology and Hydrology Impact Impact 3.4-6: People and structures on the project site could be exposed to seismic hazards associated with ground shaking and fault rupture. (Final EIR,p.3.4-22) 8 City of Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT NO. 710.S_-- Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to geology and hydrology would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing the grading plan for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the recommendations or equivalently effective measures included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105 regarding site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill,plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. Impact Impact 3.4-7: Project development would locate structures on potentially expansive soils, unstable soils,soils subject to settlement,or corrosive soils. (Final EIR,p.3.4-23) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to geology and hydrology would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing the grading plan for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the recommendations or equivalently effective measures included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105 regarding site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill,plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 9 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pubic Services and Utilities Impact Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project would cause police protection service levels to drop. (Final EIR,p. 3.8-22) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of consulting the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures and incorporating the Department's recommendations into the plan. Transportation and Circulation Impact Impact 3.9-1: The General Plan Build Out with Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. (Final EIR,p. 3.9-12) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection as j approved by the City Public Works Department. I 10 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact Impact 3.9-2:The General Plan Build Out without Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. (Final EIR,p. 3.9-13) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection as approved by the City Public Works Department. Impact Impact 3.9-3: The proposed project could affect access to and internal circulation on the project site. (Final EIR,p.3.9-14) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of demonstrating the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation Aesthetics Impact Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. (Final EIR,p.3.1-14) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part.I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to aesthetics would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of using minimum light levels required for safety, exterior lights being directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site, and using non-reflective facade treatments,such as matte paint or glass coatings. Impact Cumulative Increases in Light and Glare (Final EIR,p.3.1-16) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the cumulative impact to aesthetics would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of using minimum light levels required for safety, exterior lights being directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site, and . using non-reflective facade treatments;such as matte paint or glass coatings. 12 City of Huntington Beach �7l`i Ar CHRME T N.O. _AZ- i Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Air Quality Impact Impact 3.2-2: The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could exceed established thresholds. (Final EIR,p.3.2-10) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the above impact to air quality would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of installation of solar or low-emission water heaters,provision of built-in energy-efficient appliances, installation of energy-efficient air conditioners with automated controls,installation of double-glass-paned windows,installation of energy-efficient lighting with automated controls,.exceedence of Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least five percent,and use of light-colored roof materials. Noise Impact Cumulative Increase in Roadway Noise(Final EIR,p.3.6-13) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the cumulative impact to noise would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing_best management practices that include,but are not limited to, limiting construction hours to.between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, muffling or controlling construction equipment, locating noise generating equipment as far away as possible from existing residences,turning off equipment when not in use,not allowing equipment to run idle near existing residences,notifying neighbors within 200 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 13 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations feet of major construction areas in writing prior to construction, and designating a "disturbance coordinator" who is responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. 8. Feasibility Of Project Alternatives. Because the project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City of Huntington Beach must consider the, feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed project. The City of Huntington Beach must evaluate whether one or more of more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also PRC § 21002.). In preparing and adopting findings, a Lead Agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both Mitigation Measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. When a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of Mitigation Measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council [1978]83 Cal.App.3d 692,730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 6301; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California [1988] 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 4261.). Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City of Huntington Beach considers only those environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. Chapter 4 of the Final EIR examined three alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2: Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only);and 14 City of Huntington Beach � 16.4 EE T NO. 1� 1�f Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. Additionally, the proposed project would develop visitor- serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area, which has been targeted for redevelopment as a destination location. Portions of the downtown core have already been established, and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the project, with the exception of a hotel, which would help further establish the area. The project site is also located near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. C. Economic Development Element Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Obiective ED 2.6: Expand and enhance the existing visitor-serving uses. Policy ED 2.6.1: Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Policy ED 2.6.2: Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City,thereby creating identifiable visitor-oriented centers. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -12- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) i Obiective ED 3.1: Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policy ED 3.1.1: Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses. Policy ED 3.2.1: Create commercial-recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Policy ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retaiVoffice/residential) structures on the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Policy ED 3.2.3: Attract visitor-serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor-supporting retail uses. The proposed project consists of a multiple parcel two-block consolidation for developing a range of visitor-serving and other commercial uses that would complement existing development in the Downtown area. The project will develop a hotel and additional, visitor-serving commercial uses in the downtown core, which would establish the downtown as a place to stay as well as to shop, eat, and draw visitors to support existing and proposed commercial uses. The proposed project would redevelop underutilized commercial property on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, creating a strong visitor-serving presence near the waterfront. Zoning Compliance.- This project is located in Downtown Specific Plan — District 3 (Visitor-Serving Commercial), Coastal Zone and complies with the requirements of that zone except for the special permits requested. The following is a zoning conformance matrix that compares the proposed project with the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN—4.2 - GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION :ISSUE RE VIRED PROVIDED 4.1.01 Approvals Required Conditional Use Permit; Design Submitted Review Board, etc. (a) Conform to Design Check list and Design Review Submitted Guidelines Board review (b) Appearance to Enhance Check list and Design Review Submitted Development Board review (c) Architectural Features/ Check list and Design Review Submitted Compliment Colors Board review (d) Incorporate Signs into Check list and Design Review Submitted Development Board review (e) Eliminate Alley-like Check list and Design Review Submitted Appearances Board review PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -13- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN—4.2 - GENERAL PROVISIONS Cont. SECTION .'ISSUE RE UIRED .:...::...:PROVIDED..:.::: , 4.2.04 Additional Max. Building Height Roof Line Treatment, 45 ft. + 10 ft. =55 ft. 53 ft. (hotel) and 70 ft. Chimneys, Mechanical = (tower)* +10 ft. 4.2.06 Setback Front Yard) a No Structure into ROW None proposed Complies Parkin Lots/Structures 10 ft. front setback NA (c) Min. Front Setback Subterranean Parking Planning/Public Works Director Review Depth 5 ft. Com lies 4.2.07 Ext. Side Yard Setback Parking Lots 10 ft. NA 4.2.10 Min. Building Separation 10 ft. Complies 4.2.13 Parking per DTPMP On-site as feasible (a) Balance within walking Complies Screening 32 in. high landscape NA 4.2.15 Landscaping All setbacks Conditioned for landscape/ decorative hardscape (a) All open space Conditioned for landscape/ decorative hadscape (b) Automatic irrigation Conditioned (c) One 36"box each 2,500 sq. ft. Conditioned (d) Landscape/Irrigation Plan prior Conditioned to building 4.2.16 Street Vacations (a) Analyze circulation patterns Complies (b) Developer relocate utilities Conditioned c Re lace any lost public parkingCom lies (fl • View corridor= 5`h Street *65 ft. ROW=80 ft. • 10 ft. wide pedestrian easement parallel to vacated street 4.2.17 Access Ways Dedicate 24 ft. wide alleys Complies (a) No new access from PCH Complies (b) All access free &clear—no Conditioned Trash, utilities or storage PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -14- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN—4.2- GENERAL PROVISIONS Cont. SECTION ISSUE RE. UIRED `PROVIDED 4.2.18 Lighting Light driveways, parking, Conditioned Pedestrian 4.2.21 Signs a Uniform location of addresses Conditioned 4.2.22 Refuse Collection Enclosed with masonry Complies 4.2.24 Antennas Comply with ZSO Complies 4.2.25 Utility Lines Underground Conditioned 4.2.26 Bus Turnouts Dedicate turnout per OCTA NA *Special Permits DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN—DISTRICT 3 —VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL SECTION ISSUE RE UIRED : PROVIDEI) 4.5.01 (a) Permitted Uses Retail Complies (b) Restaurants Complies c) Ground floor—Main/PCH=VSC Complies (d) VSC of entire street or 1/3 total Complies sq. ft. (e) Residential only if> 1 block NA (f) Commercial before residential NA (g) Residential if>'/2 sq. ft. =VSC NA with public open space& pedestrian 4.5.02 Min. Parcel Size 2,500 sq. ft. net 103,935 (2.39 acres) Min. Frontage 25 ft. 360 ft. 4.5.03 Max. Density/Intensity (a) (1/2 block to full block Max. (259,837.5 sq. ft.) 226,245 sq. ft. FAR- 2.5 4.5.04 Max. Building Height 4 stories/45 ft. 4 stories/49 ft., 6 in.; and full block or> 70 ft. tower * 4.5.05 Max. Site Coverage No max. required NA 4.5.06 Min. Setback front PCH 15 ft. 0 ft.* Walnut 15 ft. 5 ft.* ROW Dedication PCH 5 ft. 5 ft. 6ch Street 2 ft., 6.in. 2 ft., 6 in. 4.5.07 Min. Setback Side Yard (a) 6th Street 15 ft. exterior 6 ft., 6 in.* b) PCH 0 ft. interior 0 ft. 4.5.08 Min. Setback rear 3 ft. NA PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -15- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) i DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN—DISTRICT 3—VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL Cont. SECTION: ISSUE REQUIRED PROVIDED ROW Dedication-Alley Min. 24 ft. alley 4 ft. 6 in. dedication—24 ft. 4.5.09 Min. Setback(upper story — above 2nd floor) (a) PCH, 15 ft. min. for max. 50% PCH-9 ft., 0 in.* 6t"Street frontage; average 25 ft. from 6th Street- complies ROW 5th Street 10 ft. from lst story fa ade NA 4.5.10 Min. Open Space 10% net site= 10,393.5 s . ft. 10, 552 s . ft. *Special Permits Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines, Chapter 5, Downtown/Main Street Commercial. The applicant has completed the Urban Design Checklist for the proposed project and indicates compliance with the Guidelines (Attachment No. 9). The proposed two- block mixed-use development will enhance the downtown as a focal point, emphasize design elements and viewshed of the shoreline and pier. The design will establish pedestrian-oriented, attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional site arrangement of buildings and parking areas that provide high quality architecture and design. The proposed design and architecture therefore provides proper access, visibility and identity envisioned for the downtown. The proposed site planning and architectural design provides a continuation of the massing of newly constructed development with consistent setbacks and a Mediterranean architectural style encouraged in the City's Design Guidelines. In addition, the proposed architectural style and design incorporate consistent building form and mass envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan "Village Concept" and the use of high quality building materials and colors to complement newly developed parcels in the downtown. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, Coastal Development No. 99-16, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 be certified as adequate and complete with mitigation measures, findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -16- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to AestheticsNisual Quality, Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the formal documentation required by CEQA to implement and monitor compliance with all mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program establishes which City departments are responsible for ensuring completion and compliance with all adopted mitigation measures Following approval of the tentative tract map; conditional use permit with special permits, and coastal development permit, the Planning Commission must approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 10), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(Attachment No. 11). Coastal Status: The proposed project is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. The proposed project complies with the zoning code (with exception to the requested special permits) and Coastal Zone requirements, and will implement the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan: • Protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide visitor-serving facilities in the Coastal Zone that are varied in type and price. • Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas. • Ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the Coastal Zone. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Main-Pier sub-area. The Economic Development Department has reviewed the request and supports the proposed development because the project will further implement the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project sub-area by: • Providing additional visitor-serving commercial opportunities in the downtown; • Providing additional overnight opportunities; • Providing additional dining opportunities for both visitors and residents of the community at large; • Enhancing local revenues through the generation of sales tax, property tax increment and transient occupancy taxes that will benefit the community at large. In addition, the project will expand the pedestrian orientation of the downtown area beyond the Main Street core and will provide modern commercial space meeting the locational and design criteria of name tenants. The potential attraction of these tenants will broaden the scope and variety of goods and services available within the area. The project will eliminate the blighting influence of substandard, deteriorated structures, and complete the redevelopment in the 104 and 105 blocks. The developer has entered into a PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -17- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Disposition and Development Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach for the development of the site. Design Review Board: The proposed project was submitted to the Design Review Board on four occasions (March 14, 2002, April 11, 2002, May 9, 2002, and June 13, 2002). The Board reviewed the colors, materials, design, and preliminary plans for the two-block mixed-use project. The Board was informed of the special permit requests for the encroachment into the ground floor build to line, the reduction of the upper story setbacks, the building and tower height, and the reduction of the 5ch Street view corridor. The Board expressed several overall concerns during their review of the project. In summary, the Board expressed concerns regarding the architecture and compliance with the Mediterranean design theme of downtown, compliance with the Design Guidelines for the Downtown, the upper story setbacks, the clear distinction between floors, the pedestrian scale and improvements, and the 5`h Street pedestrian scene. Since the applicant only presented concept plans and overlay drawings to give the Board a sense of the proposed design and architectural theme for the project, the Board expressed an interest in-reviewing the final design details. The Design Review Board on June 13, 2002, recommended conceptual approval of the project with the following condition of approval: • The site plan, floor plans, building elevations, colors and materials received and dated January 9, 2002, supplemental plans and information dated March 4, 2002, and onion skin drawings presented at the June 13, 2002 Design Review Board (DRB) meeting shall reflect the conceptually approved architecture and layout. However, the proposed project shall return to DRB with final details on colors, materials, design, and architectural concepts upon Planning Commission action. Subdivision Committee: Not Applicable Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Economic Development, Building and Safety, and Police have recommended conditions that are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police Department has expressed concern regarding properly lighting the subterranean parking structure, the placement of the parking structure attendant booth, properly lighting the waiting areas for the hotel and public elevators between buildings D and E, and the northbound queue area for the valet service on 5th Street. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on September 12, 2002, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of September 19, 2000, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -18- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Apylication Processinz Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): EIR: September 3, 2002 9/3/03 (1 year after application deemed complete) Tentative Tract Map: September 3, 2002 11/13/02 (Within 50 days from EIR Certification) CUP/CDP: September 3, 2002 3/24/03 (Within 180 days from EIR Certification) ANALYSIS: As discussed below, there are numerous issues for analysis in this unique mixed-use redevelopment project. The Strand has been studied with regards to land use compatibility, parking, public improvements, and analysis of special permit requests. The following is an analysis of the primary issues of the proposed project. Land Use Compatibility: Site Planning A total of six buildings are proposed for the two-block project. Buildings A, B, and C are located along the east side of Fifth Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway on Block 104. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants along the ground floors, and office uses above the first floor. A pedestrian bridge at level two between Buildings A and B is an option the applicant is proposing to include in the design of the buildings. Development on this block excludes the Main St. properties, Ocean View Promenade and the El Don Liquor store. Buildings are proposed at two (B & C) and three stories (A) situated primarily along the 5th Street frontage. In reviewing the site plan, the proposed buildings are designed in a manner to take advantage of 5th Street and the public alleys. The 5th Street frontage can accommodate both retail and restaurant uses by providing buildings situated in a manner that are adjacent to the street and provide a continuous pedestrian activity consistent with the Design Guidelines and the pedestrian overlay designation of the General Plan. This pattern of development is compatible with the urban nature of the downtown. The buildings located adjacent the alley are proposed at a zero setback. Because of the one lot configuration, and the definition of yards, no rear yard setback is required. However, staff is recommending the buildings comply with the rear yard setback of three feet and the allowance of the upper levels to be cantilevered to zero. This recommendation is consistent with the DTSP setback requirement and provides the buildings adequate area to permit exit doors and protection from delivery vehicles and activities. Buildings D, E, F, and G cover the entire Block 105 with the exception of the Helme-Worthy historical property at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue. Uses in these buildings will consist of retail and restaurants on the ground floor and with a 152-room hotel occupying the second, third, and fourth levels. Access to the hotel is provided from hotel elevators at 5th Street to a second level hotel lobby and courtyard. A public terrace is provided on the 2"d level adjacent to but not a part of the hotel. In reviewing the site plan, the proposed ground floor retail component of the buildings are designed in a manner to take advantage of PCH, 5th Street, 6th Street, and Walnut Ave. All the buildings are proposed in PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -19- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) close proximity to the street in a manner to accommodate both retail and restaurant uses and provide a continuous pedestrian activity consistent with the recommendations of Design Guidelines and the pedestrian overlay of the General Plan. The hotel is situated above the ground floor and is designed to take advantage of the views of the beach, Pier and ocean. The proposed private easements will serve as alleys and provide delivery access to the retail/restaurant buildings as well as the hotel. The proposed pattern of development and site planning is compatible with the urban nature of the downtown. Mediterranean Architecture The applicant is proposing a "contemporary" Mediterranean architecture. The Huntington Beach Downtown Design Guidelines describe contemporary Mediterranean architecture as.a mixture of many influences — images from the coastal portions of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece combined with elements of contemporary Mexico and Southern Californian architecture. The proposed project has been designed as a melding of styles appropriate to the character of downtown. The architecture proposes to create the impression of multiple developments that have grown together over time, in the manner of a Mediterranean village and consistent with the concept envisioned by the DTSP. The result is an architecture that provides a project of expressive massing, forms, colors and materials consistent with the Mediterranean theme. The massing of the project is scaled to the surrounding development (see Helme-Worthy below), and follows the recommendations of the Downtown Design Guidelines to break building masses into the appearance of multiple buildings in a village-like appearance. Facades are varied in articulation, color, and height and the use of upper story setbacks and recesses to make the buildings less imposing and more human-scaled. A variety of roof heights and forms are used to achieve the varying roofline of a village. The creation of a courtyard opening off Fifth Street adds another Mediterranean village feature promoted in the Guidelines The Guidelines recommend incorporating characteristic Mediterranean form such as deep structured overhangs, arches, deeply recessed windows,balconies and terraces. The project features a grand entrance as its principal hotel entry on Fifth Street and uses recessed windows throughout the project to create a play of light and shadow on all facades. .Also, the proposed balconies and activity terraces enliven the appearance of the buildings as seen from its surroundings and provide views of the ocean and the downtown. At the street level, proposed awnings offer shade and create an arcade-like sense for the pedestrian along the building frontages. The proposed colors and materials are consistent with the Guidelines. The surfaces of the buildings are light-colored stucco with accent areas of wood in reference to traditional beachfront architecture. The deep overhangs at the tops of the buildings with their heavy beamed supports recall classical Mediterranean motifs. The street level proposes shop windows of multi-paned glass with painted metalwork as recommended in the Guidelines. Staff and the Design Review Board are in support of the proposed architectural concept but are recommending that final design concepts return to the DRB for final review and approval. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -20- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Helme-Worthy Property The Helme-Worthy historical site is located at the southeast corner of Sixth and Walnut on block 105. The development on 105 is proposed on the east and south sides of the historical site. The proposed ground level development at the eastern boundary consists of a 15 ft. wide one-way easement and a 2.5 ft. setback to building D for the 1" and 2nd level. The total ground floor setback is 17.5 ft. The existing alley shall be vacated and 7.5 ft. of alley area will become part of the Helme-Worthy property. The 7.5 ft will provide additional separation from the proposed development and is recommended to be a landscaped planter. Because of the delivery access and potential noise impacts it is important to provide a physical separation from the development. Staff recommends an 8 ft. wall be constructed at a 3 ft. setback from the easement line within the landscaped planter on the Helme-Worthy site. The landscaped planter will provide additional defined separation and the wall will be setback from the easement consistent with other structures adjacent to alleys. In addition, staff is recommending that building D be setback a minimum of 3 ft. from its current setback of 2.5 ft. to provide the necessary setback from an alley/easement. The staff recommendations will provide a total separation from the Worthy site of approximately 23 ft. The applicant through a license and maintenance agreement shall maintain the 3 ft. landscape setback on the historical site. Finally, the height and bulk of Building D above the 2°d level along this eastern edge provides a 30-foot upper-story setback consistent with the mitigation measures of the EIR. Staff believes the modifications and the recommendations will provide the necessary separation and transition from the Helme-Worthy site. D` 6 �3 c�c �i y^ �► .8� .bE __ dPbal 7o BEsn✓ ��' ny l � PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -21- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) The development adjacent the southerly property line proposes a 12 ft. setback from the 18 ft. one-way service drive easement from 6`t' Street. The 2nd 3Td and 4th levels of the hotel are atop the service drive along this portion of the project. The service drive along this edge is primarily open and serves to support three levels of the hotel above. As is noted in the EIR, the proposed mitigation measures recommend that this edge be redesigned to provide the separation and necessary transition from the historical site. The mitigation measures recommend a minimum ground level setback of 20 ft. for the 1" and 2nd levels. The measure further requires an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback for the 3Td and 4th levels. The implementation of this mitigation measure will provide the necessary separation, transition, and a compatible design from the historical site. This is consistent with the previously approved Coultrup plan. Par- 'Hum— q I 'Hum—`3 j� htra-W&W Ave `J�O � 8s�e+rre� Avp6n 8eyo�rC ,f�TiY By9P! K`*M4rAP6 B+trIAr Staff recommends the 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with turf and trees and an 8 ft. high wall is proposed along the southerly property line to address noise. The noise concern can further be mitigated by the partial enclosure of the service drive. Staff believes it is important to enclose the service drive(except for the reciprocal driveway easement) adjacent to the historical site to mitigate the possible noise impacts. The enclosed wall shall be of a compatible material and provide a trellis with vine landscape treatment to soften the visual appearance. The suggested conditions of approval and the mitigation measures are included to address the separation,building design, and noise impacts. Staff and the applicant have met with the adjacent Helme-Worthy property owners to discuss several of the above-mentioned issues. In addition, staff discussed access to their property, trash pick-up, and utility relocation. Currently the owners take access from a driveway along Sixth Street. Staff is recommending a reciprocal access driveway be provided at a point along the service drive and eliminate the Sixth Street driveway. This will require the applicant to design a 20 ft. wide reciprocal driveway along the 20 ft. landscaped setback and provide an opening in the service enclosure. This will require the one-way traffic design to be re-designed to provide two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal driveway. In addition, the applicant is proposing to provide a dedicated trash enclosure on their site for the property owners and to relocate utilities as necessary. The recommended reciprocal access drive, dedicated trash, and utility relocations are suggested conditions of approval. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -22- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Design of 5Ih Street In reviewing the design of 5`h Street, staff believes it is important to provide the necessary width for the anticipated activities that will occur. The design of 5`h Street provides a cross section, which includes a 24 ft. wide roadway and sidewalks on both sides ranging in width from 21.5 ft. to 22.5 ft. The two-way traffic design of the roadway is adequate to provide access and circulation for the project but the concern of staff is the sidewalk widths. WALNUT AVENUE -.. . ... ... .... ...... ........... .. .•--.... .. .......... ...... PROPERTY UNE PROPERTY UNE !L SETRAOC UNE ULTIMATE PROPS ......... t x 1,05 BUILbwr,s .. RNOT PART I .—o �" `A PY�RT'•ti' .......... 5 130 )ROPERTY UNE ri -�EXIS gum Saw 1 r----__ I ti . C J : EMSTG.PARKRIG: BLDG,f r B�M E y 1 : NOT A PART : ; I �yJ E-XIS11NG B L--t_J —Z —J 1 W I SS+iS:•k:-.. NOT A I .......----- EXISTING BLDG.' NOT A PART =J.......P PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY The proposed sidewalk widths include a 5 ft. landscape/street furniture zone, a minimum 10 ft. pedestrian path, and a setback of 6.5 ft. to 7.5 ft. to the buildings for potential outdoor dining space. Staff has explored the possibility of requiring select buildings along 5`h St. to provide an additional setback of 2.5 ft. to increase the sidewalk width. The addition of 2.5 ft. will allow a minimum of 10 ft. for increased outdoor dining space, which historically is in demand in the downtown. The added width will also provide public open space credit for the project.. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -23- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) The applicant has stated their goal is to provide quality retail uses in some of the buildings fronting 5th Street and the proposed sidewalk width is sufficient for all proposed activities. The applicant notes the increased sidewalk space will reduce the proposed buildings leaseable space. Staff shares the applicants concerns, however, the history of downtown indicates that a demand for increased sidewalk space will eventually occur. To address this, staff believes it is important to design the street section to accommodate potential outdoor dining, carts and kiosks, and the display and sale of retail merchandise. Staff is recommending that buildings A, D & E provide an additional 2.5 ft. setback, which shall be measured from the 65 ft. easement. By implementing this recommendation, staff believes that it is important to keep the overall architectural integrity of the buildings. Staff recommends that the upper levels maintain their proposed offsets and upper story setbacks. The buildings upper level terraces or setbacks should not be reduced by the provision of the additional ground level setback. The applicant is also proposing to close 5th Street to vehicular traffic to host special events. The applicant does not know the full extent of the special events at this time but will be required to obtain all permits necessary to conduct such events. The planning for such occasions is another reason to carefully design the street section to adequately provide the space for such temporary outdoor events. Staff supports the proposal to design 5th Street to restrict vehicular traffic. Staff is including a suggested condition of approval to require a 5th Street closure plan be submitted to Public Works, Planning and the Police Department for review and approval. Open Space The DTSP requires .all projects in this district to provide a minimum of 10% of the net site area in public open space. The project proposes to meet the public open space requirement in the following manner: Open Space Summary Location Area(s.f.) Corner of Sixth St. &PCH at Bldg. F 1,107 Walnut Avenue North 625 At elevators/stairs lobby 916 Walnut Avenue South 554 Plaza and passage 4,051 NE corner of Bldg. C 116 j Subtotal: Ground level 7,369 Level 2 (terrace) 3,183 Total Open Space 10,552 Net site area 103,935 Required open space (10%) 10,394 The public open space may include plazas, view areas accessible to the general public, and open-air commercial activities on the street level. In analyzing the proposed public open space, staff has encouraged the applicant to demonstrate locations that provide quality and functional public open space. Public open space is proposed in several areas within the two-block project area as noted in the table above. The project meets the minimum open space requirements but staff is concerned over the quality of some of the proposed areas. The two areas that staff believes provide the quality and functionality is the plaza area between buildings A &B and the 2nd level terrace along 5th Street. Staff believes both areas are PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -24- (02sr41 CUP 9945) configured in such a manner that can accommodate public seating, open air commercial activities and in the case of the terrace new and improved coastal views. To ensure the coastal views, the public terrace on the 2►,d level is provided with clear and dedicated access for the public from 5th Street via stairs and elevators. The design allows the public to access the terrace without the need to enter the hotel. The terrace is envisioned to have public seating areas for the enjoyment of the coastal views and the urban atmosphere. The terrace is not a part of the hotel or a restaurant therefore no private commercial use is anticipated. As noted above, staff is recommending additional setbacks for the buildings on 5th Street for the provision of additional sidewalk width and public open space. Staff supports the public open space plan with the recommended conditions of approval. Parking: Compliance with Downtown Parking Master Plan The proposed project is providing parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The proposed project requires 403 spaces and provides a total of 411 spaces in a combination of a 405 space two level subterranean public parking structure and six on-site parking spaces (plus two loading) located behind the buildings on block 105. 1n addition a total of 24 on-street parking spaces will remain on Main St., 6th St. and Walnut Ave. When analyzing any development in the downtown subject to the DPMP, staff utilizes the land use and parking analysis prepared for each block for compliance and consistency with the total buildout and parking figures assumed in the DPMP. The proposed project is located in a two-block area referenced in the DPMP and the Kaku and Associates Report as Block A. The following table compares the proposed project's land use and parking figures with the Block A analysis: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN (LAND USE COMPARISON) PROPOSED U$ES PROPOSED 94 FT BLOCK A DPMP Retail 32,568 89,860 sq. ft. - 57,292 Restaurants 40,000 44,210 sq. ft. -4,210 Offices 33,621 6,430 sq. ft. + 27,191 Total Commercial 106,189 140,500 sq. ft. - 34,311 Hotel 120,347 152 Rooms 103,110 sq. ft.* + 17,237 Total Project 226,536 sq. ft. 243,610 sq. ft. 17,074 *The original project concept proposed 149 rooms. As can be seen by the above table, the overall building size has been reduced in comparison to the DPMP and the Block A analysis. However, the mix of uses has also been altered. The DPMP permits the City to shift square footage between one or more individual land use categories as long as the total square footage does not exceed the 715,000 sq. ft. anticipated in the DPMP. In this instance, staff believes the shift between retail and office can be accommodated and is offset by the different parking demands identified for office and retail in the DPMP. In addition, the net reduction between the proposed retail/office space of the project and the anticipated retail/office space identified in Block A is 30,101 sq. ft. This overall reduction between these two land use categories is a further indication that the proposed parking demand PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -25- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) can be accommodated by the provision of the 411 parking spaces. The one land use category where this . cannot occur is the hotel. There is no offsetting category to permit the increase of 17,237 sq. ft. of hotel square footage from the original Block A land use assumption. It should be noted that the adopted square footage figures in the Block A land use analysis were based on 149 rooms not the gross square footage of the hotel. However, to offset the increase, staff is recommending the hotel room count be reduced to a maximum 149 and the square footage be reduced in compliance with the land use figures of Block A. Staff believes that some of the hotel building square footage can be reduced with the staff recommendations for the additional upper story setbacks at the 3rd and 4th levels of the hotel. However, additional hotel square footage would have to be eliminated through an alternative design to comply with the DPMP. As an alternative to the total reduction of hotel square footage, the applicant may pursue the provision of additional parking spaces in the parking structure and the expansion of the valet parking program. Staff recommends the applicant submit a revised hotel plan and square footage analysis in conjunction with the provision of additional parking and the expansion of the valet parking program to demonstrate compliance with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The Planning Director, Public Works Director and the Transportation Manager must approve the plan prior to issuance of building permits. The shifts in retail, office, and hotel square footage and the changes to the land use tables will be documented as part of the City's annual review of the DPMP. Main-Pier Phase II Parking Obligations As discussed earlier in the background section of this report, parking for the two-block project area has been a major consideration -for all phases of proposed development. The Abdelmuti/Oceanview Promenade building was approved in 1992 with a 132 space parking variance. The project provided two parking spaces on-site. In approving the variance, the City placed two conditions on the project: 1) to provide a parking plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council, and 2) to designate or construct the required parking for the project within 350 ft. of the project site and permit occupancy as the parking spaces become available. The City approved two parking plans: Temporary Plan Permanent Plan On Street 32 On Street 25 Terry Buick 75 Terry Buick 50 Vacant Lot(214 5th) 13 Block 105 57 Lot @ 5th&PCH 12 Totals 132 Totals 132 The temporary parking plan was to be implemented until such time as the Coultrup project was approved and constructed. The permanent plan was to be implemented through the Coultrup project and the implementation of the parking strategy(Downtown Parking Master Plan). The Coultrup project was never constructed and the parking for the Abdelmut/Oceanview Promenade continued to be provided through the PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -26- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) temporary plan. Again, as noted earlier, the Coultrup project included a 406 space parking variance (includes the 132 spaces of Phase A). The project was conditioned to provide parking consistent with a future parking strategy, which ultimately became the adopted 1995 Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The DPMP analyzed both projects under the shared parking concept and required a total of 75 commercial parking spaces for both phases of the Main-Pier Phase U projects. The residential development of block 105 was required to provide 100% of its parking on-site. The most recently adopted DPMP again analyzed all development potential for the Main-Pier Phase H or Block A development. The Block A land use analysis included the Oceanview Promenade, the Main Street properties, The Strand, and all other potential development in the two-block area. The DPMP and the Block A land use analysis requires a total of 417 total spaces at buildout. This total includes both on- street and off-street parking spaces within the two-block area of the project. As noted above, the proposed project provides 411 on-site parking spaces along with 24 on-street existing spaces, for a total of 435 parking spaces. The proposed project complies with the Block A land use and parking analysis and therefore complies with all parking requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan's DPMP. The provision of the required parking in compliance with the DPMP addresses the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency's parking obligations for the Ocean View Promenade development pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 18 of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-35. Valet Parking In an attempt to provide efficient use of the parking structure and provide the hotel and prospective restaurant tenants with quick and easy parking the applicant is proposing a valet parking plan. The proposal is to have two turnouts on 5th Street with valet attendants to service both north and southbound traffic. In addition, the turnouts also provide public pick-up and drop-off as necessary. The valet will take either PCH or Walnut to Sixth and enter the parking structure. The plan calls for either the use of the first or second level for the valet system with the ability to stack cars to maximize the number of cars using the valet system. The valet plan could accommodate 40-55 stacked cars on level one or 50-65 on level two (lower level). The parking level not used for valet will be accessible for the general public. The uncertainty of.which level is to be used is due primarily to the fact that the mix of uses hasn't been identified. However, staff believes the general public parking should be easily accessible and available and therefore recommends the valet system utilize the lower or 2nd level of the parking structure. This recommendation has been added as a suggested condition of approval. One concern that has been raised by both Public Works and Police is the northbound queue turnout for the valet system. The concern is, depending on the success of the system; the number of cars that may queue on Fifth Street and impact through traffic and possibly PCH. To address this, staff recommends the applicant submit a revised valet plan prior to the issuance of building permits for review and approval. The plan must be approved prior to the first certificate of occupancy request. The review may require the modification to the turnout or propose an alternative to address the concerns to the satisfaction of the City. Staff believes the valet system provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the number of cars that can be parked in the parking structure, and provides quick and easy access to the uses within the project site. The suggested condition of approval will ensure no impacts will occur as a result of implementation of the valet parking plan. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -27- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Compact parking The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 24 (5..9%) spaces to be compact in size. Under the parking standards of the HBZSO, a compact parking space is 8 ft. x 17 ft. The ZSO permits non-residential development to have a maximum of 20 % of the total spaces to be compact subject to CUP review and approval. In reviewing the request, staff analyzed the distribution and circulation pattern of the proposed parking structure. Staff believes the proposed circulation pattern has been improved by strategically locating the compact spaces to efficiently layout the parking. In addition, by dispersing the location of the compact parking spaces on both levels, the layout complies with the code requirement that compact parking must be distributed throughout the parking structure. Staff supports the use of 24 spaces or 5.9% of the total required parking because the overall pattern and distribution are effective and the circulation pattern is efficient and maximizes the capacity of the parking structure. Option by City to provide additional parking An option stipulated in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant is the possible provision of additional parking in the subterranean parking structure. The option is currently one of several alternatives staff is exploring for the City Council as a potential use of the In-Lieu Parking Fees. Staff believes it is important to explore this option before the project commences the excavation of the site for the parking structure. This will permit the applicant and the City to determine the additional costs and total number of spaces that could be provided. Staff is recommending the option be explored with the City Council and has conditioned the project to have the City Council make this determination prior to the issuance of grading permits. If the City decides not to pursue this option, staff will continue to analyze other alternatives for use of the in-lieu parking fees. Special Permits: The applicant is requesting approval of six special permits (Attachment No. 8). Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows the Planning Commission to grant special permits for deviations from the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. Special permits may be approved when the Planning Commission determines that significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met. In addition, the Planning Commission must determine that the project and related special permits will also: 1. Promote better living environments; and 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; and 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and 4. Be consistent with objective of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment; and i PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -28- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) 5. Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act; and 6. Comply with State and Federal law. Special Permit No. 1 is a request to encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Pacific Coast Highway. The required setback is 15 ft and the applicant is proposing to setback the building facades fronting PCH at a zero foot setback. This is a consistent special permit request granted for the Oceanview Promenade building. The PCH frontage does not lend itself to greater setbacks due to traffic, associated noise and the elements (wind). The placement of the building facades at a zero setback provides both the pedestrian and the traveling motorist an opportunity to view the proposed retailers and restaurants. The sidewalk width along this frontage is 15 ft. 8 in. and provides the necessary width for the pedestrian who may walk between Main St. and Sixth Street, both of which are signalized intersections. The need to comply with or increase the required setbacks is typically recommended when outdoor activities are appropriate. Staff supports the requested special permit because the reduced setback is consistent with the recently constructed buildings fronting PCH and provides the necessary sidewalk width for the pedestrian. Special Permit No. 2 is a request to encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Sixth Street. The required setback is 15 ft. and the applicant is proposing to setback the building facades at six feet six inches. The sidewalk width along this frontage will be 21 ft. 9 in. up to the parking structure entrance and then narrows adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site. In reviewing this request, staff analyzed the need for a wider sidewalk at this Sixth Street edge and the potential activity along this frontage. Staff believes the proposed setback is appropriate because Sixth Street is a signalized intersection and will provide the necessary width for pedestrian activity at this intersection. The placement of the buildings closer to the street provides the pedestrian interaction with the retail buildings. The need to comply with or increase the required setbacks is typically recommended when outdoor activities are appropriate. In this instance staff does not believe the increased setback is required or necessary because the edge does not lend itself to these activities due to the potential impacts of traffic,noise, and the elements (wind). Staff supports the requested special permit because the reduced setback is appropriate and provides the necessary sidewalk width for the pedestrian. Special Permit No. 3 is a request to encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Walnut Avenue. The required setback is 15 ft. and the applicant is proposing to setback the building facades at five feet. The proposed sidewalk width along the Walnut Ave. frontage is 15 ft. 2 in. from the alley on block 104 to the service drive of block 105 and then narrows adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site. In reviewing this request, staff analyzed the need for a wider sidewalk along the Walnut Ave. edge and the potential activity along this frontage. Staff believes the proposed setback is appropriate because Walnut Ave. is envisioned as primarily a retail frontage. By providing the buildings closer to the setback it provides pedestrian level interaction with the retail buildings. The need to comply with or increase the required setbacks is typically recommended when outdoor activities are appropriate. In this instance staff does not believe the increased setback is required or necessary because the edge does not lend itself to these activities. Staff supports the requested special permit because the reduced setback is appropriate and provides the necessary sidewalk width for the pedestrian. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -29- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Special Permit No. 4 is a request to encroach into the minimum upper story setback along Pacific Coast Highway. The required upper story setback is a minimum of 15 ft. with an average of 25 ft. and the applicant is proposing a minimum setback of nine feet with an average of 11 ft. 4 in. The 3Td and 4th floors are identical in their request for the special permits based on the hotel design. It is important to remember that the majority of new buildings in downtown have received some relief from the strict application of the upper story setback requirements. In reviewing the request, staff acknowledges the hotel design and the potential for the views. The basis for the upper story setback requirement is to provide a break in the building facade from the first two stories to the 3rd and 4ch stories above and eliminate a shear wall design. Staff supports the reduced upper story setbacks because the applicant provides a distinctive break between the lower floors and the upper floors by the use of setbacks (9 ft./average 11 ft. 4 in.), a variety of roofline treatments and quality colors and materials providing an interesting and articulating facade. Special Permit No. 5 is a request to exceed the maximum building height with the hotel at 49 ft. 6 in. in lieu.of 45 ft. and the architectural tower feature at 70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft. Staff has provided a breakdown of downtown buildings that have received special permits to exceed the maximum building height. As is demonstrated, the building height for most of the existing buildings exceeds the proposed project's special permit for height. The following is provided: A) Plaza Almeria - 54 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 64 feet to the peak of the highest tower B) Second Block Parking Structure - 35 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 60 feet to the peak of the highest towers C) Pierside Pavilion - 71 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 84.5 feet to the top of the tower D) Oceanview Promenade (Abdelmuti Project) - 67 feet to the peak of the fourth floor - 85 feet to the top of the clock tower In analyzing the request, the propose project provides a variety of roofline treatments, and elevations ranging in height from 41 ft. 8 in. (Bldg. B) to 49 ft. 6 in. (Bldg G/Hotel). The proposed rooflines provide an interesting combination of styles and treatments recommended by the Design Guidelines and the building heights complement and provide a compatible design transition to the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. The one area of concern is the transition treatment of the hotel and the Helme-Worthy property. The Worthy/Hotel transition is being addressed by implementation of upper story setbacks through suggested conditions of approval. With the suggested conditions of approval staff supports the special permit request because of the incorporation of varied rooflines and varied building heights that complement and provide the necessary transition between buildings consistent with the Design Guidelines. I I PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -30- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) The Design Guidelines recommend focal elements as landmarks and orientation points for the community. In addition, corner building treatments are recommended to provide a prominent design element. The proposed hotel tower height at 70 ft. is approximately 14-15 ft. lower than the two towers in the immediate vicinity. The proposed tower will provide the development on block 105 with a complimentary focal element to the tower element on block 104 (Oceanview Promenade). By allowing the tower with an additional 15 feet, the tower will serve its purpose as a focal element and anchoring point for the project consistent with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines. Staff supports the tower height and the special permit because the tower element is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and compliments other tower features in the downtown. Special Permit No. 6 is a request to reduce the ultimate right of way on Fifth Street from an ultimate right of way of 80 ft. to a proposed 65 ft. The function of 5th Street will remain basically the same as it is designed today. As discussed above, 5th Street is proposed as an easement for pedestrian and vehicular right of way purposes. In reviewing the reduced right of way, staff has discussed several issues pertaining to potential activities within the 65 ft.wide easement. The cross section is provided below: J11thT. R 32=0• 8 9 11 12 2. 16=6• RAMON HOTEL BLD(a). C — HOTEL %`r s� I } ti V1 enoo — HOTEQI. � RETAIL/RET,/ r OFFICE t ti • RETAIL/RESTA�RANT RETAIL/1ZESTAU ANT i '• n PARKING LEVE Pt ;' PARKING LE P2 4 UK r-s• 24'-Cr SI EYA1K 51RFPT SIOENA yy��• 11'-8• FJ1MOT U.L BIOC. SETBACK It is important to remember the design concept of the Downtown Specific Plan and that precedent has been set. The design of the Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony project included the vacation of Yd Street between Walnut and PCH. A reduced view corridor is provided in that project. The design concept for the core area of downtown always envisioned large multi-parcel consolidated development with greater intensities and density. The vacation of 5th Street has been contemplated in several past concepts but not pursued. Staff believes that reducing the ultimate right of way from 80 to 65 ft. will not diminish any views currently provided by the existing right of way. Staff believes the proposed .cross section will PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -31- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) preserve existing views while enhancing future views with the design of the project. The project proposes all the amenities of a typical downtown street section and also includes design features of upper story setbacks for the buildings that front the street. The incorporation of all the design features will provide the views for the pedestrian at the street level. In addition, the 2"d level terrace adjacent to the hotel provides an enhanced view of the beach, ocean and pier. Staff supports the special permit in conjunction with the condition of approval requiring the additional building setbacks (Buildings A, D and E). Tentative Map: The proposed subdivision will consolidate the existing parcels on site and create a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes. The map includes right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the public alley on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5th Street. The City will retain an easement for pedestrian and vehicular right of way purposes for 5th Street. Any areas not currently owned by the City that are needed for the new 5th Street right of way will be dedicated to the City as an public right of way easement. In addition the City will own fee title to the public parking facility located under the public and private portions of the site, including under the 5th Street right of way. As part of the map, public improvements around the entire development are recommended to have a similar treatment as was approved around the Oceanview Promenade building. The two-block area has always been envisioned to be developed as one site; therefore the public improvements should be consistent. The consistent public improvements on block 104 shall include the frontage of El Don Liquor to complete the PCH frontage,.excluding the Main Street properties. The improvements for block 105 shall be for the entire block, including the frontage for the Helme-Worthy historical site. The provision of consistent public improvements was previously required as a condition of approval for the Coultrup plan. Staff believes it is important that this treatment be required of this development proposal and has included a recommended condition of approval. In addition,a license and maintenance agreement will be required for the maintenance of the public improvements. The public improvements and the landscape plan will be presented to the Design Review Board for final review and approval. SUMMARY: As conditioned, the project will be consistent with the Village Concept of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Master Plan, completes the Main Pier Phase H development concept, complies with the General Plan land, use designation and the pedestrian overlay, and is consistent with coastal policies by providing visitor-serving commercial uses and preserving and enhancing public views, therefore, staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, for The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach—Blocks 104/105 for the following reasons: • The project as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -32- (02sr4l CUP 99-45) • . The proposed mixed-use project will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties because of proper ground level and upper story setbacks. • The proposed project as conditioned will provide additional open space and outdoor dining opportunities along 5`h Street, provide additional ground level and upper story setbacks with added architectural treatment adjacent to the Helme-Worthy site, and therefore enhance the overall aesthetic appearance of the project design. The proposed project as conditioned will provide a design that will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation of downtown and along 5th Street. • The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-3.0 FAR/35 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay)Land Use designation of the General Plan. With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, exceed maximum building height, and reduce the 51h Street view corridor will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval — TTM #16406, CUP #99-45, Special Permits #02- 06, CDP#99-16 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, etc. dated August 5, 2002 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 dated August 5, 2002 4. Valet and Traffic Flow Plan dated August 5, 2002 5. Helme-Worthy Cross Sections dated August 5, 2002 6. Project narrative dated August 5, 2002 7. Tentative Tract Map narrative dated May 30, 2002 8. Special Permits narrative dated April 10, 2002 9. Urban Design Guidelines Checklist dated September 3, 2002 10. CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations—EIR No. 01-02 11. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—EIR No. 01-02. 12. Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02—Not Attached -See Staff Report No. B-3a SH:HF:JJ:rl i PC Staff Report-9/24/02 -33- (02sr41 CUP 99-45) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.99-16 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16406: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 for the consolidation of existing parcels into a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes and the right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6`h Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the alley on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 51h Street for a 65 ft. wide public access easement including a 24 ft. wide reciprocal easement for vehicular purposes is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use Vertical - 3.0 Floor Area Ratio — Specific Plan Overlay — Pedestrian Overlay on the subject property because the subdivision will provide a consolidated development consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan and will provide the necessary public improvement to complete the Main-Pier Phase II development. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 2.97-acre project site provides the necessary area for development by consolidating multiple parcels consistent with the intensity and density of District#3, Visitor-Serving Commercial, of the Downtown Specific Plan;The General Plan Land Use designation, and with the implementation of mitigation measures is suitable for development. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The tentative map provides all the necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, alleys, and easements with reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 to construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152-room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet; to allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size; and to permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of.adjacent properties, will provide adequate public open space and open air commercial amenities, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the provision of compact parking spaces and a valet parking plan provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the total number of parking spaces and provides a quick and easy parking alternative to customers of the site. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project as conditioned, incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the two-block project area. 3. The proposed request to construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152- room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet; to allow 5.9% (24 spaces)of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size; and to permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project as conditioned and with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvement for the two-block Main-Pier Phase H development. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical — 3.0 FAR— specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.2 i Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach, Policv LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan,as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy 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. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. Policy 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 American's with Disabilities Act. . Policy L U 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State(CEQA)regulations. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2: Require 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, as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.3 Policy 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, in accordance with the appropriate principles. The retail, restaurant, office, and hotel uses proposed for the site represent development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement retail and restaurant uses. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of creating an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Pacific Coast Highway(0 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) b. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Sixth Street (6.5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) c. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along and Walnut Avenue (5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) d. Encroach into the minimum upper story setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway 9 ft./average I 1 ft. 4 in. in lieu of min. 15 ft./average 25 ft.) e. Exceed the maximum building height with hotel (49.5 ft. in lieu of 45 ft.) and the architectural tower feature(70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft.) f. Reduce the view corridor on Fifth Street(65 ft. in lieu of 80 ft.) These Special Permits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the design of the project provides a consistent development pattern along PCH, provides the necessary and consistent sidewalk width for the types of pedestrians level activities at PCH, Sixth, and Walnut, and promotes the pedestrian scale envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. In addition, the project provides an architectural style that provides a distinctive break between the two lower floors and the two upper floors by the use of upper story setbacks, the provision of varied roofline treatments, the use of quality colors and materials and including building heights and a tower that is compatible with the surroundings and provides a focal element encouraged by the Design Guidelines. Finally, the project will not diminish any existing coastal views for the pedestrian at the street level, and it will enhance future views by providing 2nd level terrace views of the beach, ocean and pier. The incorporation of the special permits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown core. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by placing buildings in a relationship to the street and pedestrian, the use of contemporary Mediterranean architecture, the incorporation of compatible upper story setbacks, the (02sr4i CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.4 use of proper building heights, the provision of a tower as a focal element, and the design of 5th Street that enhances public views. 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, will provide adequate public open space, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition,the provision of compact parking spaces and a valet parking plan provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the total number of parking spaces and provides a quick and easy parking alternative to customers of the site. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The proposed project is physically suitable for the site, it consolidates multiple parcels for an adequate mixed-use development site, provides parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, is consistent with the type and intensities of proposed uses, complies with the Downtown Specific Plan, is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and provides consistent public improvements to complete the Main-Pier Phase H development envisioned for the two-block area of downtown. 5. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the following Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies: Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.5 Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. Reducing the ultimate right of way of 5th Street from 80 to 65 ft. will not diminish any views or view corridors currently provided by the existing right of way. The proposed cross section of 5th Street will continue to preserve existing views while enhancing future views with the design of the project. The project proposes all the amenities of a typical downtown street section and also includes design features of upper story setbacks for the buildings that front the street. The incorporation of all the design features will provide the views for the pedestrian at the street level. In addition, the 2nd level terrace adjacent to the hotel provides an enhanced view of the beach, ocean and pier. The proposed special permits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45, Coastal development Permit No. 99-16, Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final EIR No. 01-02 will comply with State and Federal Law. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 for the development project, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies: Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. i Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.6 Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. Additionally, the proposed project would develop visitor- serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area, which has been targeted for redevelopment as a destination location. Portions of the downtown core have already been established, and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the project,with the exception of a hotel, which would help further establish the area. The project site is also located near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed project as conditioned and with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvement for the two-block Main-Pier Phase 11 development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measure will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.7 public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, alleys, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project maintains all exiting and proposed public access and does not conflict with any public recreation policies by the provision of a development consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, Downtown Specific Plan, and Downtown Parking Master Plan. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The tentative map shall be revised to accurately reflect the redesigned project as conditioned by Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16. b. The service drive entrance and easement at 6th Street shall be designed to provide two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal entrance point to the Helme-Worthy site. c. The existing driveway entrance to the Helme-Worthy site on Sixth Street shall be closed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. d. Remove the proposed water lines as shown on the tentative map: 12-inch in Fifth Street, 8- inch in alleys parallel to Pacific Coast Highway, 6-inch in alley east of Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105. (PV ) e. The following water lines are minimum requirements to meet the project's demands: (PV ) 1) Approximately 450 LF of 8-inch water pipeline in Walnut Avenue (between Sixth Street and Main Street). 2) Approximately 900 LF of 12-inch water pipeline in Sixth Street (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). f. The 20-foot wide reciprocal access drive for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive adjacent to the southerly boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105 and through the setback area and relocate the 24-foot wide service driveway to conform to the new design. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be employed in the design of the access. (PV ) g. The Fifth Street public access easement shall be 65-feet in width. (PV ) h. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal access easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties and shall be noted on the map and required to all affected and adjoining parcels from the private access easements. The location and width of the reciprocal driveway easement and all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making all necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal easements/driveway. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.8 2. Prior to submittal of the tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. The CC&Rs shall include the following: (PW) i. Provide for operation, maintenance and replacement of all common area landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, public and reciprocal access easements (Fifth Street, alley, parking, driveway, truck access, sidewalk, and street lighting) and open space. (PW) ii. Implementation, inspection, maintenance, periodic upgrade and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP). The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. (PW) iii. Maintenance, repair and replacement of structures, facilities and utilities within the parking structure as defined by the agreement for operation and use of the parking structure by the City. (PW) iv. Provisions for the implementation, management, operation and maintenance of the valet parking and access program. (PW) v. Prohibit the blocking or screening of fire hydrants located in the public right-of-way, easements or within the property. (PW) vi. Implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. (PW) 3) The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. All vehicular access rights to Fifth and Sixth Streets, Walnut Avenue and the public alleys shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. (PW) b. All vehicular access rights to Pacific Coast Highway shall be released and relinquished to the State of California, except at the intersection of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) c. The rough grading plan and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (PW) (02sr4l CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.9 d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW) e. A sewer study for on and off-site facilities shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (PW) f. Prior to first plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis (on H2O Net) for this project, pursuant to City of Huntington Beach requirements. (The applicant shall coordinate this effort with the Water Division prior to beginning this endeavor.) The analysis shall consider the impacts and mitigation, if necessary, to the existing water services off of the 8-inch water pipeline in the alley west of Main Street, which shall be maintained. If the analysis shows that project demands cannot be met with the City's current water infrastructure system, the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project at no cost to the City. (PW) g. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off-site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. Runoff from the site shall be restricted as directed by the Department of PW to minimize impacts to downstream facilities. (PW) h. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: i. The domestic water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. Easement widths shall conform with the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 300. ii. The sanitary sewer system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. iii. Five feet along entire Pacific Coast Highway frontage. iv. 2.5-feet along the entire Sixth Street frontage. v. 4.5-feet of additional alley right-of-Way along the easterly property line west of Main Street and south of Walnut Avenue. i. Fifth Street shall be quitclaimed by the Redevelopment Agency. An easement of 65-feet in width shall be conveyed by the Developer to the City of Huntington Beach for drainage, utility, pedestrian and vehicular access purposes. Quitclaim and the grant of easement must occur at the same time to maintain full use of Fifth Street without interruption of existing uses and activities. (PW) J. Vacation and abandonment of portions of alley rights-of-way in Block 105. (PW) k. 20-foot wide reciprocal access for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive adjacent to the south boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be observed in the design of the access. (PW) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.10 1. All street lighting, excluding Fifth Street, shall be conveyed to Southern California Edison Co. for maintenance and operation. (PW) in. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. (PW) n. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: (PW) i. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. ii. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. o. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: (PW) i. Design Specification: 1) Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system — STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. 2) Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits). 3) Digital data shall have units in US FEET. 4) A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. 5) Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names,pen color and layering conventions. 6) Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. ii. File Format and Media Specification: 1) Shall be in compliance with the following file format: • AutoCAD (version 13 or later) drawing file: _.DWG 2) Shall be in compliance with the following media type: • CD Recordable (CD-R) 650 Megabytes p. The developer shall provide a Maintenance and License Agreement for maintenance of all public improvements within the public right-of-way for Fifth and Sixth Streets, Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) q. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) r. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor & Material and Monumentation Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Department of Public Works and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) s. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.11 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406: 1. Tentative Tract No. 16406 shall not become effective until the ten-calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Tentative Map No. 16406 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval which is October 4, 2004. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 4. All applicable fees shall be paid from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments fees prior to map recordation. (PW) 5. The final map.shall be recorded with the County of Orange. 6. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Fire Chief shall be notified in writing if any changes to the approved tract map conditions of approval are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Fire Chief have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-06, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The plans shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line, a 10-15-foot average upper-level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older buildings. (MM 3.3-3) The 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with turf and trees except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. L 12 b. The service drive shall be enclosed adjacent the southerly property line of the Hehrte-Worthy site with compatible materials, except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point, and shall have an attached trellis with vine landscaping treatment. c. A 20 ft. reciprocal access drive shall be provided from the service drive to the Helme-Worthy site. The service drive shall be designed for two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal access drive. d. The 7.5 ft. vacated to the Helme-Worthy site shall be designed to provide a landscaped planter with an 8 ft. high wall setback 3 ft. from the edge of the 15 ft. one-way easement at Walnut Ave. The landscaped planter and wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the eastern edge and designed to comply with any necessary vision clearance and setbacks requirements from Walnut Ave. The applicant through a license and maintenance agreement shall maintain the 3 ft. landscaped area along the project side of the 7.5 ft. planter. e. An 8 ft. high wall shall be constructed along the entire southerly property line of the Helme- Worthy site. The design shall comply with any necessary vision clearance and setbacks requirements from Sixth Street and the point of intersection at the easement. f. Incorporate a minimum three ft. ground floor setback for all portions of first floor buildings (A, B, C, D) abutting alleys. Setbacks above the ground floor may cantilever to a zero ft. (0 ft.) setback. g. Incorporate an additional 2.5 ft. setback for buildings (A, D, E) fronting 5th Street to provide additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining (minimum 10 ft. width) and public open space purposes. The upper levels shall maintain their setbacks and terraces to maintain the integrity of the architectural upper level design. h. The hotel (Bldg. G) square footage shall be reduced or additional parking shall be provided to reflect compliance with the Block A Existing and Proposed Development table in the Kaku Associates study dated September 27, 2000. i. The two-level subterranean public parking structure, ramps, and all required parking spaces and striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. The applicant shall analyze to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department that the proposed parking lot access and loading configuration will operate satisfactorily. The close proximity of the service drive and the parking garage access must be separated. (PW-Code Requirement) j. Depict all utility apparatus and cabinets, such as but not limited to back flow devices.and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of- way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in any setback and shall be screened from view. No above ground utility cabinets of any kind shall be located in any sidewalk or block pedestrian access (Code Requirement) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.13 k. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) 1. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. m. The maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2) inches. Buildings designed to be located near to property line(s) must have their exterior wall adjacent to the property line(s) designed for 2" maximum out of plane displacement resulting from prescribed lateral forces specified by the Uniform Building Code. Maintenance agreement may be required for any zero lot line construction. n. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. o. The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) for a depth of 8 ft. p. The public access drive from Sixth Street to Walnut Avenue shall include adequate access and turning room for disposal collection vehicles, including 55-feet to pickup and drop-off containers on a straight shot, a minimum turning diameter of 86-feet and total height for lift operations and clearance. (MM 3.8-3) q. Building C of the proposed project shall incorporate ground level and second story design features of the Ocean View Promenade Structure and, to the extent feasible, of the building containing El Don Liquors. These features shall include, but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be review by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. (MM 3.3-2) r. To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use non-reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. (MM 3.1-2) s. The new buildings within the project site shall use light-colored roof materials to reflect heat and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-9) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.14 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. Pursuant to Section 65590 of the California Government Code, the applicant shall submit a plan for replacement of any existing residential units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income that are converted or demolished as a result of this project for review and approval by the Planning Department. 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit: a. Separate plans for demolition and removals, stockpiling, surcharge and other independent or phased remedial or earth moving operations, rough grading, and precise grading, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, and be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (PW) b. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and I (02sr4l CUP 9945) Attachment No. 1.15 shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill, plan review, and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. (MM 3.4-1) c. The final grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. (MM 3.4-2) d. Southern California Edison, Verizon, The Gas Company and Time Warner shall be contacted to remove their facilities from the existing alleys. The utilities shall be undergrounded. Utilities in the alley serving Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105 shall be reconfigured/relocated. (PW) e. Street Improvement Plans, per City of Huntington Beach standards, for Fifth and Sixth Streets and Walnut Avenue shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following improvements shall be shown on the plans: (PW) f. Fifth Street improvement plans shall be in accordance with the tentative tract map, these conditions of approval and approved Parking Access and Valet Parking plans. The plan shall include a minimum 24-foot wide roadway for public access and 9-foot wide valet turnout areas. The curb return radius at Fifth Street at Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street at Walnut Avenue shall be 35-feet. Curb returns shall have ADA compliant access ramps. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Additional modifications may be required to gain Caltrans approval for improvements at Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) g. Removal of curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and base aggregate as required along Fifth Street frontage. Replace with new curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving structural section. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PVV) h. Remove and replace the existing alley drive approach in Fifth Street with an ADA compliant alley driveway approach. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) i. Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, alley driveway and half-street paving along the Sixth Street frontage. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Curbs shall be painted red to prohibit parking as directed by the Transportation Manager. (PW) j. Remove the existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway on Sixth Street and half street paving adjacent to Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105 and on Walnut Avenue (separate from the property to the south) and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk across the frontage of Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) k. The curb return radius at Sixth Street at Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street at Walnut Avenue shall be 35-feet. Curb returns shall have ADA compliant access ramps. Additional modifications may be required to gain Caltrans approval for improvements at Pacific Coast Highway. (PV) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.16 1. A new catch basin and lateral on Sixth Street at Pacific Coast Highway sized to intercept the 100- year storm event. The existing catch basin and lateral on Main Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway shall be removed and a new manhole installed. (PW) m. Portions of Sixth Street adjacent to driveways and intersections between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue shall be red curbed as directed by the Transportation Manager. (PW) n. Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk and half-street paving along the Walnut Avenue frontage. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) o. The intersection of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be redesigned to eliminate the existing corner cross drains. (PW) p. Curb returns at Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall have ADA compliant access ramps. (PW) q. Remove and replace the two existing alley approaches on Walnut Avenue with ADA compliant alley driveways approaches. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) r. Pavement for half-width of existing alley including the center concrete v-gutter, plus pavement for 4.5-feet of additional alley dedication along the easterly property line and the southerly property line between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, easterly of Fifth Street. (PW) s. The truck access driveway entry off Sixth Street shall be a minimum of 24-feet in width, with an ADA compliant driveway approach and able to accommodate outbound vehicles from Lot 22 of Block 105. The Transportation Manager shall approve the width of the reciprocal access driveway, upon submittal of truck turning templates for the driveway. The width of the drive aisle shall also accommodate egress traffic from Lot 22 of Block 105 and eastbound trucks. (PW) t. Remove curb, gutter, sidewalk and all driveways along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage including the El Don Liquor site (lots 7, 8, and a portion of 9, block 104) and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Newly constructed curbs shall be painted red. If necessary, Pacific Coast Highway shall be repaved per Caltrans requirements. Plans shall be per Caltrans standards and submitted. concurrently to the City and Caltrans for approval. (PW) u. A separate signing and striping plan for Fifth and Sixth Streets and Walnut Avenue, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and be submitted to Public Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall address the truck access in Block 105 for one-way traffic along the easterly boundary of Lots 22, 24, 26, and 28 of Block 105. The plans shall be prepared according to the Signing and Striping Plan Preparation Guidelines. A separate signing and striping plan for Pacific Coast Highway per Caltrans standards and submitted concurrently to the City and Caltrans for approval. The plans shall incorporate appropriate provisions as required to gain any necessary Caltrans approvals. (PV, v. Street lighting plans for all streets adjacent to the project, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer, and be submitted to Public Works Department for review and approval. Lighting shall be per the Downtown Specific Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach guidelines. Street lighting calculations shall be provided to support the design. (PW) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.17 w. Street lighting on Fifth Street shall be removed completely from Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) x. New street lighting for Fifth Street shall be operated and maintained by the Developer as provided in the CC&Rs. (PW) y. New street lighting for Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be owned and operated by Southern California Edison. (PW) z. New street lighting for Pacific Coast Highway shall be owned and operated by Southern California Edison and shall be prepared to Caltrans standards. (PW) aa. Depict sewer mains, manholes and laterals existing and proposed on plan and profile sheets. All sewer improvements proposed within Caltrans right-of-way will be subject to their review and approval. Sewer mains shall be within public easements. The sewer plan shall address grease traps and accessibility for pumping and maintenance. (PW) bb.New sewer and water mains in the alleys behind Lot 22 of Block 105 alley east of the project. (PW) cc. Separate, new domestic meter(s) and service(s) sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code shall serve the proposed development. The service laterals shall be a minimum of two-inches in size. The development shall be master-metered to the fullest extent possible. The quantity of public water meters shall be minimized. Sub-metering with private water meters is allowed. (PW) dd. Fire service(s) shall be separate from the domestic service and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the.Uniform Fire Code, and shall include an appropriate backflow protection device. (PW) ee. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, irrigation and fire water services. (PW) ff. The public water system and appurtenance shall be located within the public right-of-way or within a public easement dedicated to the City. (PW) gg. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Any rare species of trees identified on-site shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (PW) hh. The existing public water pipelines located within the proposed project area shall be removed per Water Division standards. The existing water services to the buildings for these lines shall be maintained. The pipelines to be relocated include the following: (PW) i i. Approximately 500 LF of 6-inch pipeline located in the alley approximately 150 feet north of and parallel with Pacific Coast Highway. ii. Approximately 200 LF of 12-inch pipeline in Fifth Street. (02sr4 i CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.IS iii. Approximately 250 LF of 8-inch/4-inch pipeline located in the alley approximately 150 feet west of and parallel with Fifth Street. ii. Signal modification plan for the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street, as needed to accommodate corner improvements (new curb ramp, sidewalk, utility relocations, etc.). (PW) jj. All existing utilities including sewer and water shall be relocated to adjacent perimeter streets from alleys being vacated and abandoned and from Fifth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. (PVC kk. If there are any existing water services (including fire hydrants) outside of the limits of the proposed construction, that will be impacted by the water pipeline removals as stated above; it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate and effect the relocation of these services to the proposed new water pipelines. (PW) 11. Approximately 450 LF of 8-inch pipeline in Walnut Avenue, (between Sixth Street and Main Street). (PW) mm. Approximately 900 LF of 12-inch water pipeline in Sixth Street, (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). (PW) nn. New fire hydrants on Pacific Coast Highway, if required by the Fire Department, shall connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline in Pacific Coast Highway. Alternatively, the applicant may construct a new 12-inch water line (approximately 450 LF) in Pacific Coast Highway between Fifth and Sixth Streets and shall be constructed per Water Division standards (i.e.,water pipeline shall NOT be constructed underneath the sidewalk and shall be a looped water system) to serve the fire hydrants. oo. A traffic control plan for all work within the City right-of-way and Caltrans right-of-way shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The City's plans shall be prepared according to the Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines. Plans for Pacific Coast Highway shall be per Caltrans requirements and subject to their review and approval. (PVt) pp. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Park, Tree and Landscape Division. Irrigation demands shall also be submitted to ensure proper sizing of irrigation services. .The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. The landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval. A consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.19 Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW-Code Requirement) qq. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (PW) rr. To the greatest extent feasible, low flow urban runoff from the project shall be directed to a gross pollutant removal device. The developer shall incorporate Best Management Practices conforming to the requirements at the time of construction. ss. Gross pollutant removal devices (CDS or equivalent) for the removal of debris, sediment, oil and water separation, etc., shall be installed as part of the treatment train for the main line systems. Access to these devices for maintenance shall be provided and included within an easement to the City. tt. A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. uu. A WQMP shall be prepared, maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall incorporate water quality measures for all improved or unimproved phases of the project. All structural BMPs shall be sized to infiltrate, filter, or treat the 85-percentile 24-hour storm event or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The WQMP shall include an extensive Association education program, including information booklets and packages for each business owner, and periodic information programs to keep owners current with WQMP practices and requirements. vv. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment. (PW) ww. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, City contact (Sudi Shoja (714) 536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800 (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.20 CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) xx. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW) yy. A truck-staging plan shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for approval. Staging of trucks on the streets on the perimeter of the site or within the downtown area will not be permitted. Appropriate truck staging areas shall be identified to minimize impacts to vehicle circulation, area residents and businesses. Truck staging areas identified on Pacific Coast Highway shall be coordinated with Caltrans including obtaining any appropriate encroachment permits. (PW) zz. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (PW) aaa. The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402 —Nuisance and Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. These measure have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation. (MM 3.2-2) bbb. The parking meters surrounding the project shall be removed and returned to the Beach Services Division. The cost of relocating any on-street parking meters and re-striping of on-street parking spaces shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant. All re-striping and parking meter relocation shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. (PW) ccc. The project developer(s) shall develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: (MM 3.2-1) i. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. ii. Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person). iii. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable. iv. Consolidate truck deliveries when possible. v. Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper time as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules,to minimize exhaust emissions. vi. Use methanol- or butane-powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.21 ddd. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) eee. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells (714) 816-6847. (FD) fff. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a DOGGR Site Plan Review application. (FD) ggg. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422, Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) hhh. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks(UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit as a prerequisite in obtaining a Huntington Beach Fire Department UST permit. (FD) iii. Vapor extraction treatment areas may require conformance to City Specification#431, Gas Fired Appliances. (FD) jjj. 5th Street shall be designed to support an imposed load of a 72,000 lb. apparatus with a clearance of 13'-6" minimum. (FD) kkk. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 111. The option to provide additional parking in the subterranean parking structure shall be explored with the City Council in compliance with the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the Applicant. mmm.A revised hotel square footage and parking plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Director, Public Works Director and the Transportation Manager to indicate compliance with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. . The plan must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. . 4. The following conditions of approval shall be complied with during grading operations: a. The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402 Nuisance and Rule 403—Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: (NM 3.2-2) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.22 i. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. ii. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. iii. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. iv. All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period. V. A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site. vi. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. vii. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications. viii. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. ix. All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications. X. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. xi. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. xii. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads.. xiii. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. xiv. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. xv. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding area. xvi. The SWPPP, Erosion control and dewatering plans shall be revised and updated as necessary through the phases of the project. Copies of the current plans shall be maintained on-site for review by City or State inspectors. (PVC b. The project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management practices: (MM 3.6-1) i. Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays. (02sr4l CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.23 ii. All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled. iii. All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses. iv. Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use. V. Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences. vi. Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. c. Monitor during grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: (MM 3.3-1) i. The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, and other excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. ii. If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and finding, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University,Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach. iii. In the event of the discover on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. of§5097 with respect to Native American involvement,burial treatment, and reburial. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.24 5. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. c. Submit for review a final parking access and valet parking program to the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Police. The plan shall encourage the use of the 1 st. level for public parking. The program shall be approved prior to final building permits or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (PVV) d. The applicant shall provide a dedicated trash enclosure for the Helme-Worthy property on their site across from the eastern edge of the historical site in conformance with city requirements. e. The applicant shall relocate the utilities for the Helme-Worthy property at the eastern edge of the historical site in conformance with city requirements. f. Names of streets shall be submitted to and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department in accordance with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 409. (FD) g. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) h. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) i. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed to minimize potential odor impacts to the hotel and surrounding residential homes. Any external venting or mechanical equipment not screened to the satisfaction of the City shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of building permits. j. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (BD) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.25 k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Grading Permit shall be issued. (PW) b. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee of 10% of the environmental impact report cost shall be paid to the Planning Department. c. A Downtown Specific Plan (SP-5) fee for new construction in the Downtown Specific Plan area shall be paid to the Planning Department. d. The City Council approved Final Map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. (PV) e. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (PV ) f. The applicant shall demonstrate the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. (MM 3.9-2) g. Delivery vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller that a medium or small semi- trailer with a length of 50-feet. (MM 3.9-3) h. The applicant shall submit a parking management plan, consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. (MM 3.9-4) i. The Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to: (MM 3.8-4) i. Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition. ii. Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project. iii. Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases. iv. Bins for cardboard recycling during construction. V. Scrap wood recycling during construction. vi. Green waste recycling of landscape materials. j. The Applicant shall demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security shall be provided. (MM 3.8-1) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.26 k. The Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. (MM 3.8-2) 1. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Department. (Code Requirement) m. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map (preliminary grading plan) by more than one (1) foot. (PW) n. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) o. All onsite oil well abandonments must be Fire Department approved per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements, and all abandoned oil well document/inspection fees must be paid. (FD) p. For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification 426. (FD) q. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification #401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. (FD) r. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. Your project requires a minimum of U hydrants. (FD) s. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. (FD) t. Class III wet standpipe systems shall be utilized. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) u. Class I,Division 2 electrical installation shall be utilized. (FD) I v. A subterranean air handling system will be required. (FD w. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. (FD) x. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide the following: (FD) ■ Manual pulls,horns & strobes (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.27 ■ Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection ■ 24-hour supervision y. For Fire Department approval, food preparation fire protection systems plans shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. (FD) z. New street or access road names must be approved by the Fire Department. Please refer to City Specification#409. (FD) aa. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and access easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent (southerly, easterly, northerly, westerly) properties. The location and width of the reciprocal driveway easement and all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making all necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal easements/driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. (Code Requirement) bb. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. cc. An"Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. dd. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of the first sign permit. ee. The applicant shall plan to identify a location within the city for the replacement of low and moderate income unit(s) displaced by the project. Said plan shall comply with Section 33413.5 of the California Community Development Law. The displaced unit(s) must be replaced within four years of approval of this conditional use permit. The replacement unit(s)must remain available at an affordable housing cost of low and moderate income persons for the duration of the redevelopment plan. The plan shall be approved prior to the first certificate of occupancy request for the project. (02sr41 CUP 9945) Attachment No. 1.28 ff. The applicant shall contact the property owner(s) of the residential units across Sixth Street from the entrance/exit to the subterranean parking structure to attempt to mitigate the car headlights impacting the residential units. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall work with the property owner(s) to develop a plan in conformance with the DTSP for landscaping and/or any other means to screen the lighting impacts of vehicles leaving the parking structure. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. In the event no plan is acceptable to the property owner(s), the applicant shall seek written confirmation from the property owner(s) and submit the letter to the Planning Department. gg. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: 1. Final elevation and site layout details on colors, materials, design, and architectural concepts upon Planning Commission action. In comparison to the conceptually approved architecture and layout of the site plan, floor plans, building elevations, colors and materials received and dated January 9, 2002, supplemental plans and information dated March 4, 2002, and onion skin drawings presented at the June 13, 2002 Design Review Board meeting. 2. A public art element shall be integrated and be in a publicly accessible place within the proposed project. Public art shall include art of: ■ Artistic excellence and innovation, ■ Appropriate to the design of the project, ■ Reflective of the community's cultural identity, (ecology,history, society). The public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Community Development Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final inspection. 3. The landscape and public improvement plans shall be reviewed for approval. The public improvements are required to be consistent with the Oceanview Promenade site. 7. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved; and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Complete all improvements as shown on the Grading and Improvement plans. (PW) b. The applicant shall restripe the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department. (MM 3.9-1) c. The applicant shall develop an on-site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. (NM 3.9-6) I (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.29 d. The applicant shall provide a Landscape License Agreement for maintenance of all landscaping within the public rights-of-way. (PW) e. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) f. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) g. All agreements, CC&Rs, covenants and transfers shall be reviewed, executed and completed. (PW) h. Condominium plans in conformance with the requirements of the Department of Real Estate and other appropriate agencies shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. All airspace and structures to be owned shall be delineated with bearings and distances for all ownerships described, and shall show relationships to property lines and adjacent ownerships and structures. (PW) i. If the applicant intends to have outdoor dining affecting the public right-of-way, Public Works Department will need to review a plan with the proposal. j. Existing street tree(s) to be inspected by the City of Huntington Beach, Park, Trees and Landscape Inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof. Tree replacement or root/tree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system. (PW) k. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) 1. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) m. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) n. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification 428. (FD) o. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 415. (FD) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.30 p. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Dept. City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD) q. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) r. Security gates shall be designed to comply with City Specification#403. (FD) s. All project pool areas must have a KNOX access installed on the entry gates. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at(714) 536-5411. (FD) t. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424. (FD) u. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification# 428. (FD) v. Exit signs and exit path markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Low level exit signs will be included. (F'D) w. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification 4415. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) x. Solar or low-emission water heaters shall be installed in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-3) y. Built-in energy-efficient appliances shall be provided in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-4) z. Air conditioners installed in all new buildings within the project site shall be energy-efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (NM 3.2-5) aa. Double-glass-paned windows shall be installed in new buildings within the redevelopment area to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-6) bb. Lighting installed in new buildings within the project site shall be energy-efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-7) cc. The new buildings within the project site shall exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-8) dd. The proposed project shall include flatwork design and structural BMPs to isolate contamination from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.31 trash separator, an oil and grease separator, and/or other filtration system as required to meet water quality standards. (MM 3.4-3) ee. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. (PL) ff. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. All applicable requirements of Condition of Approval No. 3A, i-xvi shall apply during this phase of activity. In addition the following shall apply: i. Comply with the"Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PV ) ii. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. iii. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. iv. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. v. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PV ) vi. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. vii. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. viii. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. ix. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) b. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.32 c. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (Fire Dept. City Specification 407) (FD) d. On-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. e. The property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Public Works Department. f. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. g. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within Caltran's right-of-way. h. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. i. Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and-the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. . INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for the coastal development permit. Because the project is located in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years (Tentative Tract Map No. 16406) of the date of final approval which is October 4, 2004 or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.33 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 7. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. 10. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 11. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 12. Outdoor dinning is not permitted unless a conditional use permit for this specific use is reviewed and approved. 13. Any restaurant use (greater than 12 seats) shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 14. Any outdoor dining use shall require review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. All outdoor dining shall be located adjacent to the buildings and the restaurant uses they serve and shall be provided with a metal enclosure. 15. Any proposed alcohol sales shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 16. Any proposed live entertainment shall require review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 17. Any proposed temporary. outdoor events for 5th Street shall obtain all necessary City permits in compliance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. i (02sr41 CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.34 18. During ongoing operations of the project, the applicant shall provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during peak summer season. (MM 3.9-5) 19. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $43 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 20. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 21. The Applicant shall use minimum light levels required for safety, and exterior lights shall be directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site. (MM 3.1-1) 22. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 23. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 24. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$123 per net new added daily trip. (PW) 25. All parking along the frontage of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue may be required to be- accommodated on-site to accommodate future street configurations as determined necessary by the Planning Director and Public Works Director. (PW) 26. The Mitigation Measures from Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR No. 96-2 shall apply and are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (02sr4l CUP 99-45) Attachment No. 1.35 �aWA:.-(�ra�m3,,.F AYrAI 1 122.62' I 122.63' 115'— I I L ,NE�FA�AN>s,DFl,� ,D22Y0 SOL K.I LJ6,85F Lew 1 .J572, RESn7DYILIL �SmIID/IGL LLESWf7IDAL I SFA GCIIOQRpA[ CaWA)?OK .`.'tl - -LMJ ./6905F I MAL CLA v 102M SF ro n W.h.SIAER.0 OM And to tuad o loa hn=of AO.OM SF DosTNc ana WALNUT AVENUE 7dd OnCE man not to acood a a=nnrn o1 AOM SF -----1-- ------ o Y s-—-—- IADa Hunan rR wLntt¢ta¢ 1 PROMTY IlE -—- -— 7 6' wlr- � ,., g ...Ri64NTr LIE HOTEL. 1203A7 SF ( �) wa®-mnwrwr �302.62' :,r, Low 0SF I r 1"155 Roanrs J9,TJ9 Sr F r, iL >i AL( Roam) 20315,D, , r, •f f HOTEL TOTAL SIF .11 44r- ...E)aSll �i {i:• 1 A0110 IAESEENVAL f y I I NOT T Ld 70TAL PRO=AREA- 272617 SF• / _ I 1 I 1 :``:'LVIOY[eON; -D—NOT W.W.vartw D•N.1'm C—!Car,daa L� Ana( ROPFIItt WE ti r 1 1 BLDQ a (, E%QPf HOTEL HETMILMMAURAMT/ g ::.cn OFFICE HOTEL ABOVE2 > :':. $:.1EN.P.• .. PARCMC 4IYIARY 125.13' y BLDQ I I :�N0:P:.;A 9A1t3' 5. SUAFACE PARMG 6 SPACES RESaElYl1AL :: :?y�:if::i: e__ _ - - _ - y .;;i•;;,;::. PAfIXM6 SRNCIURE(24eMIA bdo.>f.*)IDS SAFES I � E>OSRNG STREET PAItl@1C flE4AnWC 7 SPACES b I I aa�ly I I I I Rl3IDF117t1L - - I I .`.%�;%�% !;!'/'!• 70,AL PAREMC PROVIDED- 118 SPACES II I -------'rA i- I f:• a .v.+ ': r::: I Paascr s_An,ARr-Yaaas IA:rSTa:A6FA1 >Y� .A :.' ... IL BUIDIHG A IM19 4 RlSnKNIIA -► r'y ram/ %; 1 • (R.tof) I.3LN SF I a.a.clrA BLDQ B .mA u f;ii:' ' I ❑ I L.w11(IXlAr 1J666 Si y AL/RESTAURANT Lad 5(O/sla) 12377.7 mj 1"--BLS BIADOLC 6 SM SF' i:: 1 ❑ $ Low I(Rae.—CIRImLoa) 4602sr HOT A9 EL rVE on mw i y". o :::{.•�:.�::<;<i::: I 1 Lewf 2(Off-) J9I3 SF BIRDa10 C 7I96 Si ' PAMONG :y::::.v:::::::::: I Lever I(9sslvarnl/Rffod) llSJ SF 1 BLDQ kD(I.E %{',•: ;>v x::;>' I ) Em M45 Sir I I RETAIL/RE.ST RET AURAHiL_ �".'« vi 1 ;:,:•.f;;:.;.!%:>'::c:`>a:>?;';'.' I I 1 BIADMfS D.L F 3 G nDD6e s fi' r L--1_I -1 -J I 4F::� I BLYV. I :::::::jFF;;:2iL16TWG:;RLAEUIIIG` I❑ 1 cowl I(Rstlaamr/Refaf)19711 Sr I l 1 rirE d:'fi;a.r;�T%:p: T:' I I LOW 2(&It/) 41669 9r IE RETA9! •if f......::... AonuuL .s % c '•,• >: ::> Low 5(Irord) J9JJ9 Sr r r I I Lowy I(Ho J9JJ9 ST :+ art 1 ::% s 1 mNa ..........:.... I -I I MT AL PR asc ImnaT AL PROJECT la TY ASNr I... AREA= 22U5.16 S" r P1.•� 1 I �ff } p !f - - ATdrdep A9 �l-� -6'':M 1Erhpd nal Corer . lr--� _r z �ff Gla✓PL tr CwrlJaa• 1 i F mr ;lf I� da' our LOCK 105 0 360.2B' I ULTIYAE PRffFI,IY lNE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY I Im-ffi L,m Item a 11[Sm AaMA 4 tam.IFwAnm GROSS 5,7E AREA(Inducting 5th St.)= 128777 SF.(t2.96 AC.) MY SF. Am KMMMM¢n F2ffiLA Q PACIFlL:COAST HI AY(100'R/W) 01M STE AREA PROPFA1T LSE NET 97E AREA(EXCLUDING 51h St.and ati Street dedications)- ID39 ST (12.39 AC.)� WNUMPEN�LA=0 2T-1552--03 —___ - --- ------ - - - --- ----------_ ____ rnn sm-zm 21-15'06 '� — - --- ------- - - - - - 24-ILW-a, f SURVEY PACIFlC c%)kST HIGHWAY ACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY y ?SIR;,° r` 245.27' 47.25' ON/dIm om Nor 2hM-I2 �y NET LOT SIZE DIMENSION,TYP. 1wivo m MOM mO`m6"'�°O i4-;u 14 Pmm Lml ero-A2m e DMM Pe PASA PAMM 1na_c5Ym ]1-TW'50 2f15Y1f As ow hftbof➢Of KWb dud y IMA Tor.-A',A am P� , a.eQ.A.J R teal 1 The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach CIM„ 05.9=006 P...x SheMn o i3o' 60 9O' Septrmber3.2001 Gensler ............... ----------------------- .............. ................ ................ ....... .................... --------------........ -------------- --------------- ............... .......................... ................................. .............................................. ------- ------------------------------- .......... ............... .................. ............ ----------------- ............ ........... .................................... .......... ................................. ................................................... ....................... .............--------------------------------------.................................. .......................................... .............................................. OWING KM ............ _.a..... WALNUT AVENUE . ................................................................................... .......... ...................... ...... ..... 7 .......... .......Ij SER=UNE //-U�LMME PLRKQqRTY UNE .... ................................................... .................................. f ""Ry I* ............. T ............ 2 .......... .......... LEVEL I SUMMARY U MSM T I RETA11VESTAMANT 14r- STIN RQ RETAIL/IRESTAURANTS 69808 SF BLDGL A SUBTOTAL GLA= 69808 SF uma 2, REMIRESrAwAmr LEVEL I TOTAL AREA 69808 SF* Rom ti.............. MDQ D? ............ \,z SM 8F 'Does NOT include Vertical Circulation Cores —4 REMLIAFST TA RE Corridors ............. 4e �I I RRrr ly fir�gm i A25- 7 A- Typ. .......... L BLDG.B ................ X . ......... 469 3F ........... RETAILIffSTAURANT 4M5 5F r------ ti . .... ... ......... RE it. MMANT E.m PAIIW I Nor A PART B F B ............ .......... ..... PAILIRES=;jayAw NOT AtAg�: MPE11TY UKE- 75"9r ........... ADMOVI 25 RETAQT R17A1,*ES)AU,?,Wr r 2 r ma ar q M- AMA, !EWEun .............................. ........................................... LUMAIE PMUTY LK PROJECT BOUNDARY MIMNAL 5810t QM�Mj rt PACIFIC(COAST HIGHWAY(10W R/W)-----\ MM 21 AREA PRUMTY UNE�-J ........ .. ............... --- ...............................................................I............. ..... ............... .... ............. ........................7------ ... ............................... ......... ....................................................................... 4E SURVEY PAMIC COAST HIGHWAY PACinc COAST HIGHWAY ................................ ........................... .. ........................ ........1-1-------------------------- ...... ---------------------------------------- ------- ............................................................................ .................... The STRAND DoWntoWn HURUnOOn Beach c1m., M9=0w Fzwpkn-Levdl io 1 1 !30' i6o, !w* A.,.w5.2W2e Gensler i WALNUT AVENUE i -------------- ----------------------_................. . ................I........................ ...............................---........... .................--........--.... ................---....._...........................----------- w rr e I-e' sr r-Ir caRn •rnaexrr 1➢IE ....... - ....... ....................... ............................. .......... 41a1a LL➢YAtE Pa04Btt NQ t IPE G Sfll FAGFImI 4IDAtl y /� i 65 I 1` i '1 F- J naCL iax LEVE 2 SUMMARY Y EXIST' I �•~` RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/OFFICE 20572 SF f• NOT / !v INlfi 51'-S i 1 w i VI: tt :'r fG K: — r r '£' SUBTOTAL GLA— 20572 SF I �D/� 1�A�G r � k! I BW�i � VI' x Y • i •. -7 RErM/NE AURANl5/CrFIGF . HOTEL(42 Rooms) 3296 5 SF L._ rung HOTEL(Lobby/F.C.H./B.O.H.) 6071 SF I .>r r e R F z HOTEL(Hearth &Meeting Rooms)2633 S( I v .F 9 ) 1 , I _ SUBTOTAL HOTEL— 41669 SF SUB L L Rorutmar/ b f:•;.:.. LEVEL 2 TOTAL AREA = 62241 SF kk 1j. 0 IKARMkuw anng 3i 1 'Does NOT include HOTEL Balconies k Terraces "Does NOT include Vertical Circulation Cores k .s> Corridors EXCEPT in HOTE L 9C 8F iLf �'7"• , ___ :,s•� FL �F pu^"'a Afl/NEST./Q`Fl(i�' I 1 lE! ICI t:..:.!.:.:....•...!.•.:.:.:..ti::: i I: r[rnYC kt k .+. r.,`.+•:''':'''`:'':''':i I619 g `kkkk .............:......: ..........C�..n''�..�...:.'.:.. .... 't .... ......_.._. EfaSnNG ALLf�F .... ,. _........tdoL�.M Q.......... YY __ -` Arm I of - 1 I • Y - �f: Y-% ss .W• aulll flE Litt llE rApflnr urE t i- roe-AOOus, ; :}• '••l.'•,':,`.''F.':<iE?i%i`^:':::<:: :': Ul r zae-auras' -�;.;:........::....:..:.::.. ^ 1: 9aG SE i✓!.' b _ .7 of EEE x :li t o ii ._._. ............ ................. �:;4i•—._ :`t .- ...................................................... .............................- ............................... .............................................. `........ LLIDug P9 tt PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY pFKMTY ME E PAaskccoAsr wcNwnY(rod'R/w) t - -- SUR4EY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY _Y P •................................................................................................................................................. .----- aa� \ � UJ no SMMD-Downtown Huntington Bomb A C I M 03 9=006 FlOorPTan-l"Z12 0 30' 60 , Augw 5,2002 Gensler 1 T 16'=P PRgFA1T l!C ......... P1Ali]tIY WE Y S LLINA.E F.......L1S K®as ................................................................. Of LEVEL 3 SUMMARY :r" EJasiMa•73111 NIS I!-6': 65d TDI: '' RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/OFFICE 11890 SF ... NDT..........T ...; :.; ""' """ SUBTOTAL GLA 11890 SF 12W 8F • :� Rf7K/fifS7A(I,PANT/GYfNF 2'�i ':;: 11 § •� 1 i "''''`' ?'i1 Roams)55 HOTEL 39339 SF is-or � = 1 j%::• E'�?:.;:.;:<;:;.;:.,.: 0 SUBTOTAL HOTEL= 39339 SF LEVEL 3 TOTAL AREA = 51229 SF" t :• or:':ia;;o:;;; '';1 %<........... -< ?: Does NOT ndude HOTEL Balconies Terraces h include ical ,F Does..... CCorridorssTEXCEPT in HIOTELCrculatlon Cores dt _ - ...1.,. ... Is ...... .....� _...- �A,'• E)OSTWG ALLEY ..... ,i r5d• 1 I� FROOTY Idiom--•). 41WtR PfldFfI7T UIE rs IOt - J<yy�.'•:;'/.•$i'l:.:C%'• B ' ou HOTEL mars s :.:, f• I ✓ m' I: T ::NOT A:PART:• ..�:v �• 1 '• Lam_• .. r d ` ------ ....................................................... PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY -�-- iikk.. rt_PAcmc:coAST HIGHWAY(IoW R/W) ' .._--.._.... _ : _ y:o f.SURVEY PAanc CDAST .._-..-'..-f`1.:::=:•: C.C,9.i:. �,. C The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Seam ® 01902 OW FTourP4m-I"d 3 0 30' 60' " Augury 5,Me Gensler rn m rn +v h n n n m II - :............................................................. ........... 0 ~ J N O .... ..................................................................................... ....................... -........ .....�.... ..•..a.. ........ .........................................: .................................................. ... .. .>.a•.:: i.;a. l............r ,.�....... ....................... ' ........................... ........... +- ', k •a�ti�ti CC: 'Y �\ 4 v .!p i a:•.::::.�: c. ................:.:.::::: ................ ............... \..... :N J` t ::sty ..\\\ X. 1'`..� :' ...Lt�.:au � .,fir:•:\ o ..........:.. 1 m _..- _.._ w ..._ .-... .-.._ i 9g q m DI s 3a 4 I 7713 . .0'•.Si............... 1 u b o ..a.. ......................... \ _ i .....T f;_ ........ � _.. . Tb .................. MY '•1 yl ,� m...... st iTo _ yy ....... ......�� a ia `.:�. •: ............. .. .. ;ili• .......... .. ..... , ..............•.......... i ............................... = `•' ..�.. A-JK g ......... .............. O®tle 14 Rvef fi R WM b Cml S-Sm.N fbvde Tie Rd y - W4N% fl ® ® ® MIJIM ami® ® ® ® — n » - Wei Omn W6f 0�.lmp r+ $desp U— ........... Woi beb I W d VbdM * - Cml st-9m Owl C -W W- W.i Lamm BLDQ A BLD&B BLDQ C 5th STREET - NORTH ELEVATION Wm 901 Rdbg �aa � WM oawM .esq RMd H..i. W.i a 8 ® ® 8 8 T Td RM Nmea a ® ® a a [am ® ® fmc.d➢.RwT b Wei bd.5"w w®.rwa. A 4 a Y ® ® nlnl ®® ®l = lp® ®mp '�*^s - Wed �� CW fmw1.Rm. 1- Cwt Cw.Rb Boa I BUD&A FFTH ST. BLD(L B .Z tz) WALNUT AVENUE ELEVATION ( Me STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach CIM., v5s=W6 Putafnrammi l o 116• in 4s . �,rs.zooz G@nslerW ob°" C�sme ueee u-e.eo sw. ® ® ®oppqi®® P4 pp® ® ® ® ® ® R b ® ® ® to ® ® ® ® ® ® UUJI ® ® b raIL as vem w — rm BLOM O 6th STREET - SOUTH ELEVATION Show wee M t- mw Pahw"—dh Ky.fam sow wea ad evbv u teen QM seine uetm ® in ® ® in in ® ® LU ®LU Mmivn 9iec d' ® ® ® pp pi ® ral_u oe be reyi,2 Cmvde Ae Reel —7— .fi b woe Bwe 5-f WINJill 5�xw W6an Fce6 woe eu,b.. w:a� tint 5!0-Boa fml Slene Box BLB(i O BLDB.C PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (PCH) - WEST ELEVATION �N The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach C 1 M 05.9ozs aas Fsn+dor Heombns 2 0 16 32 98 Augun S,2002 GensierW Fin n ® ® ® ® a a ® ® ® ® ® ® ® a add sd Rona ---I ® Um ® ® ® a ULMM ® ® mm fnimmmin b RMs IS 1 1 — 1 — e n 111 I 1 w SLD4 O Bth STREET — NORTH ELEVATION •�, C br 4eao.Ra1M —1.LL nnYn y, m'nelt Ik aool FiOo. c�,�'� 1 —L wood YMd O.vlriq .� ^SP -F abod Lero &� A abd ahOnl � t>m1 Cavd�Baa a SLDO.C SLDa S gLpQ A SOUTH ELEVATION Qd The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach ® O5.90T2.0016 PstcrlorFlevm(onr3 0 16' 32' 18' Arrgrrat5,20DI Gensler 1 Ce w ik Reel b Wtel'bdv Weee 9tlen was Cgce.ea Ilooe Lmn� Yetd Llieby wea we... G d C—de B— BMa A 8ID[i B O WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 'A' ©EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 'B' C—v ib Bed �L �wd— _ peL 9es FriA ©WEST ELEVATION - BULDING 'B' O EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 'C' N 'Me STRAND-Downtown Harlington Beach 05.902z oas t+ferfarQemnaBLr 4 0 16' 132' 4E' n.,getA S,zooz GenslerW ULTWTC It RI R N Y L K N C F C D HA 4 1 ]YQ i vv o rarer 1>aa aP. BLM BIM G4 om BLDQ BlD(1 Os NBLDGL NomLaeeT WMM 82 N � .eao.ern I Lbsm c»oa MCA I+1q �" ,avn v. dETAR/RESTAURAIIT I BLDQ I I I MMa D I I REL,ywfAURARI I II sam am NOT A PART ra.a-aarnn PA 8 CTURE LMi °"411 rnowuvan m Y G LEVEL 2 � —� r1s.uvn n �- nrm v�rn PC" aaa. 1rn r-0 WALNUT AVE. scre.a A BUILDING SECTION 2 B 1 @ 1 . se®KEY PLAN r! ULIWAff R 6E SST. LLTNATE R. It l 2 ] 4 4. 5 8 7 B 9 lU 11 IR 7. 15 1♦ 1 (t d AD4 YN. StPWlla! mi ro. ` . a�ev�_ I e I >m v Ircae VOTM I I I I I I I III nr I w�r Rom FOTM �� aoer '4 Eawp uln 'r' RDm N m COJOAM An]R T 11 < R ALAES XMI I ac o lav¢ n »�,,, Y I 1 I I II ff ii Si d s E7051WG i;:rq nrr laara aan ma _ I I I PEiA0. 10�Y 1 l I I RET ST 1 T ISETMCE I Npl A PART yne.. rrow oven Ham :o..K 111 P 1 1 I - ur-aw ulnn .. etA ST. ..w NO TUNE FAIOW.FVE P7 I ! ZIroun„ p.,� rr nn �i• •d Ir-r r m,.'P, HDa WHACK SWD'1 rx ro 9 aaa Rprlml . OAOP-9IT E'70971ND A11E1' sl'-d D A r3 UYlmli BUILDINd SECTION 1 ! ! 6 ',\\ r KEY PLAN e� C) The SMMD-Downtown Huntington Beach ® 01902Y.006 Buffdbl;secdmr-1 aad7 o zo• ao 60- AW=5 zoos Genslerr uuu?ArEER R it 6th 3T. R R4 1 2 T ♦ 4. 5 B 7 3Y-V 0 9 0 11 12 2. IT 14 1191 ....-, i— T —� 6 sa00 I.a21 'O @'E I'-K I bOF UY6 M YK 61DG ARAW/ I TOraa61APAF I 0 FON01l O 'I I FNia I I HOTTL V T Of OOpF 1D08 �-m� e I S TiW IFYa e ruTa HOUL , ; k f I I eimm o ci a I M. �I rETAa —= I H01a x LOURttAI� xma i ; OfHfE rm la.a a sum an ~ RETAa/1T6T I RANT I I REf D�TNWT I I pETpIL/R[ST ANi I I RFiAI/AFSiNRANf I w I E I I . NOT A PARE 1nu �� PAPKN0 PARgHc Q'�rAuon 106 n I PARIGIIC UWJ P2 114 -1 al-lo le.e,n IA NA -C 21-C 2Y-C P -0' M ST. smm i' 20-C PA WC STMXMK AEYa'O e 5Kd IT.E BUILDING SECTION 4 o A 8 rAZUT UL®ua SEM= e ! ! E C t KEY PLAN LLTWAT[R R IR A 6 C 0 E P C H J K L Y N � rt Wd I � '{ T-or 2Y 0®.T1P. 11, ul- BLD(i A .plc BLDQ•B a> 0 I�GIIImYi�� h I RLl I...,.rANRANI Q I I I BL�Q I C I I OaOP pmv s• n�lE\B / OY RET STA"T/I RETAgAREST. RE7AL/RE AURANT/OFfl[E r✓ FS Q5si aam peal Ti I RL74ASTAURANI I I I I RETAR�OESTM I RTrAL/RE AIRANi Fes+ nm e s m P&µ PAAOa reran * PARK lF4EL PII -1 P RIKM STk=JRE41 1 1 PA9WIG 1I t�-- gp_ PARICNC01004 PAW( lL1£L P2 r.-am" -- amAWUT AVE TA41aNT ®cAnm PCH BUILDING SECTION 3 D A s ` D ri ! ! ! A E --+®KEY PLAN The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach 059on006 I Brd1A(ngSeafanr-3mAt4 o zo ao 60 AAg2Acrs.2oos GenSlerW 1 1 1 I 1 11 1 I I I 1 1 11 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I ----- ---- ---------------- -------- ------ ----------------- I I q(JpDYT7A( I 1 RI1iLL 1 1 AF3mwl AE I i sG Q71a®R1N I tZ79ffRGUE I i I . __J I L------- 7515 ' L_____ J515------- 1 ' I SEIFY 1SRRTS 151L17Q'S 1 1 157LFE5 I I I L__________ I -____ -__—-_I _ . 117-C(M APART) Y _mr-C _—- _—-—m7-c - 5' —-IIY-V(MT A PART) _ _ _ _ _ `..:^..•:- Exm-TAT vAr>d m muN • msm-mm rAAvm m mw 3� -------------------- �' DDS7R1 d' E]mCN 9WADE PAlplm I i ED BE •�. . IIIDi Ti _1i � _—__� r—_+ -I X § 1 I I I I .......... 1 I I 1 X 1 8 1 5JT1�5 ....:.....:.. W 1 I L__________ _______ J yI I I I I:' I I EINTIID 9NFATE PA10@E I `� 1 _— 125.13' I _ _ _J _m BE DEY°151®.TIP. I_ N I I 1 I E SIpEY 1 -_J L___________________J I ••: i-----------1 57d71'_-_ LT :- I C m 11 ❑ d I L Tr _ 1 -- -EMKTwO-AklA'_—f-�-—___— I _ —- E fISTiNG-Ai3 -' ° ❑ I i ___ __ __ __ _ _ 1 I i I I 1 1 PAIM. 1 MT PMI P T 1 $rs' H 1 1 1 I 1:::::::1 [)}S1�ID 8A➢Nh"I 1-I 1 1:..: 10 i 1' I 1 OG I I IrR9DE 0r PA PAY9XAV 1°BE DEllml9® 'L 110 rII .... 1a4 .. II❑ l 4 I I j1 ��� I 1 I 1 1 1 �„ � ••.,.. I gip" I 1 I I I 1 I ��• - _ --� 365.2 B UARY QWFN ql 1}P. '• •:: B -- --—-- ;:r�� 1 0 III-�MM' PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY ' p S,• 210-Y <rruvl atw,otaB m'1-D' 7P-Y -� CROSS SITE AREA(hldudng 5lh St.)= 128777 SF.(t2.96 AG) Q PACIFIC CO ST HIS 4i SURVEY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Hamm"MIII6 WITHINNIA PMW MUDART.T�PT AS IlDlmk -a N M'a0PkM AQILT.OW or NNTVIM BEAM -PI OIRSOMY HAS A LARD LEM A17QEIp1T IIRI CMM V TIC°INTDIMO PROPUM ------- ------------- ------^------ ---- PO 9 E RWA PAO/C / , __fASAAG!Vf PIAII P (� no STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach C IM 05 9on oD6 Edft SRe PI°n 101 1130- IKk 90 (IT$Itm 5.1002 e Ge118fW i I � ' f f I I , T I WALNUT AVENUE —— DAB AfIOR(TYP. -—-—-—-—-—-—-— ,ywj I I I r PARKWO 5 WE • IA3YATE PROPERTY LK I I PARKIN,STRUCTURE FVFI 2 SUMMARY LEVEL Ian IM I tt :I Z k PROPERTY LIKE TJ W I STANDARD 197 SPADES COPPACT 16 SPACES(7.52) << < rTr Y I I NANDICAP 0 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 213 SPACES X. I Y I a < E o I I �------ I �;�---- IfS � II `1 I .I •C e " - n uc st-9' e L PrIm � .I ABOVE I b nwln TI➢. Og1Y fIflRL ,_6. u PROERTyLINE PROPERTY LINE j Of ff� if I II I I I �_�------- �' --------- / -------------------/ . 1.r� 1 VLIWF PROPDTIY IlE [>J78 AEM(Tm.):T —— •� RIOPEHiY IOIE 0.OP fR➢I 5T.A�1[J PRCP03D PMECT BOAONIT ___—__—_---___—_—_1_—___—_--._—_—_—_ ____—____---__ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY N L fl no STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach ciM •• QS.90220016 PmldrTg PImP-IePB 2 0 I 30' 60' 90' Sepranber3,2002 Gensler ' 1 1 � I I 1 , —— WALNUT AVENUE -—-—-—-—-—-—- —- -—-—-—-—-—-—-— a—A90YE(IV.) u3N AMp —— — I ` W I I ram' •PA1 RRKOW S e OUIYAIE PROPERTY M I I PARKING STRUCTURE 1FVEL 1 S WNARY P�pIT•,M qI y k 122 ��. ~ PRaPfiitt1 W'STANDARD 175 SPACES I <I f Y C I I COMPACT B SPACES(4.22) 11 1- HANDICAP 9 SPACES X I I V 1 fl• I tv TOTAL PARKING PRONGED 192 SPACES 7. Z I r• I !E I/:I® H HtL 1 t•^ I tt IlE I I07-Y r HP.DAY 07H PA6�61Y ,. I uF I .1 ABOVE � 70TA1 PARKRK:STRUCRIIaE SUYYARY 36 d PROPERTY LINEPFMMT PROIFA7Y Irt I LEVEL I tFVFl 2 1 TOTAL 1 STANDARD 175 SPACES 197 SPACES 372 SPACES :I �' F mK I I 16 SPACES NANDICAP 9 SPACES 0 SPACES 29 SPACES(5.91Q STRUCTURE SPACES 192 SPACES 213 SPACES A05 SPACES 1 I - ------=— ————————— — ————— I ULIYATE RE LINEM AW4(TYP.)� , -_�_- ---- PR ORATY NNE—_----(169Y91 Sf.AB01E - - PA- PAD.Etf TNAHARY _--__—_—_—_ __—_---_—_—_--- �_3 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 2E r t The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach CIM 0f.9022.006 parmgPl=-lave(! 0 30' 60' 90' Sepumder3.2002 Genie ............ ............. ................................... i..:......... ........................... ..--........ ' ..................--........... ---------------- .............................. __ _ i WALNUT AVENUE PROPFATVlRd PROPFTtttta¢ f . SE ULiWATE PRDPa le Tr u Nrr ALLY . ... ...:.:.:......::..:.::. ru ! O�i E rASnNG BUWGS NOT .NWIMPP T' I W• `I --•r•- V..: a--------------------- wi .: .p. OJ I 1 1 I I BLDQ A is -..' PB�EERIY Lin ----T ` ti r .�. IIn ------------------ = _ 1-- .......... ? v ti BLOCt Dr I ..-.. ''. ��t,,•f •oc'NOT°AOPA�R r"� I M --------------------- I I -.-:--. -.:-... it 1 I 1 :.v,�... , _ ; {: ----•-.•"..... . ...........J ::........ ...::::.. � LANDSCAPING ZONES ✓rare �• ::::}�::i::f'ii:{ if:S`v:(:?ii'ii}: Y; .__,....................-...........:{»: :iiiiiiii:viii: . ALL SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS I II II ✓.e,e `..:. .. ,irJi::::.::�:r::::•::>:-:� :r ..k ----- ................ WILL DE PRODDED WITH SOFT LANDSCAPE :.•> ----- I x.z;•.` I AND/OR DECORATNE HAfDSWE. BLM✓_._ B :. qti LDW F B B E i NO A PAR ............. BLDQ p ' •- 1 y I EXISTING BUILOING I❑ v .--r--.-' •}: y NOT A PART 2 � : PAOPFhIT UNE Y - _.._-_ ... S Y .s7 AMT NX 75 > I 1 _S II❑ "M1 VL=rA76N , :ENOTWC ART , -: �; NOT A PART : I .-- ULW#il PRWOIIY IHE >. 1 : ; .. •.•-- ________ ..:.. .....................' Imo' --------- -. ................... f ULTIMATE PRMMM UxE PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY ; A00➢OIAL S'R.O.OFOIGIRN q-PACIFIC:CAST HIGHWAY(100-R/W) MM SFE AxEA IRF ' ------•------- ...................................................... ---..-.-------.---.-.--- - ................................. -r €SURVEY PAcmc coAs7 MGHwAY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach 03.9012006 Prelbnb—ry landmopdnBP1m 0 30' 60' 90' AugurT S,1002 QeR81er ------------- ----.. .... .......... .. ................................... ...............- ................-------------------- ii ...................... ..................... .. WALNUT AVENUE ---------•--------------.......................-----..--.._......................................................... ---............ '......... _.. . .....--.---- d33 f --- ..... ..--.......------... La WiOPERttIH _-- _. YIDAM LK aL@ulE�1T UNE ., --------------- EXISTING.BUILD cS I + S I NOWT dAmutw: F' `•. N: NOT(�PMT I y I NOT Y;P�RT'y; 1+T. ....... �N 1 BLDQ A I i FRaIRtt LIVE - m x, — 1 to; ; ; ` 1 ; ................. ........... Z 1 SOUTH OPEN SPACE I •EXISTING BI;ZhlCS �: ------•---• AREA NOT A PART ti BLDQ D/ , ' ; -----• I 4605 S i --- - -r- - - i .................. :I OPEN SPACE AREA ......i - NORTH OPEN SPACE Ir��ws AREA ; ............................ .. 2646 SF •t•p••••- ...•_.•................ I. ❑ OPEN SPACE SUMMARY ___ CORNER OF 6th✓k PCH a1 BLDO.IF1107 SF I s�V BLDG.B .............._ ----- WALNUT NORTH 625 SF -••••-•-i I uuowAou ?I ' ❑ AT ELEVATORS/STAIRS LOBBY 9167 ❑ L _ WALNUT SOUTH 554 SF PLAZA h PASSAGE 4051 S ...... ..... _... OPEN SPACE PROVIDED m LEVEL 1= 7253 SF ................ .... ...EXISTING-ALLEY..: .... ❑ OPEN SPACE PROVIDED m LEVEL 2= 3183 SF EXIM PAwwc; ••-- TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED= 10436 SF y BU �F B�E' S i NOT A PART ) - ❑ !. �.,.� L1E7 SITE AREA= 103935 SF- EXISTING W; CCS,�Ni:... : NOT A PART NC LD(� .:............ RECURED OPEN SPACE at 10394 SF-- F 1 A03DMU 25 i �' i !EXISTING BLDG: 10%OF NET STE AREA .�� ';ROW,aO unom I : N0T A PART: --• 4TMhfflntt uaE AREA EXCLUDES ALL R.O.W.DEDICATIONS 1 ' - I - eosb -_� F_r-z . 1 i ------•---- i ......-.........-- Na;71• �auAIE min LK PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY h` AMU=5'RAW.DMICA➢IN rL PACIFIC COAST MGHWAY(100 R/*) OW 90 ARLAFRWERTY L .......- ...... ............................ .... __...................... ......................._.. .._...._..... •� GL SURVEY PACIFIC COAST MGHWAY- PACInC COAST HIGHWAY :w . The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach S 01907.t.006 Op-S)P—D&gimn(Gmmld1-d siz.p&1) o so so 90' AagW 5•2001 GenSier J j ...........! ............. WALNUT AVENUE s# PROPERTY LNL PROPRTY LHE # r ----------"""""f SE.1PE ULMIAIE PROPERTY UNE 1 kf r J.... • W : : '�•'• DO NOT ^BU W(S :•Y > id id !- x PROPERTY LD(�A2 I 1n dARuec T 1A P>�Ir.,: vl -------------- a ii. .? •- i 5 - ----------------'- ......' : .................................n......wi� I U NO PANT .........._........ G7057WG PUILdNG T A �• . . 4v..M..n 1.. •:x-.�::.t OPEN SPACE AREA y �.t•••••..c.: ._`....................... OPEN SPACE SUMMARY-LEVEL Z ' a ' _..."' ° ° TERRACE ON 51h ST NORTH 3183 SF NORTH OPEN SPACE AREA BLDCz B2 1 ................. ........i /' ON LEVEL 1 y: OPEN SPACE PROVOED an LEVEL 2- 3183 SF ' I 3183 SF . NOm •- BLD(i Q2 C[UTiYAPtD ._ EMS. ...... ALLEY UNG • f -• .• NOTA PAR ... y_. EY PARI T s : ;1SnNG ........: : I ..'�f.�... E%INOf APARTNG AmOONAL IS i E G BLDG ;RO\.®CAf10N; .I I NOT PART ULIWAE PROPERTY ;IA. .. .: ._..... •" r \:........... ...... ...... - • ........................................ ............ wva�`-- .._............ _ _::...w.•:_..em _...._................. PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY IR.NPAIE PROPERTY INE AOOMNAL$RO.M.IXOR'AR(N ' _ ......GROSS STE AREA PROPERTY IlE _....._..__:_..:..:................_......_...:..............._...._................._._._........................... _ - - .............. _..... PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY �Z The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach os.9oz2.aos 0;.SpaaDiV.(Z.,d2SI.PI.) 101 1130' so fro' ANg-5.200 Gensler OD �r it { Him i HyALr�r r ii I!r IIII r i �I!liiii tllitt $ All flip , o �e - 1 II 1 it VWA I b 11 0111111 is n I -- , --�--- ` it • t p 1 i Y �� !I,• ��I �1 �7��� I� I lab �t ! n � IF fit 11 � rill � r - ld°a p_ ISol f If D �! A ae a � i i� aK t t t/rn t: ►•Ifc f to hY+ .?J :c.. sYb. .. BE ................................. _� � t i1 gg t;: rJ f o•{�f-A •^.f i w }.} 4 S �:.>:;:,, E ...................................... • ..........................$'34 ,n.£`%•, - Amy It t,Ka,a a • _.»�1_4..•_..;4.. _iu . ....... tm!.................... ;F � � �;• �.......:............�....,��. � �.......;Y:::._�_....• rye ....f....�.. cm cif 4ti •io...... ..r"i ..b... .. Y. { i { ; 1K •••`•''••'..{;'.-'.•:rr`.':.`%•'":,��•..f , f� fit:" .•iia•:at.•�:.:. `�} :' {' ; . ......... ..t-"'. ........... i 7t / ........... ...... ...........•_._......• .... �� m TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16406 � ao�o�maa� ji, (L-----J L_ WALNUT AVENUE amm w Rm •®Kma��•1!•!®.f �.. .}�.y�. !�^� a1�a0�gaapaa NQ '}3::.s w S: :•jS'�• c�3:? ..5. I W in !� :c.>,4�o3'S} 5 `w:33,o�S:....i}5:9�<I.^•}t'..jiSi.?:?S� ��" aC Z J ° `4 F •.�s `�}s;s�:•�Es _'•s;�s};Es,;s.�. s•a•:•a.. �?s;^ } �, sic aouoarr air PAfe .F +�• aw •'�" I lE1Et 1 .LEVEL 2 I ?sis3Es's€: i }z:ts UVl1 t �,�1 iS•`i } �; :. '.?•�........... J —f ,� .• ca. yew +»:. �.m�9 A A .S:s-mac�?.".'�t ;r-�r.;%.'�5:::�t:.•�."'..*1r^.-3�"�N=�-�'='::;�. .��` '. SSE `' �0.3"'`t'7�^�` �' C"4`,...;.�„',.,,.,.,,�t�•: � �!'!"�~� "5��{..,,,.:..,..? � �N 771 . SCATS! � A si=�>isi ;sus f;Eytt..f�sis!sii'r'se s! �i}3`• e> `•��ii� •`•i �w V, PACIFlC COAST HIGHWAY P1�fP PIS i�i� 1 WEET s OF a .r TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16406 FM r — _ WALNUT AVENUE Rvrwr �r °� q� aiu�or PM :sr.ISiiSE;•tS:.�•'~'•4�g1;:3jS4i`'i S:g.'.i S.S• '"'� .. BE ul is 1 g 415if E52{:F 3:51�:2 •fle ili:�• YFS :� :5• R Z ;•Sw ;f�S Sr £'S S�+SSt3�i R:<';''i}>s.4 X ;S7%i;Tt—�� , —� y�-;7`•-••.^i-•l<-•--•+'"'Sf-'�"�'r:----,..-..Z •;-^'.-.:L:�t...;;.•-:--.........i�;-•., �i 6j J4 'JIE BGUNDARY ;£IS O: f7S L;a•55::Rt £iESE' r'•I8 I '� �-�;f�SiS ' sl= �si ="•Ezi•-EsS2zi%!, S�E�i,':ssi= 4'•sisisis.,...,.Sis� � 3�,.Nz.� '„�.:.,,.•.,�,....,i,.w.. .t..iS..,:,.t..:,e.,.;.,,i�!�.. ::`,.,n..3::,.:..;...,�.,,:...�;h.?„ ....1,,w I Pmia+c 5=1 LEVEL 2 f —•J I A A r-I �.. I I I , laws I I I � • PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY C SHEET 4 of e dr rr i w J n r I. IIIIIII'� f o IF � IIIIIIIC tea`. p�I In �:� i "N •.?r .Y.• iGr jyJ �,$$ �, Jam. .%iCi{{2{' _ N. _ 1 I I l 1� 1111111A IIIIIIIC Oil r ' � - - 7 %w :Choy ti.:..� : ' +J>ri;�$Y'$Y �4/ �.�:Fr''"4 'C/'.i. � e $f•.v..': y�• ■„ r 4 +�X }v � ME m Orin in u M e BOOM an *!��aeaaa : aae:eaa81 } < y H } } - .,rrfi.• lr:: ��#fib<� �_� — _ 'ru'I F�vv.'.:/h� f:/ Fi}. './.%Y•q. Y'!+n•?$'::'}': Y11rr(y^�l,'I frp r�.+ `r�. Yl,f%rl.'+ .{.l: fi+' >r/fii,' F/fJr F �%�•`�Y' �� �IIIIIII /f, ! 1111111 _ i'1111111 �� `_.................__..__....._.....__...__-.................................. eV•d •' ..._........._.._................. .--------------•-.-_-__..... �II if:itiid4 ••PATRaR ORS!YY .••••PAOdI15 PIQtP YNE7 N .................. ................................ ....H�' .... __ .... _..._���.•..�..•e............. _.._.......................... •.-•YNE7 WI ................ t.0.A. .. ........ .... ......'. ............ :;' ^' PAOR0.tt OYC IY PRO+cRn lat .. ._}.... >`' ■raoP-ar No HOaP AR[A n Y LLTAIATE PROPERTY LK __ >n • .:.,, rr .. ram. r� 1, W' rA r RErAu�REsuuRwT e- EwsTwc•� � /� 1 Am � r w•. I T T N: NOi ..... 0.Q W:• !P� :�1 � h x9FRM ' AMA �.� q sETawac w a < i I REUR/RESTAURANTOLDQ DO w ,3 �!1 RFTAR,/REST. RETA@/R ..� /,:•r.%� ;S• RfTAfL/RfST.i 1 j� ,..�;y:Vic.�,5�,• - — �•^Ttf�Qlv:i j��:,vF � .'.' niFa S. l.`�::<i::::�::.Y:; Ar S•. RETAIIMTAuRANr I ti I 1 IAN RCrAR/RfS TNiT R II ATNS 3 i Awm ANTti 1 � ---- S 1 I :`rii •: e Of6M PARKM , ,1• II B F B�E_ RfSTAORAN Nor A PART 5 :::QGSrING 911Q�Wrl::::::a:a k 'C: MEN JETAg/RESTAURANT fi+-_X:_.� 5 PRE'n Y i- !QO.E. G 1 REIMIRESI MrTM17MAURANT I .�..,.' 55 AWNroIAI I RElAII •e�TDZT'�X"'�P+ST7.:: :. ;:���:' I' ;0' u>v`TE TY I ,m Nnq-•I I IAURAN R PROPER A ..TY nA r I F g a-s z .i f �Ew • _ - r W -------` PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY ••�..'F-••...... ---'-----• •• ..soy fE PAC7FlC;COAST HIGHWAY(100•R/W) 9M ffi ARFA PRWM LIKE Via• ......................... .... _ - - ..............•......_......_.._....._._.... ...._._ _ fE SURVEY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ..•_._.-_.` .-....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................. ---� "1{�ainr.".zvfn• }= The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach c i M 05.9=006 Sim PlmJ-Dro"ffl VaW d TYajf a Fbw Pba 0 I ", 60' 90' ANg.5,2002 1 I I I ' WALNUT AVENUE ' arm Al10YE(TrP.) WmPERIT IAt —————— L------�— ----------�---------- -—-—-—-—-—-—-— -It / L y S8 FEW.— ~ •c MnMTE PROPERTY LINE .i I P c vmmC EVE 1 SUMMARY PROPERTrJ W SIAIIDARD 175 SPACES PROPER"LINE qqI I9T [FS c COWACT 8 SPACES(4.2%) HANDICAP 9 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PRCAfM 192 SPACES I I IT- cm H ------- - ---- ------- 1 �� 711A'•Um :�11 1•• • a y -► -► -► 'r-Y� -'' t I 1 N N N It I--I,ry'llA� c e .PA67(Rn UIL IA Arc , ItD'7 7YP.&Y * F I AODVE / MAPARKDNG STRUCTm SIIYYARY I :I a.� '�np. LLIWAiE PRWkRn IEI IA{ K'RORRn UNE I I iL I IEVEL 2 TOTAL 10-0 SPAS e.rl� 'F x 4,F I 'CpWACT STAMAM1 8 SPACES SPACES1 6 SPACES 324 SPACES(S91) HANDICAP 9 SPACES 0 SPACES 9 SPACES SMJCRIRE SPACES 192 SPACES 213 SPACES 105 SPACES -----� 10.1w1E NtOPERIY lce 'M AM(Trr.) ,1 I HA71Y9n 191E a 6 FM 4,A90'[J I PMPM PAaCtT M161RT —_---_--_—_—_---_—_—_—_—_�_—_—_____--_—_— PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY a-al awm itM`1�La1P �1 Mw SMMD-Downtown Huntington Beach CiM„ 022.03.9OOK Pmt6Kg Plmt-Zevell 0 30' 60' 90' September 3,1002,� 1ww__ nSiIr 1 I 1 1 � I I I I WALNUT AVENUE - - -—- -— —-—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-— aRm AwvE(TV.) �^ MOVE P1mAEBn 1Ra t �' I Ia1J <• �ju I I PARI(I 5 KKAT( • UlOYAR fROPFRn WEI I PARK(M• C7LI i1F1 2 anmARY N I I LNE PMMTY LK I 213 I 7' k ��n li W ST.. 197 SPaCEs q 1 1 i1 T7 '-R I W COMPACT 16 SPACES(7.55) HANDICAP 1T-Y r 0• I N( 0 SPACES 1 I v I Z TOTAL PARKING PRONGED 213 SPACES ---------- k r II I m._r TYP.eAr mm I 1 �n .1 -—- * ABooE II 1 ffi m• ffiX ffi< 1'-C LLTYAIE PROI41iI1 lK I 0®1E �M1E fROPENn IAE I 1 i ii J-c WIC I 1 I � I ��y 7.OLIWTE FR �ABO E(TmJ PkFEBTYLIR a S FIFTH SE AEBIR—� PR�09D rROEc KamARY ---- ----------------- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- -------------- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SS The STRAND-Downtown Huntington Beach .1 c 1 m.. 05-9022.006 PA kWs P7ml-LewJ 2 0 1 30' 60' 90' SepTmAber 3,20o1 G@nsi@� T yy Z koT�y I H Apt! ?o a �'6ti7! ,sue ROMA. secrioN "W,,v l� APO 04 *r ,`was M0y�:.. -- -- r /MA76 (m C7�oN k�4� FLAN ,ems C3') g0yowp -::T a Htfl�-L3 �� i RM, � w-o �►�-r� ,�vatr �r,��,e�fr — cw7 ou7 Nan/SiGCs&M/wkw !— — — — —— —— 32 48' V '>�71MA7L /� BC4cr� dWgAct;air. AOWW yto¢ �7�AtK at, 9iRxuoO �v POOF i fixAsrr Bps I I 1sfR�tf - � I 3-e /IT WWWAT,,�, 1�7Aii� Per r 81�Er NOW WWW B 'giver. NE1,llW1lfti��/1'NPd��B�F1�7� 1 i RisTmv r �• � EXlJ7� W"7f!'►1 PRoPo -q JAI`ceS&AWwo stw�rT/uT ac wA-iMr�rl . �� NORTI� 7!t- 4VGT/0 111 4� .("v,44!- W h80M WA-Li *r Al-) i�vo 2t �A z Y� 'tq V' BLOCKS 104 AND 105 WRITTEN NARRATIVE a) Reason for initiating this application In 1998 the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency solicited proposals for development of Blocks 104 and 105 with visitor serving retail and entertainment uses. On June 7, 1999 the Agency approved a Disposition and Development Agreement with CIM Group to develop a project as described here in. A number of benefits will result from the successful completion of the Project. These include the following: 1. The project implements the Redevelopment Plan by: removing blight; and improving land and installing required :public improvements thereby encouraging new construction; • mitigating development limitations which constitute a serious physical, social and economic burden on the community; providing adequate public improvements, public improvements, public facilities, open spaces and utilities; and providing construction and long term employment opportunities, especially for low- and moderate-income individuals. 2. Implements the Downtown Specific Plan. 3. Adds a hotel to the Downtown core area and increases the attractiveness to the City's tourists and visitors. 4. Results in the construction of a significant amount of restaurant and quality retail space, which will enhance the opportunity to attract retailers to the area and serve to diversify the types and numbers of people attracted to the Downtown area. 5. Improves perceptions of the Downtown and beach as a destination for people from outside the area. Positions the city to serve a base for the expanding visitor attractions in the nearby communities, including the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach and Disney's California Adventure now under construction in Anaheim. 6. Enhances the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers, restaurants and developers. 7. Contributes to efforts to create an 18 hour Downtown with visitors _and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping, dining and entertainment. 8. Provides for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. b) Area description and population served by the proposed use of the rp oject. The 3.6 acre site is ideally situated for development for development of main street retail, destination restaurants and a hotel. CIM's plans for the development of the site provides high quality shopping and dining that will be attractive to residents of coastal Huntington Beach and visitors alike. The project will include retail uses such as clothing, book and music, household furnishings, giftwares and galleries, and a specialty foods market. Approximately 40,000 square feet will be developed as prime locations for destination restaurants over-looking the Pacific Ocean. An approximately 120 room hotel, with views overlooking the -Pier and the Ocean, will fill a niche for vacationing families, weekend getaways, and business travel. The design of Blocks 104 and 105 provides a natural extension of the vibrant Main Street pedestrian orientation. Enhanced mid-block pedestrian paseos and sidewalks and convenient curbside pedestrian loading will support and events and festivals and provide a great community meeting place. c) Description of project, including square footage. Parking Surface Level 38 Spaces Standard 311 Spaces Compacts 40 Spaces Tandem 14 Spaces Total Parking Provided 403 Spaces* *Parking to be provided pursuant to Downtown Parking Master Plan Level 1 Retail 54,663 square feet Restaurants 20,467 square feet Specialty Market 22,919 square feet Subtotal GLA 97,698 square feet Hotel (Lobby) 2,520 square feet Hotel Lack of House) 0 sauare feet Subtotal Hotel .2,520 square feet Level 1 Total Area 100,569 square feet Level 2 Retail 31,927 square feet Restaurants 29,346 square feet Office 7,498 square feet Subtotal GLA 68,771 square feet Hotel (15 Rooms) 10,800 square feet Hotel (Lobby) 3,226 square feet Hotel (Back of House) 1,546 square feet Subtotal Hotel 15,572 square feet Level 2 Total Area 84,343 square feet Level 3 Hotel (53 Rooms) 35,058 square feet Level 3 Total Area 35,058 square feet Level 4 Hotel (53 Rooms) 35,058 square feet Level 4 Total Area 35,058 square feet Project Total Retail 86,590 square feet Restaurants 49,813 square feet Specialty Market 22,919 square feet Office 7,498 square feet Subtotal 166,820 square feet Hotel (121 Rooms) 88,208 square feet Project Total Area 255,028 square feet Total Site Area 3.6 acres Floor Area Ratio 1.6 Building Height Block 104 2 stories, 45' Block 105 4 stories, 60' Project will include the vacation of Fifth Street and alleys within the project area. d) Description of surrounding uses to the north, south, east and west. Pacific Coast Highway, Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street and Main Street (Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan/Main-Pier Redevelopment Sub-Area) bound project. Surrounding uses consist of one and two story commercial and residential buildings across Sixth Street to the north, one to three story retail commercial buildings along Main Street to the south, one and two story commercial and residential buildings across Walnut Avenue to the east, and Pier Plaza and the Pacific Ocean across Pacific Coast Highway to the west. A YCHIMIENT O. HUNTINGTON BEACH BLOCKS 104 & 105 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16406 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSE o'�o 3 NARRATIVE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The CIM Group is working with the City of Huntington Beach to process a Conditional Use Permit application and obtain Entitlements for a proposed project to renovate Blocks 104 and 105 in Downtown Huntington Beach. The Site includes the full two blocks enclosed by Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street, Walnut Avenue, and 61h Street. The Project includes the following elements: 1. The existing 3-story commercial building at the corner of PCH and Main will remain, as will the very old historical structures at the corner of 6tn Street and Walnut Avenue. 2. The remainder of the existing buildings in the Project Site will be demolished. 3. A full subterranean parking garage will be constructed, with an entrance off 61h Street. 4. New retail and commercial facilities, including a hotel will be constructed (3 stories) over the new garage. ZONING: District#3 Downtown Specific Plan/C2 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES We met with Mr. Steve Krieger, from the City of Huntington Beach, regarding the availability of existing water and sewer utilities and the demand of the future development. Mr. Krieger informed us that provisions were made in the past to provide water and sewer availability for this proposed development. 1. Water: An existing 12" water line is located on Pacific Coast Highway, and an 8" waterline on Main Street, that will remain in place. There is a 4" waterline on Fifth Street, and an 8"' waterline running through the alleys, that will be demolished, as part of the new construction. The proposed system will surround the site, through the streets, in order to serve the CA Ir%0%'5ne%A17/19ZAA 4-- ATTA- RA° KiT "" ti proposed buildings. An alternative solution would be to run the waterline system hanging from the ceiling of the underground parking, since a water line will probably be needed to provide fire protection to this area. When final building drawings are provided a more detailed evaluation will be conducted. J 2. Sewer: An existing 54" is located on Walnut Ave. As a preferred alternative connections to this main will be routed through the adjacent streets 61h and Main Street. A less desirable solution would be to hang the piping system from the ceiling of the underground parking. At this time there are no plans to provide a sewer line to the underground parking. 3. Storm Drain: A proposed catch basin is proposed on 61h Street and PCH, with a connection to the main line. The existing catch basin on Main and PCH will remain. The City of Huntington Beach approved a Hydrology Report this May 2002. 4. Dry utilities: Existing dry utilities are shown as part of the ALTA, they are available around the site. Dry utility connections will be directly to adjacent existing streets. TREE PLANTING Tree planting will be limited to proposed tree containers that will be placed through out the project. This plan will be submitted for the City's approval. JJV v F:wOB\2000\20544.00\corres\narrative.doc �` +�- �� RXECEIVED APR 10 2002 Setback Special Permit Portions of the project encroach into the required setbacks as follows: Building A — The portion of the building adjacent to Walnut Avenue is setback 5' from the ultimate property line, which results in an encroachment of 10' into the required 15' setback. Building B — Building B does not encroach into any required setback areas. Building C — The portion of the building adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway is setback 0' from the ultimate property line, which results in an encroachment of 15' into the required 15' setback. Hotel Building — The portion of the building adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway is setback 0' from the ultimate property line, which results in an encroachment of 15' into the required 15' setback. The portion of the building adjacent to Sixth Street is setback 6.5' from the ultimate property line, which results in an encroachment of 8.5' into the required 15' setback. The portion of the building adjacent to Walnut Avenue is setback 5' from the ultimate property line, which results in an encroachment of 10' into the required 15' setback. The proposed buildings within The Strand have been designed as street-front, retail structures that are typical of, and appropriate in pedestrian oriented downtown areas. The buildings are designed so that retail tenants can provide shop windows and entrances oriented to pedestrian traffic. Additionally, the locations of the buildings allow restaurant tenants the opportunity to provide dining areas adjacent.to the sidewalks. The buildings fronting on Pacific Coast Highway (Building C and the Hotel Building) are built to the property line, which is consistent with the Abdelmuti Building and 5' further back than the El Don Liquor building. Matching the setbacks to the Albelmuti building provides a continuous building wall along Pacific Coast Highway, which reinforces the urban edge of Downtown Huntington Beach. With a 0' setback for the buildings fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, the sidewalk is still over 15' wide, which provides adequate space for pedestrians and outdoor dining. The portion of the hotel building fronting on Sixth Street is setback 6.5' from the ultimate property line, which results in a sidewalk width of close to 22'. Compliance with the 15' setback requirement would result in a sidewalk over 30' wide, which would be an excessive width for a sidewalk in this location. The buildings fronting on Walnut Avenue (Building A and the Hotel Building) are built to within 5' of the ultimate property line. This amount of setback allows for a 15' sidewalk width while still maintaining the street edge in relation to the existing buildings on Walnut Avenue. Compliance with the 15' setback requirement would result in an excessively wide sidewalk. The proposed setbacks will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or nearby properties. In fact, the setbacks will be consistent with existing structures, which will make the new structures more compatible with the existing buildings in the area and help to expand the pedestrian activity in Downtown Huntington Beach. Findings 1. The granting of a Special Permit for a 5' to 15' encroachment into the required setbacks will allow the project to provide significantly greater benefits than would occur if the minimum requirements were met in that in order for the project to be built as a pedestrian oriented extension of the existing downtown, it is necessary for the building storefronts to be built adjacent to the sidewalks and in line with existing buildings in the downtown area. 2. The granting of a Special Permit for a 5' to 15' encroachment into the required setbacks will promote better living environments in that the proposed setbacks provide adequate sidewalk widths and open space while still allowing pedestrian oriented store fronts that are suitable for the types of retail and restaurant tenants that the project is attempting to attract to Downtown Huntington Beach. 3. The granting of a Special Permit for a 5' to 15' encroachment into. the required setbacks will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the 'neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general in that the reduced setbacks will still allow sidewalk widths ranging from 15' to over 20', which is more than adequate for the kinds of pedestrian oriented activity desired in Downtown Huntington Beach. Furthermore, even with the reduced setbacks, the square footage of open space in the project exceeds the amount required. 4. The granting of a Special Permit for a 5' to 15' encroachment into the required setbacks is consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a .development adopted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment in that Section 4.5.01(b) states that the street level of all buildings in District #3 shall be devoted to visitor-serving commercial activities, and the design of the proposed buildings with a minimal setbacks is conducive to attracting retail and restaurant tenants. 5. The granting of a Special Permit for a 5' to 15' encroachment into the required setbacks is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act in that the proposed setbacks are not inconsistent with the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan or the California Coastal Act. 6. The granting of a Special Permit for a 5' to 15' encroachment into the required setbacks will comply with State and Federal Law in that the requested setbacks are not in violation of any State or Federal laws. ECEIVED APR 10 20.02 Height Special Permit The portion of the project containing the hotel located on block 105 will exceed the 45' height limit for District 3 by 4.5' for a total height of 49.5' to the top of the roof, and the tower element located at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street will exceed the height limit by 25' for a total of 70'. The four-story building is consistent with the height limit in terms of the number of stories. The additional height is necessary in order to provide a 17.5-foot floor to ceiling height for the first floor retail portion of the building, compared to the second through fourth floors of the building that have a floor to ceiling height of 10 to 12 feet. The 17.5' ground floor floor to ceiling height is necessary in order to provide adequate ceiling heights for the quality restaurant and retail tenants that the project is attempting to attract to Downtown Huntington Beach. Generous ceiling heights are a very important quality for perspective tenants when considering whether or not to move in to a particular location. Compliance with the 45' height limit would require the first floor ceiling height to be. reduced to 13', and the ceiling height would be further reduced by the addition of mechanical and air conditioning equipment. The resulting ceiling height would be unacceptable for the restaurant and retail tenants who are negotiating to locate in the building. The additional height of the building will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or nearby properties. The added height represents a minimal increase from 45' to 49.5'. Furthermore, the portion of the project that exceeds the height limit represents only 37.8% of the total site area; the remaining portion of the project is at or below the allowed height limit. Findings 1. The granting of a Special Permit for a 4.5' increase in the permitted height limit will allow the project to provide significantly greater benefits than would occur if the minimum requirements were met in that the additional height will allow the first floor commercial space to have a floor to ceiling height of 17.5 feet which will provide the type of space necessary to attract quality retail and restaurant tenants. 2. The granting of a Special Permit for a 4.5' increase in the permitted height limit will promote better living environments in that the added height is necessary in order to increase the floor to ceiling height of the ground floor tenant space from 13 to 17.5 feet. This additional height will allow the project to attract the kind of quality retail and restaurant tenants that will improve the living environment of.Downtown Huntington Beach. 3. The granting of a Special Permit for a 4.5' increase in the permitted height limit will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general in that the additional height represents a minimal increase in the total building height and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or nearby properties. 4. The granting of a Special Permit for a 4.5' increase in the permitted height limit is consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adopted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment in that the additional height will allow the project to attract quality retail and restaurant tenants, which is consistent with Section 4.5.01(d) of the Specific Plan which states that "Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all development proposed in this District with a minimum requirement that the entire street level, or at least one-third of the total floor area be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses." 5. The granting of a Special Permit for a 4.5' increase in the permitted height limit is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act in that the proposed 49.5' height is less than the height allowed under the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. 6. The granting of a Special Permit for a 4.5' increase in the permitted height limit will comply with State and Federal law in that the requested height is not in violation of any State or Federal laws. K%JUJ �� APR 10 2002 Upper Story Stepback Special Permit The upper story portions of the Hotel Building do not comply with the stepback requirements along the Pacific Coast Highway elevation. Code requires an average 25-foot stepback from the ultimate property line for all stories above the second story. The proposed building provides a stepback of 9' to 19' from the ultimate property line. The Hotel Building has been designed to provide a strong two-story base, which aligns with the buildings near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. The third and fourth floors are setback a minimum of 9' from the edge of the ground floor base. The massing of the upper stories is further articulated in variations of roof height, colors and materials, and wood eave overhangs at the roofline. These design elements combine to break up the massing of the facade in a way that still allows the floors of the hotel rooms to be "stacked", which is essential in order to keep the corridors and plumbing fixtures in the hotel consistent from floor to floor. Findings 1. The granting of a Special Permit.for a 16'encroachment into the required upper story stepback along Pacific Coast Highway will allow the project to provide significantly greater benefits than would occur if the minimum requirements were met in that the hotel contributes to the economic viability of the project and in order for the hotel to be constructed in a economically feasible manner, it is necessary for the hotel rooms to be stacked. 2. The granting of a Special Permit for a 16' encroachment.into the required upper story stepback along Pacific Coast Highway will promote better living environments in that it will allow the hotel to be built in a manner which makes the overall project feasible. 3. The granting of a Special Permit for a 16' encroachment into the required upper story stepback along Pacific Coast Highway will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general in that the building complies with the upper story stepbacks along 6�h Street, which is where the project has the most impact on surrounding properties. The form of the building along Pacific Coast Highway does not have a direct impact on views from surrounding properties. 4. The granting of a Special Permit for a 16' encroachment into the required upper story stepback along Pacific Coast Highway is consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development ATTACHMENT N.O. �'� adopted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment in that the overall massing of the project provides variation in building height, setbacks, and upper level stepbacks, and exceeds the required amount of open space. 5. The granting of a Special Permit for a 16' encroachment into the required upper story stepback along Pacific Coast Highway is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act in that the encroachment into the upper story stepback is not inconsistent with the City's General Plan or the Coastal Act. 6. The granting of a Special Permit for a 16' encroachment into the required upper story stepback along Pacific Coast Highway will comply with State and Federal Law in that the proposed 16' encroachment does not violate any State or Federal laws. RECE Do APR 10 ZM View Corridor Special Permit Section 4.2.16 of the Downtown Specific Plan requires that any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting Pacific Coast Highway shall provide a view corridor not less than the width of the former street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. As proposed, the Fifth Street right of way will be reduced from 80' to 65'. The buildings along 5th Street will be built to the edge of the right of way line, which will result in a distance of 65' between buildings at the ground level. However, due to the fact that portions of the buildings stepback on the upper levels, there is a distance of 85' between buildings on the second level, 90' on the third level, and 90' on the fourth level. Therefore, the view corridor at the upper levels of the project either meets or exceeds the existing 85' right of way. Findings 1. The granting of a Special Permit for a 15' reduction of the 80' right of way will allow the project to provide significantly greater benefits than would occur of the minimum requirements were met in that the reduced right of way at the ground level provides for a more intimate pedestrian experience, while the upper levels meet or exceed the existing right of way. 2. The granting of.a Special Permit for a 15' reduction of the 80' right of way will promote better living environments in that the narrower street provides for a better pedestrian experience. 3. The granting of a Special Permit for a 15' reduction of the 80' right of way will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general in that while the right of way is narrower at the ground level, the stepbacks of the buildings on Fifth Street allow for a view corridor which is greater in width than the existing 80' right of way. 4. The granting of a Special Permit for a 15' reduction of the 80' right of way is consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adopted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment in that the. reduced right of way is not inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. 5. The granting of a Special Permit for a 15' .reduction of the 80' right of way is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act in that the reduced right of way is not inconsistent with the City's General Plan or the California Coastal Act. ATTArHI i PW N.O. g S_ 6. The granting of a Special Permit for a 15' reduction of the 80' right of way will comply with State and Federal law in that the reduced right of way is not a violation of any State or Federal laws. ATTACHMENT NO. �_ DESIGN REVIEW.`CHECKLIST C. Chapter 5 Downtown/Main Street Commercial N H r*f r N General Design Obiectives y ac The design of new development projects,additions and rehabilitation of existing structures within the Downtown should: N ■ Enhance the City's downtown ass principal focal point of the community. Developments should contribute to the a pedestrian-oriented "village-like" W environment and should physically and visually relate to the adjacent`shoreline m ■ Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier W • Consider the scale,proportion and character of development in the surrounding area Establish pedestrian-oriented, attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional site arrangement of buildings and parking areas, and a high quality n architectural and landscape design which provides proper access,visibility and identity c, ■ Facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity and mitigate existing adverse automobile oriented planning patterns. ro ■ Preserve and incorporate natural amenities unique to the site into the project development proposal ■ Preserve and incorporate structures which are distinctive due to their age,cultural significance,or unique architectural style into Ilse project -I Sep 0 G:IPLANNINMesign GuidelineslChapterSChecklist.doc I 19 0 o (� to Site Planning a Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o a. Street adjacent building siting is encouraged. .3 b. Provide corner "cut-offs" for buildings on prominent y intersections. c. Place ground-level front elevations of the building on the CO frontproperty line to maintain the continuity of the "street ✓r k wail." t,r15 a�- -�Yor� �rti N d. Provide additional setbacks from the front setback line a1 P14� �joJi o, public plaza areas. ✓ � .4 B1 pry g 0 m e. Create continuous pedestrian activity in an uninterrupted sequence by minimizing gaps between buildings. ,/ �oVeCIA- a ar e,.005 BYO. f. Avoid placing parking lots that interrupt commercial space along street frontages. is �cdv d g. Avoid blank walls and other "dead" spaces at the ground level. ✓ i3l)Mt6l-5 U.lA 0 r 'd h. Create pedestrian pascos to parking lots at the rear of buildings. t5 Qrov1`�"� . U il0ten i. Use building indentations to create small pedestrian plazas C 'La fo�Jidled along the street wall. J. The first floor of any commercial building within Downtown ,l q 4 should be built on the front"build-to"line. . , �,v,,,� b Od_ � on ll;nre., k. Storefronts and major building entries should be oriented towards major streets,courtyards or plazas. � r�� P I. Buildings on corners should include storefront design features on at least 50%of the side street elevation wall area. ✓/ ekl �`t� �� G:tPLANNING1Design Guidelines%Chapter5ChecklisLdoe 2 c a N � 1 0 m Architectural Guidelines W 0 1. Architectural Imagery Not Applicant Staff 'V Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks ■ Architectural Style If an overall positive ambiance is to be created and if historic integrity is to be preserved, new infill development and renovation to existing structures must be respectful of its cu-i Wj-^ y surroundings. In the downtown area, "Mediterranean' style design solutions and elements characteristic to that style are w strongly encouraged. / Mod e,(A Mtd, �' Architectural styles that attempt to copy other historically m significant styles found in the downtown area may also be acceptable. Designs that are compatible, but distinguishable from their historic neighbors are encouraged. Design solutions may use historic ornament in new "revival' interpretations of older styles. These may be appropriate as long as (lie result is visually compatible with its surroundings and the design is s distinguishable as new. 0 x o ■ Use of Traditional Facade Components o Repetition of traditional facade components creates patterns and alignments that visually (ink buildings within a block, while GP—k- Go ' ►� allowing individual identity of each building. These elements y SA are familiar to the pedestrian and help establish a sense of scale. / �,� The use of traditional facade components is encouraged. Some �/ traditional facade components include bulkheads, arches, arcades, plazas, and balconies. These elements may be reinterpreted in a variety of ways. ■ Facade Rhythm r` The typical comrnercial lot design has resulted in buildings ofLt�l. relatively uniform width that create a familiar rhythm. This V/ ts�5 �� fMS pattern helps to visually tie the streetscape together. Reinforcement of this facade rhythm is encouraged. W ltr�df9w E�ce-v,►�v-� G:IPLANNING1Design GuidelinesIChapter5Checklist.doc ; c W Architectural Guidelines 0 m 1. Architectural Imagery(CONI) Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Rennarks Remarks o ■ Per Scale of Structures - N H Buildings with "human-scale" proportions are most suitable to (�M of AWo the atmosphere of downtown Huntington Beach. "Human- scaled" buildings respect the existing architectural character of ✓ t5; OJt' v the district while enhancing its marketability as a unique tW EX commercial and residential area • Distinction between Upper and Lower Floors c The first floor of commercial buildings should be predominantly ✓ � tw�h comprised of transparent surfaces (windows), with a high ratioa.GvkG _ of void(windows)to solid(wall)areas. t • Building Heights bOLULVI-JS a/Cle-1 In the downtown area, new development infrll should be vow 41-t- compatible with the height and scale of surroundings buildings. V he l,,�(.- e)CCY_R C-- The Pedestrian Experience p� Buildings facing pedestrian streets and plazas should incorporate design features that provide visual interest at the street level. � !� Building elements should be designed in a way that enhances the V visibility of merchandise and store related activities by e r-Ac" s pedestrians. ■ Predominantly Transparent Ground Floor Facades in Commercial/Retail Areas Storefronts with blank or solid opaque walls degrade the quality of the pedestrian experience. To enhance the pedestrian V p�oJ t atmosphere, it is important to provide transparent storefronts to maintain visual interest. G:IPLANNIHGWesign GuidelineslChapter5Cbecklist.doc q 0 0 Architectural Guidelines 0 2. Building Fonn and Macs Not Applicant Staff G Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o` a. Tall buildings should be made less imposing by "stepping back"from the street level. b. The characteristic proportion (relationship of height to Pr o,C.� 15 dlV td-r-� width) of existing facades should be reflected in new infill ✓ t�� ,� development. .,r c. Building facades should be detailed in such a way as to make them appear smaller in scale. This can be achieved by rJ C)<<�� 5 �✓` articulating the separate floor levels with horizontal bands or WAC a,c. by increasing the level of detail on the building at the street V/ 40 level. '' m 0 r d. New buildings should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. The bulk of infill buildings should relate to the prevailing scale of adjacent V/ development. �^�� fb e. The predominant difference between upper story openings c) and street level storefront openings.(windows and doors) o should be maintained. =o f. Whenever a proposed infill building is wider than the existing facades on the street, the infill facade should be broken down into a series of appropriately proportioned %V-1 "structural bays" or components such as a series of columns or masonry piers. > - g. Long, blank, unarticulated street wall facades are strongly 5 g discouraged. > h. If maintaining a horizontal rhythm or alignment in an infill building is very difficult or otherwise impossible,the use of LY1Ce '� fabric canopies or awnings is encouraged to establish a Z shared horizontal storefront rhythm. P G:IPLANNING\Design GuidelineslCbapter5Checklist.doc 5 t9 0 n o t;_U rn V", Architectural Guidelines 0 m Z. Building Form and Mass(CONI) Not Applicant Stan' 01 Applicable Applicable Remarks (Remarks o i. Monolithic street waif facades should be "broken" by verti- dLW n N cal and horizontal articulation. breaks(reveals,recesses)in the surface of the wall itself W caA ILL5 a" rn p ■ �/ r placement of window and door openings b �C. u i ■ the placement of balconies,awnings and canopies � �' l y De 3. Views Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks w a. Buildings should be designed to take advantage of ocean 02 W I rS G.••� �+�f-�t views by providing windows, balconies, stairway,landings o and other design features. y o b. Infill buildings should be designed to respect the views of �y existing buildings, where possible. View corridors should be designed through large developments. V l" c. Rooftops should be designed to be visually attractive when viewed from adjacent buildings. kjtilt-ldttri'S �-soJ�cplt � T a 4. Environment Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Design of buildings and open spaces along the first block (Qr� Wu.,rt inland from Pacific Coast Highway should take into account g A the strong prevailing westerly winds. �. b. The shadowing effect a new building will have upon adjacent development should be addressed. c. The effects of shadows cast by buildings into open areas ✓ / took such as courtyard and plazas should be analyzed. ' �Vnv.r�lowV'I e Z G:IPLANNING%Design CuridelineslChapter5Checklist.doc b � o 0 y Arebitectural Guidelines 0 m S. Building Materials and Colors Not Applicant Stalls' w Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o a. Exterior building materials should compliment the materials used on adjacent buildings. The following materials are kWLkVU,y k)M« considered appropriate for buildings within Downtown Huntington Beach: � �LyC6Ark • stucco(smooth or texlunecfl V • smooth block • granite N • marble 0 b. Accent materials should be used to highlight building m features and provide visual interest. Accent materials may 1 - r include any of the following: 'OLS6-, 41k ,i • Wood rX l cat. u Glass u Glass block(storefront only) / r' Glass block(transom)new or used face-brick �/ c� • Tile, (bulkhead) x • Brick -o • Concrete • Stone • Copper e Cloth Awnings • Plaster(smooth or textured) 0 Painted Metal • Wrought Iron z z G.TLANNINGWesign GuidelineslChapter5Checklist.doc 7 0 00 Architectural Guidelines 0 m 5. Building Materials and Colors(CUNT) Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks _ Remarks o c. The appropriateness of any given color for a particular N building depends on a number of factors, including, �S W A.( architectural style, building material, building features and details, building size, building orientation, building context, and climatic considerations. �+ (�,V ■ Use subtle/muted colors on larger and simpler buildings COWS 6VCA6-Vt ■ Use multiple and more intense colors on small buildings AA or those with elaborate detailing t) w ■ Encourage contrasting colors which accent architectural ( jlGJ 5 00 details • Encourage colors which accent entrances �. • No more than three colors should be used on any given o facade, including "natural' colors such as unpainted brick or stone a Avoid using colors that are not harmonious with colors found on adjacent buildings A M d. Light building colors are encouraged. Soft tones ranging x from white to very light pastels are preferred. Neutral colors 026 "C' 0 x such as off-white,beige and sand are also acceptable. e. Finish material with "natural' colors such as brick, stone, copper,etc.,should he used where practicable. PMJ t �a t CIA- f. The orientation of a building should be taken into consideration when selecting colors, because it affects color appearance. Colors on south and west facades appear warmer than if placed on north or east sides. GVLANNINMDesign GuidelineslChapter5Cbecklist.doe g 0 0 V" - Architectural Guidelines 0 m 6. Roofs and Upper Story Details Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o a. Roof materials most indicative of Mediterranean architecture such as clay shingle tile, concrete shingle tile, Mission file and other file-like designs are encouraged. Other acceptable Cn roof materials include copper and painted metal. 00 b. Flat roofs are strongly discouraged unless an ornamental �� �tiS y roof cornice is included. Mansard-style roofs have no YW�G tVA t cio�' historical context in Downtown Huntington Beach and w should be avoided. V/ Gc{�'K`txLk"�LL ra"�- W Cf9+f t1lCCi �L'tpu�tS o tov� c. The visible portion of sloped roofs should be sheathed with a �jtb f� � C> roofing material complementary to the architectural style of r the building and other surrounding buildings. ✓ Cd��l j5� Cv�ti t S� W l'('In �tiw tvt�uvr}1�, d. Roof-mounted mechanical or utility equipment should be A screened. The method of screening should be architecturally I integrated with the structure in terms of materials, color, �ut� v`'t shape and size. Mechanical equipment should not be visible o from any angle or any height outside of the building. -o e. Chimneys,roof flashing,rain gutters,downspouts,vents and it oY.4%pe•s %A other roof protrusions should be finished to complement or ✓ -�.�t5{n�oQ -gyp corm- accent the adjacent materials and colors. 7. Windows Not. Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks 4 a. Multi-paned windows are encouraged. Simple shape [rim (� window forms are preferred. ✓ � 4 a,_P J%- 1 p G:IPLANNiNGIDesign GuidelineslChapter5Checklist_dac 9 tQ 0 r 0 Architectural Guidefines 0 7. Windows(CON ) Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable. Remarks Remarks b. Windows, which let more light in, such as clerestory windows, skylights or greenhouse windows and wells are ✓ ►tad lc�i ,L, `� M strongly encouraged. �+C[ a M c. When windows are added or changed, the established facade f' theme and window rhythm along the whole block should be m taken into consideration. :.e d. Use of clear glass (at least 881/6 light transmission) on the first floor is recommended. e. Storefront windows should be as large as possible with a F, minimum 18 inch bulkhead. By limiting the bulkhead 64w" height, the visibility to the storefront displays and retail / isp QR;^ 1n interior is maximized. Maximum bulkhead heights for new ✓ SS construction should be approximately 36 inches. L `+- _-- f, Introducing or changing the location or size of windows or to v M other openings that alter the architectural rhythm or / character of the original building is strongly discouraged. 0 r g. Windows should provide variety along street frontage. The 2 t � following is a list of appropriate window treatments: �> (Iy�� ��,� 1G • Tile borders Colored window framing Shutters 45A t ■ Plant-on relief features ✓ ■ Iron or wooden grills .m.9 0 Dormers • Projecting bay windows • Window boxes ■ Window pop-cuts G:IPLANN(NGIDesign GuidelineslChapter5Checklisl.doc 10 0 r r Architectural Guidelines 0 m 7. Windows(CONI) Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o N h. Window security grates or grilles along street frontages area discouraged unless integrated with the overall architectural / theme. vS �(V�Q r" i. Brightly colored cloth or painted metal awnings can enhance (I IL S the visual appearance of buildings. Awnings.should be of a .,� solid color or two-color stripes and designed to coordinateo,tt with the architectural divisions of the building. N 9. Doorways and Entrances Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o a. Building entries should be protected from the elements and provide a"sense of shelter"by incorporating overhangs and ✓ simple recesses. b. Building entries should afford a"sense of entry"to the to ,lt _ building. c� c. Appropriate design treatments include- a c Traditional wooden door I�^I ■ Contemporary wood and glass paned door • Stucco arch surrounding the door ■ Brightly colored awning over the door f ■ Brightly pained door or framing ■ The use of a wall or cave to emphasize the door �, ■ Tile lead-in path to door d. Doors to retail shops should include a high percentage of (.A � glass area. GAPLANNING1Design GuidelineslChapter5Checklist.doc I 1 r N Architectural Guidelines 0 m 9. Exterior Stairways Not- Applicant Stag' o Applicable Applicoble. Remarks Remarks GO a. Simple, clean, bold stairway projections which complement N the architectural massing and form of the building are ,3 encouraged. cn b. Stairways should be designed with decorative features such as tile risers and rails to create visual interest while meeting m functional needs. kpttA vov ECU c. Stairways should be of smooth stucco or plaster. w . V � 0 A m 10 Balconies and Rooftops Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Inclusion of balconies and rooftop outdoor areas in building ���``� ���� "— design is encouraged. Balconies can be designed as deep insets on the building form or projections from the building. / �bv 1nQ ,ac Rooftops can provide usable outdoor space in both V residential and commercial developments. �b x 0 — r `o 11. Arches and Arcades Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Arches should be semi-circular or slightly flat. Parabolic arches are strongly discouraged. t�c�l� QK.4�e-S b. Care must be taken that arches appear authentic. The integrity of an arch is lost when its mass is not proportional �.s to its size. Columns must relate in scale to the building. ✓ �.i C. Columns may be square, rectangular or round. The column l :t height should be 4-5 times the width of the column. d. A base should be incorporated at the bottom of the column. The use of capitals and column bands is strongly V L&v `4- encouraged. V JU� '" z G:IPLANNING1Design Guidelines,Chapter5Checklist.doc 12 o r w A� l ' Architectural Guidelines 0 m 12. Plazas and Courtyards Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks `o a. Plazas/courtyards are encouraged within downtown Huntington Beach. ��` ` t ov`� (—Awe►,.. g } b. Ample seating should be provided in the plaza areas. Z w� . 0 JL � c. A visual focal point such as a fountain or public art should Fau� a�� �A�r„r y be provided within plaza/courtyard areas. V/ N 13. Walls and Fences Not Applicant Staff o _Applicable _Applicable Remarks Remarks F. a. Walls should be integrated with the overall building design. / o V r b. Care must be taken to maintain scenic views available to the community. Wall design should preserve views to the EVeatest extend possible. c� A M C. Walls may be constructed of stucco or brick and enhanced with decorative inset tiles, wrought iron fencing,high ornate c iron entry gates,or low planters incorporated into the base of a wall, 14. Other Building Elements/Details Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Building and site details should be integrated into the overall design of the building or development. gl b. Gutters and downspouts should be properly screened where necessary, unless designed as a continuous architectural feature. Exposed gutters and downspouts should be colored to match the fascia or wall material to which they are attached. C.mN�p Z GaPLANNINGTesign GuidelinestChaptet5Checklist.doe 13 o r Architectural Guidelines _ o 14. Other Building Elements/Details(CO" Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o c. Accessory elements such 'as mailboxes, trash enclosures, N newspaper racks, and security gates should be compatible i lk t�L� with the architectural style of the project. IN rn CA 113 c5�i ►- 0 15, Focal Elements Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks y a. Vertical building focal elements are encouraged. Towers, ''rptya(�g {a � G%P N spires, or domes become landmarks and serve as focal/orientation points for the community. V/ CD m 16; Parking Structures Not Applicant Staff' Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Where possible, elevators and stairs should be located on the �� �5 perimeter of parking structures. d b. Shops, offices or other commercial spaces should be r incorporated an the ground level of parking structures along street frontages. Landscaping should be provided adjacent to wall surfaces. o -o M z ® wPLANNING1l?esignGuidetineslChapter5Checklist.doc 14 o �3 U Storefront Desien Guidelines 0 m Storefront Details Not Applicant 51atY Entries/Doorways Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks o a. The main entry to Downtown buildings should be ^' emphasized by utilizing one or more of the following design H elements or concepts: ni • Flanked columns,decorative fixtures or other details o ■ Recessing the entry door within a decorative opening o • Incorporating a portico(formal porch) projection or inset into the building Providing a change in roofline,a tower 0o b. Buildings situated at the corner of a public street should ��uts 44- C44-AR-i5 0 provide a prominent comer entrance to street level shops or �A Qid� �� o lobby space. Awnings and Canopies Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks A a. Use of awning with a single color or two-color stripes is lwn� g vidt encouraged. Lettering and trim utilizing other colors is '/ permitted. `� -o b. Where the facade is divided into distinct structural bays, awnings should be placed between the vertical elements. r`'►'n'^'�'r' W ' The awning design should respond to the scale, proportion and rhythm created by these structural bay elements and" nestle"into the space created by the structural bay. c. Aluminum awnings or canopies are strongly discouraged. V/ br e� aG►�o��r� d. Awnings should be of a durable, commercial grade fabric, (� canvas or similar material. Awning frames and supports II, should be painted or coated to prevent corrosion. '/ e. Glossy, shiny plastic, or similar awning material are not 6(o-jc; o^,k 4,tekY recommended. t� ?VX ,, O-w n"s t,att( G:IPLANNINGIDesign GuidelineslCbapterSChecklist.doe19 15 0 1 Cr` Storefront Design Guidelines - o _ m Grille Work and Other Details- Not Applicant Stam A_ pplicable Applicable Remarks Rennarlcs o a. A number of details may be incorporated into the building design to add visual richness and interest while serving �1l 0�- -TY'L`7 r functional needs. Such details include the following items: �^ ty m • Light fixtures, wall mounted or hung with decorative/ CD brackets 1 • Metal grille work, at vent openings or as decorative features at windows,doorways or gatesto • Decorative scuppers,catches and downspouts. • Balconies,rails,finials,corbels,plaques,etc. • Flag or banner pole brackets o • Fire sprinkler stand pipe enclosures and hose bib covers, preferably of brass • Security devices A M .�i Rear Entrances Not . ApplieaM Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Signs should be modestly scaled to fit the casual visual - `d character of the alley or rear parking area. b. An awning can soften rear facades and provide a pleasant protected space. c. The rear entry door design should be compatible with the front door. Special security glass (i.e. wire imbedded) is allowed. TI D G-\PLAMINGtDesign Guidelines;Thapter5Ghecklist.doc 16 r 1 Storefront Design Guidelines 0 m Rear Entrances(CUNT) Not Appliraott Staff Applicable Applicable. Remarks Remarks o d. Selective use of tree planting, potted plants and oilier ^' landscaping should be used to improve a rear facade. M e. Refuse containers and service facilities should be screened from view by solid masonry walls with metal doors. Use o landscaping (shrubs and vines) to screen walls and help deter graffiti. W N G Co Buildine Additions and Renovation Guidelines m 1.Preserve Traditional Features and Decoration NO Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarlcv a. Existing materials,details,proportions,as well as patterns of materials and openings should be considered when any additions or building renovations would affect the appearance of an existing building's exterior. x b. Frequently,original storefront decorative details are intact as visual .'leftovers" or simply covered up .by previous construction. When a building is proposed to be refurbished, these forgotten details should not be wasted. If enough of them remain, they should be restored, based on the original design. If only a few remain, they should be incorporated as design features in a new storefront. In either case, the design of any improvements should evolve from the remaining building details and should create a _ harmonious background which emphasizes them. c. All existing historic building detailing should be preserved. t"I`1 G:%PLANNING%Design GuidelineslChapter5Checklist.doc 17 0 F.. Building Additions and Renovation Guidelines 0 CI m 2.Removal of Elements Incousbteot with Original Facade Not Applicant staff Applicable Applicab!e Remarks .Remarks o a. Buildings are often altered by owners or shopkeepers in an effort to"keep up with changing times"or to"update a tired image." Unfortunately, such changes often result in gradual m but severe erosion of the original character of the building / N and architectural cohesion of the Downtown core area. V o Restoration of buildings which have been substantially or I.- carelessly altered back to their original state is strongly . encouraged. N' Ga b. Building elements which are incompatible with the original facade design of the building should be removed. These include excessive use of exterior embellishments andA. "modernized" elements such as metal grilles or rusticated materials. c. Metal aluminum canopies have -a thin, unsubstantial and "tacked on" appearance and are inconsistent with the desirable design concept for Downtown Huntington Beach. Existing metal canopies should be removed and, if o appropriate, replaced with fabric awnings, consistent with the architectural style of the building. 3. Storefront Renovation Not Applicant St kff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Where the or storefront remains (little or no g remodeling has occurred), it should be preserved and repaired with as little alteration as possible. 3 9 rn G;1PLANNINGTesign Guidelines\ChaptedChecklist.doc 1 g 0 m Buildine Additions and Renovation Guidelines 0 m 3. Storefront Renovation(CO" Not Applicant Stets w Applicable Applicable -Remarks Remarks o b. Where only part of the original storefront remains (limited remodeling has occurred),the storefront should be repaired. H Historic details/materials should be maintained where M possible. Extensively deteriorated or missing details/parts should be replaced with new reproductions of the original o r ones. ,n c. Where the original storefront is completely missing to (extensive remodeling has occurred), the storefront should be reconstructed based upon historical, pictorial and other Cn physical documentation. If that is not practical, the design / o of the new storefront should be designed to be compatible ✓ m with the size, scale, proportion, material and color of the existing structure.- 4. Window Replacement Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks (Remarks s a. Wherever possible, the original window openings should be retained. If the existing ceiling has been lowered, the o dropped ceiling should be pulled back from the original window. b. If possible,the original windows and frames should be saved and restored. Missing, rotting or broken sash, frames, mullions and muntins with similar material should be replaced. Z GAPLANNINGII)esign GuidelineslChapterSChecklist doc 14 0 to 0 r• - '.Q P Building Additions and Renovation Guidelines 0 4. Window Replacement(CONI) Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks c. If the original window openings have been altered, the -� openings to their original configuration and detail should be / y restored. Blocking or filling window openings that V M contribute to the overall facade design should be avoided. Cn d. When replacing windows, consideration should be given to the original size and shape detailing and framing materials. y Replacement windows should be the same operating type as the original window. 0 5. Door Replacement Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Original doors and door hardware should be retained, repaired and refinished. b. If new replacement doors are necessary, they should be compatible with the historical character and design of the / structure. " 0 x o r `0 6. Awnings Not Applicant staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Original awning hardware should be used if they are in working order or repairable. b. Use of slanted canvas awnings is most appropriate for older storefronts and is preferred over contemporary hooped or box styles. G V LANNIMMI)esign GuidelineslChapter5Checkl ist.doc 20 0 . to r Building.Additions and Renovation Guidelines 0 m 7. Repair and Cleaning Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks w a. Surface cleaning should be undertaken by the gentlest means N possible. Sandblasting and other harsh cleaning methods H that may damage historic building materials should be rn avoided. r N O b. Waterproofing and graffiti proofing sealers should be used ^' after cleaning and repair. y ;.e N 8. Replacement of Unavailable Components Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. When original construction materials are not available, care m should be taken to match the original thickness, color and texture as closely as possible with available materials. . In / general, simulated replacement materials (artificial stone, simulated "aged"brick)are discouraged. 9. Additions to Existing Structures Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks C a. The design of a proposed addition should follow the general scale, proportion, massing and detailing of the original structure. b. New additions should be interpretations of the existing buildings wherein The main characteristics of the existing �k structure are incorporated using modern construction . .i methods. This may include: the extension of architectural / lines from the existing structure to the addition;repetition of / 0% window and entrance spacing; use of harmonizing colors V/// 3: and materials; and die inclusion of similar architectural details (i.e., window/door trim, lighting fixtures, tilelbrick decoration). Z _ t G-VLANNINGWesign GuidelineslChapter5Clrecklist.doc 21 tl� N N Building Additions and Renovation Guidelines - - o 9. Additions to Existing Structures(CONT) Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Rerosrks I' c. New additions should be designed so that if the. addition CD were to be removed in the future, the essential form and. ✓ ,j integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired: c ' r I � 0 10. Seismic Retrofitting Not Applicant Staff N �n Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Exterior structural improvements for seismic retrofitting N should be undertaken with care and consideration to minimize negative impacts on the appearance of the building.. o Where possible,such work should be concealed. Where this Al is not possible, the improvements should be carefully o integrated into the existing building design. b. Seismic improvements should receive the same care and forethought as any other building modification. A S Landscaping � 0 r 'O Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remsrks Remarks a. Emphasis should be placed on California and Mediterranean landscapes and gardens. Native planting, vines, flowering ` n��`°x't-e plants, arbors, trellises and container planting are encouraged. ' oitu6.- %j-,A b. Courtyards, gardens, and fountains are encouraged, Landscaping within courtyards should include a balance of hardscape and landscape materials. c. Boxed and container plants in decorative ceramic, terra coda, wood, or stucco planters should be used to enhance A street frontages,plazas and courtyards. W t�� uSAA G� G:IPLANNtNGIDesign GuidelineslChapter5Checklist.doc ?Z 0 N �' Ga Steps 0 - - m 1. Sign Design(CONT) Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks c. Keep the overall shape simple so as not to detract from the message. ,,1 r t*1 d. As a general rule, letters should not appear to occupy more than 75%of the sign area. o s e. Avoid hard4o-read and overly intricate typefaces. The letter style chosen should be appropriate to the business and the building. 0 f. Signs should be consistent with the proportion and scale of building elements within the fagade. The placement of signs provides visual clues to business location and affects the design integrity of the entire building.. g. Ground level signs should be smaller than those.-on higher levels. Pedestrian-oriented signs should be smaller than W automobile oriented signs. c� 0 h. Signs should establish rhythm, scale and proportion in , facades and arcades. i. Sign placement on a facade should complement building elements rather than block them. J. There are two methods of illuminating signs: internal with -- �®a' the light source inside the sign and external with an outside light directed at the sign. k. Internal illumination is permitted on channel letters only. 1. Signs without channel letters must be illuminated externally. WPLANNINGWesign Guidelines\Cbapter5Checklist.doe 24 o N N '� i Suns o m I. Sign Design(CON7) Not Applicant Staff' W Applicable Applicablle Remarks Remarks o m. Signs must be lighted with continuous light sources. N H r n. Following are definitions and examples of the different types `" of allowable signs. Illustrations are provided to stimulate N ideas. y x 2. Awning Signs Not Applicant staff N Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks OD a. Sign copy shall be centered on the awning to achieve - o symmetry. m 0 b. Message shall be limited to the business name and logo and sized to be proportional with the awning. A H 3. Banners Not Applicant Staff Applicable . Applicable Remarks Remarks 0 a. Bright colors are appropriate because they stand out against ; light-colored backgrounds. b. Banners must be kept in good repair and be replaced when fading or deterioration occurs. c. Banners sliall not be used for advertising. 4. Canopy Signs Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Canopy signs provide pedestrian scale and can enhance building fronts. b. Projecting signs are permitted as a special type of canopy sign pursuant to the Sigh Standards chart. GMLANNINGIQesign GuidelineslChapter5Checklist.doc 25 N Signs 0 5. Freestanding Signs Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks a. The Mediterranean theme can be suggested through the use N of materials such as stucco and tile. r, rr1 b. Pole signs are not permitted in the downtown area. 1 r 6. Wall Signs Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks U a. Brightly colored channel letters add to the festive atmosphere and may be illuminated internally. 0 b. Wall murals can brighten and add interest to the downtown m area. Wall murals should be done to enhance the area rather than for advertising. Wall murals shall be permitted subject to the discretion of the Design Review Board. • A S G) 70 O r- 't1 Fri z z G-.TLANNINGtlesign Guide lineslChapter5Checklist.doe 26 � o N v,\ o Signs. o 7. Window Signs Not Applicant Staff o Applicable Applicable Remarks RemarksC. 0 ■ Interior sighs shall be within 36"of the window so as to be readable from the exterior. n r ■ Sign area shall be less than 15%of the total window area. " 0 ■ Window signs shall be geared to the pedestrian and be at eye ;e level. C4 ■ Window signs shall be designed to be pleasing and to aesthetically enhance shorefronts, o - m o r Applicant Signature: Date: c� 0 �o l� G:IPLANNINGIDesign Guidelines\Chapter5Checklistdoc 27 0 ro N �, CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 4 OF:THE OCTOBER 21, 2002 RCA MITIGATION MONOTORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 5 OF THE . O;CTOBER 21, 2002 RCA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. D1-02 AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3RD. FLOOR, 2000-MAIN ST. ATTA CHMENT 12 a x - ' Rlkv. CEWE+ SEP 2 42002 September 22, 2002 From: Susan K. Worthy 128 Sixth Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To: Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Subject: Comments on; Staff Report pertaining to Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, Coastal Development No. 99-16, The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Blocks 104 and 105. Dear Commissioners, I am writing this letter to express some comments and concerns about The Strand Project and Staff Report as it pertains to our property, commonly called The Worthy Property. Item 1: We strongly support Staff's Suggested Modification(on page 3 and 4 of the staff report) as it applies to our property. With the 20ft buffer set-back and the upper story set-backs on Building G where it borders the southern edge of our property. This modification also supports CEQA and Mitigation Measure 3 .3-3 of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and was determined necessary by an architectural historian to mitigate the impact of the hotel building on the historic property. Item 2: On page 21 of the Staff Report, Staff is recommending an 8ft wall be constructed, at a 3ft set-back from the new property line which will be created when the alley is vacated. We agree that the wall needs to be. built, However, we do not agree that it should be built 3ft in from the property line. We need to have the wall built on the new property line for several reasons; We need, all of the area available for access to the East side of our buildings. It needs to be noted that we have approximately 90ft of building walls ranging from 20 to 28ft in height with several windows at this location. The 7ft of area is needed for ladders or scaffolding when repairs on the roof, walls, or rain gutters are necessary. Also, our utilities are located in this area and if any digging is necessary in the future the room would be needed for equipment and materials etc. . 's recommendation of where they plan the wall to be, allows for 3ft of landscaping on the other side creating legal issues. With's Staff's plan, We most likely, would not '3 use this landscaped space. However, It would be used more by the public since they would have more access to the area then us. When this landscaped area . is legally dedicated to us, we would have insurance and legal liabilities for that area. It also, would have to be maintained through a license and maintenance agreement with the applicant which is an unnecessary cost for the applicant if the wall is on the 7.5ft border. Also, for aesthetic reasons, since the wall has to be built where it never existed before. It would look better farther away from the Historic Building making it visibly less encroaching and, at the same time, giving us the access to the much needed space. We urge you not to follow Staffs recommendation on this issue and require that the wall be built on the new property line. Item 3 : Regarding the reciprocal driveway as suggested on page 22 of the Staff Report, we do not have a problem with this item in concept. Although, there is still some question as to location and size that still need to be worked out. Item 4: In the Attachment No.l section of the Staff Report on page No 1.16 item: ] and page No 1.17 item:n. with regards to removing the curb, gutter and sidewalk. I can understand Staff s desire to remove the existing sidewalk ect. to match the Ocean view Promenade project. However, our building's and property are not new construction and are Historic and the existing street scape reflects and is a part of the Historic ambiance of the Historic Site as a whole. It should be noted, that in the 1980's the curb and sidewalk located on Walnut Ave. was irreparably damaged to such a degree to my dismay, that it needed to be replaced. The Public Works Dept. went to great lengths to recreate the new sidewalk to match the original. Including, reinstalling the horse hitching rings and putting the score lines in the concrete in the original locations. The horse hitching rings have been there for as long as the building's and are quite an attraction and curiosity for tourists and for people walking by the building on Walnut. On Sixth street, we have the original existing sidewalk, parkway, and curb. The curb needs some repair. Also, in the late 1980's a single palm tree was planted in the parkway(not by the city) this should be removed and relocated to an area where the city could use this tree. The original historic street scape on 6th Street and Walnut Ave. should not be changed. The existing street scape adds to the Historic site as a whole site. We do have photo documentation to show how it was when the buildings were new. * My only request would be that the modern streetlight on Walnut Ave. be replaced with a Historic replica of what was originally there. In closing, I would like to add that the Planning Staff has been very helpful in working with us on this project. I am especially grateful to Jane James and Herb Fauland for answering our many questions. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me. Sincerely,, Susan K.Worthy HUNTINGTON BEACH,! CHAMBE�RO COMMERCE _.._.. .. September 24, 2002 Jan Shomaker, Chairman Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street, Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Shomaker: The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors just recently had a plan update for The Strand project, located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Main and 6th Streets. The Board unanimously reconfirmed its support of the project. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail, lodging, and secondary office space, with parking integrated into our existing downtown parking plan. The board feels that the project is an essential component to create the critical mass needed downtown in order to make Huntington Beach a competitive tourist destination and an economically viable area. The Strand will provide additional dollars to the city in the form of property, sales, and transient-occupancy taxes. In addition, it will provide an expanded shopping, dining, and meeting place for our residents. The architectural design is consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme for the downtown area. The plan for 5th Street is unique and provides a thoughtful blending of pedestrian and vehicular activity while preserving ocean-viewing opportunities. We urge the Planning Commission to approve this long-awaited project so that we can move closer toward fulfilling the potential of our city's downtown area. Sincerely, Rid del. rasident cc:.H.B. Planning Commission City Council City Administrator 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)536.8888 c_.,n4eI ecn'792cA _- - 1 1 1 E WA ER V RONT September 24,2002 Jan Shomaker,Chairman Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Chairman Shomaker. On your agenda for Tuesday, September 24 h, is the mixed use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105, also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach The plan follows long-held goals for downtown and, in particular, redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our city's greatest resources,downtown. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail,lodging,and secondary office space, with parking integrated to our downtown parking plan. I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented In doing so,please take account of the following key points: • The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants, including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown but the entire city_ • The Strand will increase the volume of hotel, sales, and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach; each building will have a unique architectural expression, consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. • The pedestrian and streetscape system links paseos and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Beach, it is time we create in the downtown area an expanded shopping, dining, and community oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable consideration will be a great service to our community. Sincerel Stephen K_Bone President The Robert Mayer Corporation ..... .. . 1-- .. n I "1 .\lr co otvn_T.•.I....1.... .. I'71A17C<) 4Z(1C71 c ie _ .anus s.c� :�i ca�nrrt ....•... ....�..�.. ��..-....�.�._..—_. _ �_ __ -- - - --- Mayer Financial, a Limited Paxtnersh"IP September 24,2002 Jan Shomaker,Chairman Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street HuntiVon Beach,C.A.92648 RE: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Chairman Shomaker: On your agenda for Tuesday, September 24'h, is the mixed use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105, also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach. The plan follows long-held goals for downtown and, in particular, redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our city's greatest resources,downtown. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail,lodging,and secondary office space,with parking integrated to our downtown parldng plan. I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so,please take account of the following key points: • The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants, including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown but the entire city. • The Strand will increase the volume of hotel, sales, and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach; each building will have a unique architectural expression,consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. • The pedestrian and streetscape system links paseos and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Beach, it is time we create in the downtown area an expanded shopping, dining, and community oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable consideration will be a great service to our community. Sincerely, Robert L. Senior Vic esi —14 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1050 NEwPoRT BEACH,CA 92660 (949) 759-8091 . (949) 720-1017 Fax C /7 7l1VIJ _ LCG•! 1-1[ALP.•L. . . .w.. �....u... .�...ww�.....��. . �w �. .... �s ...w. DEVELOPMENT v\c �` September 20, 2002 The Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beath 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,California 92648 Dear Commissioners: Over 15 years have gone by since the plans to develop the area currently known as The Strand was first proposed for redevelopment. We have gone through a number of economic cycles during that time and now,this is the time when a window of opportunity has come our way in order to build This area,, which will complement what has already been done on Main Street. We desperately need more revenue to cover the expenses and programs a city like ours incurs. It takes money and the best way to get it is to bring people to Huntington Beach to spend their money instead of raising fees and taxes on its citizens. I ask you to please approve this fine project. Failure to do so would really be a shame and eouid result in another 15 years wait. It will be'a win-win-for the city, its citizens and the visitors we will attract. A course for the city was set years ago, so we must stay on track in order to complete and be successful with the downtown redevelopment plan.. Sincerely yours, John illotson Managing Member J.T.Development (Builder of Plaza Almeria,Main Street,Huntington Beach) " :•:• .• • L:714t$9� 6321..'. 'TE . ,. 15272 Bos Chica Road;Hunngton Deach, CA 92649 Sep 23 02 12: 47p Metravation 510 465.-4472 p. 2 September 23, 2002 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P O Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Deor Commissioners: I am familiar with the CIM proposal for The Strand. It appears to be the type of project economic development wants downtown.They are good developers and the concept seems appropriate. I feel the project is good for Huntington Beach. Very truly yours, Merritt Sher Terranomics Developmnet C John Given, Sr.Vice-President CIM Group 520 THIRD STREET, SUITE 118, OAKLAND CA 94607 TELEPHONE (5101 839-4000 FAX (510) 465.4472 - n SEP-23-2002 12:51 PM 546977622 949 931 1246 P.01 HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC. September 21, 2002 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: on your Agenda for Tuesday, September 24 is the mitred use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105, also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach. The plan follows long held goals for downtown and in particular redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our eity's greatest resmirnes, do arntrnvn Thr plan ii A wellswilrlwd m1T of nail, lndirinff end . inndnry Mrr. 6pm,% wale pukhi$latWatad to our dowsta"parking plan. I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so,please take account of the following key points: • The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants,including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The sum m of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not o4 downtown,but the entire city. • The Strand will increase the volume of hotel, sales,and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach, each building will have a unique architectural expression,consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. • The pedestrian and streetscape system links pasecs and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Reach,it is time we create in downtown an expanded shopping, dining and community oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable consideration will be a great service to our community. Sincerely, rivie zvo - ioioi ot+uuii avu. numuiywii oduun, t.,u11 vmiuY4out Sep 23 02 11 : 45a Huntington Capital Corp 714-847-7491 p. 2 Huntington Executive Park September 23,2002 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: On your agenda for Tuesday, September 24, is the mixed use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105, also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach. The plan follows long held goals for downtown, and in particular, redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our city's greatest resources, downtown. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail, lodging and secondary office space, with parking integrated to our downtown-parking plan. I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so,please take into account the following key points: ■ The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants, including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown but also the entire city. ■ The Strand will increase the volume of hotel, sales, and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach. Each building will have a unique architectural expression,consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. ■ The pedestrian and streetscape system links paseos and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Beach, it is time we create in downtown an expanded shopping, dining and community-oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable consideration will be a great service to our community. Ayoge t 16168 Beach Boulevard •Suite 200- Huntington Beach, California 92647 - (714) 847-2531 • Fax(714)847-7491 i AC®EL PROPERTIES September 19,2002 The Huntington Beach Planning Commission SEP 2 3 20QI City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: The Strand Dear Planning Commissioners: I am a resident of Huntington Beach and am writing to you to voice my strong support of The Strand project. Three generations of my family live and work in Huntington Beach. We also own several apartment buildings in our City. The Strand is a great project and should receive your full support. Huntington Beach is fortunate to have a high median income.which should generate strong retail sales. Unfortunately,Huntington Beach does not presently offer the variety and quality of stores and restaurants_that our residents deserve. The Strand will offer Huntington Beach much needed retail and restaurant opportunities. Frankly,my neighbors and I are tired of driving to Newport Beach every weekend for shopping and dining. A project like the Strand is long overdue. Its design is outstanding, and the project's tenants will bring excitement and quality to the Downtown. I have had personal experience with CIM group as we have owned a property in Brea, California adjacent to the excellent project which CIM developed there. CIM is a talented and conscientious developer who goes the extra mile to produce a quality project of architectural interest. The Strand will be a credit to our community.. I urge you to vote in favor of this very worthwhile project. Sincerely, Claude L. Yacoel 16501 Carousel Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 ____ e%l 11'r ' nA0% u1 IK1T1AIf`_Tr%K1 RCAr 1-1 n.A GORAG 1171A1 Ado-9905 •(7141 a40-9906 FAX i INC- September 23, 2002 INVESTM SENT/DEVELOPMENT/FINANCE The Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: THE STRAND Project Dear Commissioners, Our firm owns a building across the street from the proposed Strand development. While we stand to lose our view of the ocean,we support the project and it's concept. It's a positive development for the city and will make downtown more family-friendly. We've worked hard to refurbish our historic building and have been successful in attracting the Red Pearl Kitchen restaurant. This establishment has provided an alternative which attracts new customers from outside the immediate area to experience downtown. While there are details such as merchant.access to long-term parking, the Strand development will provide additional shopping and entertainment alternatives in this exiting area that are badly needed and will benefit the community and it's families. Thank your , :Steve Wise President Capital Investment Network, Inc. 414 WALNUT AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648-S 1 S8 71 4-969-6969 FAX 71 4-969-2780 September 20,2002 The Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 This letter is va itten in support THE STRAND, in Downtown, Huntington Beach. As the primary leaseholder of the property occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza,my fancily and 1, at the request of the Huntington Beach City Council, signed an agreement for a long term lease with CIM Group. CIM agreed to keep us updated as to the progress of the redevelopment project and up to this date have done so. The plan presented to you on September 24, 2002 is supported by myself and my family. We Mtge the Planning Commission of Huntington Beach to move forward with this beautiful project. We believe it is a good one and any further delay would be detrimental to our community. Thank you for your concern. ties � ally ya r vator Cracchiolo and Family 6691 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 847-7991 .SFP-24-2002 09:46 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BCH 714 374 5304 P.02 September 23, 2002 Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: The Stand Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the "The Strand" project before the Planning Commission. We are concerned and very involved citizens of the community. We represent a wide range of backgrounds and areas of business. And we have all worked together to improve the downtown community through our involvement with the Huntington Beach Art Center. We are hopeful " The Strand" will win your approval on September 24, 2002. This project will bring a new resident and visitor base to the downtown area. A better mix of downtown patrons is a much-needed component to the area and to the local businesses and cultural programs. We welcome "The Strand"project to Huntington Beach and applaud Mr. John Givens and his group for developing such an interesting designed project. With your approval, this well developed project can go forward and the city can begin to benefit both culturally and financially_ Sincerely, Diana Casey Dr. Gil Fujimoto Sondra Blau Mflke Adams TOTAL P.02 Sent By: ALE XANDER ENT; 7146693185; Sep-23-02 6:30AM; Page 1/2 GEORGE ALEXANDER WIENERSCHNITZEL #318 7622 EDINGER AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92647 PH: 714-842-4542 FAX: 714-669-3185 September 20, 2002 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: On your agenda for Tuesday, September 24 is the mixed use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105,also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach. The plan follows long held goals for downtown and in particular redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our city's greatest resources, downtown.The plan is a well-considered mix of retail;lodging and secondary office space,with parking integrated to our downtown parking plan.I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so, please take account of the following key points: • The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants,including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike.The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown,but the entire city. _ The Strand wi11 increase the volume of hotel,sales, and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. Sent By: ALEXANDER ENT; 7146693185; Sep-23-02 6:31AM; Page 2/2 • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach,each building will have a unique architectural_expression, consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. • The pedestrian and streetscape system links paseos and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Beach,it is time we create in downtown an expanded shopping, dining and community oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable consideration will be a great service to our community. Sincerely. George Alexander Sep 23 02 11 : 19a P- 1 September 23, 2002 John S. Carter 21141 Banff Lane 1.1B, CA 92646 The HB Planning Commission City of HB 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 HB, CA 92648 Dear Planning Commission, I am writing you this letter to show my support for the proposed project being but forth to you on September 24, 2002, i think THE STRAN D represents a great opportunity to change our downtown area from a mix and match of buildings to a more stable looking environment that has a beach looking architecture. The new businesses proposed are all upscale and well-run operations and 1 have been in most and spent money. Please approve CiM Groups proposal so they can get started on this exciting new project on schedule. Thank You, ohn S. Carter Horne Owner 09/24/02 TUE 15:06 FAX 949 250 1114 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES [a 006 Teri Kay Gartland 7762 Sailboat Huntington Beach, CA 92648 September 24, 2002 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Members of the Commission: I'm excited to hear about The Strand project in downtown. Our city sorely needs the retail outlets as well as new restaurants. The Strand will continue the revitalization that the Hyatt and other redevelopment projects have begun. I love Huntington Beach and want to see the city continue to grow and prosper. Please support The Strand this evening. Thank you, Teri Kay Gartland 09/24/02 TUE 15:05 FAX 949 250 1114 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES 1a002 Linda Cato 3261 Francios Arrive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 The Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Members of the Planting Commission: I am writing to urge your support of The Strand. Our city desperately needs;new retail development to revitalize the downtown area. Rather than spending my money at South Coast Plaza or Fashion Island, I would like my tax revenue to benefit my city and its residents. _ Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the planning commission meeting this evening. That is why 1 am writing to encourage each of you to vote yes for The Strand. Sincerely, Linda Cato 09/24/02 TUE 15:05 FAX 949 250 1114 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES Q003 Julie Ungerleider. 8308 Atlanta Avenue, 4205 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 September 24, 2002 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Members of the Commission: I would like to encourage your favorable consideration-of CIM's application for development of The Strand,.downtown Huntington.Beach. When I originally heard of this project, I was excited that we would have such wonderful retailers in the downtown area. I've been waiting for years and would like to see this project built. particularly with the new Hyatt hotel and conference center,we need retailers and restaurants in downtown. Please approve this project tonight. Thank you, Julie Ungerleider 09/24/02 TUE 15:06 FAX 949 250 1114 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES [a]004 Dina Gartland 1832 .Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 September 24, 2002 Ms.Jan Shomaker Chairwoman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chair Shomaker: It is my understanding that the planning commission will be considering CIM's, The Strand development at.tonight's meeting and that you will be unable to vote on this item. I would appreciate you sharing my comments with your commission colleagues. I very much support this'development project. I believe it will,be a great enhancement of the the first block downtown area—which is now in desperate need of rennovation. Additionally,the tax base including the transient occupancy tax will help the entire city. I hope you will urge your commission colleagues to favorably consider this item tonight. Thank you, Dinafn Cxartlain—& Chair, Public Works Commission Nr f l 09/24/02 TUE 15:06 FAX 949 250 1114 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES Z 005 Kristen Simeroth 12314th Street, #3 Huntington Beach, CA, 92648 September 24, 2002 Ms. Jan Shomaker Chair Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chair Shomaker: I am writing to express my support for The Strand project in downtown Huntington Beach. I understand that the commission will be.reviewing this project at tonight°s meeting, As a downtown resident, I believe we are well overdue for the downtown area to get this new development. The tax revenue and additional visitors to the area will be a boom to us all. We need to have improved ammenities in the area--especially in light of the recent beach improvements and the new Hyatt development, This project has been pending far too long. I would appreciate your approval of this item tonight. Thank you, Kristen Simeroth Sep 23 02 03: 53p La Quinta Cliffhouse (760) 360-5576 p• 2 9/23/02 The Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To Whom It May Concern, Duke's restaurant of Huntington Beach would like to goon record voicing full and enthusiastic support of the CIM group project "The Strand, Downtown Huntington Beach."This project will greatly enhance downtown and will help define the area as a compelling place to visit_. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (714) 374- 6446. Sincerely, Brett Barnes Managing Partner j1y 71 A v � r � s P ................... ......................................_�...................... .... .....�.... ..._................ ......_.................................._... ...... ' .......... r 2&cv w . ........... .............. ..- ..............................._... ... ...... ........ .......... ......... ..._................_......._......._............._. ._........ . � ' _............................. _.........._.._......._.._....................................... .................. ..._..._._-__..._.__..._..-.__............ --. .....__.... _._.._...._.... - -- ._._.....__,_•......._.._..._ Sep 22 02 10:09a dell 7149030705 p• 1 September 20,2002 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: On your agenda for Tuesday, September 24 is the mixed use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105, also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach. The plan follows long held goals for downtown and in particular redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our city's greatest resources, downtown. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail,lodging and secondary office space,with parking integrated to our downtown parking plan. I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so,please take account of the following key points: e The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants, including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown, but the entire city. • The Strand will increase the volume of hotel,sales, and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. e The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach, each building will have a unique architectural expression,consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. The pedestrian and streetscape system links paseos and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. e For residents of Huntington Beach,it is time we create in downtown an expanded shopping,dining and community oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable co ideration willZbeaeat service to our community.. Sincerely, Alan Mero 15582 Sunburst Lane Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647 i SEP-24--2002 03 :03 PM MIKE GRUMET ASSOCIATES 714 69e6454 P. 01 September 24,2002 To: Joyce Riddell From: Mike Grumet RE: CIM Group/The Strand Project Dear Joyce, I cannot attend the Planning Commission Meeting regarding the Strand project,however, please forward.to the council my endorsement of the project. I feel attracting tourism and retail sales to the community is a good way to generate tax dollars to help our city. Sincerely, Mike Grumet CHARLES H.BUNTEN MARJORM J.BUNTEN 380 5TM Saner HundagM End,CA 92646-5120 Tel: 714-960.4961 PAX, 714-960.4961 September 23,2002 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach,CA 92W RE: The Strand Project.Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: On your agenda for Tuesday,September 24,is the proposed plats for developing portions of Blocks 104 and 105 in the downtown area of Huntington Beach. As a resident of downtown I encourage you to unanimously approve this mixed use resident and visitor serving development known as THE STRAND. The plan follows long-held goals for downtown and,in particular,redevelopment of the vacant properties that forum the gateway to Otte of Southern California's best locations for beaahside living,employment,entertainment and relaxation. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail,lodging, and secondary office space, with parking integrated to our downtown parldng plan. I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so,please take account of the following key points: • The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants, including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality retail, hospitality and commercial enterprises capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The Strand will increase the volume of hotel.sales,and property tax revenues,creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. • The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown but the entire city by removing the present blighted condition of that portion of downtown. • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach;each building will have a unique architectural expression,consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. o i propose that the Planning Commission must also address the rematning property in block 105, known as the "worthy Property." To have that dilapidated, long neglected derelict anywhere in the City of Huntington Beach is a disgrace,not to mention amidst the downtown business and residential smi tares that represent a huge investment in both dollars and design. • The Strand's pedestrian and streetscape system links paseas and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that appropriately merges into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Beach, it is time we continue the downtown improvacnents through an expanded shopping,dining,and community oriented district that will truly represent the beat of Shop. play and Stay in Huntington Beach. your approval of this project will be a great service to our community. Sincerely, Sep 24 02 10:38a Huntington Center 7148947686 P. September 24,2002 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: The Strand,Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: On your agenda for Tuesday, September 24 is the mixed use resident and visitor serving development for portions of Blocks 104 and 105,also known as THE STRAND, Downtown Huntington Beach. The plan follows long held goals for downtown and in particular redevelopment of the vacant properties that form the gateway to one of our city's greatest resources, downtown. The plan is a well-considered mix of retail,lodging and secondary office space,with parking integrated to our downtown parking plan: I urge your timely consideration and approval of the proposal as presented. In doing so,please take account r of the following key points: j • The Strand will introduce up to 20 stores and restaurants,including 4-6 anchor tenants that will prove downtown as a location for high quality tenants capable of serving our own residents and visitors alike. The success of this leasing effort will spill over to the benefit of not only downtown,but the entire city. • The Strand will increase the volume of hotel,sales,and property tax revenues, creating jobs and increased tax base desperately needed. • The design enriches the character of downtown Huntington Beach,each building will have a unique architectural expression,consistent with the coastal Mediterranean design theme. • The pedcstrian and streetscape system links paseos and Fifth Street shopping in a unique urban design that also grows into the Main Street character of downtown. • For residents of Huntington Beach,it is time we create in downtown an expanded shopping,dining and community oriented district that will capture our business and be a great meeting place. Your favorable consideration will be a great service to our community. Sincerely, (2 Patricia Rogers-Van Voorhls 7675 Clay Avenue Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)848-6162 I I Con ,tS me Brockway, City Clerk.. ,•� ,:,,,,,•_„����..�..,,,,,,,,.�r City of Huntington Beach +<.. �,�,� ; \rr T°v,�, Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ocr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2002 \. y . .. r .�.. C A H METER667594- i c OCCUPANT WN6Tpy I 221 Main St., #T ro y/s 3 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 C.a Cm X got ,L -N E- PUBLIC HEARING 1 t U� Jr f�0C � � f .'� E1�4b�4.�•�/y"-••'?.4, ''1�1111�1'111111l11 11ll1ifi111111�'f(�111'lllll�l'f l�l llll'l l' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. 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: 131. APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01-02 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16 (THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH -- BLOCKS 104/105): Co-Applicants: CIM Group/Huntington, Inc. and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. Appellants: CIM Group appealing TTM No. 16406, CUP No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, and CDP No. 99-16; James A. Lane, HB CARES appealing EIR No. 01-02, TTIM No. 16406, CUP No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06, and CDP No. 99-16. Request: Appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of the following: EIR: an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 226, 500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and -an approximately 405 space two-level subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. TTM: A subdivision map to consolidate multiple parcels on portions of two blocks into one 2.97-acre parcel for condominium puToses. The map includes right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6 Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block.105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the alley on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5tl' Street for a•65 ft..wide public access easement- with reciprocal access including a 24 ft. wide reciprocal easement for vehicular purposes. CUP/CDP: To permit the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of approximately 226, 500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and an approximately 405 space two-level subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. To permit 5.9% (24 spaces) of the 405 total parking spaces in the subterranean garage to be compact in size. To permit valet service, parking entrance gates with attendant booths, and collection of fees within the subterranean parking garage. SPECIAL PERMITS: To permit the following, 1) encroach into.the minimum ground floor setback along Pacific Coast Highway at 0 ft. in lieu of 15 ft., 2) encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Sixth Street at 6.5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft., 3) encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Walnut Avenue at 5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft., 4) encroach into the minimum upper story setback along Pacific Coast Highway at 9 ft./average 11 ft. 4 in. in lieu of min. 15 ft./average 25 ft.,:5) to exceed the maximum building height with the hotel at 49 ft. 6 in. in lieu of 45 ft. and the architectural tower at 70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft., and 6) to reduce the view corridor on Fifth Street from 80 ft to 65 ft. Location: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and.the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut (Blocks 104 and 105). Protect Planner: Herb Fauland, Principal Planner (g\1ega1s\CCLGFRM2\02cc1021) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 which includes Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 filed on July 22, 1999, in conjunction with the above request, is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. City Council action on Item 'No. 1 may be appealed to.the California.Coastal Commission within ten (1.0) working days.from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The California Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach,.CA 90802-4302, phone number: . (310) 570-5671'. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 for Item No. 1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item No. 1 would have a significant environmental effect and, therefore; an environmental impact report is warranted. The environmental impact report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. ON FILE: A copy.of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the.City Clerk's Office on Friday, October 18, 2002. 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 (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written j communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g\1ega1s\CCLGFRM 2\02cc 1021) LAM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK December 11, 2002 James Lane HB Cares (Citizens Against Redevelopment Excesses) 637 Frankfort Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Lane, The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its October 21, 2002 Council Meeting denied the appeal filed to the Planning Commissions' approval of EIR 01-02, TIM No. 16406, CUP 99-45 with Special Permits 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16. Enclosed is a copy of the City Council minutes of October 21,2002. Please call if you have any questions (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CC: Scott Hess,Principal Planner 017/r1) Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney G:cbmemo2002:James Lane HB Cares Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE CH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 28, 2002 California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 101h Floor Long Beach, CA 90801-4302 NOTICE OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Blocks 104/105) Applicants: CIM/Huntington, Inc., John Given, Vice President 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs, Deputy Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Appellants: CIM/Huntington, Inc., John Given, Vice President 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 James A. Lane, HB CARES (Citizens Against Redevelopment Excesses) 637 Frankfort Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 Request: To permit subdivision and development of a mixed-use project consisting of approximately 226,500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a two-level 405 space subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. Location: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut (Blocks 104 and 105). (Telephone:714-536-5227) y Notice of Action — CDP 99-16 Page 2 October 28, 2002 Coastal Status: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Action: On October 21, 2002, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council conditionally approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 99-16 with Findings for Approval and .Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. 1). The CDP does not become effective until the ten (10) working day appeal period to the Coastal Commission for the CDP has expired. The following entitlements were approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission and subsequently appealed to the City Council by John Given, CIM Group (Co- applicant). The CIM appeal was of the Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval of TTM 16406, CUP No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and CDP No. 99-16. The appeal filed by James A. Lane, Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess (HB CARES) appealed the approval by the Planning Commission of EIR No. 01-02, TTM 16406, CUP No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and CDP No. 99-16. The City Council held a public hearing and reviewed and approved (4 ayes, 2 noes, I abstention) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 99-45 a request to construct an approximately 226,500 sq. ft. mixed-use development consisting of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a 405 space two-level subterranean public parking structure. In addition the CUP permitted 5.9% (24 spaces) of the 405 total parking spaces in the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size and allow valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant.booths, and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking structure. The CUP request also included Special Permit No. 02-06 to: 1) encroach into minimum ground floorsetbacks along Pacific Coast Highway (0 . ft. in lieu of 15 ft.), Sixth Street (6.5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.), and Walnut Avenue (5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.), 2) encroach into minimum upper story. setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway minimum .9 ft./average 11 ft. 4 in. in lieu of min. 15 ft./average 25 ft., 3) to exceed the maximum building height with hotel (49.5 ft. in lieu of 45 ft.) and architectural tower feature (70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft.), and 4)to reduce the ultimate right of way and view corridor on Fifth Street (65 ft. in lieu of 80 ft.). Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 a request for a subdivision map to consolidate multiple existing parcels on portions of two blocks into one 2.97-acre parcel for condominium purposes. Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 a request to certify the EIR which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission in accordance.with Title 14, Section 13111 of the California Administrative Code. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 570-5071 (Continued on the next page) g1followup/appeal/coastal Comm/cdp 99-16.doc l Notice of Action —CDP 99-16 Page 3 October 28, 2002 The appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of this.notice of final City action by the California Coastal Commission. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk CB: le Enclosure: Findings and Conditions for Approval — CDP No. 99-16 cc: Ray Silver, Executive Director Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director David Biggs, Deputy Executive Director John Given, CIM Group James A. Lane, HB CARES Herb Fauland, Principal Planner g:/followup/appeal/coastal comm/cdp 99-16.doc r FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16406: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16406 for the consolidation of existing parcels into a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes and the right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street; the vacation of the alleys on Block 105 for private access easements with reciprocal access; the vacation of a portion of the alley on Block 104 and alley dedications with reciprocal access; and the dedication and reservation of 5th Street for a 65 ft. wide public access easement including a 24 ft. wide reciprocal easement for vehicular purposes is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use Vertical - 3.0 Floor Area Ratio— Specific Plan Overlay- Pedestrian Overlay on the subject property because the subdivision will provide a consolidated development consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan and will provide the necessary public improvement to complete the Main-Pier Phase II development. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 2.97-acre project site provides the necessary area for development by consolidating multiple parcels consistent with the intensity and density of District#3, Visitor-Serving Commercial, of the Downtown Specific Plan, The General Plan Land Use designation, and with the implementation of mitigation measures is suitable for development. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The tentative map provides all the necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, alleys, and easements with reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 to construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152-room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet; to allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size; and to permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, will provide adequate public open space (02c11001) Attachment 1.1 and open air commercial amenities, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the provision of compact parking spaces and a valet parking-plan provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the total number of parking spaces and provides a quick and easy parking alternative to customers of the site. 2. The conditional use permit will:be compatible with surrounding uses.because the project is designed with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown - Design Guidelines and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project as conditioned, incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the two-block project area. 3. The proposed request to construct approximately 106,075 square feet of commercial space and a 152-room hotel consisting of approximately 120,170 square feet; to allow 5.9% (24 spaces) of the total 405 parking stalls within the two-level subterranean public parking structure to be compact in size; and to permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths and collection of fees within the subterranean public parking garage will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project as conditioned and with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides. consistent public improvement for the two-block Main-Pier Phase 11 development. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical — 3.0 FAR—specific plan overlay— pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy 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. (02c11001) Attachment 1.2 Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. Policy 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 American's with Disabilities Act. Policy LU 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations. Goal LU 7. Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2: Require 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, as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy 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, in accordance with the appropriate principles. The retail, restaurant, office, and hotel uses proposed for the site represent development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement retail and restaurant uses. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of creating an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—SPECIAL PERMITS NO. 02-06: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in I conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Pacific Coast Highway (0 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) b. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along Sixth Street (6.5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) c. Encroach into the minimum ground floor setback along and Walnut Avenue (5 ft. in lieu of 15 ft.) d. Encroach into the minimum upper story setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway 9 ft./average 11 ft. 4 in. in lieu of min. 15 ft./average 25 ft.) e. Exceed the maximum building height with hotel (49.5 ft. in lieu of 45 ft.) and the architectural tower feature (70 ft. in lieu of 55 ft.) f. Reduce the view corridor on Fifth Street(65 ft. in lieu of 80 ft.) (02c11001) Attachment 1.3 These Special Permits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the design of the project provides a consistent development pattern along PCH, provides the necessary and consistent sidewalk width for the types of pedestrians level activities at PCH, Sixth, and Walnut, and promotes the pedestrian scale envisioned by the "Village Concept"of the DTSP. In addition, the project provides an architectural style that provides a distinctive break.between the two.lower floors and the two upper floors by the use.of upper story setbacks, the provision-of-:varied roofline treatments, the use of quality,.colors and materials and including building heights and a tower that is compatible with the surroundings and provides a focal element encouraged by the Design Guidelines. Finally, the project will not diminish any existing coastal views for the pedestrian at the street level, and it will enhance future views by providing 2"d level terrace views of the beach, ocean and pier. The incorporation of the special permits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown core. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by placing buildings in a relationship to the street and pedestrian, the use of contemporary Mediterranean architecture, the incorporation of compatible upper story setbacks, the use of proper building heights, the provision of a tower as a focal element, and the design of 51h Street that enhances public views. 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the.surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties,will provide adequate public open space, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character,will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the provision of compact parking spaces and a valet parking plan provides an efficient use of the parking structure, maximizes the total number of parking spaces and provides a quick and easy parking alternative to customers of the site. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The proposed project is physically suitable for the site, it consolidates multiple parcels for an adequate mixed-use development site, provides parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, is consistent with the type and intensities of proposed uses, complies with the Downtown Specific Plan, is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and provides consistent public improvements to complete the Main-Pier Phase II development envisioned for the two-block area of downtown. 5. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the following Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies: Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. (02c11001) Attachment 1.4 Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other.areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses.and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance.the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as.the "hubs"of tourist . and community activity. Reducing the ultimate right of way of 51h Street from 80 to 65 ft. will not diminish any views or view corridors currently provided by the existing right of way. The proposed cross section of 5th Street will continue to preserve existing views while enhancing future views with the design of the project. The project proposes all the amenities of a typical downtown street section and also includes design features of upper story setbacks for the buildings that front the street. The incorporation of all the design features will provide the views for the pedestrian at the street level. In addition, the 2Id level terrace adjacent to the hotel provides an enhanced view of the beach, ocean and pier. The proposed special permits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45, Coastal development Permit No. 99-16, Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final EIR No. 01-02 will comply with State and Federal Law. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 for the development project, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies: Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. (02c11001) Attachment 1.5 Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. . Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. Additionally, the proposed project would develop visitor-serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area, which has been targeted for redevelopment as a destination location. Portions of the downtown core have already been established, and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the project, with the exception of a hotel, which would help further establish the area. The project site is also located near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed project as conditioned and with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvement for the two-block Main-Pier Phase 11 development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measure will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary (02c11001) Attachment 1.6 public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, alleys, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.. The proposed project maintains all exiting and proposed public access and does not conflict with any public recreation policies by the provision of a development consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, Downtown.Specific Plan, and Downtown Parking Master Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The tentative map shall be revised to accurately reflect the redesigned project as conditioned by Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16. b. The service drive entrance and easement at 6th Street shall be designed to provide two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal entrance point to the Helme-Worthy site. c. The existing driveway entrance to the Helme-Worthy site on Sixth Street shall be closed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. d. Remove the proposed water lines as shown on the tentative map: 12-inch in Fifth Street, 8- inch in alleys parallel to Pacific Coast Highway, 6-inch in alley east of Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105. (PW) e. The following water lines are minimum requirements to meet the projects demands; (PW) 1) Approximately 450 LF of 8-inch water pipeline in Walnut Avenue (between Sixth Street and Main Street). 2) Approximately 900 LF of 12-inch water pipeline in Sixth Street (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). f. The 20-foot wide reciprocal access drive for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive adjacent to the southerly boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105 and through the setback area and relocate the 24-foot wide service driveway to conform to the new design. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be employed in the design of the access. (PW) g. The Fifth Street public access easement shall be 65-feet in width. (PW) h. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal access easements) between the subject site and adjacent properties and shall be noted on the map and required to all. affected and adjoining parcels from the private access easements. The location and width of the reciprocal driveway easement and all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making all necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal easements/driveway. (02c11001) Attachment 1.7 2. Prior to submittal of the tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners'Association: The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. The CC&Rs shall include the following: (PW) i. Provide for operation, maintenance and replacement of all common area landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, public and reciprocal access easements (Fifth Street, alley, parking, driveway, truck access, sidewalk, and street lighting) and open space. (PW) ii. Implementation, inspection, maintenance, periodic upgrade and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. (PW) iii. Maintenance, repair and replacement of structures, facilities and utilities within the parking structure as defined by the agreement for operation and use of the parking structure by the City. (PW) iv. Provisions for the implementation, management, operation and maintenance of the valet parking and access program. (PW) V. Prohibit the blocking.or screening of fire hydrants located in the public right-of-way, easements or within the property. (PW) vi. Implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. (PW) 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. All vehicular access rights to Fifth and Sixth Streets, Walnut Avenue and the public alleys shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. (PW) b. All vehicular access rights to Pacific Coast Highway shall be released and relinquished to the State of California, except at the intersection of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) c. The rough grading plan and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (PW) d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.8 e. A sewer study for on and off-site facilities shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (PW) f. Prior to first plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis (on H2O Net)for this project, pursuant to City of Huntington Beach requirements. (The applicant shall.coordinate this effort with the Water Division prior to beginning this endeavor..) The analysis.shall consider the impacts and mitigation,.if necessary, to the existing water services off of the 8-inch water pipeline in the alley west of- Main Street, which shall be maintained. If the analysis shows that project demands cannot be met with the City's current water infrastructure system, the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project at no cost to the City. (PW) g. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off-site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent . properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. Runoff from the site shall be restricted as directed by the Department of PW to minimize impacts to downstream facilities. (PW) h. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: i. The domestic water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. Easement widths shall conform with the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 300. ii. The sanitary sewer system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. iii. Five feet along entire Pacific Coast Highway frontage. iv. 2.5-feet along the entire Sixth Street frontage. v. 4.5-feet of additional alley right-of-way along the easterly property line west of Main Street and south of Walnut Avenue. 1. Fifth Street shall be quitclaimed by the Redevelopment Agency. An easement of 65-feet in width shall be conveyed by the Developer to the City of Huntington Beach for drainage, utility, pedestrian and vehicular access purposes. Quitclaim and the grant of easement must occur at the same time to maintain full use of Fifth Street without 'interruption of existing uses and activities. (PW) j. Vacation and abandonment of portions of alley rights-of-way in Block 105. (PW) k. 20-foot wide reciprocal access for Lot 22 of Block 105 shall be taken from the truck access drive ) adjacent to the south boundary of Lot 22 of Block 105. Requirements for sight distance and turning movements shall be observed in the design of the access. (PW) I. All street lighting, excluding Fifth Street, shall be conveyed to Southern California Edison Co. for maintenance and operation. (PW) - m. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. (PW) n. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: (PW) i. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. (02c11001) Attachment 1.9 I i ii. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. o. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: (PW) i. Design Specification: 1) Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. 2) Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits). 3) Digital data shall have units in US FEET. 4) A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. 5) Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. 6) Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. ii. File Format and Media Specification: 1) Shall be in compliance with the following file format: • AutoCAD (version 13 or later) drawing file: DWG 2) Shall be in compliance with the following media type: • CD Recordable.(CD-R) 650 Megabytes P. The developer shall provide a Maintenance and License Agreement for maintenance of all public improvements within the public right-of-way for Fifth and Sixth Streets, Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) q. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) r. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor& Material and Monumentation Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Department of Public Works and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) s. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16406: 1. Tentative Tract No. 16406 shall not become effective until the ten-calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Tentative Map No. 16406 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2)years of the date of final approval which is October 4, 2004. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. (02c11001) Attachment 1.10 4. All applicable fees shall be paid from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments fees prior to map recordation. (PW) 5. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. 6. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with.all conditions of approval herein as noted.after each condition. --The Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Fire Chief shall be notified in writing if any changes to the approved tract map conditions of approval are proposed as a result of the plan check process.. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Fire Chief have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-06, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated August 5, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The plans shall incorporate a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line, a 10-15-foot average upper-level setback:for-the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older.buildings. (MM 3.3-3) The 20 ft. setback shall be fully landscaped with.turf and trees except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point: b. The service drive shall be enclosed adjacent the southerly property line of the Helme-Worthy site with compatible materials, except at the 20 ft. reciprocal access point, and shall have an attached trellis with vine landscaping treatment. c. A 20 ft. reciprocal access drive shall be provided from the service drive to the Helme-Worthy site. The service drive shall be designed for two-way traffic to the eastern edge of the reciprocal access drive. d. The 7.5 ft. vacated to the Helme-Worthy site shall be designed to provide a landscaped planter with an 8 ft. high wall along the easterly property line adjacent to the 15 ft. one-way easement at Walnut Ave. The landscaped planter and wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the eastern edge and designed to comply with any necessary vision clearance and setbacks requirements from Walnut Ave. e. An 8 ft. high wall shall be constructed along the entire southerly property line of the Helme- Worthy site. The design shall comply with any necessary vision clearance and setbacks requirements from Sixth Street and the point of intersection at the easement. f. Incorporate a minimum three ft. ground floor setback for all portions of first floor buildings (A& D) abutting alleys. Setbacks above the ground floor may cantilever to a zero ft. (0 ft.) setback. g. Incorporate an additional 2.5 ft. setback for buildings (A, D, E)fronting 5th Street to provide additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining (minimum 10 ft. width) and public open space- (02c11001) Attachment 1.11 purposes. The upper levels shall maintain their setbacks and terraces to maintain the integrity of the architectural upper level design. h. The hotel (Bldg. G) square footage shall be reduced or additional parking shall be provided to reflect compliance with the Block A.Existing and Proposed Development table in the Kaku Associates study dated September 27, 2000. L The two-level subterranean public parking structure, ramps, and all required parking spaces and striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. The applicant shall analyze to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department that the proposed parking lot access and loading configuration will operate satisfactorily. The close proximity of the service drive and the parking garage access must be separated. (PW-Code Requirement) j. Depict all utility apparatus and cabinets, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of- way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in any setback and shall be screened from view. No above ground utility cabinets of any kind shall be located in any sidewalk or block pedestrian access (Code Requirement) k. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing.lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) I. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. m. The maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2) inches. Buildings designed to be located near to property line(s) must have their exterior wall adjacent to the property line(s) designed for 2" maximum out of plane displacement resulting from prescribed lateral forces specified by the Uniform Building Code. Maintenance agreement may be required for any zero. lot line construction. n. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. The lighting for the tower shall be within the tower element and shall not spill onto adjacent properties. o. The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property)for a depth of 8 ft. p. The public.access drive from Sixth Street to Walnut Avenue shall include adequate access and turning room for disposal collection vehicles, including 55-feet to pickup and drop-off containers (02c11001) Attachment 1.12 on a straight shot, a minimum turning diameter of 86-feet and total height for lift operations and clearance. (MM 3.8-3) q. Building C of the proposed project shall incorporate ground level and second story design features of the Ocean View Promenade Structure and, to the extent feasible, of the building containing El Don Liquors. These features shall include,.but not be limited to,windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be review by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. (MM 3.3-2) r. To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use non-reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. (MM 3.1-2) s. The new buildings within the project site shall use light-colored roof materials to reflect heat and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-9) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant:to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. Pursuant to Section 65590 of the California Government Code, the applicant shall submit a plan for replacement of any existing residential units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income that are converted or demolished as a result of this project for review and approval by the Planning Department. (02c11001) Attachment 1.13 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit: a. Separate plans for demolition and removals, stockpiling, surcharge and other independent or phased remedial or earth moving operations, rough grading, and precise grading, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, and be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (PW) b. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill, plan review, and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. (MM 3.4-1) c. The final grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. (MM 3.4-2) d. Southern California Edison, Verizon, The Gas Company and Time Warner shall be contacted to remove their facilities from the existing alleys. The utilities shall be undergrounded. Utilities in the alley serving Lots 22, 24, 26 and 28 of Block 105 shall be reconfigured/relocated. (PW) e. Street Improvement Plans, per City of Huntington Beach standards, for Fifth and Sixth Streets and Walnut Avenue shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following improvements.shall be shown on the plans: (PW) f. Fifth Street improvement plans shall be in accordance with the tentative tract map, these conditions of approval and approved Parking Access and Valet Parking plans. The plan shall include a minimum 24-foot wide roadway for public access and 9-foot wide valet turnout areas. The curb return radius at Fifth Street at Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street at Walnut Avenue shall be 35-feet. Curb returns shall have ADA compliant access ramps. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Additional modifications may be required to gain Caltrans approval for improvements at Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) g. Removal of curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and base aggregate as required along Fifth Street frontage. Replace with new curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving structural section. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PM h. Remove and replace the existing alley drive approach in. Fifth Street with an ADA compliant alley driveway approach. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) i. Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, alley driveway and half-street paving along the Sixth Street frontage. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Curbs shall be painted red to prohibit parking as directed by the Transportation Manager. (PW) j. Remove the existing driveway on Sixth Street, located on Lot 22 and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Remove and replace half street paving on Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue adjacent to Lots 22, 24, 26, and 28. The southeast corner of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be ADA compliant with an access map. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.14 k. The curb return radius at Sixth Street at Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street at Walnut Avenue shall be 35-feet. Curb returns shall have ADA compliant access ramps. Additional modifications may be required to gain Caltrans approval for improvements at Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) I. A new catch basin and lateral on Sixth Street at Pacific Coast Highway sized to intercept the 100- year storm event. The existing catch basin and lateral on Main Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway shall be-removed and a new manhole installed. (PW) m. Portions of Sixth Street adjacent to driveways and intersections between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue shall be red curbed as directed by the Transportation Manager. (PW) n. Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk and half-street paving along the Walnut Avenue frontage. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PW) o. The intersection of Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be redesigned to eliminate the existing corner cross drains. (PM p. Curb returns at Fifth Street and Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall have ADA compliant access ramps. (PW) q. Remove and replace the two existing alley approaches on Walnut Avenue with ADA compliant alley driveways approaches. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. (PM r. Pavement for half-width of existing alley including the center concrete v-gutter, plus pavement for 4.5-feet of additional alley dedication along the easterly property line and the southerly property line between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, easterly of Fifth Street. (PW) s. The truck,access driveway entry off Sixth Street shall.be a minimum of 24-feet in width;with an ADA compliant driveway approach and able to accommodate outbound vehicles from Lot 22 of Block 105. The Transportation Manager shall approve the width of the reciprocal access driveway, upon submittal of truck turning templates for the driveway. The width of the drive aisle shall also accommodate egress traffic from Lot 22 of Block 105 and eastbound trucks. (PW) t. Remove curb, gutter, sidewalk and all driveways along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage including the El Don Liquor site (lots 7, 8, and a portion of 9, block 104) and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Improvements shall also match the Abdelmuti/Ocean View Promenade project. Newly constructed curbs shall be painted red. If necessary, Pacific Coast Highway shall be repaved per Caltrans requirements. Plans shall be per Caltrans standards and submitted concurrently to the City and Caltrans for approval. (PW) u. A separate signing and striping plan for Fifth and Sixth Streets and Walnut Avenue, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and be submitted to Public.Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall address the truck access in Block 105 for one-way traffic along the easterly boundary of Lots 22, 24, 26, and 28 of Block 105. The plans shall be prepared according to the Signing and Striping Plan Preparation Guidelines. A separate signing and striping plan for Pacific Coast Highway per Caltrans standards and submitted concurrently to the City and Caltrans for approval. The plans shall incorporate appropriate provisions as required to gain any necessary Caltrans approvals. (PW) v. Street lighting plans for all streets adjacent to the project, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer, and be submitted to Public Works Department for review and approval. Lighting shall be per the Downtown Specific Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach guidelines. Street lighting calculations shall be provided to support the design. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.15 w. Street lighting on Fifth Street shall be removed completely from Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. (PW) x. New street lighting for Fifth Street shall be operated and maintained by the Developer as provided in the CC&Rs. (PW) y. New street lighting for Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue shall be owned and operated by Southern California Edison. (PW) z. New street lighting for Pacific Coast Highway shall be owned and operated by Southern California Edison and shall be prepared to Caltrans standards. (PW) aa. Depict sewer mains, manholes and laterals existing and proposed on plan and profile sheets. All sewer improvements proposed within Caltrans right-of-way will be subject to their review and approval. Sewer mains shall be within public easements. The sewer plan shall address grease traps and accessibility for pumping and maintenance. (PW) bb. New sewer and water mains in the alleys behind Lot 22 of Block 105 alley east of the project. (PW) cc. Separate, new domestic meter(s) and service(s) sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code shall serve the proposed development. The service laterals shall be a minimum of two-inches in size. The development shall be master-metered to the fullest extent possible. The quantity of public water meters shall be minimized. Sub-metering with private water meters is allowed. (PW) dd. Fire service(s) shall be separate from the domestic service and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Fire Code, and shall include an appropriate backflow protection device. (PW) ee. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, irrigation and fire water services. (PW) ff. The public water system and appurtenance shall be located within the public right-of-way or within a public easement dedicated to the City. (PW) gg. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Any rare species of trees identified on-site shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (PW) hh. The existing public water pipelines located within the proposed project area shall be removed per Water Division standards. The existing water services to.the buildings for these lines shall be maintained. The pipelines to be relocated include the following: (PW) i. Approximately 500 LF of 6-inch pipeline located in the alley approximately 150 feet north of and parallel with Pacific Coast Highway. ii. Approximately 200 LF of 12-inch pipeline in Fifth Street. iii. Approximately 250 LF of 8-inch/4-inch pipeline located in the alley approximately 150 feet west of and parallel with Fifth Street. (02c11001) Attachment 1.16 ii. Signal modification plan for the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixth Street, as needed to accommodate corner improvements (new curb ramp, sidewalk, utility relocations, etc.). (PW) jj. All existing utilities including sewer and water shall be relocated to adjacent perimeter streets from alleys being vacated and abandoned and from Fifth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. (PW) kk. If there are any existing water services (including fire hydrants) outside of the limits of the proposed construction, that will be impacted by the water pipeline removals as stated above; it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate and effect the relocation of these services to the proposed new water pipelines. (PW) II. Approximately 450 LF of 8-inch pipeline in Walnut Avenue, (between Sixth Street and Main Street). (PW) mm. Approximately 900 LF of 12-inch water pipeline in Sixth Street, (between Olive Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway). (PW) nn. New fire hydrants on Pacific Coast Highway, if required by the Fire Department, shall connect to the existing 12-inch water pipeline in Pacific Coast Highway. Alternatively, the applicant may construct a new 12-inch water line (approximately 450 LF) in Pacific Coast Highway between Fifth and Sixth Streets and shall be constructed per Water Division standards (i.e., water pipeline shall NOT be constructed underneath the sidewalk and shall be a looped water system) to serve the fire hydrants. oo. A traffic control plan for all work within the City right-of-way and Caltrans right-of-way shall be submitted to the Public.Works.Department for review and approval. The City's plans shall be . prepared according to the Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines. Plans for Pacific Coast Highway shall be per Caltrans requirements and subject to their review and approval. (PW) pp. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Park, Tree and Landscape Division. Irrigation demands shall also be submitted to ensure proper sizing of irrigation services. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. The landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval. A consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW-Code Requirement) qq. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (PM (02d1001) Attachment 1.17 rr. To the greatest extent feasible, low flow urban runoff from the project shall be directed to a gross pollutant removal device. The developer shall incorporate Best Management Practices conforming to the requirements at the time of construction. ss. Gross pollutant removal devices (CDS or equivalent)for the removal of debris, sediment, oil and water.separation, etc., shall be installed.as part of the treatment train for the main line systems. Access to these devices for maintenance shall be provided.and included within an. easement to the City. tt. A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. uu. A WQMP shall be prepared, maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall incorporate water quality measures for all improved or unimproved phases of the project. All structural BMPs shall be sized to infiltrate, filter, or treat the 85-percentile 24-hour storm event or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The WQMP shall include an extensive Association education program, including information booklets and packages for each business owner, and periodic information programs to keep owners current with WQMP practices and requirements. vv. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall.include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment. (PW) ww. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, City contact (Sudi Shoja (714) 536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800- CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) xx. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW) yy. A truck-staging plan shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for approval. Staging of trucks on the streets on the perimeter of the site or within the downtown area will not be permitted. Appropriate truck staging areas shall be identified to minimize impacts to vehicle circulation, area residents and businesses. Truck staging areas identified on Pacific Coast (02c11001) Attachment 1.18 Highway shall be coordinated with Caltrans including obtaining any appropriate encroachment permits. (PW) zz. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (PW) aaa. The project developer(s)shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of. the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such-as Rule 402.— Nuisance and Rule 403— Fugitive [just) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403— Fugitive Dust. These measure have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation. (MM 3.2-2) bbb. The parking meters surrounding the project shall be removed and returned to the Beach Services Division. The cost of relocating any on-street parking meters and re-striping of on- street parking spaces shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant. All re-striping and parking meter relocation shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. (PW) ccc. The project developer(s) shall develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: (MM 3.2-1) i. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. ii. Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person). iii. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable. iv. Consolidate truck deliveries when possible. V. Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper time as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions. vi. Use methanol- or butane-powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices. ddd. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action.Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification #431-92. (FD) eee. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells (714) 816-6847. (FD) fff... From the DOGGR, provide proof of a DOGGR Site Plan Review application. (FD) ggg. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification #422, Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) hhh. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit as a prerequisite in obtaining a Huntington Beach Fire Department UST permit. (FD) iii. Vapor extraction treatment areas may require conformance to City Specification #431, Gas Fired Appliances. (FD) OW1001) Attachment 1.19 jjj. 5th Street shall be designed to support an imposed load of a 72,000 lb. apparatus with a clearance of 13'-6" minimum. (FD) kkk. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must.be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 111. The option to provide additional parking in the subterranean parking structure shall be explored with the City Council within 60 days of conditional use permit approval in compliance with the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the Applicant. mmm.A revised hotel square footage and parking plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Director, Public Works Director and the Transportation Manager to indicate compliance with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The plan must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The following conditions of approval shall be complied with during grading operations: a. The project developer(s) shall implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402—Nuisance and Rule 403—Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403—Fugitive Dust: These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: (MM 3.2-2) i. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. H. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. iii. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. iv. All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period.. v. A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall.be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site. vi. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. vii. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications. viii. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (02c11001) Attachment 11.20 ix. All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications. X. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public.streets. A. Wheel washers_shall be installed where vehicles enter and:exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. xii. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads. xiii. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. xiv. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. xv. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding area. xvi. The SWPPP, Erosion control and dewatering plans shall be revised and updated as necessary through the phases of the project. Copies of the current plans shall be maintained on-site for review by City or State inspectors. (PW) b. The project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management practices: (MM 3.6-1) i. Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays. ii. All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled. iii. All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses. iv. Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use. v. Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences. vi. Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator"who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator(who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. c. Monitor during grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: (MM 3.3-1) i. The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, and other excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to (02d1001) Attachment 1.21 protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. ii. If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the-archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and finding, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach. iii. In the event of the discover on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. of§5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for. review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. c. Submit for review a final parking access and valet parking program to the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Police. The plan shall encourage the use of the 15'. level for public parking. The program shall be approved prior to final building permits or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (PW) d. The applicant shall provide a dedicated trash enclosure for the Helme-Worthy property on their site across from the eastern edge of the historical site in conformance with.city requirements. . e. The applicant shall relocate the utilities for the Helme-Worthy property at the eastern edge of the historical site in conformance with city requirements. f. Names of streets shall be submitted to and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department in accordance with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 409. (FD) g. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) (02c11001) Attachment 1.22 h. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) i. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed to minimize potential odor impacts to the hotel and surrounding residential homes. Any external venting or mechanical equipment not screened to the satisfaction of the City shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of building permits. j. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (BD) k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) i 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Grading Permit shall be issued. (PW) b. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee of 10% of the environmental impact report cost shall be paid to the Planning Department. c. A Downtown Specific.Plan (SP-5)fee for new construction in the Downtown Specific Plan area shall be paid to the Planning Department. d. The City Council approved Final Map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. (PW) e. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (PW) f. The applicant shall demonstrate the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. (MM 3.9-2) g. Delivery vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the size of or smaller that a medium or small semi-trailer with a length of 50-feet. (MM 3.9-3) h. The applicant shall submit a parking management plan, consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. (MM 3.9-4) i. The Applicant shall-submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to: (MM 3.8-4) i.Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition. ii. Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project. iii. Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases. (02c11001) Attachment 1.23 iv. Bins for cardboard recycling during construction. V. Scrap wood recycling during construction. vi. Green waste recycling of landscape materials. j. The Applicant shall demonstrate that the project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators_, and 24- hour security shall be provided. (MM 3.8-1) k. The Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan (MM 3.8-2). The subterranean parking structure shall be reviewed for adequate lighting, location and directional signing, use of colors, and use of crime prevention design. I. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Department. (Code Requirement) m. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map (preliminary grading plan) by more than one (1)foot. (PM n. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) o. All onsite oil well abandonments must be Fire Department approved per City Specification#429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements, and all abandoned oil well document/inspection fees must be paid. (FD) p. For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification 426. (FD) q. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification #401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. (FD) r. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. Your project requires a minimum of U hydrants. (FD) s. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. (FD) t. Class III wet standpipe systems shall be utilized. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) u. Class I, Division 2 electrical installation shall be utilized. (FD) v. A subterranean air handling system will be required. (FD (02c11001) Attachment 1.24 w. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. (FD) x. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide the following: (FD) ■ Manual pulls, horns & strobes ■ Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection ■ 24-hour supervision y. For Fire Department approval, food preparation fire protection systems plans shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. (FD) z. New street or access road names must be approved by the Fire Department. Please refer to City Specification #409. (FD) aa. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and access easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent (southerly, easterly, northerly, westerly) properties. The location and width of the reciprocal driveway easement and all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making all necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal easements/driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved.by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. (Code Requirement) bb.An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. Customer and employee access to all adjacent properties and businesses shall be maintained and provided to the greatest extent possible during all construction phases. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. cc. An "Acceptance of Conditions"form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. dd. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of.the first sign permit. The program shall include signs directing the general public to the public open space on the second level terrace. The signs shall also be located at the terrace level indicating that the terrace is for public open space purposes. ee. The applicant shall plan to identify a location within the city for the replacement of low and moderate income unit(s) displaced by the project. Said plan shall comply with Section 33413.5 of the California Community Development Law. The displaced unit(s) must be replaced within four years of approval of this conditional use permit. The replacement unit(s) must remain available at an affordable housing cost of low and moderate income persons for the duration of the (02c11001) Attachment 1.25 redevelopment plan. The plan shall be approved prior to the first certificate of occupancy request for the project. ff. The applicant shall contact the property owner(s) of the residential units across Sixth Street from the entrance/exit to the subterranean parking structure to attempt to mitigate the car headlights impacting the residential units. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall work with the property owner(s) toTdevelop a plan in conformance with the DTSP for landscaping and/or any other means to screen the lighting impacts of vehicles leaving the parking structure. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. In the event no plan is acceptable to the property owner(s), the applicant shall seek written confirmation from the property owner(s) and submit the letter to the Planning Department. gg. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: 1) Final elevation and site layout details on colors, materials, design, and architectural concepts upon Planning Commission action. In comparison to the conceptually approved architecture and layout of the site plan, floor plans, building elevations, colors and materials received and dated January 9, 2002, supplemental plans and information dated March 4, 2002, and onion skin drawings presented at the June 13, 2002 Design Review Board meeting. 2) A public art element shall be integrated and be in a publicly accessible place within the proposed project. Public art shall include art of: ■ Artistic excellence and innovation, ■ Appropriate to.the design of the project, ■_ Reflective of the community's cultural identity, (ecology, history, society).. - - The public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Community Development Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final inspection. 3) The landscape and public improvement plans shall be reviewed for approval. The public improvements are required to be consistent with the Oceanview Promenade site. 4) The subterranean parking structure shall be reviewed for crime prevention design and incorporation of the improvements identified in condition #6_k. 7. The structure(s) cannot be occupied,the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Complete all improvements as shown on the Grading and Improvement plans. (PW) b. The applicant shall restripe the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department. (MM 3.9-1) c. The applicant shall develop an on-site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. (MM 3.9-6) (02c11001) Attachment 1.26 d. The applicant shall provide a Landscape License Agreement for maintenance of all landscaping within the public rights-of-way. (PW) e. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) f. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) g. All agreements, CC&Rs, covenants and transfers shall be reviewed, executed and completed. (PW) h. Condominium plans in conformance with the requirements of the Department of Real Estate and other appropriate agencies shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. All airspace and structures to be owned shall be delineated with bearings and distances for all ownerships described, and shall show relationships to property lines and adjacent ownerships and structures. (PW) i. If the applicant intends to have outdoor dining affecting the public right-of-way, Public Works Department will need to review a plan with the proposal. j. Existing street tree(s)to be inspected by the City of Huntington Beach, Park, Trees and Landscape Inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof. Tree replacement or root/tree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system. (PW) k. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the.City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) I. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) m. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) n. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification 428. (FD) . o. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 415. (FD) p. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Dept. City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD) q. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) (02c11001) Attachment 1.27 r ■Il r. Security gates shall be designed to comply with City Specification #403. (FD) s. All project pool areas must have a KNOX access installed on the entry gates. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411. (FD) t. Fire,extinguishers.shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification #424, (FD) u. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428. (FD) v. Exit signs and exit path markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Low level exit signs will be included. (FD) w. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) x. Solar or low-emission water heaters shall be installed in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-3) y. Built-in energy-efficient appliances shall be provided in all new buildings within the project site to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-4) z. Air conditioners installed in all new buildings within the project site shall be energy-efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-5) aa. Double-glass-paned windows shall be installed in new buildings within the redevelopment area to reduce energy demand and'associated emissions. (MM 3.2-6) bb. Lighting installed in new buildings within the project site shall be energy-efficient and shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2-7) cc. The new buildings within the project site shall exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. (MM 3.2- 8) dd. The proposed project shall include flatwork design and structural BMPs to isolate contamination from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a trash separator, an oil and grease separator, and/or other filtration system as required to meet water quality standards. (MM 3.4-3) ee. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. (PL) ff. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. (02d1001) Attachment 1.28 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. All applicable requirements of Condition of Approval No. 3A, i-xvi shall apply during this phase of activity. In addition the following shall apply: i. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) ii. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. iii. Use low sulfur (0.5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment. iv. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. V. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) vi. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. vii. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. viii. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. ix. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) b. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) c. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (Fire Dept. City Specification 407) (FD) d. On-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. e. The property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Public Works Department. f. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. g. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within Caltran's right-of-way. h. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (02c11001) Attachment 1.29 i. Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant.to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for the coastal development permit. Because the project is located in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years (Tentative Tract Map No. 16406) of the date of final approval which is October 4, 2004 or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permits No. 02-06 and Coastal Development Permit No..9.9-16, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 7. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance.of building permits. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. (02c11001) Attachment 1.30 V;/ r 10. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 11.A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 12. Outdoor dinning is not permitted unless a conditional use permit for this specific use is reviewed and approved: 13. Any restaurant use (greater than 12 seats) shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 14.Any outdoor dining use shall require review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. All outdoor dining shall be located adjacent to the buildings and the restaurant uses they serve and shall be provided with a metal enclosure. 15. Any proposed alcohol sales shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 16. Any proposed live entertainment shall require review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 17.Any proposed temporary outdoor events for 5th Street shall obtain all necessary City permits in compliance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. A street closure plan shall be submitted to the Department's of Police, Fire, Public Works and Planning for review and approval prior to the closure of 51h Street as part of any event that requires the temporary closure of the street. 18. During ongoing operations of the project, the applicant shall provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during peak summer season. (MM 3.9-5) 19. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 20. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 21. The Applicant shall use minimum light levels required for safety, and exterior lights shall be directed downwards and away-from surrounding uses, onto the project site. (MM 3.1-1) 22.All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 23. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 24. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$123 per net new added daily trip. (PW) (02c11001) Attachment 1.31 25. All parking along the frontage of Sixth Street and Walnut Avenue may be required to be accommodated on-site to accommodate future street configurations as determined necessary by the Planning Director and Public Works Director. (PW) 26. The Mitigation Measures from Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR No. 96-2 shall apply and are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (02c11001) Attachment 1.32 c Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Sign e _._T_ zZ Council Meeting Date: October 21, 2002 Department ID Number: PL02-36 PCs. aoaa_/ 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH cep it a - o REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS — �-` SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratorOW PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach — Blocks 104/105) 1eS Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by James A. Lane, HB CARES, of the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02. This application represents an analysis. of potential environmental impacts associated with a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 226,500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a two-level subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation. measures, where appropriate. All other issue areas were determined to result in no environmental impacts, or less than significant environmental impacts. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. The Planning Commission certified the environmental impact report and is recommending certification (Recommended Action - A) because the EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Staff recommended certification of the EIR to the Planning Commission and is recommending the City Council certify the EIR. z/ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 Funding Source: -Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 as adequate and complete in accordance WITH CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No.<;�06a-103(Attachment No. 1)", Planning Commission Action on September 24, 2002: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY STANTON, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01-02 AS ADEQAUTE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: STANTON, KERINS, HARDY, LIVENGOOD, PORTER NOES: KOKAL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: SHOMAKER i MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny certification of Environmental Impact Report No: 01-02 with findings for denial. I Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicants: CIM/Huntington, Inc. John Given, Vice President . 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs, Deputy Executive Director 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PL02-36 -2- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 Location: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut (Blocks 104 and 105). Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 226,500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a two-level subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. Please see the attached site plan for reference (Attachment No. 7). The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Traffic. All other. issue areas, including Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Recreation were determined to result in no environmental impacts, or less than significant environmental impacts. These issue areas were fully evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to the EIR document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. B. BACKGROUND Blocks 104/105 or Main-Pier Phase II has been analyzed for CEQA compliance with prior environmental documentation. In January 1992, the City certified EIR #89-6 as part of the approval for the Abdelmuti project (Jack's Surfboards/Oceanview Promenade). The Abdelmuti project is a four-story retail/office building consisting of approximately 48,000 sq. ft. The EIR analyzed project impacts in the areas of Land Use Compatibility/Aesthetics, Earth Resources, Historic Resources, Light and Glare, and Parking. Through. the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the potentially adverse impacts associated with Land Use Compatibility/Aesthetics, Earth Resources, and Parking were reduced to a level of insignificance. The EIR identified significant adverse impacts in the areas of Light and Glare and Historic Resources that cannot be mitigated. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval of the Abdelmuti project finding that the economic, social, or other benefits of the project outweighed its adverse impacts to Light and Glare and Historic Resources. In July 1993, the City approved the second phase of the Main-Pier Phase II project that was covered by previously certified EIR #89-6. The project was commonly referred to as the Coultrup Plan. The project consisted of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, and office in new and rehabilitated buildings on block 104 and 80 condominiums on block 105. The project was appealed to the California Coastal Commission and ultimately approved. The project was never constructed. PL02-36 -3- 10/10/2002 1:57 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 The Redevelopment Agency issued Requests for Proposals (RFP) to solicit developers for the downtown site in 1997-98. Out of seven proposals received, the Agency selected CIM/Huntington Inc. (CIM) on April 6, 1998. The Agency and CIM worked together in an attempt to identify the appropriate type of development for the site that could achieve objectives for both parties. In contemplating development on the site, the Agency and CIM established the following objectives: Redevelopment Agency's Objectives • To add a hotel to the downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. • To improve the perception of the downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area. • To enhance the downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. • To contribute to the efforts to create an 18-hour downtown, with visitors and residents remaining in downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. • To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. • To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. CIM's Objectives • Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. • Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. • Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the September 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting a total of 17 speakers spoke during the public hearing on the EIR and project entitlements. All of the speakers spoke in support of the EIR and project entitlements. The Planning Commission discussed several issues pertaining to the project but only two issues related to the EIR. The two areas of concern expressed by the Commission were the traffic study and parking analysis. The Planning Commission after discussion and debate certified the EIR and the responses to comments as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA. D. APPEAL: On October 3, 2002, James A. Lane, HB CARES Co-Chair, appealed the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 01-02. In addition, Mr. Lane appealed the entitlements for the project. The appeal of the project entitlements is discussed in a separate report. The appeal of the EIR is based on the comment letter PL02-36 4- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 submitted by Jeffrey M. Oderman of Rutan and Tucker, LLP on behalf of Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess (CARE) dated September 3, 2002, that was submitted during the public comment period for the EIR. The appeal letter was responded to in detail in the Response to Comments (Vol. 1) of the final Draft EIR. Staff believes the response is adequate, complete and in compliance with CEQA. Staff has attached the response to the letter of appeal for your review (Attachment No. 3). No further analysis of the appeal is necessary. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The analysis section provides a brief overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives, a brief discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are.those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in nine issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. ♦ Aesthetics/Visual Quality The proposed project will introduce new nighttime lighting sources within the project area. However, with implementation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures to prevent light spillage across property lines, utilize minimum light levels for safety, direct exterior.lights downward and away from surrounding uses, and use non-reflective fagade treatments, the effects of increased nighttime light levels will be less than significant. Ingress and egress to the subterranean parking structure is located across Sixth Street from two existing one-story single-family residential units. Vehicle headlights exiting the parking structure will be directed onto these existing residential uses, resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed project will introduce new two to four-story commercial structures on portions of Blocks 104 and 105. Some of the new structures along Fifth Street are proposed to encroach into the existing right of way and narrow the Fifth Street view corridor. The ultimate right of way width of Fifth Street is 80 feet and the proposed project would provide a building-to-building view corridor of 65 feet. Therefore, the new structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The proposed project includes a request for a special permit to narrow the Fifth Street view corridor. To offset the 15 ft. reduction of the view corridor, the proposed project is providing a public terrace on the PL02-36 -5- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002- DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 second floor along Fifth Street. The proposed terrace is not a part of.the adjacent hotel and would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. If the special permit were determined to provide a better project and enhance and introduce additional view opportunities, the reduced view corridor would be in compliance with the DTSP. The EIR concluded that the potential impact of the reduced view corridor would therefore be considered less than significant. Although the project site is currently zoned for mixed-use, visitor-serving uses, the project- induced loss of public views of the beach and the Pacific Ocean, although not significant on a project-specific level, contributes to the loss of such opportunities citywide, which constitutes a significant cumulative impact. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. ♦ Air Quality The proposed project will result in long-term air emissions, primarily related to vehicle trips generated by the development, which are significant and unavoidable. Although implementation of standard conditions of approval, such as compliance with the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance will reduce this impact, emissions will still exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. The project, therefore, will result in significant, unavoidable operational air quality impacts. ♦ Cultural Resources The proposed project would be constructed in close proximity to the Helme-Worthy site on its south and east boundaries. The height and bulk of Building D, the portion of which is located nearest the eastern boundary of the Helme-Worthy property provides a 30-foot upper-story setback along Walnut Avenue and provides the necessary transition to the two- story height of the historic residence and the character-defining elevation of the Helme- Worthy Store. The 7.5 ft. alley vacation, the proposed 15 ft. wide access drive, and the 2.5 ft. building D setback provide a total 25 ft. the ground level setback. The height and bulk of the service drive and the hotel above in buildings F and G are proposed at a setback of 12 ft. The proposed encroachment of the buildings on the southerly side of the Helme-Worthy property is not sensitive to the historical setting and scale of the property. The design does not adequately provide the necessary urban design elements, such as upper story setbacks, to provide a compatible transition. The provision of a 20-foot-wide setback for the 1 st and 2"d levels and an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback for the 3rd and 41h levels, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, would reduce this effect to a less-than-significant impact. ♦ Geology and Hydrology The proposed project EIR includes an analysis of existing geologic, soils, and seismic conditions at the project site and analyzes the potential environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, erosion, liquefaction, excavation, and export PL02-36 -6- 10/10/2002 12:41 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 of soils. Potential effects on air quality as a result of construction-related activities are discussed in Section 3.2 (Air Quality). In addition, this section describes the existing hydrological and water quality characteristics on the various building sites and in the project vicinity, and evaluates potential physical environmental effects related to drainage, groundwater dewatering, and groundwater and surface water quality. Impacts of the project on existing and future surface water and groundwater supply sources and wastewater treatment are described in Section 3.5 (Public Services and Utilities). The EIR concludes that with standard condition of approval and mitigation measures the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. ♦ Land Use The proposed project EIR includes information on the existing land use characteristics of the project site and the adjacent areas. The Land Use section of the Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, nor would it conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, this section addresses conformity of the proposed project with local land use plans and policies, and existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. The EIR concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan, and with the Downtown Specific Plan, assuming that special permits requested for the project are obtained. Also, the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site. The proposed project would, therefore, result in a less- than-significant land use impact ♦ Noise The section evaluates the potential noise impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the project to cause a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within or around the project site, or to expose people to excessive noise levels. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the project in terms of its planning to ensure that new uses are planned appropriately from a noise perspective and to evaluate the noise impacts of. the project on the surrounding community. The EIR analyzed project related impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project and noted that the impact would be short-term. The EIR concluded that with standard condition of approval and mitigation measures, the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the requirements of the noise ordinance. The EIR concluded that cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and other projects within the study area. Therefore; cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the difference between the existing traffic volumes and the future traffic volumes PL02-36 -7- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 with the project. Therefore, a cumulative noise impact results in a significant, unavoidable impact from noise levels on Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. ♦ Population and Housing This section of the EIR provides a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project on housing units on the project site. One vacant housing unit exists on the project site. This unit is an apartment in a single-story, detached structure located behind the Papa Joe's Pizza Building on Block 105. Although the project would result in the loss of one housing unit within the City of Huntington Beach, this loss represents less than one half of one percent of the vacant affordable housing available in the City. Further, as required by State law and City policy, the City Redevelopment Agency would be required to relocate the occupant affected by the proposed project, as well as other occupants that could be affected by redevelopment projects elsewhere in the City. The implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, result in a less-than-significant population and housing impact. ♦ Public Services and Utilities This section provides a discussion of the existing public services and utilities available to the proposed project. Services to be evaluated include fire protection, law enforcement, solid waste, electric service, natural gas service, water supply, sewer/wastewater service, and storm drain service. Agencies providing these services were contacted as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process for the EIR to obtain information regarding available service levels and current or anticipated constraints that would result from the proposed development. All public services impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4. The solid waste service provider has indicated that current landfill capacity is adequate to accommodate the proposed projects' solid waste disposal needs. However, additional generation of solid waste would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues. Implementation of source reduction measures that would be implemented on a project-specific basis would address these issues in part. However, the proposed project would increase the overall generation of solid waste, and would, therefore, constitute a potentially significant cumulative impact due to regional solid waste disposal issues. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this cumulative adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. ♦ Transportation and Circulation The EIR describes the results of a traffic analysis for the proposed project by LSA Associates dated June 21, 2002. The report is included as Appendix E in the technical appendix to the technical traffic report of the EIR. A total of twenty-eight intersections and four arterial roadways within the project vicinity were analyzed. The project analysis takes PL02-36 -8- 10/10/2002 12:44 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 into account new vehicle trips that would result from the proposed development, as well as other traffic growth due to development in the surrounding area. Impacts to intersections, roadway segments, project access, and circulation impacts are either less than significant or mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The project is considered fully parked consistent with the adopted Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Master Plan (Section 4.2.14). The EIR identifies several measures available to ensure maximum utilization and efficiency of the proposed parking on site. Mitigation Measure 3.9-4 would require the applicant to develop a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to ensure that all tenants and employees park in designated areas, freeing up the most desirable parking for downtown patrons. Mitigation Measure 3.9- 5 would require the applicant to provide valet and/or remote parking during special events and activities during the peak summer season to ensure maximum efficiency of the parking structure. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 requires the applicant to develop an on-site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. Implementation of these mitigation measures in addition to the 411 parking spaces provided on site would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. Objectives by both the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant are listed under the Background Section of this report. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Five project alternatives were selected for review. Two alternatives were ultimately found to be infeasible and no further study was conducted. These two alternatives were the Alternative Location and the No Project/No Reasonably Foreseeable Use Alternative. The remaining three alternatives were selected and further studied to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. These three alternatives are described below: • No Project/No Development Alternative — Maintain the project site in its current state with no development. • Reduced/Revised Project Alternative — Development of a project at a reduced density consisting of 49,690 square feet of retail and restaurant along with a 152-room hotel on Block 105 with construction of a parking structure on Block 104. PL02-36 -91 10/10/2002 12:45 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 • Alternative Mix of Uses — Development of retail, restaurant, and office uses identical to proposed project but construction of 89 multi-family residential units instead of the 152- room hotel. A summary of the three feasible project alternatives, and a comparison of environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, is presented in the table below: Summary of Project Alternatives Issue Area No Pro*cWo Build Reduce44?adsed Project Alternative Mix of Uses Aesthetics -1 -1 -1 Air Quality -1 -1 -1 Cultural Resources -1 -1 0 Geology and Hydrology -1 0 0 Land Use +1 0 0 Noise -1 -1 -1 Population and Housing -1 0 0 Public Services and Utilities -1 -1 0 Transportation and Traffic -1 -1 -1 Total -8 -6 -4 +1: Impacts are greater than those created by the proposed project -1: Impacts are less than those created by the proposed project 0: Impacts are the same as those created by the proposed project A detailed analysis of environmental impacts for each of these alternatives compared to the proposed project is included in Section 4.0 Alternatives, Pages 4-1 through 4-18 of the Draft EIR. As shown, based on the analysis, each of the alternatives was determined to be environmentally superior to the proposed development project. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the No Project alternative was determined to be the most environmentally superior alternative. Among the other alternatives, the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative would result in the greatest reduction in impacts compared to the proposed project. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, noise, public service and utilities, and transportation and traffic would be less severe than those impacts associated with the proposed project. Within the discussion of impacts for each alternative, the Draft EIR analyzes the ability of each alternative to meet the primary objectives of the proposed development project. As shown, none of the alternatives could simultaneously meet the primary objectives of the applicant and the Redevelopment Agency. Statement of Overridin_g Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project,- and in PL02-36 -10- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The following are significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation. Aesthetics/Visual Quality - Vehicular headlights on neighboring residences - Cumulative contribution to increases in nighttime light levels - Cumulative contribution to the loss of public coastal views • Air Quality - Daily emissions generated during operation • Noise - Cumulative increase in roadway noise levels (Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue) Public Services and Utilities - Cumulative contribution to solid waste generation Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. Public Comments As mentioned above, the Draft EIR was circulated to the public for review and all interested parties, property owners, and occupants within three hundred feet of the site were notified of the document's availability. The public and responsible agencies were thus able to review the document and submit comments within the forty-five day public comment period. A total of two study sessions were also held with the Planning Commission to listen to comments and concerns. The public was also invited to the Study Sessions. Comments received from the public in writing have been responded to in the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 5) of the EIR. The comments have covered a wide spectrum of issues and concerns including but not limited to: consistency with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, traffic, noise, land use compatibility, air quality, open space, lighting, parking, cultural resources, waste management, water quality, and project alternatives. PL02-36 -11- 10/10/2002 12:47 PM i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 All verbal and written comments received during the 45-day public comment period have been responded to and are included in the Response to Comments of the EIR. The EIR was distributed under separate cover and is available for review at the Planning Department, 3rd Floor and City Clerk, 2nd Floor, City Hall (see Attachment No. 5 & 6). F. SUMMARY Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends the City Council certify EIR No. 01-02 because: ■ The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Environmental Status: EIP Associates (EIP), a consultant hired by the City, prepared Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 (EIR) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be certified by the City Council prior to any action on Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, and Coastal Development No. 99-16. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed retail, restaurant, office, and hotel development of the site. Proposed development of the site and compliance with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan are discussed in a separate report. EIR No. 01- 02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of AestheticsNisual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Circulation. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures The procedure that was followed during preparation of EIR No. 01-02 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY May 17, 2000 EIP conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the project. May 18, 2000 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify the public of the intent to prepare an EIR. PL02-36 -12- 10/10/2002 12:50 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 DATE ACTIVITY June 1, 2000 A Public Scoping Meeting held at Huntington Beach Central Library for public to review proposed project, inquire about the CEQA process, and submit written statements on issues to be addressed in the EIR. July 2000 Project put on hold by applicant. February 2001 Revised project resumed by applicant. August 16, 2001 EIP conducted an initial study of the revised project and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the revised project. August 24, 2001 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. August 29, 2001 Second Public Scoping Meeting was held at Lake Park Clubhouse for the public to review the revised project, inquire about the CEQA process, and submit written statements on issues to be addressed in the EIR. July 19, 2002 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Availability mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 300 ft. radius, all interested parties, all attendees at Scoping Meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days (Comment period: July 19, 2002 to September 3, 2002). Draft EIR available for review at City Hall, Cent Library, and Main Street Branch Library. Short-term checkout copies available at each library. September 3, Comments on EIR No. 01-02 accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of nine comment 2002 letters were received. September 4, City and EIP begin completion to response to comments, including,preparation of 2002 final EIR. September 13, Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR, are made available for public 2002 information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearin . September 24, Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 01-02. 2002 2. Summary of EIR No. 01-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels. of significance. They are: less than significant impacts; impacts than can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a) Less Than Significant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources and conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval suggested in the entitlement staff report. The following topical areas do not represent significant environmental impacts: • Agricultural Resources PL02-36 -13- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: FL02-36 • Biological Resources • Land Use • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation b) Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the development project (TTM, CUP, etc.) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where. impacts may occur and a brief description of the recommended mitigation measures are as follows: • Aesthetics - Utilize minimum light levels for safety and direct exterior lights downwards and away from surrounding uses - Utilize non-reflective fagade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings • Air Quality - Develop a construction management plan - Implement dust control measures - Include solar or low-emission water heaters - Include built-in energy-efficient appliances - Install energy efficient air conditioning - Install double paned glass windows - Install energy efficient lighting - Exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5% - Utilize light colored roof materials to reflect heat • Cultural Resources - Include on-site archaeological and paleontological monitor during excavation and grading - Incorporate design features of Ocean View Promenade and El Don Liquor buildings into Building C - Incorporate a minimum 20 ft. setback from south and east Helme-Worthy property lines on first and second levels; incorporate an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback on third and fourth levels from the southerly and easterly property lines of the Helme- Worthy property • Geology and Hydrology Include soils, seismic, compaction, shoring, design, drainage, corrosion, and backfill recommendations from Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation on grading plan Require review of grading plan by geotechnical consultant and Public Works for verification of preliminary report recommendations PL02-36 -14- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 • Noise - Limit construction hours Monday-Saturday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM - Utilize mufflers on high noise generating construction equipment - Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from.residences - Turn off machinery when not in use - Do not idle mobile equipment near residences - Notify neighbors within 200 feet of construction schedule; establish liaison to respond to complaints and correct noise problems • Public Service and Utilities - Incorporate emergency vehicle access, fire sprinklers, fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security - Incorporate crime prevention design measures into project - Incorporate adequate access and turning radius dimensions for disposal collection vehicles - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation • Transportation and Circulation - Restripe eastbound approach for second eastbound turn lane at Brookhurst/Pacific Coast Highway - Provide two inbound and one outbound lane for subterranean parking structure - Restrict delivery vehicles to a medium or small semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet - Implement a Parking Management Plan - Provide valet parking during special events and the peak summer season - Develop an on-site signage program to identify parking, direct vehicles, and guide patrons These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the draft environmental impact report and summarized above. Staff recommends incorporation of these mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the.development project (TTM, CUP, etc.). c) Unavoidable Significant Impacts There are adverse environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. These include impacts from the following: • Aesthetics - Impacts of headlights exiting the parking structure on Sixth Street residences. - Cumulative impacts of loss of public views. • Air Quality Daily operation impacts from volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides PL02-36 -15- 10/8/2002 11:21 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-36 • Noise - Cumulative noise impacts on Main Street between Sixth and Palm in the year 2010. • Public Services and Utilities - Cumulative impacts on solid waste facilities Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the City Council may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR must be applied to any approved project. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 200 2- 1. City Council Resolution No. _[_i _ Certifying Final EIR No. 01-02 2. Appeal letter dated October 3, 2002 from James A. Lane, HB CARES 3. Response to Comment -Jeffrey M. Oderman, Rutan &Tucker, LLP 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 24, 2002 5. Final EIR#01-02 - Reponses to Comments (available for public review) 6. Final EIR#01-02 &Technical Appendices (available for public review) 7. The Strand - Site Plan (RCA Author-;-Herb-,Faulbn,-Howard Zelefsk ,V PL02-36 -16- 10/10/2002 1:59PM' i ,. 7� 14 4 '! RESOLUTION NO. 2002-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA(CITY COUNCIL), CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED.AND CONSIDERED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.01-02 FOR THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, CIM Huntington, LLC ("Developer") proposes to develop the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project("Project"); and The City of Huntington Beach("City")prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Project pursuant to, and in full compliance with, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),Public Resources Code, §21000,et seq.,and all applicable State and local CEQA-Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto: • On August 15, 2001, a Notice of Preparation for the draft SEIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. • On July 19, 2002,in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review and comment from July 19, 2002 to September.3, 2002, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the SEIR on September 24, 2002, in which comments were received on the SEIR; and The Planning Commission certified the SEIR on October 1, 2002; and The City Council held a public hearing on the SEIR on October 21, 2002, in which. comments were received on the EIR; and The City duly consulted with all Responsible Agencies during the preparation of the Draft SEIR and afforded the each such Responsible Agency the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft SEIR prior to the preparation of the Final SEIR; and After subjecting the Draft SEIR to the process of public review and comment in accordance with CEQA and applicable CEQA guidelines,the City prepared and released the Final SEIR for the Project,which incorporates by reference the text of the Draft SEIR,and which includes corrections 1 GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUT10N.5fM'CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC and revisions made to the text of the Draft SEIR as well as the responses to all comments on the Draft SEIR that were received during the public review period; and The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final SEIR prepared for the proposed Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and all other applicable State and local guidelines or regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Section 2. The City Council further certifies that the information contained in the Final SEIR and other documents in the record with respect to the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Project have been reviewed and considered by the City Council. Section 3. After reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final SEIR and other documents in the record with respect to the Project, the City Council hereby makes the findings set forth in the its"Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations"which is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference in support of this resolution as Attachment"A." Each and.all of the findings and determinations.set forth in said Attachment"A"are based upon-competent and.substantial evidence, both oral;and written, contained in.the entire record relating to the Project and the Final SEIR. Such findings and determinations constitute the findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects,and all of the language included in Attachment "A" constitutes findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. Section 4. All summaries of information and the findings contained in said Attachment "A"are based on the Final SEIR,the Proj ect(and every component thereof)and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.The summaries of information in Attachment"A" are only summaries. Cross-references to the Final SEIR and other evidence in the record have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the Final SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Section 5. The City Council finds that no additional environmental effects other than those identified in Attachment "A" will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse affect on the environment as a result of the construction of the Project. The City Council finds and determines that all significant environmental effects identified in the Final SEIR for the construction and operation of the Project have been reduced to an acceptable level in that: i i 2 GARELD\2002 RESOLUTION•.CITY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC (a) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated, or substantially lessened, as indicated in the findings contained in Attachment"A" and the Final SEIR; and (b). Based on the Final SEIR and other documents and information on the record with respect to the construction and operation of the Project; all remaining unavoidable significant impacts, described in the findings contained in Attachment "A," are overridden by the benefits of the Project as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth on page 20 of Attachment "A." Section 6. The Final SEIR identifies and discusses significant effects that will occur as a result of the Project. As the Findings contained in Attachment"A"indicate,despite changes in the Project and/or incorporation of mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts to below the level of significance, significant environmental impacts will remain that cannot be reduced to below the level of significance because specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described therein make infeasible any mitigation measures or alternative development scenarios identified in the Final SEIR. Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the effects of the Project and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the Project's potential and unavoidable adverse impacts, the City Council hereby determines that the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are nevertheless "acceptable," based on specific economic, legal, social, technological, planning and . other considerations associated with the Project.that serve to override and outweigh the Projects. unavoidable significant effects,as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations found on page 20 of Attachment"A." Section 15093(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant impacts identified in the Final SEIR which are not mitigated to below the level of significance,the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final SEIR and/or other information in the record. Accordingly, the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Attachment"A"in fulfillment of the requirements of said Section 15093(b). Section 7. Mitigation Monitoring Program Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that when a public agency is making findings required by Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1)of the State CEQA Guidelines,the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures which have been made part of the Project. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program incorporated herein as Attachment"B"provides for the implementation and monitoring of the Project conditions intended to mitigate potential environmental effects. Thus,the City Council hereby adopts Attachment`B" GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUTIONUTY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC i entitled, "Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring Program" as its Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project and finds that the Project meets the mitigation monitoring program requirement of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Section 8. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c) of the Public.Resources Code, the City Council finds that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as,Lead . Agency for the proposed Project. Section 9. Section 21081.6(a)(2)of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(e) require that the public agency shall specify the location of the custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based. Accordingly,the record and custodian of documents is the Records Department of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October , 2002. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AST ORM: City Clerk C'ty Attorney/66; J G d-/V-O L- d REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT ED AND APPROVED: City AdrKinistrator Di for of Planning 4 GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUTION\CrrY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 ME ATTACHNT A Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Introduction And Background This document provides the Findings of.Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations required for the approval of the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) project,as defined in the Draft EIR. As required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) EIR was distributed on August 16, 2001 to responsible and trustee agencies as well as private organizations and individuals that may have an interest in the project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the Lead Agency planned to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the EIR. The NOP included a brief description of the project and identified those areas where the project could have potentially significant effects, as well as those areas where the.project would have no effect. It also identified. alternatives that were dismissed from further.consideration. The NOP .and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. On July 19,2002,the City of Huntington Beach issued a Draft EIR for public review for a period of 45 days ending on September 3,2000. A Notice of Availability was issued which announced the release of the Draft EIR, identified where it was available for review, described the project, and its location,and summarized the significant environmental effects. The notice stated where documents referenced in the EIR are available for review,and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City of Huntington Beach distributed the Draft EIR to interested individuals, agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and businesses. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the Huntington Beach Central Library. The City received nine (9) letters commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The. Draft EIR included a detailed description of. the Proposed Project, an analysis of .its potential environmental effects,and an analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: . ■ No Project/No Development Alternative; ■ Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only); The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks,substituting residential units for hotel rooms). The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects,and significant and unavoidable impacts. In September 2002, the City of Huntington Beach released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the text of the Draft EIR and includes responses to the nine letters commenting on the Draft EIR,and corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. . . 2. Project Objectives And Description The Project has the following primary objectives (see Draft EIR,p.2-3): Applicant ■ Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. ■ Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. City of Huntington Beach ■ To add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. ■ To improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area. ■ To enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. ■ To contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping,dining,and entertainment. ■ To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. ■ To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project consists of the hotel.and;commercial redevelopment of 2.97 acres of the 6.31-acre property Block 104/105 site located in the downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach,California,which is currently occupied by retail,commercial,office, and residential uses. Seven buildings ranging in height from two to four stories and containing a total of 226,245 gross square feet (gsf) are proposed as mixed-use vertical, visitor-serving development. The 2 City of Huntington Beach Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project site currently contains small surface parking lots, vacant lots, and a one-story commercial structure occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza. The Papa Joes's Pizza structure would be removed to allow the proposed construction of Block 105. In addition, and to accommodate development of the project on both blocks 104 and 105, a 54-foot-wide easement for pedestrian and vehicular traffic between PCH and Walnut Avenue along Fifth Street would be provided in lieu of the existing 80-foot-wide right-of-way. Parking would be provided in a two-level subterranean parking garage located below the entire project site,and six spaces of surface level parking would be provided on Block 105, for a total of 403 parking spaces at.the site. The . proposed project would require the following approvals by the City of Huntington Beach: ■ Condition Use Permit for new construction within Downtown Specific Plan District Three; ■ Special Permits for encroachment into the minimum ground floor and upper-story setbacks, exceeding maximum building height, and reduction of the Fifth Street View corridor; ■ Coastal Development Permit for development within the City's designated Coastal Zone, and ■ Tentative Tract map to consolidate properties into one lot for condominium purposes. The findings(Section 4 of this document)describe the effects of the project as-defined above. 3. Record Of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Huntington Beach's decision on the project consists of the following documents: ■ The Initial Study/NOP prepared for the project; ■ Other public notices in conjunction with the project; ■ The Draft EIR; ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; ■ The Final EIR for the project; ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; ■ All findings and resolutions adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the.project,and all documents cited or referred to therein; ■ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Huntington Beach's consultants, or Responsible or Trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Huntington Beach action on the project; The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 3 Kl.7i Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ All documents submitted to the City of Huntington Beach by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; ■ Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all information sessions,public meetings, and public hearings held by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project; ■ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City of Huntington Beach at such workshops,public meeting,and public hearings;and a Matters of common knowledge to the City of Huntington Beach, including, but not limited to federal,State,and local laws and regulations. The custodian of the documents is the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4. Findings Required Under CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code(PRC)§21081,subd..[a]); Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction.of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency(PRC§21081, subd. (b));and ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report(PRC§21081,subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other . agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 - i defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". State .CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another_factor; "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1950] 52 Cal.3d 553,565[276 Cal.Rptr.410].). 4 City of Huntington Beach A---. I PUAAZ:hey' Wri 10.4 Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433,442,445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727].) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least"substantially mitigated," the agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the .agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 and §15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed,and therefore balanced." (Goleta II,52 Cal.3d 553,576 f276 Cal. Rptr. 4011.) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical. step between the finding and_the facts in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines§15091.): 5. Legal Effects'-Of Findings To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,superseded or withdrawn,the City of Huntington Beach, in the adopting the findings,commits to implementing these measures. In other words,these findings are not merely informational,but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City of Huntington Beach approves the project. The mitigation measures are referenced.in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be affected. through the process of constructing and implementing the project. .6. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)has been prepared for the project;as required by PRC Section 21081.6. The City of Huntington Beach will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City of Huntington Beach will consider the The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 5 Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations MMRP during its certification of the Final EIR. The final MMRP will incorporate, under separate cover,all mitigation measures adopted for the project. 7. Significant Effects, Mitigation Measures, And Findings Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels The potentially.significant.adverse environmental impacts that.can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels are listed below. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements,standards,and codes,as well as mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Air Quality Impact Impact 3.2-1: Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions on a daily basis.(Final EIR,p.3.2-10) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to air quality would be mitigated to .a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of developing and implementing a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes recommended or equivalently effective measures approved by the SCAQMD regarding construction parking, traffic,.and i equipment, as well as implementing all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD which are applicable to the development of the project (such as Rule 402-Nuisance and Rule 403-Fugitive Dust) and which are in effect at the time of development. b City of Huntington Beach J f Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cultural Resources Impact Impact 3.3-1: The proposed project could result in the destruction of paleontological resources. (Final EIR,p.3.3-15) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of monitoring during grading/construction by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological or paleontological deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Impact Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project could result in the destruction of archeological resources. (Final EIR,p.3.3-15) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of monitoring during grading/construction by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological or paleontological.deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Impact Impact 3.3-3:Potential Historical Degradation of El Don Liquors(Final EIR,p.3.3-16) The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 7 AkTTAC METAT o �� Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),.the:above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of incorporating the design features of the adjacent Ocean View Promenade and El Don Liquors structures into the architectural and scale design concept for proposed Building C. Impact Impact 3.3-4: Potential Historical Degradation of the Helme-Worthy Property (Final EIR,p. 3.3- 16) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially . lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of incorporation of a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy property and proposed Buildings D/G and F/G, a 15-foot upper- level setback for the third and fourth floors, and creation of a walkway connecting Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street as a buffer zone around the historic National Register property's . southern and western borders. Geology and Hydrology Impact Impact 3.4-6: People and structures on the project site could be exposed to seismic hazards associated with ground shaking and fault rupture. (Final EIR,p.3.4-22) 8 City of Huntington Beach `,-°"�Cl IEN e N.O. c9.S 1 1 Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to geology and hydrology would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing the grading plan for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the recommendations or equivalently effective measures included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105 regarding site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill,plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. Impact Impact 14-7: Project'development:would locate structures on potentially expansive soils, unstable soils,soils subject to settlement;or corrosive soils. (Final EIR,p.3.4-23) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to geology and hydrology would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing the grading plan for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the recommendations or equivalently effective measures included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/-105 regarding site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seisrnic design features, .excavation_ stability and shoring, requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements; cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill,plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations.. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR - ^ 9 I Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pubic Services and Utilities Impact Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project would cause police protection service levels to drop.(Final EIR,p. 3.8-22) Findings . . Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of consulting the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures and incorporating the Department's recommendations into the plan.- Transportation and Circulation Impact Impact 3.9-1: The General Plan Build Out with Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service.(Final EIR,p. 3.9-12) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. . Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level, :Required mitigation consists..of restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Bmokhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection-as approved by the City Public Works Department. 10 City of Huntington Beach Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact Impact 3.9-2:The General Plan Build Out without Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service.(Final EIR,p. 3.9-13) Findings Changes have been required in, or:incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection as approved by the City Public Works Department. Impact Impact 3.9-3: The proposed project could affect access to and internal circulation on the project site. (Final EIR,p.3.9-14) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of demonstrating the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR I I Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation Aesthetics Impact Impact 3.1-4:Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project.vicinity. (Final EIR,p.3.1-14). Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to aesthetics would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of using minimum light levels required for safety, exterior lights being directed downwards and away from surrounding uses,.onto the project site; and using non-reflective facade treatments,such as matte paint or glass coatings. Impact Cumulative Increases in Light and Glare(Final EIR,p.3.1-16) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the cumulative impact to aesthetics would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of using minimum light levels required for safety, exterior lights being directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site, and. using non-reflective facade treatments,such as matte paint or glass coatings. 12 City of Huntington Beach Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Air Quality Impact Impact 3.2-2: The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could exceed established thresholds. (Final EIR,p.3.2-10) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final . EIR),the above impact to air quality would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of installation of solar or low-emission water heaters,provision of built-in energy-efficient appliances, installation of energy-efficient air conditioners with automated controls,installation of double-glass-paned windows,installation of energy-efficient lighting with automated controls, exceedence of Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by least five percent,and use of light-colored roof materials. Noise Impact Cumulative Increase in Roadway Noise(Final EIR,p.3.6-13) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the cumulative impact to noise would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of.implementing best management practices.that include,but are not limited to, limiting construction hours to between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. on.weekdays.and Saturdays, muffling or controlling construction equipment, locating noise generating equipment as far away as possible from existing residences,turning off equipment when not in use,not allowing equipment to run idle near existing residences,notifying neighbors within 200 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 13 a NO Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations feet of major construction areas in writing prior to construction, and designating a "disturbance coordinator" who is responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction .noise. 8. Feasibility Of Project Alternatives Because the. project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined .above, the City of Huntington Beach must .consider the. feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed project. The City of Huntington Beach must evaluate whether one or more of more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [19881 198 Ca1.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also PRC § 21002.). In preparing and adopting findings, a Lead Agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both Mitigation Measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. When a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of Mitigation Measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider.the feasibility of.environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council [1978] 83 Cal.App.3d 692,730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California [19881 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].). Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City of Huntington Beach considers only those environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. Chapter 4 of the Final EIR examined.three alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1:No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2: Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only);and 14 City of Huntington Beach Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Alternative 3: Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks,substituting residential units for hotel rooms). These findings examine the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effects. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City of Huntington Beach is not required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts which are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. In addressing the No Project/No Action Alternative,the City of Huntington Beach followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions,as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current.plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). No Project/No Development Alternative Aesthetics Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the current aesthetic condition would not change. Although: the site would .remain . deteriorated and underutilized; no visual elements incompatible with surrounding development would be introduced onto the project site. Additionally, public coastal views across the project site from Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street would be preserved and the full width of the public view corridor provided by Fifth Street would be maintained. This alternative would create no new, significant aesthetic impacts; however, considering the existing condition of the site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered less than that of the proposed project. Nonetheless, aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less severe overall than those associated with the proposed project. Air Quality Under the No Project/No Build Alternative,the same number of cars would continue to use the surface parking lots on Blocks 104 and 103, and vehicle trips associated with existing uses would continue. Additionally, construction, demolition, and operational traffic impacts would ..not occur, as no.development would occur and no uses would change.. Air quality would, therefore, remain the same as on the existing condition of the site and impacts would be reduced from those of the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 15 Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise This alternative would not result in any construction-related noise or change the existing operational noise levels on the site. Noise impacts would, therefore, be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and Commercial Development on Block 105 only) - Aesthetics Under the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative, redevelopment of Block 105 would increase the visual quality of the project site by eliminating vacant lots and deteriorating surface parking lots and would eliminate the impact of vehicular headlights upon the residences on the east side of Sixth Street. The lack of sufficient setbacks would exist as in the proposed project plans and the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way would occur;however, Special Permits would be requested for this alternative. However, the introduction of a parking structure to Block 104 could result in the introduction of an incompatible visual element into the project vicinity. Nonetheless,aesthetic impacts would generally be less severe than the proposed project. Air Quality. .: Under the Reduced/Revised Alternative, the current site would be developed to the same site coverage but not the same intensity of commercial development as the proposed project. Air Quality impacts associates with demolition/site preparation activities would be the same as under the proposed project; however, fewer operational trips by consumers and/or delivery trucks would occur, and air quality impacts would be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Noise Because the ultimate development potential would be reduced under this alternative, operational vehicle trips would be reduced, and roadway noise impacts would be less intense than those described for the proposed project. A level of development similar to the proposed project would occur,resulting in short-term exposure of persons to the same level and duration of demolition, sire preparation, and construction noise. Similar to the proposed project; construction-related impacts would remain significant, despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project, as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. However, on-site noise impacts related to the reduced commercial development of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed 16 City of Huntington Beach N NIO M 1 � Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project, with fewer visitors arriving and departing from the project site than with the commercial intensity of the proposed project. Overall, noise impacts would be less intense under this alternative than under the proposed project. Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks, substituting residential units for hotel rooms) Aesthetics As with the proposed project this alternative would have a beneficial impact upon the current aesthetic qualities of unattractive, underutilized vacant uses and parking lots that currently characterize Blocks 104 and 105, by replacing existing, deteriorating urban uses with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Although the property would generally restrict public coastal views through the project site, this impact would be mitigated by the provision of upper level setbacks,pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan,which would reduce the feeling of increased intensity. The provision of these setbacks would also serve as a visual buffer for, and would provide visual consistency with, surrounding, smaller-scale residential and commercial uses. As with the proposed project, this alternative would infringe upon public views of the coast from the.Fifth Street right-of-way,but would do so according to the allowed limits specified in the Downtown Specific Plan.. Increased nighttime lighting levels would still occur, as would impacts of vehicular headlights upon neighboring residences on Sixth Street. Overall, the aesthetic impacts of this alternative are slightly less severe than those of the proposed project. Air Quality Under this alternative, the current site would be developed to a lower overall intensity than the proposed project. Restaurant, retail and office development intensity is identical to the proposed project, and the same number of vehicle trips by consumers and/or deliveries would be expected to occur. Construction activities would also be similar in scope, and air quality impacts associated with demolition,site preparation,construction,and construction worker and truck trips would not be substantially reduced from those expected from the proposed project. However, residential development, assuming primarily low-rise apartments, generates 6.59 daily trips per unit versus hotel development,which generates 8.23 daily trips per unit, and 89 dwelling units would.generate a total of 587 daily trips,versus 1,251 daily trips anticipated from a 152-room.hotel development. This residential generation of approximately.half the vehicle trips of the hotel results in lower-intensity operational air quality impacts under this alternative than under the proposed project. Therefore,this alternative would result in less severe impacts to air quality than the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 17 � 1 Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise Construction activities, which would result in short-term exposure of persons to construction noise,would still occur under this alternative, and would be substantially similar to the impact anticipated under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, such impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project, as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. As described above,under Air Quality,less project-generated traffic would be anticipated under this alternative than under the proposed project, and operational traffic noise impacts would be reduced from those anticipated from the proposed project. However, multi-family residential uses are considered to be higher noise generators than hotel uses, and on-site noise levels under this alternative would be greater than those anticipated under the proposed project. Overall,noise impacts under this alternative would be less severe than those under the proposed project. 9. Statement Of Overriding Considerations When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision making body of the Lead.Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the'project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable-adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific responses to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impact The Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Aesthetics ■ Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. ■ Cumulative Impact ' Air , uali ■ Impact 3.2-2: The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC.and NOx that could exceed established thresholds. Noise ■ Cumulative Impact 18 City of Huntington Beach ENT N10. ' 1 Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Public Services and Utilities ■ Cumulative Impact The City of Huntington Beach has adopted all feasible Mitigation Measures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures may lessen the impacts, they would not reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. As A.result, to approve the Project, the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA"Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been mitigated to a less-then- significant level. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. 10. Independent Review and Analysis Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR, (2) circulate draft documents, that reflect its independent" judgment., and (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that.the.report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The City of Huntington Beach independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and determined that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making this determination, the City of Huntington Beach circulated the Final EIR, as described above. With the adoption of these findings, the City of Huntington Beach concludes that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 19 "IHINAE JT N-0, 304 e Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially'lessened to a less than significant level, the City of Huntington Beach, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental.Impact Report for the project (which includes the Final.EIR and Responses to Comments), and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain,finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to the greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the project,or do not provide the overall benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following. Project . implementation will: Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. Add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. Improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people outside the area. Enhance the.Downtown as a destination for quality retailers.and restaurants. Contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping,dining,and entertainment. 20 City of Huntington Beach a9�la �^ - - - �o- 4 '�:7- L_?V 9 9`.9-4..Oa 10•00-- e Exhibit A to Res.No.2002-103 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. Implement many of the goals,policies and development standards of the City's Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 21 Exhibit B to Res.No.2002-103 ATTACHMENT B Exhibit B to Res.No.2002-103 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Purpose As identified by Section 15097(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of the Northam Ranch House Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (N UVIRP) is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures and/or project revisions identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant, adverse, environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The implementation of this MMRP shall be accomplished by Lead Agency staff(City of Huntington Beach), the project developer's consultants and representatives, and the property owner. The program shall apply to the following phases of the project.- 0 Plan and specification preparation ■ Pre-construction activities 0 Construction of the site improvements ■ Post-construction activities Monitoring ensures that project compliance is verified on a regular basis during and, if necessary,subsequent to lsroject implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving agency is informed of compliance with the mitigation measures. Responsibilities and Duties The Applicant shall designate a representative to coordinate on-site compliance efforts, and to serve as the primary point of contact with the City Planning Department. The representative shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of this MMRP, and shall have authority over the monitors/specialists retained by the developer and/or contractor, as well as i construction personnel for actions that relate to the items listed in this program. i Any problems or concerns shall be addressed by the Applicant's representative and the City Planning Department. The Applicant shall prepare a construction schedule for review and approval by the City Planning Department, and shall provide the Department with at least 48. hours'notice of any major revisions to or deviations from the schedule. The Applicant's representative shall also ensure that an information packet—which shall include a copy of the MMRP,the construction schedule,a monitoring log/sign-in sheet,and the The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach J Exhibit B to Res.No.2002,103 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program plot plan delineating all sensitive areas to be avoided is present on-site during all demolition, grading, and construction activities. All on-site personnel shall be informed of the packet's presence and contents, as well as the duties and responsibilities of each participant, communication procedures,monitoring criteria,and compliance criteria. Once construction commences, field meetings between the Applicant's representative, project consultants, and contractors shall .be held .on an as-needed basis in order to address unanticipated circumstances,assess potential effects,.and:resolve conflicts. Implementation Procedures Three types of activities will require monitoring: (1) review of the Conditions of Approval and Construction Plans and Specifications; (2) demolition, grading, and construction activities; and (3)ongoing monitoring activities during operation of the project. Monitoring Procedures The Applicant's representative, required consultants, and appropriate City staff (identified in the N1NW Matrix) shall monitor all field activities. The authority and responsibilities of the Applicant and City are described above. Reporting Procedures A schedule and two types of reports shall be prepared,as described below: 1. Schedule The contractor shall prepare a construction schedule to be submitted to the City prior to or at the pre-construction briefing. This schedule shall be updated, as necessary, and submitted to all involved parties,including the Lead Agency. 2. Bi-weekly Progress Resorts The Applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting bi-weekly written progress reports during grading, excavation, and construction activities to the City Planning Department. These progress reports shall document field activities,compliance with project mitigation.measures (such as dust control..and sound reduction), and the. monitors and monitoring activities during the preceding two-week period.. 3. Final Report A final report shall be submitted to the City Planning Department when all monitoring (other than long-term operational)has been completed and shall include the following: 2 City of Huntington Beach AST d ACHM E NT N 0. ��- Exhibit B to Res.No.2002-103 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a. A summary of all monitoring activities; b. The date(s) that monitoring occurred; c. An identification of any violations and the manner in which they were resolved; d. Any required technical reports,such as noise measurements;and e. A list of all project mitigation monitors. . MMRP Matrix The following MMRP Matrix describes each Initial Study and EIR mitigation measure,the entity responsible for ensuring compliance with each mitigation measure, the entity responsible for the actual monitoring or reporting activity, the action taken by the monitor to ensure compliance with the mitigation measure, the timing and frequency of monitoring or reporting activity, and the department of the Lead Agency that is responsible for verifying ultimate compliance with the mitigation measure. The MMRP Matrix is .intended for-use by all parties.involved in monitoring the project mitigation measures, as well as project contractors and others working in the field. The Matrix should be used as a compliance checklist to aid in compliance verification and monitoring requirements. A copy of the MMRP matrix shall be kept on-site and in the project file to verify compliance with all mitigation measures. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX - Ti-*l Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance 4ieck Venation AestheticsNisual Quality Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: The Applicant City City Planning Plan review At plan check City Planning shall use minimum light levels required for Redevelopment Department Department safety,and exterior lights shall be directed Agency/Developer downwards and away from surrounding uses,onto the project site. . Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: To the extent City City Planning Plan review At plan check City Planning feasible, the Applicant::shall use non- Redevelopment Department Department reflective facade treatments,such as matte Agency/Developer paint or glass coatings. Air Quality ■ Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The project City City Planning Site inspection Periodically during City Planning developer(s) shall' develop and Redevelopment Department, construction Department implement a construction management Agericy/Developer Development plan, as approved by the City of Services Director Huntington Beach, which includes the following measures•.recommended by the SCAQMD,or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach-.. ■ Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference ■ Provide temporary' traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain,traffic flow (e.g., flag person) ■ Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable ■ Consolidate truck deliveries when possible ■ Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' - specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions ;V x ■ Use methanol-:or natural gas-poweredCr mobile equipment and pile drivers o m instead of.diesel to the extent available c o and at competitive prices C) 0 w 4 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Me"M Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMonitor Frerluency Co Whance Check Verification ■ Use propane- or butane-powered on- site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent.available and at competitive prices Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 The project City City Planning Plan Check,and During City Planning developer(s)shall implement all rules and Redevelopment Department/City verification of construction Department regulations by the Governing Board of the Agency/Developer Engineer implementation activities SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402—Nuisance and Rule 403—Fugitive Dust) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the•SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: . ■ Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations ■ Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated,in the late morning and after work is completed for the day ■ All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times.,daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to, manufacturers' specifications ■ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) according to manufacturers' specifications X r ■ The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible o00 00 ■ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or N other loose materials shall be covered or w 5 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from . impacting the surrounding areas. • Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and.used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip ■ Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads ■ Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site ■ All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period ■ A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads(if any) on the project site ■Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust on the surrounding area. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Solar or low- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning emission water heaters shall be installed in Redevelopment Department verification of Department all new buildings within the project site to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2f1: Built-in energy- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning .. efficient appliances shall be provided in all Redevelopment Department verification of Department new buildings within the project site to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated c� emissions. M m N Mitigation Measure 3.2-5: Air City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning o conditioners installed in all new buildings Redevelopment Department verification of Department m within the project sits•shall be energy- Agency/Developer implementation o 0 efficient and shall have automated controls w 6 City of Huntington Beach I j Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsilde Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Freq--cy Compliance Check Veriftwtion to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-6: Double-glass- City City Planning 'Design review,and At plan check City Planning paned windows shall be installed in new Redevelopment Department verification of Department buildings within the redevelopment area to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-7: Lighting City City Planning ` Design review,and At plan check City Planning installed in new buildings within the Redevelopment Department verification of Department project site shall be energy-efficient and Agency/Developer implementation shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure .3.2-8: The new City City Planning Design Review,and At plan check City Planning buildings within the project site shall Redevelopment Department verification of Department exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation Agency/Developer implementation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-9: The new City City Planning Design Review,and At plan check City Planning buildings within the project site shall use Redevelopment Department verification of Department light-colored roof materials to reflect heat Agency/Developer implementation and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Monitor during City City Planning Visual Prior to City Planning grading and excavation for archaeological Redevelopment Department/ inspection/Inform construction,and Department and paleontological resources: Agency/Developer archeological and construction during grading and aleontolo 'cal per excavation activities ■The Applicant shall arrange for a P � P qualified professional archaeological consultant and paleontological monitor to be present during. demolition, grading, trenching,and other:'excavation on the project site. Additionally, prior to M m project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the o rr 03 potential for encountering significant No S archaeological and paleontological N y�y resources, and instructed in the o w 7 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ MitigationMeamm Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency ComplfanceC►reck Verification identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the.find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be a informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If archaeological :or paleontological . resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological . resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources n consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the �i report for peer review by three County- certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission,and 211 _ the City of Huntington Beach. &D ■In the event of the discovery on the o project site of a burial,human bone,or g g susnected human bnne. all excavation N O W 8 City of Huntington Beach �1 W Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMoiiitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt-immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is.present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human,or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department,and the Orange i County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions.of P.R.C. § 5097 with respect ,to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Mitigation Monitoring 3.3-2: Building C City City Planning of the proposed project shall incorporate Redevelopment Department/City ground-level and second-story design Agency/Developer Design Review features of the Ocean View Promenade Board Structure and,to the extent feasible,of the building containing El Don Liquors; These features shall include,but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials.:;Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be reviewed by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to City City Planning Plan check Prior to recordation City Planning submittal for building permits, the Redevelopment Department of the final map Department Applicant shall incorporate a 20-foot Agency/Developer M1 setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and i Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line, a 10-15- foot average upper-level setback for the A third and fourth floors to create a distinct fR separation between the new and older o ---� buildings. m go N 0 CD 9 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timfngf Mitigation Measure Responwble Entity Monitor ActionbyMonitor Frequency Compliance Check Venation Geology and Hydrology Mitigation Measure.3.4-1: The grading City City Planning Review of grading Prior to City Planning plan prepared for the proposed project Redevelopment Department,City plan construction/at Department shall contain the recommendations Agency/Developer Engineer plan check included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach . Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be:implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated,with site preparation, fill placement and. compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure,foundation design,concrete slabs and pavements,cement.type and corrosion measures,surface drainage,trench backfill, plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. Mitigation Measure. 3.4-2: Prior to City Geotechnical Review of final Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a grading permit, the final Redevelopment consultant/Public grading and a grading permit Department grading and foundation plans shall be Agency/Developer Works Department foundation plans reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works`Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are applicable. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: The proposed City City Public Works Review of final Prior to issuance of City Planning project shall include flatwork design and Redevelopment Department grading and a grading permit Department . structural BMPs to isolate contamination Agency/Developer foundation plans from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a trash separator,an oil and grease separator, and/or other filtration system as required to meet water X r quality standards. v o -� Land UseCD 0° o� No mitigation required. ^' o w 10 City of Huntington Beach O Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING'AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Me"= Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Complianm Ozeck Verification Noise Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: The project City City Planning Site.Inspections Periodically during City Planning contractor(s) shall implement, but not be Redevelopment Department construction Department limited to,the following best management Agency/Developer activities practices: ■Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8,00 P.M.on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays •All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential,including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines,shall be muffled or controlled ■ All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as 'far as possible from existing houses . ■ Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use ■ Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences ■Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible ^� for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator(who may be an employee of the developer.or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to W x correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise C, OD disturbance coordinator shall be posted No g conspicuously at .the construction site CD fence and included on the notification o w The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX . Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible&ity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. Population and Housing No mitigation required Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to City City Planning Site inspection Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department a building permit Department Applicant shall demonstrate that. the Agency/Developer project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security shall be provided. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to City City Planning Review and Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department/ incorporate a building permit Department Applicant shall consult the Huntington Agency/Developer Huntington Beach adequate crime Beach Police Department regarding the Police Department prevention provision of adequate Crime Prevention measures into plan Design measures,and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to City City Planning Plan check/visual Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department/ inspection a building permit Department Applicant shall demonstrate that the Agency/Developer Maintenance project includes adequate access for Services. disposal collection vehicles including 55 Department feet to pickup and drop off containers on a straight shot and a minimum turning diameter of 86 feet. WTI Z_: � m o ET Z �/�p N 'dam O W - 12 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMomtor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Mitigation Measure 3.8 I: Prior to City Environmental Plan check Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of building permits for the first Redevelopment Services Division/ building permits Department project component the Applicant shall Agency/Developer Public Works submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to Department the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, tlus plan shall include how the project will address.the construction and demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include,but shall not be limited to the following: ■ Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition •Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum,and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic,: wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases ■ Bins for cardboard recycling during construction ■Scrap wood recycling during construction ■Green waste recycling of landscape materials Transportation and Circulation MM 3.9-1 Prior to issuance of an City City Public Works Review and Prior to issuance of City Planning occupancy permit, the applicant shall Redevelopment Department approve second an occupancy Department,City restripe the eastbound approach to provide Agency/Developer eastbound lane permit Public Works a second eastbound turn lane at the Department Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, subject to review and y X approval by the City Public WorksCr o Department. m o� N O W 13 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach lW Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMonitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Prior to City City Planning Verification of the Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit,the applicant Redevelopment Department/City provision of a building permit Department,City shall demonstrate the. provision of two Agency/Developer Public Works inbound and Public Works inbound lanes and,one outbound lane for Department outbound lanes Department the proposed subterranean parking structure. Mitigation Measure 3.9 3: Delivery City City Planning vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the Redevelopment Department size of or smaller:than a medium or small Agency/Developer semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet. Mitigation Measure 3.94; Prior to City City Planning Review parking Prior to issuance to City Planning issuance of a building permit,the applicant Redevelopment Department management plan a building permit Department shall submit a parking management plan, Agency/Developer consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5: During City City Planning Periodic site Ongoing inspection City Planning ongoing operations. of the project, the Redevelopment Department inspection during Department applicant shall provide valet and/or Agency/Developer special events/peak remote parking for special events and seasons activities,and during peak summer season. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6: Prior to City City Planning Site inspection Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of occupancy permits, the Redevelopment Department occupancy permits Department applicant shall develop an on-site signage Agency/Developer program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. Mitigation Measures Incorporated by Reference from the Huntington Beach.Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2 Population and Housing Mitigation Measure 4.2-A: The Agency City City Planning Verification of Prior to project City Planning M shall relocate any persons or families of Redevelopment Department provision and approval/at plan Department m x low and moderate income displaced by a Agency implementation of a check z redevelopment project. The Agency shall relocation plan m adopt and implement a relocation plan g pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. w 14 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Cornplia►nce Check Verification The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit.available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents;comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further,housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displace household, and i must be decent,. safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4.571): In larger areas City City Planning Site Inspection Prior to and City Planning of both surface. and subsurface Redevelopment Department/City during Department and contamination, a site assessment will be Agency/Developer Engineer and construction DOGGR(California conducted before.any construction takes DOGGR(California Department of Oil, place at that locale. At locations where Department of Oil, Gas,and Geothermal spillage of fluids,from the petroleum Gas,and Resources) extraction process has occurred, the soils Geothermal will be remediated'using appropriate Resources) techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would.;"sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during ®� excavation activities,these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate. Cultural and Scientific Resources CD X M ■ Mitigation Measure 4.12-A: Prior to City = z the commencement,of new construction Redevelopment o m that would displace or require Agency/Developer No c demolition of potentially significant ,CD resources, a complete assessment shall o w 15 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach U� Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure ResponsibleEntfty Monitor ActionbyMonitor Frequency ComplianwCheck Verification be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At..a minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation: ■ A full description, of each building architectural style,roof design,window design,type of foundation,exterior wall treatments, special architectural features,etc. ■ Black and white.photographs showing one or more facades of each building ■ A determination of construction date from existing records such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. ■ A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact Mitigation Measure 4.12-B: Should any City cultural artifacts, archaeological resources Redevelopment or paleontological resources be uncovered Agency/Developer during grading or excavation,a County of Orange certified archaeologist or 0 paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource,2) m x establish protocol.with the City to protect W such resources,3)ascertain the presence of o additional resources, and 4) provide No 0 additional monitoring. of the site, if CD deemed appropriate. C) 16 City of Huntington Beach Res. No. 2002-103 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY.OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1 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 an regular meeting thereof held on the 215t day of October 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook ABSENT: Houchen ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio C rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I ri w t ` a October 3, 2002 _., i ..: .; _,; C f5 Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess (CARE) - 637 Frankfort Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk,Huntington Beach .2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway, The Community Group Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess(CARE)are filing an appeal of the recent Planning Commission approvals of the CIM- Strand development project on Block 104 & 105 in downtown Huntington Beach. CARE believes_ that both the draft Environment Impact Report for the Strand(EIR No, 01-02) and the proposed CIM Strand project itself are Inadequate and inappropriate for the Site. We therefore Appeal both the EIR(No, 01-02) and project approval for the Strand, to the Huntington Beach City Community Redevelopment Agency. This includes the Tentative Tract Map No- 16406,Conditional Use Permit No- 99-45 with Special Permit No-02-06 and Coastal Development No-99-16 all approved on Oct 1, 2002 by the Planning Commission The reasons for our appeal are outlined in letters from our attorney, Mr. Jeffrey M. Oderman, (Rutan&Tucker)to Jane James, Senior Planner dated September.3, 2002 and June 1.6,2000. These letters attached. Sincerely, ?a�mes A Lane HB CARES CO—Chair 637 Frankfort Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i A.W.RUTAN(1840.19711 TAMES B.TUCKER.SR.118BS-19501 LARRY A. CAROL 0.CARTY RUTAN R 1. CHARDOA RCURNUTT RANDALL M.BRBUSH'ON PATRICK 0.MCCAILLA NATALIE 5 SBALO OUNDAS SETHREW L HANSOEN WORTH IOHN B.HURLBUT.IR MARY M.CREEN RICHARD K.NOWELL IOHN W.HAMILTON.IR. ALEMNORO S.ANGULO --kw - r Y MICHAEL W.IMMELL GREGG AMBER TAMES S.WEISZ- IOH I A,RAMIREZ- ANTHONY L.BEAUAION .,1 MILFORD W.DAHL.IR MICHAEL F.SITZER DAVID H.HOCHHER PHILIP),BLANCHARD CHAD W.FIRETAG CL 0.HANSEN CKERJ OSIPPHORE LWALLACARUTHCE I0. THOMAMARKB'1.FRA2ERE A.PA ROE, DRICKFISHNOI DE)AM.E 1.HEMINCWAYER ARON MARL UESEBRINK RICHARD P.SIMS PENELOPE PARMES S.DART EL HARBOTTIE DEMISE L.MESTER DAAION D.MIRCHEFF TAMES S.D'N EAL M.KATHERINE IENSON PAUL I.SIEVERS W.ANDREW MOORE LONA LAYMON A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW ROB ERTC. BRAUN DUKE F WAHLQUIST IOSEPH L MAGA.111 CHARLES DAVENPORT.ill CATHERINE M.ON THOMA5 5 SAUAICER- RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO KRAIG C.KILCER RICHARD D.ARKO FOORNIMA IAYAPRAKASH DAVID C.LARSEN- LORI SARNER SMITH KENT M.CLAYTON MARK M MALOV05 CLIFFORD E.FRIEDEN ERN EST W.KLATTE.III STEVEN I GOON NIKKI NGUY IN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MICHAEL D.RUBIN KIM O TH -OENNINGTON SANDRAP THOMPSON IRA C R1V_ IAYNE TAYLOMPSON DOUGLAS IOR KACER MARTIN W,TAYLOR IENNIFER S.ANDERSON OF COUN5EU 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR IEFFREY M.ODERMAN' DAVID0 COSCROVE DAN SLATER IOHNT BRADLEY LEONARDA HAMPEL STAN WOLCOTT MANS VAN LICTEN MARK).PAYNE ALLISON LEMOINE;BUI f0WARO D.SYBESMA.IR, COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1931 ROBERTS DOWER STEPHEN A.ELLIS MARK BUDENSIEK KAREN L.KEATING SENATOR DICK ACKER.A-4 MARCIA A-FORSYTH IEFFREY WERTHEIMER TRIG A IULANDER - T LAN NCUYEN DAVID 1 GARISAIDI,III DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA ROBERT O OWEN TODD O.LITFIN LISA NICHOLAS NEAL WILLIAM I.CAPLAN COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628.1950 TAMES L.MORRIS ADAM N.VOLKERT KERRA S.CARLSON MARK J.AUSTIN MICHAEL T.HORNAK IEFFREY A COLDFARB CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER ROBERT H MARCEREAU MARTIN iFSSFNMAIFR" TELEPHONE714-641.5100 FACSIMILE714-546.9035 PHILIP0KOHN F.KEVIN BRAZIL IEFFREYT.MELCHING' STEVEN W.BURT IOEL 0 KUPERBERC LAYNE H.MELZER DAVID 1.ZOETEWEY NOAM I.DUZMAN 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com STEVEN A NICHOLS L.SKI HARRISON MARLENE POSE)URCENSEN MITCH MILSTEIN "PATENT AGENT Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan-com September 3,2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Jane James, Senior Planner City-pf Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105); Comments,on Draft Subsequent Environmental.Impact Report Dear Ms. James: On behalf of the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am submitting the following comments on the Draft EIR for the Strand project(the "Project"). CARE welcomes this long-overdue EIR. CARE continues to believe, however, that an EIR that fully addresses the impacts of the Project should have been prepared and certified prior to the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 3483 on November 20, 2000, amending the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment, after all, was designed to accommodate the Project now at hand by increasing the maximum permitted development cap within the City's Downtown Parking Master Plan area_ from 500,000 .to 715,000 square feet. of commercial building area and by slashing the off-street parking requirements for new development in that area by approximately one-third, both changes.that fit hand-in-glove with the Strand project. The City has wrongfully prejudged the Strand project by approving its enormous size, its uses, and its parking arrangements before the subject EIR was even prepared. The validity of the City's 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment is currently pending before Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in CARE v. City of Huntington Beach, Appellate No. G030388. Since the validity of the City's action on the EIR for the Strand. project hinges upon the outcome of the pending lawsuit, CARE believes it would be appropriate for the City to defer action on the EIR for the Strand project until after the appeal is decided. '12/019483-0001 316443.01 aD9/03/02 �RUTAN &TUCKER A 1 10 IN E Y S AT L A W Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 2 If the City elects instead to move forward with certification of the EIR and consideration of the Strand project at this time, CARE requests that full written responses be provided to the following comments on the Draft EIR. CARE also requests .that all of the documents and testimony that were submitted to the City and included in the Administrative Record of proceedings in the lawsuit involving the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment. be incorporated into the record of proceedings concerning the subject Draft EIR and the Strand proj ect. In general, CARE finds the EIR to be deficient in the following respects: it understates or fails to adequately address several significant environmental impacts of the Strand project; it fails to set forth. adequate and enforceable mitigation measures to eliminate the significant environmental impacts of the Project or reduce them to a-level of insignificance; and it fails to set forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts. CARE's specific comments on the Draft EIR are as follows: 1. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project complies with the maximum floor area ratio provisions of the City's Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand project qualifies neither.as a"full block" or"half block" development under the City's applicable land use regulations. The Project is far out of compliance with City codes even before any"special permits" are considered. (See in this regard 11.2 of my June 16, 2000, letter to you on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, another copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A.') 2. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project complies with applicable building height limits under the City's Municipal Code and Downtown Specific Plan. Once again, the Strand project does not qualify as a "full block" development under the City's codes, and the Project is far out of compliance with applicable building height limits even before considering whether"special permits" should be granted. (See 11.3 of my June 16,2000, letter.) 3. The adequacy of parking for the Strand project and nearby developments is not I dequately addressed in the Draft EIR or any other documents incorporated by reference and summarized in accordance with applicable CEQA Guidelines. Virtually none of the comments or questions raised by CARE with regard to the 2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan update and Downtown Specific Plan amendment have been addressed in the Draft EIR. Instead, all the Draft EIR does is to gloss briefly over the Kaku Report. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-15 to 3.9-17.) -All of CARE's previous comments on the parking issue, the Kaku Report, and the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment are incorporated herein, including 12 of my June 16, 2000, letter (attached) and the letters I submitted to the City that are included at pages 04065-04078 and 112/019483.0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 s RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW - Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 3 04410-04497 of the Administrative Record in the pending lawsuit. Responses to each-of the comments and concerns raised in those earlier communications are requested. 4. The Draft EIR should address the adequacy of parking for existing businesses in the Downtown during the approximately 2-year construction period for the Strand project. The Draft EIR (at p. 2-6) deals vaguely with parking for construction workers but does not address the impact of the loss of almost 200 existing surface parking spaces within Blocks 104 and 105 during the lengthy construction period. I 5. The Draft EIR fails to address how access to the existing businesses along Main Street and PCH will be maintained for service and delivery vehicles during the construction period. 6. The Draft EIR fails to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of ground shaking, excavation, and loss of lateral and subjacent support for the Worthy building in Block 105 and the existing buildings along Main Street and PCH within Block 104. The Draft EIR indicates (in Figures 2-6 and 2-7) that there will be 2-level vertical excavations right to the property line adjacent to existing businesses and that pile-driving is expected throughout the Project site (see, e.g., p. x)' The City/Agency will recall that pile-driving activities at the municipal pier over a decade ago basically destroyed the building that was formerly located on the site of the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 104. While the existing buildings in this area have either been demolished and rebuilt or seismically reinforced since that time, it seems highly probable that substantial damage will be done by extensive excavation and pile- driving activities much closer to the existing structures. _ 7.. The Draft EIR understates the extent of the impact that a four-story hotel enveloping the much smaller historic Worthy Building will have on that significant cultural resource. The Draft EIR should acknowledge the significance of this impact and address a legitimate mitigation measure and/or project alternative that provides a compatible adjacent development. 8. The Draft EIR should acknowledge that loss of the 5`h Street view corridor — caused by reducing it from the minimum 80 feet width required in the Downtown Specific Plan to only 65 feet — is a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR should address a mitigation measure and/or project alternative that would maintain the current minimum view corridor. 9. A second-stor EEpublic" terrace within the hotel does not mitigate the loss of the public view corridor along 51 Street (see Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-7 and 3.1-9). As a practical matter, the general public does not have the opportunity to utilize a terrace that is part of a hotel and the loss of the existing view corridor would be significant. 1121019483-0001 31W3.01 a09/03/02 RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R N EYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002. Page 4 10. The Draft EIR identifies a supposed "mitigation measure" of restricting delivery vehicles to vehicles the size of or smaller than a medium or small semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet. (Id, p. 3.9-18.) Is this "mitigation" measure imposed on the Strand project only or also on the existing businesses operating within Block 104? If the latter, it most certainly is not a mitigation measure. These businesses do not have the luxury of dictating to their suppliers what size of delivery vehicles they must use. The Draft EIR does not adequately address the impact on delivery/service vehicles for the existing businesses and what effect such a so-called "mitigation"measure would have upon those businesses. 11. The Draft EIR contains vague mitigation measures requiring the applicant to submit a parking management plan for review and approval by the City Planning Department and to provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities and during the peak summer season. (Id, at p. 3.9-18.) These mitigation measures contain no specificity or enforceable standards and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. 12. The Draft EIR fails to. address the potential blighting influences of overbuilding commercial square footage within the.Downtown area. As I pointed out at page 3 of my September 5, 2001, letter on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR (included in Appendix A), there have been numerous business failures in the past few years and there are also a substantial number of business vacancies. The businesses in Downtown Huntington Beach are generally beach-related if not beach-dependent and are highly seasonal in nature. By greatly expanding the square footage devoted to retail and restaurant uses while requiring potential customers to rely upon higher- and higher-priced public parking in greatly restricted locations, the City and Redevelopment Agency will be placing much greater pressure on already marginal existing businesses. This subject.should be thoroughly addressed. 13. The Draft EIR indicates that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to quitclaim a portion of the 50' Street right-of-way to CIM. (Id, at 2-5.) CARE submits that this appears to be a proposed gift of public property(see, e.g.,Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 150) and it.was not addressed in the CIM Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") or in the mandatory financial disclosure report that accompanied the DDA (see Health and Safety Code § 33433). Has a secret deal been made to provide even more financial benefits to CIM? 14. The Draft EIR fails to consider or address the accessibility of the subterranean parking, the adequacy of ingress to and egress from the structure, and the public's acceptance of subterranean parking in general. There is only one vehicular entrance and. exit to the subterranean parking structure — on 6d' Street. This is two blocks away from the existing businesses along Main-Street. How will frustrated customers even find the parking? The City has noted for years that the subterranean parking at Pierside Pavilion is greatly underutilized. 1121019483-0001 A16443.01 a09/03/02 RUTAN &TUCKER; ATTOR NEYJ AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 5 Has it occurred to the City that the reason is the public's lack of acceptance of subterranean parking? 15. The Draft EIR fails to address the Strand project's impact on the availability of convenient parking for nearby office tenants, including the three stories of offices (constructed at the Redevelopment Agency's insistence) in the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 104. Offices are particularly dependent upon the continuous availability of convenient and accessible parking. 16. In light of the inadequate parking that will be available within Blocks 104 and 105 at Project build-out, the Draft EIR should thoroughly analyze a mitigation measure that would allow existing businesses within Block 104 to reserve a minimum number of parking spaces at reasonable rates in the portion(s) of the structure closest to the existing businesses. and/or in the . parking structure in the 200 block of Main Street. 17. The Draft-EIR fails to identify the numerous amendments to the City's General Plan (Coastal Element) and Downtown Specific Plan that would have to be approved.in order to eliminate conflicts and violations in the areas of floor area ratio, height limits,the visual corridor along 51h Street,open space, and setback requirements. 18. The traffic analysis accompanying the Draft EIR appears to include only a few of the related projects identified in the cumulative impacts section. (Compare Appendix G, pp. 6 and 24,with pp. 2-7 to 2-11.) 19. Policy C4.2.3 in the Coastal Element'of the City's General Plan,_ dealing with preservation of public views, requires "strict application of local ordinances . . . including defined view corridors." (Emphasis added.) The Draft EIR should address a.modified project that eliminates this clear violation. 20.. The air quality mitigation measures set forth at pp. 3.2-15 to 3.2-16 of the Draft EIR contain no performance.standards and are therefore:inadequate under CEQA. 21. The Cultural Resources Element of the City's General Plan "[e]ncourage[s] new development to be compatible with adjacent existing historic structures.. in terms of scale, massing, building materials, and general architectural treatment." There is no substantial evidence for the statement at p. 3.3-11 of the Draft EIR that the Strand project is compatible with this policy. How can a four-story, 55-foot tall Mediterranean-style building shoved up as close as 20 feet away from a two-story historic wooden structure such as the Worthy Building be considered compatible with any of those criteria? 22. The Draft EIR fails to provide the information needed to calculate the Strand project's compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan requirement (at § 4.5.10)that a minimum 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 RUTAN &TUCKER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3,2002 Page 6 of 10% of the net site area must be aside for a public open space amenity. (See Draft EIR, p. 3.5-21.) How can a hotel terrace qualify as either "public" or "open space" under the City's codes? 23. The Draft EIR states that construction noise impacts will be less than significant because the City exempts them from the requirements of the City's noise ordinance. (Id, at p. 3.6-11.) This is a gross non-sequitur. Pile-driving and other loud construction activities occurring on the site will have a significant adverse impact on adjacent businesses (including the upper-floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade Building) and residences. 24. The proposed noise mitigation measures do not address and may even increase noise impacts on the upper-floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade building. 25. The cumulative air quality impact analysis in the Draft EIR does not identify the other projects that were considered. (Id,p. 3.2-14.) 26. . The cumulative traffic impact analysis section of the.Draft EIR is inadequate since it considers only four"committed"projects instead of all of the reasonably anticipated and related future projects. (See, Draft EIR,pp. 3.9-2 and 2.9-7.) 27. It is inappropriate for the Draft EIR to refuse to consider significant traffic and parking impacts occurring during the summer and on weekends simply because the City doesn't want to invest in additional infrastructure. (See p. 3.9-6.) The Draft EIR should instead acknowledge that the impacts are significant and unmitigated and address the failure or refusal to fully mitigate impacts as part the "overriding considerations" analysis if indeed the City believes it is not feasible to mitigate the impacts. 28. The Draft EIR incorrectly assumes (at p. 3.9-16) that private off-street parking is available for shared public use. An accurate inventory of true "public" spaces is needed. 29. There is no-substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 that "the Project is considered fully-parked." Even assuming for the sake of argument that the reduced parking requirements of the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment were used, the Kaku study acknowledged a 245-parking deficiency in Area 1 of the Downtown Parking Master Plan area (the first 3 blocks-inland from PCH along either side of Main Street, including Block A). (See p. 04406 of the Administrative Record in the above-referenced litigation.) 30. There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 of the Draft EIR that "the proposed project will replace the 150 spaces lost [in Block A] on a one-for-one basis . . . ." In the first place, the City's own parking inventory prepare as part of the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment identified significantly more than 150 existing parking spaces in Block A. In addition, the City staff itself acknowledged the CIM project generates a 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 ORUTAN &TUCKER A T T O R N E Y$ AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 7 parking requirement somewhere between 834 and 878 spaces (see pp. 04324 and 04557 from the Administrative Record in the pending litigation). With less than half of the Strand project's own parking needs accommodated on-site before the loss of the existing on-site parking is considered, it is grossly deceptive to state-that existing parking is being replaced on a one-for-one basis. 31. The Draft EIR seems to indicate that the Strand project maximizes its square footage relative to available parking in Downtown Huntington Beach. (Id, at p. 3.9-17.) The Draft EIR does not address the constraints that approval of the Strand project apparently would place on the rights of other property owners in the Downtown, particularly existing property owners within Block A, to redevelop their properties. 32. The Draft EIR's refusal to acknowledge a substantial number of significant environmental impacts — dealing with violation of City development standards, impacts on cultural resources (i.e., the Worthy building), scale and massing, inadequate parking, inadequate open space, loss of the 50' Street.view corridor, and height and setback violations, to name a few —results in a truncated discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid those impacts. 33. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's assertion(at pp. 4-6 to 4-7) that there is no alternative site for a project similar to the Strand project that would enable the City to realize the basic project objectives. The property at the comer of PCH and 1" Street is also available for additional commercial, retail, and restaurant development. There are several. existing and planned hotels already located in and immediately adjacent to Downtown Huntington Beach, including without limitation the Waterfront Hilton, the Hyatt Regency Resort currently under construction, and hotels that CARE understands are planned-for the property at the corner of PCH and I" Street. CARE requests that the record of proceedings on this EIR include the City files on those other projects. Without the Strand project there are approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial development existing and approved for the"core"Downtown Huntington Beach area. The Draft EIR does not explain how the additional square footage in the precise location identified is necessary and cannot be compromised in order to achieve project objectives. 34. There is no substantial evidence to justify the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Use" alternative. (See p. 4-7.) The Draft EIR should consider a development scenario in accordance with the existing City development standards. The Draft EIR improperly states that such a development would not "substantially lessen environmental impacts" compared to the Strand project by simply misstating (or not stating) what those development standards are. It is not a justification for the Draft EIR to state that "the City Redevelopment Agency owns the property. and has entered into an agreement with CIM to develop the site . . . ." Indeed, this smacks of precisely the sort of prejudgment and pre- commitment to the CIM development'in the absence of environmental review that CARE has 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 8 been complaining about for the past three years. It is also no excuse to state that"the City has no other existing plans for the redevelopment of the project site," as stated in the Draft EIR. The purpose of the alternatives section of an EIR is that the City must develop and consider reasonable alternative uses. There also is no substantial evidence to support the EIR's claim (at p. 4-7) that the City "has received no proposals" for development other than the CIM project. In fact, the City itself approved a much smaller scale development for Blocks 104 and 105 in 1992-1995 and that development project did not proceed only because of the developer's lack of financing and the real estate recession at the time. At a minimum, the City should consider that previously approved plan or a plan substantially similar to it as one of the reasonable alternatives to the grossly overbuilt CIM project. In this regard, CARE respectfully requests that the City and Redevelopment Agency's entire file relating to the previously approved Coultrup project be included in the record of these proceedings to show what a true reasonable alternative to the CIM project would be. Finally, there .is no substantial evidence to support the vague claim in the Draft EIR (at p. 4-7) that the "no project" alternative is infeasible because of unnamed "social and political. constraints." What does this mean? At a minimum, further explanation of this statement is warranted. 35. There is already substantial retail, restaurant, and office.development within the "core" area of Downtown Huntington Beach. If the City's basic Project objective is to locate a hotel i'n the "core" Downtown Area, a reasonable,alternative to the Strand project would be to downsize the Project by limiting the additional development to a hotel and leaving enough surface area for parking to reduce the huge financial burden of subterranean excavation and parking. 36. . There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft E1R's rejection of the "No Project/No Development" alternative on the basis that the existing property and parking lots within Blocks 104 .and 105 would deteriorate and "little active maintenance would be undertaken." (Id. at pp. 4-7 to 4-8.) As the Draft EIR notes, the Redevelopment Agency, an arm of the City, owns the Project site. The Redevelopment Agency cannot use its own failure to maintain its property in decent condition — the requirement the City/Agency would impose on any private owner—as a justification for massive over-development of the property. 37. The "Reduced/Revised Project" alternative in the Draft EIR is a complete sham. In fact, this alternative is not "reduced" at all — it adds a three-story above-ground parking structure in Block 104 (with an undefined amount of building square footage) and deletes only one small building (Building C).with only 7,715 of gross building area as now proposed by CIM — only about 3% of the total of 226,245 square feet of commercial buildings in the CIM 1121019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 �RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R ITSS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 9 development. (Compare pp. 4-10 and Figure 2-5) The Draft EIR correctly notes that this so- called"Reduced"project alternative actually generates "identical" land use impacts to the Strand project itself. (Id. at p. 4-12.) The Draft EIR is inadequate unless and until it considers a true legitimate alternative development consistent with existing development standards (including the parking requirements and maximum building square footage included within the City's own 1995 Downtown Specific Plan amendment). 38. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of.the Reduced/Revised Project" alternative on the basis it "would not meet the Applicant's objective of providing a financially viable commercial project." (Id, at p. 4-11.) Moreover, the DDA the Redevelopment Agency previously approved called for the City and Redevelopment Agency to contribute well over $30,000,000 of public revenues to the development over a period of 25 years — how is the financial feasibility of the project being evaluated when enormous public funds already are being contributed to make it work? Finally, the economics of the DDA approved in 1999 are no longer valid since CM is no longer being required to incur the expense of acquiring properties along Main Street-and PCH .within Block 104 (which are now excluded from the Project site). What is the amount of the City and Redevelopment Agency subsidy to the development at .this time? Have the City/Agency and CIM taken into consideration that development of the Project will be required to comply with California's prevailing wage laws (i.e., SB 975)? 39. The "Alternative Mix of Uses" also fails to provide a reasonable alternative to the Strand project since the only physical changes are adjustments to upper-story setbacks on Building G. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-13 to 4-14.) Once again, the alternative addresses almost none of the significant environmental impacts of the Project. A true downsized alternative should be considered. 40. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's purported justification for rejecting the "Alternative Mix of Uses" on the basis it would not achieve the "basic project objectives of adding a hotel to the Downtown core area." As previously noted, the Waterfront Hilton exists within the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Hyatt-Regency Resort is under construction, CARE understands that there are at least two planned hotel developments for the vacant property at 1st Street and PCH, and other hotels exist immediately to the north of the proposed Project site along PCH. 1121019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03102 RUTAN &_TUCKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 10 CARE submits that in light of the serious inadequacies of the Draft EIR a new revised Draft EIR should be prepared and circulated for public review and comment. At a minimum, the new revised Draft EIR should acknowledge the significant environmental impacts of the Strand project which are dismissed as insignificant in the current document, adequate and enforceable mitigation measure should be identified and imposed for the Project, and a proper range of reasonable alternatives to the Project (including a development similar to the previously approved Coultrup plan and at least one other alternative development consistent with the 1995 Downtown Specific Plan) should be considered. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUT &TUCKER, LLP J f M. Oderman JMO:ctm J Enclosure cc: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney 11V019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03102 Aft A.W,RUTAN II450.19721 I.....,a 0.TUCKER.SR I1111•I1501 RUTAN TAMES R.D(RIDONE.M MICHAEL D T HORNAK RFFRET WERTH0.OWE E0. TRIG OD A JUITFIN NAT L A L.P PAUL FREDf 41C MARS PIIILIP D.KONN ROBERT O.OWEN iODD O.LOFIN NATASHA L.PAVIA RICHARD A CURNUTI JOEL U KUPERBERG ADAM N.VOLKERT IEARA S.CARLSON RICHARD D ARKO LEONARD A HAMPEL STFVEN A.NICHOLS IEFFREY A.GOLDFARB ERIC L.DUNN - MARK M.MALOVOS JOHN MICHAEL MILFORD BERT ' RAN fON ~S R[H. EY BRAZIL BY F1 [ B r I C RISHER EODORFiCE 1R' RuDALL 'FH !Es FSAODERSOM&TUCKER CRUGF i ( U nl ENPOSENRGENS[N ONT L JOSEPH 0.CARRUTN GRIGG AMBER CAROL D.CARTY APRIL LEE WALTER ALISON L.ROSSMAN RICHAAO P.IIIMS MICHAEL F.SITZIR PATRICK D.McCALLA KAREN EUZABEM WALTER ALLISON LEMOINE•BUI A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W EAMES B.O'NIAL THOMAS FI.CRANE RICHARD K.HOWELL NATALIE 5181ALD OUNDAS BILL H.IHARE ROBERT C.BRAUN MARK B. RAZIEA JAMES S.WEISZ- ALISON M.BARBAROSH KAREN L MARTINEZ THOMAS 5.SALINCIR- _ PENELOPE PARMES DAWD H.SSOCHNER JOHN W.HAMILTON,JR. CHYI G.CHIN DAVID C.LARSEN' M.KATHE MINE JENSON A.PATRICK MUAOZ JOHN A.RAMIREZ T.LAN NGUYEN D.RUBIN RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO PAUL 1. APARTNERSHIPINCLUDINGPROFESSIONALCORPORATIONS CLIFFORDE.FRIEDEM DUKE1.WAHLQUIST S.DANIFLMARBOTTLE LYNNLOSCHIM LISA V NICHOLAS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR MICHAEL LEVERS PHILIP 1.BIANCHARD GEORGE A GALLEGOS IRA C,RIVIN' LORI SARNER SMITH JOSEF"L.MACA.III TERENCE 1,GALLAGHER - COSTA MESA.CALIFORNIA 92626.1998 - IFFREr M.OOERAS�N- ERNEST W KLATTE.III KRAIG C.KILGER ROBERT E.KING OF COUNSEL: STAN WOLCOTT' ELIZABETH L.MARTYN MICHAEL K.SLATTERY DEN M.HEMINGWAY EDWARD D.SYSESMA,JR.- DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 - ROBERT S BOWER KIM D.THOMPSON DEBRA DUNN STEEL JULIE K.WHANG DAVID I GARIBALDI.III COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 DAVID I.ALESHIRE JAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAN SLATER - DEMISE L.MILITIA MARCIA A FORSVTN DAVID B-COSGROVE RENT M.CLAYTON W ANDREW MOORE 'A PROFESSIONAL TELEPHONE714-641-5100 FACSIMILE714-546-9035 WILLIAMM.MARTICORENA HANS VAN LICTEN MARX a UDENSIEK ALISON L.TSAO CORPORATION JAMES L.MORRIS STEPHEN A ELLIS STFVEN 1.GOON CHARLES A.DAVENPORT,III INTERNET ADDRESS www,rutan.Com WILLIAM 1.CAPLAN MATTHEW K,ROSS DOUGLAS 1.DFNNINGTON DANIEL L.GEBE4T - 4 Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:ioderman@rutan.com June 16, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Jane James,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) Dear Ms. James: On behalf of Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") and the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am writing to provide you with our views as to the scope and content of the environmental impact information which should be included in the above- referenced EIR. My clients welcome the City's decision to prepare a full EIR for this project. We agree with the City's conclusion that the proposed project will result in significant environmental impacts necessitating the preparation of an EIR. We do continue to believe, however, that the City and Redevelopment Agency already have violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by approving the Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") and Cooperation Agreement with CIM and thereby contractually committing the City and Agency to the project before the environmental review process has even commenced. If the City is truly committed to an open-minded consideration of the significant environmental impacts of the CIM project and mitigation measures and feasible alternatives that could reduce or eliminate those impacts, we believe the City and Agency should rescind their approvals of the DDA and Cooperation Agreement before the EIR process proceeds any further. Without prejudice to my clients' existing legal claims regarding the CEQA violations that have already occurred, I would like to make the following additional comments at this time. EXHIBIT A 112,014820-0001 89198.01 206/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER AT T OR N(T S AT l A W - Jane James June 16,2000 Page 2 1. The Initial Study states that the project, as proposed is compatible with the existing general plan designation and zoning requirements for the project site with the possible exception of the need for special pen-nits to encroach into minimum ground floor and upper story setbacks. We believe that this statement is incorrect in at least three respects, which we believe should be addressed in the EIR: 1.1 The proposed project violates City off-street parking requirements. At the time the DDA and Cooperation Agreement were approved last year, CIM proposed to provide approximately 400 on-site parking, spaces (380 subterranean spaces and 20 surface spaces) as compared to a minimum parking requirement pursuant to City standards of approximately 800 spaces (a 400-space deficiency), not even considering the approximately 123 existing on-site surface parking spaces that the Agency is contractually obligated to maintain for the benefit of ADC's Oceanview Promenade development that would be eliminated (resulting in a total parking deficiency of 533 spaces). Since then, the parking deficiency appears to have increased even further due to an increase in.the size and scope of the project (by our calculation, resulting in an increase of 16 required parking spaces, or 816 total) and a reduction of 54 spaces to be provided (including a_reduction from 380 to 331 subterranean spaces and a reduction from 20 to 15 surface spaces).. Thus, the parking deficiency has mushroomed to a total of 470 spaces for CIM's proposed uses and 593 spaces if the existing on-site spaces that are to be eliminated are included in the count. This extreme violation of the City's Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance should be addressed in the EIR. 1.2 The proposed CIM project also violates the maximum floor area ratio or "FAR" requirement°in the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The CIM project does not qualify as either a "full block" development or a "half block" development within the meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan since it is neither "bounded on all sides by public streets" nor"bounded on all sides by public streets and/or alleys containing at lease one-half(1/2) the net area of the full block." Accordingly, the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the CIM project is 2.0. (Downtown Specific Plan at Section 4.5.03(a).) While the square footage of total building area of the revised CIM project (including the structured parking) is not disclosed on the.face of the Notice of Preparation, it clearly is well over the maximum 2.0 FAR permitted by Code. This discrepancy should be fully addressed in the EIR. 1.3 The CIM project would also exceed the maximum height limit permitted under the City's land use regulations. Section 4.5.04 of the Downtown Specific Plan prescribes a maximum building height in District No. 3 (which encompasses Blocks 104 and 105) of"three stories/35 feet" for projects "less than full block" in size. Our understanding is that the project exceeds this height limit. This discrepancy should be fully addressed in the EIR. 2. The EIR should address the following issues relating to traffic and parking: 112/014820.0001 EXHIBIT a $9198.01 a06/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS A f T O R N(Y$ AT LAW Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 3 2.1 The EIR must address the massive parking deficiency referred to in paragraph 1.1 above. 2.2 Our understanding is that the Project will also necessitate the elimination of a certain number of existing on-street parking spaces along Fifth and Sixth_Streets. If so, the impacts of this loss of parking will need to be addressed. 2.3 Our understanding is that at some point in time an additional travel lane or lanes are proposed along PCH through Downtown Huntington Beach which will eliminate even more existing on-street parking. If so, this needs to be addressed as a cumulative impact of the Prc j ect. 2.4 Office developments need convenient and accessible parking for tenants and clients. The Oceanview Promenade building within Block 104 has substantial upper-floor office space and the revised project description proposes additional office uses within the 2-block area. What accommodation will be made to satisfy this need? 2.5 The revised CIM project description.includes a 20,000 square foot market. Markets also require designated nearby parking for customers. How will this be provided? How will designated parking for the market impact upon the pool of available of parking for the balance of the project and the Oceanview Promenade uses? Is adequate area being set aside for shopping cart storage within the portion of the parking structure that is proposed to be used by .the market? Does this further reduce the number of available parking spaces? 2.6 The City's documents contain conflicting and sometimes ambiguous statements regarding the distances that people will walk from parking spaces to their destination in the Downtown. The proposal to construct this project with grossly inadequate on-site parking is obviously premised upon an assumption that people will park "wherever" and walk long distances to their destination. This assumption should be tested empirically and addressed in full in the EIR. 2.7 Many people resist parking in a parking structure if they can find on-street or surface parking instead. In addition, since the project plan proposes only a single point of access into and out of the parking structure along the least commercialized Sixth Street frontage as much as.two blocks away from many of the uses within the Project site, it can be anticipated that many people driving to the project will drive around in circles before they ultimately find the entrance to the parking structure. Traffic studies for most projects assume a perfect efficiency of traffic movements (i.e., only one traffic movement approaching the project site). The traffic and parking study'for this project should carefully examine the lack of efficiency created by the undesirable and difficult-to-locate parking, which inevitably will add further congestion to the. nearby streets. EXHIBIT 112/014820.0001 89198.01 a06116100 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS A? L A W Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 4 2.8 Our understanding is that the on-site parking structure will be operated by the City and that it will charge for parking. What will the parking fees be? Depending on the level of the fees, people will be incentivized to park on the street, further adding to traffic congestion Downtown, as people drive around looking -for an.available space,. and further impacts on otherwise available parking. This issue should be addressed in the EIR. 2.9 In addition to the previous comments, the parking study should address the adequacy of the single ingress/egress point for the parking structure on Sixth Street from the standpoint of adequacy of emergency access and problems of congestion (and air pollution) as people back up trying to get into or out of the structure. 2.1.0 The EIR should re-examine the assumption in the Downtown Parking Master Plan regarding the total demand and supply of parking, including the assumptions regarding the amount of development in each land use category within the Downtown area. 2.11 The parking and traffic studies should address the unique situation with a major commercial development immediately across the street. from .the Pacific Ocean, the Municipal' Pier, and one of the most popular beaches in. Southern California. Typical weekday moming/aftemoon peak hour commute analyses are not nearly as relevant to this situation. The City's EIR consultants should closely examine traffic and parking needs in the Downtown based on existing and anticipated future Summer, weekend, and holiday peaks. Business in Downtown Huntington Beach is highly seasonal, and it is critically important that a major new project not be designed in such a fashion that tourists and casual beach-goers will be unable to conveniently access the Downtown businesses during the few times of the year when business is normally brisk. 2.12 We understand that the EIR will address traffic and parking problems during the construction, and we would urge that this issue be carefully considered. With subterranean parking, de-watering, and the sort of mid-rise construction that is proposed, it is safe to.assume that on-site parking will be entirely lost for a period of at least two years. Where will businesses such as the business as Oceanview Promenade obtain parking during that lengthy period? 2.13 The latest plan we saw for loading/unloading for the businesses within Block 104 was entirely inadequate. Basically, trucks would have to park in the middle of "parking court," block access, and then back out onto Fifth Street to exit the site. This presents obvious circulation and public safety concerns. The EIR should fully address this issue, including alternatives to enable trucks to pull all the way through this loading area back on to Fifth Street or out to Walnut. A designated loading dock that does not block access for other vehicles needs to be provided. It is totally impractical to-expect that deliveries will be made in 1 1 2/014 8 20-0001 EXHIBIT - A 8919&01 a06/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER AT T OR N I Y S AT t A W Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 5 smaller van-size vehicles. Oceanview Promenade's businesses, for one, cannot accommodate this sort of wishful thinking. These issues should be fully addressed in the EIR. 2.14 There are a number of existing vacancies and under-utilized properties in the Downtown area. For purposes of the traffic and parking impact analyses, it .should be assumed that at some point in the near future those properties will be fully utilized and their additional impacts on the parking and traffic problems in the Downto«m should be taken into account in the EIR analyses. 2.15 As potential mitigation measures to address parking deficiencies, the EIR should consider (i) the impact of requiring all employees and hotel guests within the new project to park off-site, perhaps in the City-owned parking structure on the east side of the 200 Block of Mairi'Street, and (2) reserving an adequate number of on-site parking spaces for Oceanview Promenade and any other existing properties/business (i.e., Bagstad) that will remain within Block 104). 3. We understand the EIR .will address .the significant impacts that the proposed Project would have on loss of ocean views, massing, etc. This is a significant concern for ADC, since it will further impair its ability to lease upper-floor office space in the Oceanview Promenade building, adding to its existing problems which are related primarily to the lack of convenient, accessible, and designated parking). 4. The EIR should address alternatives and mitigation measures that will eliminate these significant impacts. One alternative that should be considered is a project that meets all of the applicable City code requirements (including FAR, height, and off-street parking), without adversely impacting ADC's existing parking rights. A lower intensity project such as the one that was proposed by the Coultrup Companies and approved by the City and Redevelopment Agency.in 1993 should..be addressed. In addition, since the Redevelopment Agency does not have the power of eminent domain to acquire the residentially-occupied property owned by the Bagstads within Block 104, one .alternative project that should be considered would be a reduced-scope project that does not encroach onto the Bagstad property, and perhaps a project that is confined entirely to Block 105.• 1 12/0I 4820-M l EXH I BIT 89198.01 aO6/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKERI ATTORNKYS AT LAW _ Jane James June 16, 2000 Page 6 Thank you for your attention to this matter.. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, RUTAN& TUCKER, LLP J f y M. derman JMO:ctm cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane • i 112/014820-0001 EXHIBIT 89198.01 a06/16/00 / . «.r/\ �?: § ! G« RUTAN _ R A.W.RUTAN EIBBO- TAMES B.TUCKER.SR.II 888-I9501 .�' TAME$0..MOORE' THOMAS G.BROCKINGTON LARRY RRY A.CERUTTI APRIL LEE WALTFR CARISSA K.PEREZ PAUL FREDERIC MARX EVRIOIKI IVICKII DALLAS CAROL 0.CARTY KAREN ELIZABETH WALTEER ANDREW E.AINSWORTH RICHARD A.CURNUTT RANDALL M.BAB BUSH PATRICK D.McCALLA NATAL19 SIBRALD DUNDAS SIT H L HANSON IONN B.HURLBUT,IR. MARY M.GREEN RICHARD K.HOWELL IOHN W.HAMILTON.IR. ALEJANDRO S.ANCULO MIREZ ANTHONY L. .HOCHNER 1. CHAO W. &TUCKER:-, OEPH DECARRUTHWALLACE.IR• MARK ABS 1.FRAZERCRANE A.PATRICK ROBERTHD'IISHNOZ O„`M.HEMINGWDR ARON 0.MARC UESEBA KMON RICHARD P.SIMS PENELOPE PARMES S.DANIEL HARBOTTLE OENISE L.MESTER DAMON 0.MIRCHEFF TAMES B.O'NFAL M.KATHERINE IENSON PAUL I.SIEVERS W.ANDREW MCORE LONA LAYMON A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW ROBERT C.BRA UN DUKE F WAHLOUIST IOSEPH L MACA.III CHARLES A.DAVENPORT.III CATHERINE M.OH THOMAS 1.SALINCER' RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO KRAIG C.KILLER RICHARD 0.ARKO POORNIMA IAYAPRAKASH DAVID C.LARSEN• LORI SARNER SMITH KENT M.CLAYTON MARK M MALOVOS CLIFFORD E.FRIEDEN ERNEST W.KLATT E."' STEVEN I COON NIKKI NGUYEN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MICHAEL D.RUBIN KIM D.THOMPSON DOUGLAS I.DENNINGTON SANDRA P.THOMPSON IRA C RIVIN' IAYNE TAYLOR RACER MARTIN W.TAYLOR JENNIFER S.AN DE RSON OF COUNSEL. 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR IEFFREY M.ODERMAN• DAVID B.COSGROVE DAN SLATER IOHN T BRAZL EY LEONARD A HAMPEL STAN WOLCOTT HANS VAN LICTEN MARK 1.PAYNE ALLISON LEMOINE BUI IDWARD O.SYBESMA.IR. COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1931 ROBERT 1 BOWER STEPHEN A.ELLIS MARK BUDENSIEK KAREN L.KEATING SENATOR DICK ACKERMAN MARCIA A FORSYTH IEFFREY WERTHEIMER TRIG A IULANDER T.LAN NGUYEN DAVID I GARIBALDI.III DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA ROBERT O OWEN TODD 0-UTFIN LISA NICHOLAS NEAL WILLIAM I CAPLAN COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TAMES L.MORRIS ADAM N.VOLKERT KERRA S.CARLSON MARK 1.AUSTIN MICHAEL T.HORNAK IEFFREY A GOLDFARB CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER ROBERT H.MARCEREAU MARTIN FESSENMAIER" TELEPHONE 714-641.5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 PHILIP D KOHN F.KEVIN BRAZIL IEFFREY T.MELCHING STEVEN W.BURT IOEL O KUPERBERC LAYNE H.MELZER DAVID I.ZOETEWEY NOAM 1.DUZMAN 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com �STEVEN A NICHOLS L.SKI HARRISON MARLENE POSE IURCENSEN MITCH MILSTEIN -PATENT AGENT Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:jodernm@rutan.com September 3, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND RECEWED FIRST CLASS MAIL SEP 0 4 2002 Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105); Comments on Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. James: On behalf of the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am submitting the 9-1 following comments on the Draft EIR for the Strand project(the "Project"). CARE welcomes this long-overdue EIR. CARE continues to believe, however, that an EIR that fully addresses the impacts of the Project should have been prepared and certified prior to the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 3483 on November 20, 2000, amending the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment, after all, was designed to accommodate the Project now at hand by increasing the maximum permitted development cap within the City's Downtown Parking Master Plan area from 500,000 to 9-2 715,000 square feet of commercial building area and by slashing the off-street parking requirements for new development in that area by approximately one-third, both changes that fit hand-in-glove with the Strand project. The City has wrongfully prejudged the Strand project by approving its enormous size, its uses, and its parking arrangements before the subject EIR was even prepared. The validity of the City's 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment is currently pending before Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in CARE v. City of Huntington Beach, Appellate No. G030388. Since the validity of the City's action on the EIR for the Strand 9-3 project hinges upon. the outcome of the pending lawsuit, CARE believes it would be appropriate for the City to defer action on the EIR for the Strand project until after the appeal is decided. Comment Letter 9 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 1 JTAN &TUCKERS A i TOR NEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3,2002 Page 2 If the City elects instead to move forward with certification of the EIR and consideration of the Strand project at this time, CARE requests that full written responses be provided to the following comments on the Draft EIR. CARE also requests that all of the documents and testimony that were submitted to the City and included in the Administrative Record of 9-4 proceedings in the lawsuit involving the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment be incorporated into the record of proceedings concerning the subject Draft EIR and the Strand project. In general, CARE finds the EIR to be deficient in the following respects: it understates or fails to adequately address several significanfenvironmental impacts of the Strand project; it fails to set forth adequate and enforceable mitigation measures to eliminate the 'significant 9-5 environmental impacts of the Project or reduce them to a level of insignificance; and it fails to set forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project that would eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts. CARE's specific comments on the Draft EIR are as follows: 1. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project eomplies with the maximum floor area ratio provisions of the City's Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand project qualifies neither as a"full block" or"half block" development. 9-6 under the City's applicable land use regulations. The Project is far out of compliance with City codes even before any"special permits" are considered. (See in this regard 11.2 of my June 16, 2000, letter to you on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, another copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A.") 2. Please explain how the determination was made that the Strand project complies . with applicable building height limits under the City's Municipal Code and Downtown Specific F- Plan. Once again, the Strand project does not qualify as a "full block" development under the 9-7 City's codes, and the Project is far out of compliance with applicable building height limits even before considering whether"special permits"should be granted. (See 11.3 of my June 16, 2000, letter.) 3. The adequacy of parking for the Strand project and nearby developments is not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR or any other documents incorporated by reference and summarized in accordance with applicable CEQA Guidelines. Virtually none of the comments or questions raised by CARE with regard to the 2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan update and Downtown Specific Plan amendment have been addressed in the Draft EIR. Instead, all the 9-9 Draft EIR does is to gloss briefly over the Kaku Report. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-15 to 3.9-17.) All of CARE's previous comments on the parking issue, the Kaku Report, and the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment are incorporated herein, including 12 of my June 16, 2000, letter (attached) and the letters I submitted to the City that are included at pages 04065-04078 and 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 IJTAN &TUCKERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 3 04410-04497 of the Administrative Record in the pending lawsuit. Responses to each of the 9-8 comments and concerns raised in those earlier communications are requested. 4. The Draft EIR should address the adequacy of parking for existing businesses in the Downtown during the approximately 2-year construction period for the Strand.project. The Draft EIR (at p. 2-6) deals vaguely with parking for construction workers but does not address 9'9 the impact of the loss of almost 200 existing surface parking spaces within Blocks 104 and 105 during the lengthy construction period. 5. The Draft EIR fails to address how access to the existing businesses along Main Street and PCH will be maintained for service and delivery vehicles during the construction 9-10 period. 6. The Draft EIR fails to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of ground shaking, excavation, and loss of lateral and subjacent support for the Worthy building in Block 105 and the existing buildings along Main Street and PCH within Block 104. The Draft EIR indicates (in Figures 2-6 and 2-7) that there will be 2-level vertical excavations right to the property line adjacent to existing businesses and that pile-driving is expected throughout the Project site (see, e.g., p. x). The City/Agency will recall that pile-driving activities at the 9-11 municipal pier over a decade ago basically destroyed the building that was formerly located on the site of the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 104. While the existing buildings in this area have either been demolished and rebuilt or seismically reinforced since that time, it seems highly probable that substantial damage will be done by extensive excavation and pile- driving activities much closer to the existing structures. 7. The Draft EIR understates the extent of the impact that a four-story hotel enveloping the much smaller historic Worthy Building will have on that significant cultural resource. The Draft EIR should acknowledge the significance of this impact and address a 9-12 legitimate mitigation measure and/or project'alternative that provides a compatible adjacent development. 8. The Draft EIR should acknowledge that loss of the 5`h Street view corridor — caused by reducing it from the minimum 80 feet width required in the Downtown Specific Plan to only 65 feet — is a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR should address a 9-13 mitigation measure and/or project alternative that would maintain the current minimum view corridor. 9. A second-sto,X "public" terrace within the hotel does not mitigate the loss of the public view corridor along Street (see Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-7 and 3.1-9). As a practical matter, 9-14 the general public does not have the opportunity to utilize a terrace that is part of a hotel and.the loss of the existing view corridor would be significant. 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 LJTAN &TUCKER A T T O N.N EVS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 4 10. The Draft EIR identifies a supposed "mitigation measure" of restricting delivery vehicles to vehicles the size of or smaller than a medium or small semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet. (Id, p. 3.9-18.) Is this "mitigation" measure imposed on the Strand project only or also on the existing businesses operating within Block 104? If the latter, it most certainly is not a 9-15 mitigation measure. These businesses do not have the luxury of dictating to their suppliers what size of delivery vehicles they must use. The Draft EIR does not adequately address the impact on delivery/service vehicles for the existing businesses and what effect such a so-called "mitigation"measure would have upon those businesses. 11. The Draft. EIR contains vague mitigation measures requiring the applicant to submit a parking management plan for review and approval by the City Planning Department and to provide valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities and during the peak 9-16 summer season. (Id, at p. 3.9-18.) These mitigation .measures contain no specificity 'or enforceable standards and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. 12. The Draft EIR fails to address the potential blighting influences of overbuilding commercial square.footage within the Downtown area. As I pointed out at page 3 of my September 5,-2001, letter on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR (included in Appendix A), there have been numerous business failures in the past few years and there are also a substantial number of business vacancies. The businesses in Downtown Huntington Beach are 9-17 generally beach-related if not beach-dependent and are highly seasonal in nature. By greatly expanding the square footage devoted to retail and restaurant uses while requiring potential customers to rely upon higher- and higher-priced public parking in greatly restricted locations, the City and Redevelopment Agency will be placing much greater pressure on already marginal existing businesses. This subject should be thoroughly addressed. 13. The Draft EIR indicates that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to quitclaim a portion of the 5`h Street right-of-way to CIM. (Id, at 2-5.) CARE submits that this appears to be a proposed gift of public property(see, e.g.,Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3'd 150) and it was not addressed in the CIM Disposition and Development Agreement 9-18 ("DDA") or in the mandatory financial disclosure report that accompanied the DDA (see Health and Safety Code § 33433). Has a secret deal been made to provide even more financial benefits to CIM? 14. The Draft EIR fails to consider or address the accessibility of the subterranean parking, the adequacy of ingress to and egress from the structure, and the public's acceptance of subterranean parking in general. There is only one vehicular entrance and exit to the subterranean parking structure — on 6`h Street. This is two blocks away from the existing 9-19 businesses along Main Street. How will frustrated customers even find the parking? The City has noted for years that the subterranean parking at Pierside Pavilion is greatly underutilized. 1 1 2/01 9483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 .v TAN &TUCKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW - Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 5 Has it occurred to the City that the reason is the public's lack of acceptance of subterranean 9-19 parking? 15. The Draft EIR fails to address the Strand project's impact on the availability of convenient parking for nearby office tenants, including the three stories of offices (constructed at the Redevelopment Agency's insistence) in the Oceanview Promenade development in Block 9-20 104. Offices are particularly dependent upon the continuous availability of convenient and accessible parking. 16. In light of the inadequate parking that will be available within Blocks 104 and 1.05 at Project build-out, the Draft EIR should thoroughly be a mitigation measure that would allow existing businesses within Block 104 to reserve a minimum number of parking spaces at 9-21 reasonable rates in the portion(s) of the structure closest to the existing businesses. and/or in the parking structure in the 200 block of Main Street. 17. The Draft EIR fails to identify the numerous amendments to the City's General Plan (Coastal Element) and Downtown Specific Plan that would have to be approved in order to 9-22 eliminate conflicts and violations in the areas of floor area ratio, height limits, the visual corridor along 50' Street, open space,and setback requirements. 18. The traffic analysis accompanying the Draft EIR appears to include only a few of the related projects identified in the cumulative impacts section. (Compare Appendix G, pp. 6 9-23 and 24,with pp. 2-7 to 2-11.) 19. Policy C4.2.3 in the Coastal.Element of the City's General Plan, dealing with preservation of public views, requires "strict application of local ordinances . . . including 9-24 defined view corridors." (Emphasis added.) The Draft EIR should address a modified project that eliminates this clear violation. 20. The air quality mitigation measures set forth at pp. 3.2-15 to 3.2-16 of the Draft 9-25' EIR contain no performance standards and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. 21. The Cultural Resources Element of the City's General Plan "fe]ncourage[s] new development to be compatible with adjacent existing historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials, and general architectural treatment." There is no substantial evidence for the statement at p. 3.3-11 of the Draft EIR that the Strand project is compatible with 9-26 this policy. How can a four-story, 55-foot tall Mediterranean-style building shoved up as close as 20 feet away from a two-story historic wooden structure such as the Worthy Building be considered compatible with any of those criteria? 22. The Draft EIR fails to provide the information needed to calculate the Strand 9-27 project's compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan requirement(at § 4.5.10) that a minimum 112/019483.0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 TAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 6 of 10% of the net site area must be set aside for a public open space amenity. (See Draft EIR,p. 3.5-21.) How can a hotel terrace qualify as either "public" or "open space" under the City's 9-27 codes? i 23. The Draft EIR states that construction noise impacts will be less than significant because the City exempts them from the requirements of the City's noise ordinance. (Id, at p. 3.6-11.) This is a gross non-sequitur. Pile-driving and other loud construction activities 9-28'' occurring on the site will have a significant adverse impact on adjacent businesses (including the upper-floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade Building) and residences. 24. The proposed noise mitigation measures do not address and may even increase]9-29 noise impacts on the upper-floor office tenants in the Oceanview Promenade building. 25. The cumulative air quality impact analysis in the Draft EIR does not identify the 9-30 other projects that were considered. (Id,p. 3.2-14.) 26. The cumulative traffic impact analysis section of the Draft EIR is inadequate since it considers only four"committed"projects instead of all of the reasonably anticipated and 9-31 related future projects. (See,Draft EIR,pp. 3.9-2 and 2.9-7.) 27. . It is inappropriate for the Draft EIR to refuse to consider significant traffic and parking impacts occurring during the summer and on weekends simply because the City doesn't want to invest in additional infrastructure. (See p. 3.9-6.) The Draft -EIR should instead 9-32 acknowledge that the impacts are significant and unmitigated and address the failure or refusal to fully mitigate impacts as part the "overriding considerations" analysis if indeed the City believes it is not feasible to mitigate the impacts. 28. The Draft EIR incorrectly assumes (at p. 3.9-16) that private off-street parking is available for shared public use. An accurate inventory of true"public" spaces is needed. 9-33 29. There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 that "the Project is considered fully parked." Even assuming for the sake of argument that the reduced parking requirements of the 2000 Downtown Specific Plan amendment were used, the Kaku study acknowledged a 245-parking deficiency in Area 1 of the Downtown Parking Master Plan 9-34 area (the first 3 blocks inland from PCH along either side of Main Street, including Block A). (See p. 04406 of the Administrative Record in the above-referenced litigation.) 30. There is no substantial evidence to support the statement at p. 3.9-17 of the Draft EIR that "the proposed project will replace the 150 spaces lost [in Block A] on a one-for-one basis . . . ." In the first place, the City's own parking inventory prepare. as part of the 2000 9-35 Downtown Specific Plan amendment identified significantly more than 150 existing parking spaces in Block A. In addition, the City staff itself acknowledged the CIM project generates a 1121019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 FAN &TUCKERS A f TO M HE Y 7 A T (A W Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 7 parking requirement somewhere between 834 and 878 spaces (see pp. 04324 and 04557 from the Administrative Record in the pending litigation). With less than half of the Strand project's own 9-35 parking needs accommodated on-site before the loss of the existing on-site parking is considered, it is grossly deceptive to state that existing parking is being replaced on a one-for-one basis. 31. The Draft EIR seems to indicate that the Strand project maximizes its square footage relative to available parking in Downtown Huntington Beach. (Id, at p. 3.9-17.) The Draft EIR does not address the constraints that approval of the Strand project apparently would 9-36 place on the rights of other property owners in the Downtown, particularly existing property owners within Block A, to redevelop their properties. 32. The Draft EIR's refusal to acknowledge a substantial number of significant environmental impacts — dealing with violation of City development standards, impacts on cultural resources (i.e., the Worthy building), scale and massing, inadequate parking, inadequate 9-37 open space, loss of the 5tb Street view corridor, and height and setback violations, to name a few —results in a truncated discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid those impacts. 33. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's assertion (at pp. 4-6 to 4-7) that there is no alternative site for a project similar to the Strand project that would enable the City to realize the basic project objectives. The property at the comer of PCH and I" Street is also available for additional commercial, retail, and restaurant development. There are several existing and planned hotels already located in and immediately adjacent to Downtown Huntington Beach, including without limitation the Waterfront Hilton, the Hyatt Regency Resort currently under construction, and hotels that CARE understands are planned.for the property at 9-38 the comer of PCH and I" Street. CARE requests that the record of proceedings on this EIR include the City files on those other projects. Without the Strand project there are approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial development existing and approved for the "core" Downtown Huntington Beach area. The Draft EIR does not explain how the additional square footage in the precise location identified is necessary and cannot be compromised in order to achieve project objectives. 34. There is no substantial evidence to justify the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Use" alternative. (See p. 4-7.) The Draft EIR should consider a development scenario in accordance with the existing City development standards. The Draft EIR improperly states that such a development would not "substantially lessen environmental impacts" compared to the Strand project by simply misstating (or not stating) what those 9-39a development standards are. It is not a justification for the Draft EIR to state that "the City Redevelopment Agency owns the property and has entered into an agreement with CIM to develop the site . . . ." Indeed, this smacks of precisely the sort of prejudgment and pre- commitment to the CIM development in the absence of environmental review that CARE has 112/019483.0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 i AN &TUCKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 8 been complaining about for the past three years. It is also no excuse to state that"the City has no other existing plans for the redevelopment of the project site," as stated in the Draft EIR. The 9-39b purpose of the alternatives section of an EIR is that the City must develop and consider reasonable alternative uses. There also is no substantial evidence to support the EIR's claim (at p. 4-7) that the City "has received no proposals" for development other than the CIM project. In fact, the City itself approved a much smaller scale development for Blocks 104 and 105 in 1992-1995 and that development project did not proceed only because of the developer's lack of financing and the real estate recession at the time. At a minimum, the City should consider that previously 9.39c approved plan or a plan substantially similar to it as one of the reasonable alternatives to the grossly overbuilt CIM project. In this regard, CARE respectfully requests that the City and Redevelopment Agency's entire file relating to the previously approved Coultrup project be included in the record of these proceedings to show what a true reasonable alternative to the CIM project would be. Finally, there is no substantial evidence to support the vague claim in the Draft EIR (at p. 4-7) that the "no project" alternative is infeasible because of unnamed "social and political 9-39d constraints." What does this mean? At a minimum, further explanation of this statement is warranted. 35. There is already substantial retail, restaurant, and office development within the "core" area of Downtown Huntington Beach. If the City's basic Project objective is to locate a hotel in the "core" Downtown Area, a reasonable alternative to the Strand project would be to 9-40 downsize the Project by limiting the additional development to a hotel and leaving enough surface. area for parking to reduce the huge financial burden of subterranean excavation and parking. 36. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of the "No Project/No Development" alternative on the basis that the existing property and parking lots within Blocks 104 and 105 would deteriorate and "little active maintenance would be undertaken." (Id. at pp. 4-7 to 4-8.) As the Draft EIR notes, the Redevelopment Agency, an arm 9-41 of the City, owns the Project site. The Redevelopment Agency cannot use its own failure to maintain its property in decent condition = the requirement the City/Agency would impose on any private owner—as a justification for massive over-development of the property. 3.7. The "Reduced/Revised Project" alternative in the Draft EIR is a complete sham. In fact, this alternative is not "reduced" at all — it adds a three-story above-ground parking structure in Block 104 (with an undefined amount of building square footage) and deletes only 9-42 one small building (Building C)with only 7,715 of gross building area as now proposed by CIM — only about 3% of the total of.226,245 square feet of commercial buildings in the CIM 1 1 2/01 948 3-000 1 316443.01 a09/03/02 FAN &TUCKERS A T.T0R N EY$ A T L A W Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002 Page 9 development. (Compare pp. 4-10 and Figure 2-5.) The Draft EIR correctly notes that this so- called"Reduced"project alternative actually generates "identical"land use impacts to the Strand project itself. (Id. at p. 4-12.) The Draft EIR is inadequate unless and until it considers a true 9-42 legitimate alternative development consistent with existing development standards (including the parking requirements and maximum building square footage included within the City's own 1995 Downtown Specific Plan amendment). 38. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's rejection of the Reduced/Revised Project" alternative on the basis it "would not meet the Applicant's objective of providing a financially viable commercial project.". (Id, at p. 4-11.) Moreover, the DDA the Redevelopment Agency previously approved called for the City and Redevelopment Agency to contribute well over $30,000,000 of public revenues to the development over a period of 25 years — how is the financial feasibility of the project being evaluated when enormous public funds already are being contributed to make it work? Finally, the economics of the DDA 9-43 approved in 1999 are no longer valid since CIM is no longer being required to incur the expense of acquiring properties along Main Street and PCH within Block 104 (which are now excluded from the Project site). What is the amount of the City and Redevelopment Agency subsidy to the development at this time? Have the City/Agency and CIM taken into consideration that development of the Project will be required to comply with California's prevailing wage laws (i.e., SB 975)? 39. The "Alternative Mix of Uses" also fails to provide a reasonable alternative to the Strand project since the only physical changes are adjustments to upper-story setbacks on Building G. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-13 to 4-14.) Once again, the alternative addresses almost none of 9-44 the significant environmental impacts of the Project. A true downsized.alternative should be considered. 40. There is no substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's purported justification for rejecting the "Alternative Mix of Uses" on the basis it would not achieve the "basic project objectives of adding a hotel to the Downtown core area." As previously noted, the Waterfront Hilton exists within the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Hyatt Regency Resort is under 9-45 construction, CARE understands that there are at least two planned hotel developments for the vacant property at lS1 Street and PCH, and other hotels exist immediately to the north of the proposed Project site along PCH. 112/019483-0001 316"3.01 a09/03/02 FArNCn &TUCKERS ATTORNEY$ AT LAW Jane James, Senior Planner September 3, 2002, Page 10 CARE submits that in light of the serious inadequacies of the Draft EIR a new revised Draft FIR should be prepared and circulated fot public review and comment. At a minimum, the new revised Draft FIR should acknowledge the significant environmental impacts of the Strand project which are dismissed as insignificant in the current document, adequate and enforceable mitigation measure should be identified and imposed for the Project, and a proper range of 9-46 reasonable alternatives to the Project (including a development similar to the previously approved Coultrup plan and at least one other alternative development consistent with the 1995 Downtown Specific Plan) should be considered. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP J 'M. Oderman - JMO:ctm '� �� Enclosure cc: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney 112/019483-0001 316443.01 a09/03/02 • A.W.RUTAN(1580.1972I B.TUCKER.SR IIBRI-19S01 TRY JEFFREY JULIE 1.GREW RUTAN RAUL ICHARDD CURNV T 0EIL 0 KUPF 9lRGK ADAM M.VOLKERTFR KARA S.CARLSONR CM RD 0 ARKO I10 ARD A.MAMPEL STEVEN A.NICHOLS IEFFREY A.GOLDFARB ERIC L.OUNN MARK M.MALOVOS G. I.KEVIN BRAZIL FRED IN WYNDER MATTHEW L.NELSON &TUCKER THEO TORE 1.WALLACE.JR.• RANG LL..B GUSH S N LARE K.TRATNUM SE N P.F RRELLHING HERN ENNIFER SMER ANDERSON CIRUTTIlF E POSE(URGE SF 10 T.BRAOIEY IOSEPH O.CARKUTM GREGG AMBER CAROL D.CARTY APlll l(E WAL/FR ALISON L.ROSSMAN - RICHARD P.SIMS MICHAEL V SITZER PATRICK O.AIKCALLA KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER ALLISON IEMOINE-BUI A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W IAMFS B..MEAL TMOMAS 1.CRANE RICHARD K.NOWELL NATALIE NBBALD DUNDAS BILL M.[MAKE ROBERT C.BRAUN MARK B.FRAZIER MMES S.WEISZ• ALISON M.BARBAROSM KAREN I.MA0.TINEZ THOMAS S.SALINGER• PENELOPE PARMES DAVID H.MOCHNER ION"W.HAMILTON.IR. CHYI G.CHEN DAVID C.LA0.5EN• M.CATHERINE IENSON A.PATRICK MVNOZ IOHN A.RAMIREZ T.LAIN NGUYEN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CLIFFORD E.FRIEDEN DUKE I.WANLQUIST S.DANIEL MARBOTTLE LYNN LOSCMIN LISA V.NICHOLAS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR MICHAEL D.RUBIN RICHARD C.MONTEVIDEO PAUL 1.SIEVERS - PHILIP 1.BLANCHARD GEORGE A GALLEGOS IRA G.RIVIN• LORI SARNER SMITH JOSEPH L.MAGA.III TERENCE 1.GALLAGHER COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 IEFFREY M.ODERMAN• ERNEST W KLATTF.III KRAIG C.KILGER ROBERT E.KING OF COUNSEL: STAN WOLCOTT' ELIZABETH L.MARTVN MICHAEL K.SLATTERY DEN M.HEMINGWAY EDWARD D.SYB(SMA.IR.- DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 ROBERT$BOWER KIM 0.THOMPSON DEBRA DUNN STEEL IULIE K.WNANG DAVID 1 GARIBALDI.III COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 DAVID 1.ALESHIRE IAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAN SLATER DEMISE L.NESTER MARCIA A.FORSYTH DAVID B.COSGROVE %ENT M.CLAYTON W.ANDREW MOORE •A PROFESSIONAL TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546.9035 WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA MANS VAN LIGTEN MARK BUDENSIEK ALISON L.TSAO CORPORATION TAMES L.MORRIS ' _ STE►HEN A ELLIS STEVEN 1.COON CHARLES A.DAVENPORT,111 INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com WILLIAM 1.CAPLAN MATTHEW K.ROSS DOUGLAS I.DENNINGTON DANIEL L.GEBERT Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan.com June 16, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Jane James, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) Dear Ms. James: On behalf of Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") and the Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE"), I am writing to provide you with our views as to the scope and content of the environmental impact information which should be included in the above- referenced EIR. My clients welcome the City's decision to prepare a full EIR for this project. We agree with the City's conclusion that the proposed project will result in significant environmental impacts necessitating the preparation of an EIR. We do continue to believe, however, that the. City and Redevelopment Agency already have violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by approving the Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") .and Cooperation Agreement with CIM and thereby contractually committing the City and Agency to the project before the environmental review process has even commenced. If the City is truly committed to an-open-minded consideration of the significant environmental impacts of the CIM project and mitigation measures and feasible alternatives that could reduce or eliminate those impacts, we believe the City and Agency should rescind their approvals of the DDA and Cooperation Agreement before the EIR process proceeds any further. Without prejudice to my clients' existing legal claims regarding the CEQA violations that have already occurred, I would like to make the following additional comments at this time. 11 2/014820.0001 EXHIBIT ' 89199.01 a06/16100 3.0 Responses to Comments stated on Page 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR, square footage proposed by the Strand project (226,245 g.s.f.), divided by the area of the project site (104,544.s.f.), yields an FAR of 2.16, which is below the FARs specified for half- to full-block developments (FAR=2.5), as well as full block or greater development (FAR=3.0). The proposed project, therefore, does not exceed the FAR limits imposed by the zoning for the project site. Response to Comment 9-7: As stated above in the response to Comment 6, the City Planning Department determined the full-block status of the project for the purposes of entitlement and EIR analysis. Further, the Draft EIR states that the proposed project does not ultimately comply with the height requirements of the Plan without obtaining Special Permits. As stated on page 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR, Section 4.5.04 of the Downtown Specific Plan sets a maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet for full- block developments. As stated on page 3.5-19 of the Draft EIR, "although the 53-foot parapet heights fall within the acceptable height range (45 feet, plus 10 feet for roof treatments), the 50- foot heights of the rooflines and the 70-foot tower height exceed the maximum values allowed by the Plan; therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the height requirements of the Plan." The City determined that with issuance of Special Permits, the project would be brought into compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan. Response to Comment 9-8: The purpose of the parking analysis provided on pages 3.9-15 through 3.9-17 in the Draft EIR is to determine consistency or inconsistency with applicable parking standards currently in place and enforced by the City of Huntington Beach. The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) has been approved by the City Council and the Coastal Commission and is the applicable code governing parking in this area. It is not within i the scope of this project related EIR traffic analysis to analyze the adequacy of City's parking code. As stated on page 3.9-17 ' l of the Draft EIR, the land use and parking supply proposed by ' the project is consistent with DPMP. Response to Comment 9-9: This comment is incorrect. A portion of the discussion to which the commentor refers discusses parking for construction 3-62 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments workers. However, page 2-6 of the Draft EIR states that "temporary replacement parking for some spaces is also- required to be provided within a reasonable distance of the project site, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, until construction of the underground parking structure is complete." The availability of parking within a reasonable distance of the project site must be identified by the Applicants, prior to construction, as a part of a temporary or interim parking plan, which is a standard condition of approval of the City. The plan must address on-site construction activities and adjacent properties, and this standard condition is imposed upon all construction to avoid impacts to adjacent properties. Additionally, within 200 feet of the.project site, 815 shared . public parking spaces are currently available for use,and would be available during the construction period. Response to Comment 9-10: The alley west of Main Street is proposed only to be widened, as the proposed parking structure is not proposed to require excavation beneath the alley. Although periodic interruptions of access could occur, the City requires, as a standard condition of approval, the preparation of a construction phasing plan, which must show access to, movement on and from, materials storage, and staging on the project site, and access for employees and customers is expected to be maintained during and after construction. Additionally,any work within the alleys will require an encroachment permit and review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments. Also, loading access to the businesses located along Main Street is provided both by the alley and by loading zones on both sides of Main Street at Walnut Avenue, and are not anticipated to be substantially affected by construction activities. Response to Comment 9-11: Based on the geotechnical evaluations and associated conceptual foundation design assumptions, conventional spread footings will be utilized for The Strand. Therefore, at this time, friction piles (and the attendant "pile-driving") are not needed. For the purpose of shoring the perimeter of the anticipated excavations, soldier beams will be placed in drilled and poured The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-63 3.0 Responses to Comments concrete footings. Again, driven piles are not envisaged. In many locations, particularly adjacent" to the historic Worthy property, there is sufficient separation of the parking structure from the property line to use "lay-back" or sloped shore system. In the event that driven piles become desirable from a technical perspective, the applicant will provide reasonable evaluations of possible mitigation measures for consideration by the appropriate parties, and the-project will be required to comply " with all applicable UBC requirements to protect all adjacent structures and uses through the working drawings plan check process. Response to Comment 9-12: As stated on page 3.3-16 of the Draft EIR, Impact 3.3-4 states that encroachment of the proposed project into the setting of the Worthy property is a significant impact. This impact occurs along the southern boundary of the Worthy property, as the proposed project already includes a 20-foot ground-floor setback from the Worthy property,and a further 30-foot upper- story setback, from the eastern boundary of the property, and was "determined not to encroach upon the setting and scale of the,commercial structure on the Worthy property. To mitigate the impact identified with respect to the hotel and the southern boundary of the Worthy Property,Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, on page 3.3-19 of the Draft EIR, the Applicant was required to provide a 20-foot setback from the southern boundary of the Worthy property. The establishment of a buffer zone from the Worthy property line,"as well as a lower transition element for the building, was suggested by the architectural historian who prepared the report for the EIR as a measure that could reduce the identified impact,and 20 feet was determined by the City,in consultation with an architectural historian, to provide sufficient ground-level separation from the property and that and average 10-15 feet (the equivalent of the height of a single story)would provide an adequate third and fourth floor setback by creating a lower transition element from the first and second floors of the structure. In addition, the City is also recommending third- and fourth-floor setbacks of ten to 15 feet to further reduce this impact,and the City will, as a condition of approval, require landscaping (including trees) along the . 3-64 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments southern and eastern boundaries of the Worthy property to soften the effect of the new development upon the setting of the Worthy property and provide a visual buffer from the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-13: The Draft EIR discloses the impact resulting from the proposed narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way on page 3.1-13 ' (Impact 3.1-2). The Draft EIR states that "views available to commuters and pedestrians along Fifth Street would be affected by project encroachment upon Fifth Street, and the proposed structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of preserving coastal views." However, as stated on the same page, the Draft EIR concluded that the provision of enhanced, public, coastal view opportunities,in the form of a public terrace associated with the hotel, would offset the loss of street-level views associated with the project. Response to Comment 9-14: The commentor is incorrect. The City requires the provision of direct access to the terrace (via stairway and/or elevator) from Fifth Street without requiring entrance to the hotel proper. The public would,therefore,have direct access to the terrace and the enhanced coastal views it would provide. Response to Comment 9-15: Mitigation Measure 3.9-3, to which the commentor refers, applies only to the proposed project and only at the delivery access from Sixth Street. This restriction is imposed due to the accessibility restrictions imposed by the proposed design, and would not apply to existing businesses in Block 104. It would not affect the existing delivery services to the existing business located within Block 104. Response to Comment 9-16: As stated on page 3.9-17, the proposed project would be adequately parked under the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP), and no significant impact with regard to parking would occur: the preparation of a parking management plan, and the provision of valet parking, are intended to further reduce the less-than-significant impact of the project,and would be fully enforceable as conditions of the Disposition and The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-65 3.0 Responses to Comments Development Agreement (DDA) between the project Applicant and the City's Redevelopment Agency. Response to Comment 9-17: Economic issues are not considered to be environmental issues by the City, and are not addressed in EIRs prepared by the City. Nevertheless, in 1996 the City prepared an economic study of the development, and updated the study in 1998. Additionally, a 2002 memorandum re-evaluates the conclusions of the 1996 and 1998 studies and is included as Appendix B to Part I of the Final EIR. The 1998 study concluded that, "the development of Block 104/105 provides the greatest potential for expanding downtown, and is critical to the areas future success, and that development of Block 104/105 would be synergistic,rather than competitive, with downtown retailers. Sedway Group also recommended concentrating on developing Block 104/105 before other retail sites in Huntington Beach so that the downtown could benefit from a critical mass of retail space, rather than competing with new retail spaces outside the downtown area. The 2002 assessment is consistent with the 1996 and 1998 findings, and concluded that it is likely that other downtown retailers would benefit from, rather than be hurt by The Strand. While there may be some exceptions, The Strand's anticipated tenants, in general, are not direct competitors of existing retailers. On the contrary, the project is likely to expand the customer base. Sales tax trends in the Downtown core, which include Block r= 104/105, dramatically belie the point made by the commenter with regard to "marginally successful" businesses and "business failures". Whereas there is usually some degree of turnover and/or business failure in any local economy even when healthy, the general retail sales trend for the Downtown core is very positive, as reflected in the fact that sales ,tax payments nearly doubled between 1995/96 and 2000/2001. While a fiscal impact analysis is not required by CEQA and the memorandum concluded that the project was very likely to generate significant new taxes on the order of $1 million annually,net of the housing set aside. 3-66 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-18: Comment noted. This comment raises legal arguments rather than environmental issues. Response to Comment 9-19: The commentor is incorrect: Impact 3.9-3 addresses ingress/egress issues associated with the project and states, on page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR, that "vehicular queuing, if left unmanaged, may present impacts to the local street system for those extraordinary occasions .[major holidays, peak summer season]. However, Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 would require that the entrance to the parking structure be restriped so that two inbound lanes and one outbound lanes are provided. This is to ensure that, during the peak inbound period, vehicles are not forced to merge into a single inbound land and vehicle stacking will not occur on Sixth Street." In addition, as stated on page 3.9-18 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 requires the Applicant to develop an on-site signage. program to clearly identify parking opportunities and direct vehicle to the parking structure. Response to Comment 9-20: Nearby offices, including the Oceanview Promenade, are a part of the overall land use of the downtown which is included in the land use assumptions of the DPMP. The shared parking program outlined in the plan is intended to provide parking to all downtown land uses. The DDA for the Project expressly preserves the parking rights previously negotiated and approved for the Oceanview Promenade development. However, the project provides the number of parking spaces assumed in the DPMP so as to maintain the integrity of the shared parking concept developed for this area. As demonstrated in the discussion for Impact 3.9-4 on pages 3.9- 15-3.9-17 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project fulfills its responsibility to provide the required number of parking spaces in accordance with the City's code for the downtown area. Response to Comment 9-21: The commentor is incorrect in his assertion that inadequate parking would be available for Blocks 104 and 105. As discussed in Impact 3.9-4 on pages 3.9-15-3.9-17 of the Draft EIR, and as stated in previous responses,the DPMP is the City's parking code for the downtown area, and the proposed project will provide parking consistent with this code. The DPMP has The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-67 3.0 Responses to Comments been approved by both the City Council and California Coastal Commission and is supported by a technical study demonstrating the shared parking characteristics of the downtown area. No significant parking impact would occur with the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-22: The commentor is incorrect: the proposed project does not include requests for—and does not require—amendments to the General Plan Coastal Element or to the Downtown Specific . Plan. Refer to the response to Comment 9-6 for a discussion of the floor area ratio of the project and the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. Refer to the response to Comment 9- 12 for a discussion of the impact associated with the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way. Refer to the response to Comment 9-7 for a discussion of the height of the proposed structures and the compliance of the proposed project.with the applicable sections of the Downtown Specific Plan. Note also that, as stated on pages 2-6-2-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project requests Special Permits from the City, as allowed under and in accordance with Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan, to exceed maximum building height and reduce the Fifth Street right-of-way. Response to Comment 9-23: As stated on page.3.9-8 of the Draft EIR, and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the modeled General Plan traffic analysis in the Draft EIR includes approved projects, plus General Plan build-out of the City under two different scenarios (with and without Santa Ana River crossings) and build-out of General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Response to Comment 9-24: Approval of the proposed project would occur in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan Coastal Element. As described in the response to Comment 9-22,Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows for Special Permits "when, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met." Response to Comment 9-25: Performance standards are not generally required for mitigation measures under CEQA. If possible, performance standards 3-68 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments should be identified where and when their effectiveness used to determine whether the resulting impact would continue to be significant even after the measures are implemented. In the case of the proposed project, the Draft EIR recommends appropriate and feasible mitigation measures that have been identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The URBEMIS7G computer model, which was used to calculate the potential daily emissions of the proposed project, utilizes .efficiency factors for each of the operational mitigation measures to quantify the emissions that would be reduced by these measures. Although specific performance-standards are not used or recommended by the SCAQMD, other air quality agencies, or the URBEMIS7G model, the reductions are based. on average for a wide range of equipment that are readily available in the market. These assumptions are applicable to the mitigation measures recommended -in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. There are three instances, however, where. performance standards are applicable to the mitigation measures and have been identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure (MM) 3.2-2 requires that all excavation and grading operations be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period. This same measure requires that a traffic speed limit 15 miles per hour be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads (if any) on the project site. MM 3.2-8 requires the new buildings within the project site to exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Therefore, performance standards have been included in the applicable and appropriate air quality mitigation measures of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 9-26: As stated in Impact 3.3-4 on page 3.3-16-3.3-17 of the Draft EIR, the development of the proposed project would encroach upon the historic setting of the Worthy property, and would result in a potentially significant impact. However, as discussed in the same pages of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, which requires the incorporation of ground-floor The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-69 3.0 Responses to Comments i and upper-level setbacks into the project design,would mitigate this potential impact. Further, the City would require, as a condition of approval, the provision of a landscaped buffer along the southern and eastern property boundaries of the Worthy property to provide an additional visual buffer. With the incorporation of these measures to reduce the impact, the City determined that the project would comply with the policy cited. Response to Comment 9-27: The proposed project would provide 10,552 square feet of open space, including the terrace at the hotel. The required open space is ten percent of the net site area, or 10,393.5 square feet. .Because the proposed project provides greater than ten percent of the site area as open space, the proposed project would comply with the minimum open space requirement for the development. Refer to the response to Comment 9-14 for a discussion of the City's requirements for access to the proposed terrace. Response to Comment 9-28: The City treats construction noise as a less-than-significant impact due to its short-term and ubiquitous nature, and for this reason, has exempted construction noise from the requirements of its municipal code. Nevertheless, Table 3.6-4 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels), on page 3.6-10 of the Draft EIR, includes all.relevant information regarding construction activities and noise and discloses the predicted noise levels at the project site. Response to Comment 9-29: The analysis of potential noise impacts focuses on the potential for construction of the proposed project to impact land uses that are sensitive to noise, particularly the residences across the street from the project site. Any potential construction impacts to the Oceanview Promenade building would-be similar to those identified on page 3.6-11 of the Draft EIR for the existing homes located north of Sixth Street. As discussed on page 3.6- 11, construction noise would be short-term, is exempt from the requirements of the City's noise ordinance, and is therefore considered to be less than significant. This conclusion would apply to the Oceanview Promenade building as well as the surrounding residences. 3-70 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments MM 3.6-1 identifies specific controls and actions that would help to reduce noise levels heard by the surrounding land uses during the construction phases of development. They would also help reduce, not increase, noise levels experienced at the nearby commercial and office uses, including the Oceanview Promenade building. Response to Comment 9-30: As stated on page 3.6-3 of the Draft EIR, the traffic volumes utilized as data inputs in the noise prediction model were provided by the project traffic engineer. In fact, they were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 3.9-8 of the Draft EIR, the future general Plan baseline conditions assume build out of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, as well as the General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions. The addition of the project-generated traffic to these future baseline conditions is the cumulative project set. This is considered a worst case analysis since it includes all potential growth within the City of Huntington Beach and adjacent jurisdictions rather than a smaller set of known projects. Response to Comment 9-31: Refer to the response to Comment 9-23 for a discussion of the scope of the cumulative traffic impact analysis. Response to Comment 9-32: The predominant weekday summer traffic conditions and potential project impacts under these conditions were evaluated in the DEIR. In considering analysis of the weekend condition during the development of the scope of the traffic analysis, staff identified approximately 22 peak summer weekends and 3 typical holidays for a total of 47 potential days. These days i represent the peak conditions for the area. Weekday peak hour conditions represent the worst case conditions for approximately 250 days per year. Non-summer weekends and holidays represent approximately 65 days per year and would not generally be considered peak conditions. Under CEQA, the determination of thresholds of significance and the application of those thresholds to specific conditions is delegated to the lead agency. In this case, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted several policies through its General Plan that would tend to The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-71 3.0 Responses to Comments support an analysis of the weekday condition as the environmental condition under which levels of significance are evaluated. Level of service standards adopted by the City are identified on page 3.9-10 of the Draft EIR. These standards are based on evaluations of weekday peak hour conditions throughout the city. While the term "peak hour" is not specifically defined,it is consistently considered to occur during the weekday morning and late afternoon peak periods. No specific references are made to the summer weekend condition in maintaining certain,level of service standards. This approach has been supported in the past for other projects such as the Hyatt Regency Resort. One additional issue considered by staff in evaluating the scope of the project analysis is the ability to forecast future weekend traffic volumes. Weekend analysis is not considered "standard" and limited tools are available for forecasting future traffic volumes. For example,buildout scenario analyses for this study were prepared using a computerized traffic model. This model is based on a regional traffic model and does. not address weekend conditions. It would be impossible to develop weekend traffic projections under this scenario without imposing great hardship on the developer in preparing a new weekend traffic model. To a slightly lesser extent, developing cumulative project scenario weekend projects would also impose an unreasonable hardship on the developer. City Staff has, therefore, considered the CEQA guidelines, City policies and a practical evaluation of the frequency of occurrence of the summer weekend condition and analysis tools available in not requiring the peak "summer weekend traffic condition to be analyzed by the project. Response to Comment 9-33: Page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR does not make any statements or assumption that private off-street parking is available for " shared public use. An accurate inventory of public parking spaces is "provided in the technical analysis supporting the DPMP. The parking supply outlined in the technical analysis is available for shared public use as.outlined in the DPNIl'. 3-72 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment 9-34: The comment is incorrect. As described above, Impact 3.9-4 in the Draft EIR concluded the project is adequately parked according to its parking burden under the DPMP, which determined that any development on Block A (which includes the project site) would be considered fully parked if it provided at least 403 parking spaces (refer to pages 3.9-15-3.9-17 of the Draft EIR). The proposed project provides 403 parking spaces and would, therefore, be considered fully parked under the DPMP. Response to Comment 9-35: Page 68 of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan Update prepared by Kaku Associates identifies 150 existing spaces on-site. The parking requirement of between 834 and 878 spaces is based on the application of standard City of Huntington Beach parking rates which are not applicable in the downtown area governed by the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The proposed project will supply 411 spaces; therefore, the statement that the project will replace the existing 150. parking spaces on a one-to-one basis is not deceptive and is, in fact,true. Response to Comment 9-36: Comment noted. The Downtown Parking Master Plan analyzed a total of 715, 000 sq. ft. of anticipated development in the plan area. In the specific area of blocks 104/105, or block A of the land use analysis in the Kaku report used for land use and building square footage analysis, the plan calls for a total of 295,660 sq. ft. of total buildout with 417 parking spaces. The CIM plan called out in block A calls for 243,610 sq. ft. of -' anticipated development and a requirement of 403 parking spaces. The proposed plan submitted for entitlement totals i 226,536, a reduction of 17,074 sq. ft., and the total provision of 411 parking spaces. This figure may be further reduced by conditions of approval and working drawings. So the block A figures would be amended as part of the DPMP annual review and make available approximately 17,000 sq. ft. of additional building area in block A. Any future development proposed in the block A area would have to be analyzed for consistency with the DPMP and the revised building area figures. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-73 3.0 Responses to Comments Note, however, that even with construction of the proposed project,the development on Block A (as identified in the DPMP) would not reach the 715,000 square foot development limit. The proposed project, would not, therefore, preclude additional development. Response to Comment 9-37: The commentor is incorrect. Refer to the responses to Comment 9-6 and 9-7 regarding development standards; response to Comment 9-12 regarding cultural resources; and the responses to Comments 9-13 and 9-14 regarding the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way. Response to Comment 9-38: The commentor is incorrect. The Downtown core to which the Draft EIR does not refer to the Downtown area as a whole, as the comment suggests, but to District 3 of the Downtown Specific Plan,which includes the area bounded by First Street to the east, Sixth Street to the west,.Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Walnut Avenue to the north. And as stated in the Draft EIR, no other building sites within this area are available for development. As stated on pages 2-x and 4-3 of the Draft EIR, other objectives for the proposed project include. "[t]o improve the perception of Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area," and the proposed project is intended to bring more residents and visitors to the waterfront area and, specifically, the Downtown core. The location of the project in the Downtown core area is, therefore, a very important component of the project, and the presence of other hotels and other commercial development in nearby areas does not obviate the - goals of the City for the proposed project. Response to Comment 9-39: The commentor is incorrect: Chapter 4 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR includes discussions of two alternatives in addition to the two that were determined to be infeasible and a No Project/No Development alternative. The alternatives evaluated include a less intensive alternative to the proposed project. Section 4.3.2, on pages 4-10-4-13 of.the Draft EIR, examines a project with.a 20% reduction in square footage, and pages 4-13-4-17 include analysis of an alternative mix of uses. As stated on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project 3-74 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments includes development below the maximum FAR stipulated for developments of its type,.and other uses that could conform to the development standards of the project site could actually result in more intense development than proposed. These development standards,as stated in the Draft EIR,are located in the Downtown Specific Plan, and consist of general provisions and specific standards for development in District #3, Visitor- Serving Commercial. As stated on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR, no other reasonably foreseeable use exists for the project site, other than those evaluated, because no other development proposals for the site are currently before the City, and because none of prior development proposals received by the City since 1989 and prior (more than ten years), were ultimately implemented. CIM was selected as developer of the site in 1998 after proposals were solicited from owner-participants for all or part of the balance of blocks 104 and 105. Seven proposals were received and were evaluated. The CIM project was selected because it best met the City's broad goals and objectives for the site. Further, no additional proposals for development of the project are anticipated by the City or are foreseeable which would differ greatly from the current proposal, and as stated by Section 15126.6(f)(3), an EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote and speculative. The commentor notes that the Coultrup project was approved by the City but not implemented due to financial constraints (recession and a lack of financing). Coultrup was one of the proposers in 1998, but was not selected. The current and prior proposed projects faced social and political constraints cited on pages 4-7 of the Draft EIR,which refer to the substantial public opposition to the previously proposed projects,as well as the unavailability to the City of eminent domain,which would have been required to implement some of the projects, including a previously proposed,more intense version of the current proposed project. The previously proposed projects could, not therefore, be implemented because of these and other constraints. Response to Comment 9-40: Development of a hotel is not the only objective of the proposed project: the goal is also to provide additional, quality retail in The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-75 3.0 Responses to Comments the Downtown core area and to improve the area and its perception as a destination. Refer to pages 4-6-4-8 of the Draft EIR for further discussion of the project objectives. Further, the proposed project would respond to a perceived increase in demand for commercial office space in the Downtown area. Response to Comment 9-41: The commentor is incorrect: the No Project/No Development alternative would not meet any of the objectives for the proposed project. This is implicitly recognized for almost any project by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines,which states that "if the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Further,the purpose of the No Project alternative, as stated in Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, is "to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project." Response to Comment 9-42: The commentor is incorrect in the assertion that the Reduced/Revised project alternative represents only a three percent reduction from the proposed project. The Reduced/Revised Project Alternative eliminates 56,385 square feet of restaurant and retail uses, or about 25 percent of the proposed project. Further, the City does not include the square footage of parking structures in development/floor area ratio calculations. The parking structure proposed with the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative is not an addition, but was proposed to provide comparable parking to the proposed project, along with less.development. As the commentor notes, the Draft EIR, on page 4-12, states that the proposed project I would have identical land use impacts as the proposed project; however, the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts, as stated on page '3.5-22 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4-18 of the Draft EIR, the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts compared to the proposed project, and is therefore a legitimate alternative. Response to Comment 9-43: As described in the EIR,the Reduced Project Alternative would eliminate approximately 56,385 square feet of rentable area 3-76 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Comments and Responses to Comments including approximately 25,000 s.f. of prime ground floor retail space and the balance as second and third floor office space. We would assume that approximately 8,000-10,000 s.f. of retail would be developed in the ground floor of the structure. The alternative would also eliminate the midblock plaza and passageway connecting Fifth Street to Main Street. The parking site would have maximum dimensions of 210 feet in length and 115 feet in width. Because of the narrow dimension there would be two bays of angle parking per level. Required upper level setbacks would further diminish efficiency. Using an average yield 375 s.f. per space and typical gross floor of 20,000 s.f. (setbacks from alley and upper levels) approximately 55 spaces could be developed per level. A three-level structure would generate approximately 165 spaces with 238 or more spaces still required to be subterranean. The financial viability of the Reduced Project Alternative would be diminished by a number of factors. While there may be some reduced costs by constructing an above grade parking structure, there would still be the need for a subterranean structure. The Reduced Project Alternative would see a substantial reduction in not only the total amount of available prime-ground floor lease space, but the reconfigured project would not be able to command the same anticipated rent levels. This is due to the fact that the vibrant ground floor retail environment proposed for Fifth Street would not be generated by in effect a one-sided retail street. This will impact the ability to attract the quality of tenants needed to achieve the City's goals for the Downtown core. The Reduced Project Alternative creates more of a stand-alone project on Block 105 which does not integrate in to the balance of the Downtown and Main Street. In addition, the elimination of the upper story office space further erodes the demand for retail and restaurant uses. In addition: ■ The success of establishing critical mass in the project and in downtown depends upon locating at least ten key tenants with typical square footage of 5,000 s.f. Under the current plan, there are four key tenant locations in The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3-77 3.0 Responses to Comments Block 104. The Alternative Plan would only support secondary tenants. ■ The Parking Structure location would also eliminate the most prominent key tenant location relative to its proximity to Main Street. This is critical to the synergy of the project,and, again,to the greater downtown. ■ The Parking Structure would in essence isolate the Block 105 development from Main Street. This would directly reduce the attractiveness of the key tenant locations in Block 105, with similar adverse impacts on downtown synergy. The Reduced Project Alternative would see income reduced to a level that it would not support the project costs to a degree greater than the proposed project. This would result-in a reduced residual land cost and therefore be less feasible under the current terms of Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and the Developer. While the above grade parking structure .should . cost less than the underground structure, design mitigation of the many above grade levels will be costly. Land value will be diminished by the reduction of leasable area. The value of the remaining leasable area will be reduced as a result of the less desirable urban design and, leasing characteristics identified above: There would also be a proportionate reduction in the public revenues generated by the project, further eroding the overall economic viability of the Reduced Project Alternative. Response to Comment 9-44: The commentor is incorrect: as illustrated on page 4-18 of the Draft EIR, the Alternative Mix of Uses would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. The alternative is not proposed to reduce all impacts of the proposed .project, and is not required to do so under CEQA. Response to Comment 9-45: Refer to the response to Comment 9-38 for a discussion of the Downtown core and the placement of a hotel in the downtown core. 3-78 City of Huntington Beach a -Z + a 4 `�AT� y _ -_ ; £ :` City of'Huntington Beach Planning Department LOL STAFF REPORT HUMINGTON BEACH '` ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Senior Planner/Herb Fauland,Principal Planner DATE: September 24, 2002 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01-02 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) CO-APPLICANT: CIM/Huntington, Inc. John Given, Vice President 6922 Hollywood Boulevard,Ninth Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 CO-APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs,Director of Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach David Biggs,Director of Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue and the alley between Fifth Street and Main Street. The project does not include Ocean View Promenade, the retail buildings fronting on Main Street, the El Don Liquor building, or the Worthy property at the corner of Sixth and Walnut (Blocks 104 and 105). STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02: - Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a mixed use retail, restaurant, and office complex, a 152 room hotel, and a two-level subterranean public parking structure with special permits to allow deviations from certain code requirements. Documents potential impacts to Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Hosing, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Circulation. Evaluates five alternatives to the original project proposal. WAMM PROJECTzusm SITE r,ra�rowN , . 0 ... KAM" Nor a;a `�` • `' WNSOUARE .�• ANE � �' ``, `• ``` i pC i VICINITY MAP Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) September 24, 2002 Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Population and . Hosing, and Transportation and Circulation. Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality,Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. • Staffs Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 as adequate and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: - Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals, policies, and objectives - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach" Downtown Specific Plan except for any special permits which may be granted - Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened - Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations - Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 as adequate.and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1575 (Attachment No. 1). ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 with findings for denial." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 226, 500 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, office, a 152-room hotel, and a two-level subterranean public parking structure on an approximately 2.97 acre site. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Traffic. All other issue areas, including Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Recreation were determined to result in no environmental impacts, or less than significant environmental impacts. These issue areas were fully evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to the EIR document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided.- PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -3- (02sr39 Strand EIR 0I-02) An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the Planning Commission after action on the environmental document. The companion report reviews applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, Coastal Development No. 99-16, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16406. Background: Blocks 104/105 or Main-Pier Phase II has been analyzed for CEQA compliance with prior environmental documentation. In January 1992, the City certified EIR #89-6 as part of the approval for the Abdelmuti project (Jack's Surfboards/Oceanview Promenade). The Abdelmuti project is a four-story retail/office building consisting of approximately 48,000 sq. ft. The EIR analyzed project impacts in the areas of Land Use Compatibility/Aesthetics, Earth Resources, Historic Resources, Light and Glare, and Parking. Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the potentially adverse impacts associated with Land Use Compatibility/Aesthetics, Earth Resources, and Parking were reduced to a level of insignificance. The EIR identified significant adverse impacts in the areas of Light and Glare and Historic Resources that cannot be mitigated. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval of the Abdelmuti project finding that the economic, social, or other benefits of the project outweighed its adverse impacts to Light and Glare and Historic Resources. In July 1993, the City approved the second phase of the Main-Pier Phase H project that was covered by previously certified EIR #89-6. The project was commonly referred to as the Coultrup Plan. The project consisted of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, and office in new and rehabilitated buildings on block 104 and 80 condominiums on block 105. The project was appealed to the California Coastal Commission and ultimately approved. The project was never constructed. The Redevelopment Agency issued Requests for Proposals (RFP) to solicit developers for the downtown site in 1997-98. Out of seven proposals received, the Agency selected CEVI/Huntington Inc. (CIM) on April 6, 1998. The Agency and CIM worked together in an attempt to identify the appropriate type of development for the site that could achieve objectives for both. In contemplating development on the site, the Agency and CIM established the following objectives: Redevelopment Agency's Objectives • To add a hotel to the downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. • To improve the perception of the downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area. • To enhance the downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. • To contribute to the efforts to create an 18-hour downtown, with visitors and residents. remaining in downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. • To provide for the -highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. • To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -4- (0209 Strand EIR 01-02) CIM's Obiectives • Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. • Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. • Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENBRAL PLAN; ZONING LAND USE:' Subject Property: MV-F12-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Papa Joe's Vertical—3.0 FAR—specific District 3 —Coastal Zone Pizza, 1 plan overlay—pedestrian (Visitor-Serving Residential overlay) Commercial) Unit, Parking Lot,Vacant North of Subject MH-F4/30-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Police Property(between 6`h St. Horizontal— 1.25 FAR/30 District 4—Coastal Zone Substation and alley between 6`h St. du/ac—specific plan overlay (Mixed-Use; Office (Shank and 5`h St.): —pedestrian overlay) Residential) House) North of Subject MV-F6/25-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Retail,Red Property(between Main Vertical—2.0 FAR/25 du/ac District 5 —Coastal Zone Pearl Kitchen St. and alley between 6`h —specific plan overlay— (Mixed-Use; Commercial/ St. and 5`h St.): pedestrian overlay) Office/Residential) West of Subject Property MV-F8-d-sp (Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Java Jungle (across 6`h St. and Vertical— 1.5 FAR—design District 1 —Coastal Zone fronting PCH): overlay—specific plan (Visitor-Serving overlay) Commercial) West of Subject Property RH—30-d-sp (Residential Downtown Specific Plan— Residential (across 6`h St. and north High Density—30 du/ac— District 2—Coastal Zone of parcels fronting PCH design overlay—specific (Residential) to Walnut): plan overlay) South of Subject OS-S (Open Space— Downtown Specific Plan— Pier Plaza, Property(across PCH): Shoreline) District 11 —Coastal Zone Pacific Ocean (Beach Open Space) East of Subject Property MV-F12-sp-pd(Mixed Use Downtown Specific Plan— Retail, Ocean (to Main St.): Vertical—3.0 FAR.—specific District 3 —Coastal Zone View plan overlay—pedestrian Promenade,El overlay) Don Liquors PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -5- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical — 3.0 FAR — specific plan overlay— pedestrian overlay). A detailed discussion of the project's conformity with goals, policies, and. objectives of the General Plan is presented in Section 3.5 Environmental Impact Analysis — Land Use of the Draft EIR, pages 3.5-1 — 3.5-22. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1:. Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal L U 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration:of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy 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. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. i Polio 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 American's with Disabilities Act. Policy LU 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State(CEQA)regulations. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale, and character. PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -6- (0209 Strand EIR 0 1-02) Policy LU 7.1.2: Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule, as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal L U 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of uses and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the appropriate principles. The commercial, hotel, restaurant, and office uses proposed for the site represent development which would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement existing retail and restaurant uses. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of creating an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining downtown in the evening for shopping, dining, and entertainment. The proposed project promotes .development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as commercial, hotel, restaurant, and office development will broaden and stabilize the .City's economic base. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high- quality visual image and character that are intended to expand the existing pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The proposed project utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density within the Land Use Plan Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses,such as retail establishments and restaurants are proposed along all street levels of the project, while hotel and office uses are proposed at the upper stories. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends preliminary approval of the design concept. x B. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -7- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) I accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Objective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule,Table C-1. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Objective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure,to ensure adequate service after project implementation. Additionally, the proposed project would develop visitor- serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area, which has.been targeted for redevelopment as a destination location. Portions of the downtown core have already been established, and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the project, with the exception of a hotel, which would help further establish the area. The project site is also located near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. The project proposes a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses, including retail, restaurant, and hotel uses, in District 3, Visitor-Serving Commercial of the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project would redevelop and enhance an underutilized and visually unattractive commercial site in the downtown core area and is intended to reinforce these uses to enhance the area as a major visitor-serving district. PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -8- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) C. Economic Development Element Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Obiective ED 2.6: Expand and enhance the existing visitor serving uses. Policy ED 2.6.1: Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Policy ED 2.6.2: Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City, thereby creating identifiable visitor-oriented centers. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. Obiective ED 3.1: Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policy ED 3.1.1: Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses. Policy ED 3.2.1: Create commercial_recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Policy ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retail/office/residential) structures on the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Policy ED 3.2.3: Attract visitor-serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor-supporting retail uses. The proposed project consists of a major, multiple-block consolidation for developing a range of visitor- serving and other.commercial uses that would complement existing development in the Downtown area. The proposed project would develop a hotel and additional, visitor-serving commercial uses in the downtown core, which would establish the downtown as a place to stay as well as to shop and eat. The •project has the potential to draw visitors to the core area and support existing and proposed commercial uses. The project is proposing to redevelop underutilized commercial property on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and would complement and reinforce the existing commercial uses in the Downtown area. The proposed project will develop visitor-serving uses across Pacific Coast Highway from the beach and Pier creating a strong visitor-serving presence near the waterfront. Zoning Compliance: Not Applicable Urban Desi--n Guidelines Conformance: Not Applicable PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -9- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, EIP Associates (EIP), a consultant hired by the City, prepared Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 (EIR) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be adopted and certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06, and Coastal Development No. 99-16. r. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies-regarding the proposed project. The EIR report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the. proposed retail, restaurant, office, and hotel development of the site. Proposed development'of the site and compliance with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan are discussed in a separate report. EIR No. 01-02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of AestheticsNisual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Circulation. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures The procedure that was followed during preparation of EIR No. 01-02 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY.. May 17, 2000 EIP conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the project. May 18, 2000 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify the public of the intent to prepare an EIR. June 1,2000 A Public Scoping Meeting held at Huntington Beach Central Library for public to review proposed project, inquire about the CEQA process, and submit written statements on issues to be addressed in the EIR. July 2000 Project put on hold by applicant. February 2001 Revised project resumed by applicant. August 16, 2001 EIP conducted an initial study of the revised project and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the revised project. August 24, 2001 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. August 29,2001 Another Public Scoping Meeting was held at Lake Park Clubhouse for the public to review the revised project, inquire about the CEQA process, and submit written statements on issues to be addressed in the EIR. July 19, 2002 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Availability mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 300 ft.radius,all interested parties, all attendees at Scoping Meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days(Comment period: July 19,2002 to September 3, 2002). Draft EIR available for review at City Hall,Central Library, and Main Street Branch Library. Short-term checkout copies available at each library. September 3, Comments on EIR No. 01-02 accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of nine comment letters were 2002 received. September 4, City and EIP begin completion to response to comments, including preparation of final EIR. 2002 PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -10- (0209 Strand EIR 01-02) DATE ACTIVITY September 13, Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR, are made available for public 2002 information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.) September 24, Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 01-02. 2002 2. Summary of EIR No. 01-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report; potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels of significance. They are: less than significant impacts; impacts than can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a)Less Than Significant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources and conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval suggested in the entitlement staff report. The following topical areas do not represent significant environmental impacts: • Agricultural Resources • Biological Resources • Land Use • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation b)Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Signs scant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the development project (TTM, CUP, etc.) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where impacts may occur and a brief description of the recommended mitigation measures are as follows: • Aesthetics - Utilize minimum light levels for safety and direct exterior lights downwards and away from surrounding uses - Utilize non-reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings • Air Quality - Develop a construction management plan - Implement dust control measures - Include solar or low-emission water heaters - Include built-in energy-efficient appliances PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -11- (0209 Strand EIR 01-02) - Install energy efficient air conditioning - Install double paned glass windows - Install energy efficient.lighting - Exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least 5% - Utilize light colored roof materials to reflect heat • Cultural Resources - Include on-site archaeological and paleontological monitor during excavation and grading - Incorporate design features of Ocean View Promenade and El Don Liquor buildings into Building C - Incorporate a minimum 20 ft. setback from south and east Helme-Worthy property lines on first and second levels; incorporate an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback on third and fourth levels from the southerly and easterly property lines of the Hehne-Worthy property • Geology and Hydrology - Include soils, seismic, compaction, shoring, design, drainage, corrosion, and backfill recommendations from Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation on grading plan - Require review of grading plan by geotechnical consultant and Public Works for verification of preliminary report recommendations • Noise - Limit construction hours Monday-Saturday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM - Utilize mufflers on high noise generating construction equipment - Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from residences - Turn off machinery when not in use - Do not idle mobile equipment near residences - Notify neighbors.within 200 feet of construction schedule; establish liaison to respond to complaints and correct noise problems • Public Service and Utilities - Incorporate emergency vehicle access, fire sprinklers, fire alarms,properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security - Incorporate crime prevention design measures into project - Incorporate adequate access and turning radius dimensions for disposal collection vehicles - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation • Transportation and Circulation - Restripe eastbound approach for second eastbound turn lane at Brookhurst/Pacific Coast Highway - Provide two inbound and one outbound lane for subterranean parking structure - Restrict delivery vehicles to a medium or small semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet - Implement a Parking Management Plan - Provide valet parking during special events and the peak summer season - Develop an on-site signage program to identify parking, direct vehicles, and guide patrons PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -12- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) i These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the draft environmental impact report and summarized above. Staff recommends incorporation of these mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the development project (TTM, CUP, etc.). c) Unavoidable Signs scant Impacts There are adverse environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. These include impacts from the following: • Aesthetics - Impacts of headlights exiting the parking structure on Sixth Street residences. - Cumulative impacts of loss of public views. • Air Quality Daily operation impacts from volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides • Noise Cumulative noise impacts on Main Street between Sixth and Palm in the year 2010. • Public Services and Utilities - Cumulative impacts on solid waste facilities Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the Planning Commission may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR must be applied to any approved project. Environmental Board. The City's Environmental Review Board reviewed the EIR at their meeting of August 29, 2002. In addition, the Board submitted a letter during the 45 day public response period. The letter has been responded to by the consultant and is included as part of the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 3). In summary, the Board commented on the following: open space, open space in upper level structures, traffic impacts, noise impacts, Main Street congestion, lighting impacts to Sixth Street residential areas. Staff has responded to all comments received and.this attachment will be included as an appendix in the Final EIR. PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -13- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) Coastal Status: The proposed project is within an appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 99-16 is being processed concurrently with Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 16406, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-45 with Special Permit No. 02-06 pursuant to Chapter 245, Coastal Development Permit, of the HBZSO. The proposed project's compliance with Coastal Zone issues is discussed in a separate report. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Main-Pier subarea. Discussion of the proposed project's relationship to Redevelopment issues is discussed in a separate report. Desi n Review Board: Not Applicable Subdivision Committee: Not Applicable Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the staff report for the development. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on September 12, 2002, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of September 19, 2002, no additional communication regarding the adequacy of the EIR or the request to certify the EIR has been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Environmental Impact Report: September 3, September 3, 2003 (One year from deeming the 2002 applications complete) PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -14- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) i ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides a brief overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives, a brief discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in nine issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. ♦ Aesthetics/Visual Quality The proposed project will introduce new nighttime lighting sources within the project area. However, with implementation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures to prevent light spillage across property lines, utilize minimum light levels for safety, direct exterior lights downward and away from surrounding uses, and use non-reflective fagade treatments, the effects of increased nighttime light levels will be less than significant. Ingress and egress to the subterranean parking structure is located across Sixth Street from two existing one-story single-family residential units. Vehicle headlights exiting the parking structure will be directed onto these existing residential uses, resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed project will introduce new two to four-story commercial structures on portions of Blocks 104 and 105. Some of the new structures along Fifth Street are proposed to encroach into the existing right of way and narrow the Fifth Street view corridor. The ultimate.right of way width of Fifth Street is 80 feet and the proposed project would provide a building-to-building view corridor of 65 feet. Therefore, the new structures would not provide the view corridor required in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The proposed project includes a request for a special permit to narrow the Fifth Street view corridor. To offset the 15 ft. reduction of the view corridor, the proposed project is providing a public terrace on the second floor along Fifth Street. The proposed terrace is not a part of the adjacent hotel and would provide enhanced coastal view opportunities. If the special permit were determined to provide a better project and enhance and introduce additional view opportunities, the reduced view corridor would be in compliance with the DTSP. The EIR concluded that the potential impact of the reduced view corridor would therefore be considered less than significant. Although the project site is currently zoned for mixed-use, visitor-serving uses, the project-induced loss of public views of the beach and the Pacific Ocean, although not significant on a project-specific level, contributes to the loss of such opportunities citywide, which constitutes a significant cumulative impact. PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -15- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this'adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. ♦ Air Quality The proposed project will result in long-term air emissions, primarily related to vehicle trips generated by the development, which are significant and unavoidable. Although implementation of standard conditions of approval, such as compliance with the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance will reduce this impact, emissions will still exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. The project, therefore, will result in significant, unavoidable operational air quality impacts. ♦ Cultural Resources The proposed project would be constructed in close proximity to the Helme-Worthy site on its south and east boundaries. The height and bulk of Building D, the portion of which is located nearest the eastern boundary of the Helme-Worthy property provides a 30-foot upper-story setback along Walnut Avenue and provides the necessary transition to the two-story height of the historic residence and the character- defining elevation of the Helme-Worthy Store. The 7.5 ft. alley vacation, the proposed 15 ft. wide access drive, and the 2.5 ft. building D setback provide a total 25 ft. the ground level setback. The height and bulk of the service drive and the hotel above in buildings,F and G are proposed at a setback of 12 ft. The proposed encroachment of the buildings on the southerly side of the Helme-Worthy property is not sensitive to the historical setting and scale of the property. The design does not adequately provide the necessary urban design elements, such as upper story setbacks, to provide a compatible transition. The provision of a 20-foot-wide setback for the lst and 2nd levels and an average 10-15 ft. upper story setback for the Yd and 4th levels, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, would reduce this effect to a less-than- significant impact. ♦ Geology and Hydrology The proposed project EIR includes an analysis of existing geologic, soils, and seismic conditions at the project site and analyzes the potential environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, erosion, liquefaction, excavation, and export of soils. Potential effects on air quality as a result of construction-related activities are discussed in Section 3.2 (Air Quality). In addition, this section describes the existing hydrological and water quality characteristics on the various building sites and in the project vicinity, and evaluates potential physical environmental effects related to drainage, groundwater dewatering, and groundwater and surface water quality. Impacts of the project on existing and future surface water and groundwater supply sources and wastewater treatment are described in Section 3.5 (Public Services and Utilities). The EIR concludes that with standard condition of approval and mitigation measures the potential impacts would be reduced these impacts to less than significant. ♦ Land Use The proposed project EIR includes information on the existing land use characteristics of the project site and the adjacent areas. The Land Use section of the Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the i PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -I6- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) proposed project would not physically divide an established community, nor would it conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, this section addresses conformity of the proposed project with local land use plans and policies, and existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. The EIR concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan, and with the Downtown Specific Plan, assuming that special permits requested for the project are obtained. Also, the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site. The proposed project would, therefore, result in a less-than-significant land use impact ♦ Noise The section evaluates the potential noise impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the project to cause a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within or around the project site, or to expose people to excessive noise levels. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the project in terms of its planning to ensure that new uses are planned appropriately from a noise perspective and to evaluate the noise impacts of the project on the surrounding community. The EIR analyzed project related impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project and noted that the impact would be short-term. The EIR concluded that with standard condition of approval and mitigation measures, the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the requirements of the noise ordinance. The EIR concluded that cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and other projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the difference between the existing traffic volumes and the future traffic volumes with the project. Therefore, a cumulative noise impact results in a significant, unavoidable impact from noise levels on Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. ♦ Population and Housing This section of the EIR provides a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project on housing units on the project site. One vacant housing unit exists on the project site. This unit is an apartment in a single-story, detached structure located behind the Papa Joe's Pizza Building on Block 105. Although the project would result in the loss of one housing unit within the City of Huntington Beach, this loss represents less than one half of one percent of the vacant affordable housing available in the City. Further, as required by State law and City policy, the City Redevelopment Agency would be required to relocate the occupant affected by the proposed project, as well as other occupants that could be affected by redevelopment projects elsewhere .in the City. The implementation of the proposed project would, therefore,result in a less-than-significant population and housing impact. PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -17- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) ♦ Public Services and Utilities This section provides a discussion of the existing public services and utilities available to the proposed project. Services to be evaluated include fire protection, law enforcement, solid waste, electric service, natural gas service, water supply, sewer/wastewater service, and storm drain service. Agencies providing these services were contacted as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process for the EIR to obtain information regarding available service levels and current or anticipated constraints that would result from the proposed development. All public services impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4. The solid waste service provider has indicated that current landfill capacity is adequate to accommodate the proposed projects' solid waste disposal needs. However, additional generation of solid waste would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues. Implementation of source reduction measures that would be implemented on a project-specific basis would address these issues in part. However, the proposed project would increase the overall generation of solid waste, and would, therefore, constitute a potentially significant cumulative impact due to regional solid waste disposal issues. The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were available to mitigate this cumulative adverse impact and it would remain significant and unavoidable. ♦ Transportation and Circulation The EIR describes the results of a traffic analysis for the proposed project by LSA Associates dated June 21, 2002. The report is included as Appendix E in the technical appendix to the technical traffic report of the EIR. A total of twenty.-eight intersections and four arterial roadways within the project vicinity were analyzed. The project analysis takes into account new vehicle trips that would result from the proposed development, as well as other traffic growth due to development in the surrounding area. Impacts to intersections, roadway segments, project access, and circulation impacts are either less than significant or mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The project is considered fully parked consistent with the adopted Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown.Parking Master Plan (Section 4.2.14). The EIR identifies several measures available to ensure maximum utilization and efficiency of the proposed parking on site. Mitigation Measure 3.9-4 would require the applicant to develop a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to ensure that all tenants and employees park in designated areas, freeing up the most desirable parking for downtown. patrons. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5 would require the applicant to provide valet and/or remote parking during i special events and activities during the peak summer season to ensure maximum efficiency of the parking structure. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 requires the applicant to develop an on-site signage program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. Implementation of these mitigation measures in addition to the 411 parking spaces provided on site would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. I PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -18- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. Objectives by both the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant are listed under the Background Section of this report. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Five project alternatives were selected for review. Two alternatives were ultimately found to be infeasible and no further study was conducted. These two alternatives were the Alternative Location and the No Project/No Reasonably Foreseeable Use Alternative. The remaining three alternatives were selected and further studied to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. These three alternatives are described below: • No Project/No Development Alternative — Maintain the project site in its current state with no development. • Reduced/Revised Project Alternative—Development of a project at a reduced density consisting of 49,690 square feet of retail and restaurant along with a 152-room hotel on Block 105. with construction of a parking structure on Block 104. • Alternative Mix of Uses — Development of retail, restaurant, and office uses identical to proposed project but construction of 89 multi-family residential units instead of the 152-room hotel. A summary of the three feasible project alternatives, and a comparison of environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, is presented in the table below: Summary of Project Alternatives Issue Area No ProjecWo Build Rechice4Revised Project Alternative Mix of Uses Aesthetics -1 -1 -1 Air Quality -1 -1 -1 Cultural Resources -1 -1 0 I Geology and Hydrology -1 0 0 j Land Use +1 0 0 Noise -1 -1 -1 Population and Housing -1 0 0 Public Services and Utilities -1 -1 0 Transportation and Traffic -1 -1 -1 Total -8 -6 -4 +1: Impacts are greater than those created by the proposed project -1: Impacts are less than those created by the proposed project 0: Impacts are the same as those created by the proposed project PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -19. (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) A detailed analysis of environmental impacts for each of these alternatives compared to the proposed project is included in Section 4.0 Alternatives, Pages 4-1 through 4-18 of the Draft EIR. As shown, based on the analysis, each of the alternatives was determined to be environmentally superior to the proposed development project. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the No Project alternative was determined to be the most environmentally superior alternative. Among the other alternatives, the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative would result in the greatest reduction in impacts compared to the proposed project. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources,noise, public service and utilities, and transportation and traffic would be less severe than those impacts associated with the proposed project. Within the discussion of impacts for each alternative, the Draft EIR analyzes the ability of each alternative to meet the primary objectives of the proposed development project. As shown, none of the alternatives could simultaneously meet the primary objectives of the applicant and the Redevelopment Agency. Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is. required to describe the specific reasons for.approving the project, based on information contained within the-Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The following are significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation. • Aesthetics/Visual Quality - Vehicular headlights on neighboring residences - Cumulative contribution to increases in nighttime light levels - Cumulative contribution to the loss of public coastal views • Air Quality - Daily emissions generated during operation • Noise - Cumulative increase in roadway noise levels (Main Street, from Sixth Street to Palm Avenue) i • Public Services and Utilities . I - Cumulative contribution to solid waste generation Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided,the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. PC_Staff Report 9-24-02 -20- (02sr39 Strand EIR 0 1-02) Public Comments As mentioned above, the Draft EIR was circulated to the public for review and all interested parties, property owners, and occupants within three hundred feet of the site were notified of the document's availability. The public and responsible agencies were thus able to review the document and submit comments within the forty-five day public comment period. A total of two study sessions were also held with the Planning Commission to.listen to comments and concerns. The public was also invited to the Study Sessions. Comments received from the public.in writing have been responded to in the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 3) of the EIR. The comments have covered a wide spectrum of issues and concerns including but not limited to: consistency with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, traffic, noise, land use compatibility, air quality, open space, lighting, parking, cultural resources, waste management, water quality, and project alternatives. All verbal and written comments received during the 45-day public comment period have been responded to and are included in the Response to Comments of the EIR. The EIR is attached under separate cover (see Attachment No. 3) and is available for review at the Central Library, Main Street Branch Library, and the Planning Department, P floor, City hall. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 serves as an.informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated.with The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 01-02 because: ■ The EIR adequately addresses'the.environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1575 (Final EIR No. 01-02) 2. Final EIR No. 01-02 includes Responses to Comments (under separate cover—not attached) 3. Technical Appendices EIR No. 01-02(under separate cover—not attached) SH:HF:JJ:rl PC Staff Report 9-24-02 -21- (02sr39 Strand EIR 01-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1575 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NUMBER 01-02 FOR THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH (BLOCKS 104/105) PROJECT WHEREAS, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)'Number 01-02 was prepared to address the environmental implications of the proposed The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Project. ■ On August 15, 2001,.a Notice of Preparation for the draft SEIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. I ■ On July 19, 2002, in accordance with' CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review and comment from July 19, 2002 to September 3, 2002, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the SEIR on September 24, 2002 in which comments were received on the SEIR;and NOW, THEREFORE;the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations,the following findings are hereby made: 1. The environmental analysis covers the areas of Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities,Transportation and Circulation. 2. As mitigated, there are significant unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics/Visual Resources. 3. As mitigated, there are significant unavoidable impacts on Air Quality. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby additionally find that the SEIR identifies cumulative project impacts that are partially mitigated, but not to a level considered less than significant. Adverse cumulative impacts identified in the SEIR that have not been mitigated to a less than significant level are as follows: Aesthetics/Visual Resources The cumulative impacts of The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project on aesthetics/visual resources have been mitigated as much as possible. There are unavoidable significant impacts on aesthetics/visual resources relating to contribution to increases in nighttime,light levels and to the loss of public coastal views within the City of Huntington Beach that cannot be mitigated. 1 Noise The cumulative impacts of The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project on noise have been mitigated as much as possible. There are unavoidable significant impacts on noise relating to increase in roadway noise levels that cannot be mitigated. Public Services The cumulative impacts of The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project on public services have been mitigated as much as possible. There are unavoidable significant impacts on public services relating to solid waste generation that cannot be mitigated. SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings of fact, written comments and verbal testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: 1. At public hearings, the Planning Commission considered public testimony, staff presentations, and Planning Commission reports on the proposed project and the SEIR prepared for the project. 2. The SEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects. The SEIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts and impacts, which cannot be avoided through mitigation. SECTION 4. Based upon the above. recitations, findings, and conclusions the Planning Commission hereby determines: 1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of, the California Environmental Quality Acti Guidelines, the Planning Commission certifies that EIR 99-2 (SCH No. 1999081123) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission, prior to reaching a decision on The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Project. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby certify the SEIR Number 01-02 (SCH No. 2000051109), set forth in Section 3 above. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 24th day of September 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson,Planning Commission 2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. Ol-02 AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3"D. FLOOR, 2000 MAIN ST. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL LIBRARY 7111 TALBERT AVE. ATTA CHMENT 2 TECHNICAL APPENDICES FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. O1-02 AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3RD. FLOOR, 2000 MAIN ST. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL LIBRARY 7111 TALBERT AVE. AT . ' A CHMENT 3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01-02 VOLUME I - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET 3" FLOOR - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR - CITY CLERK -47 1 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) * 1 � Pb t _ - �! } 1 .r• q d � �� 4 r t , tea• E 1 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 1 State Clearinghouse No. 2000051.109 Volume I (Responses to Comments) `f t + Y. fitill i til i Prepared for: Prepared by: ITO Assocceres The City of Huntington Beach EIP Associates 2000 Main Street 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles,CA 90025 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. Ol-02 WITH TECHNICAL APPENDICES - VOLUME II AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET 3RD FLOOR - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR - CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT 6 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) E 1 t y r 1 .. i 7 a Final Subsequent Environmental impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2000051109 Volume II (Revised Draft EIR) 1 .— .. ... - a a - ,c i Prepared for: Prepared by: `i A S S O C I A T p 5 The City of Huntington Beach EIP Associates 2000 Main Street 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles,CA 90025 i 4 �.... -v _ __ __• � ._ _ j ;y � .r. �.: r a.r..ym.„,.- _ ;¢. �:v _ '^ mom:--.. -'-� �-.__ <.aX: _ _ ., l ' 122.fi2' I 122.63' I 115'- I 11ErAa/tEsuuRAH15/orruz iD22/U S L.W 2 ..IF72 3 RfSIP0l11AL I /a50D/1lAf 1 AE9Lf7Y7Ut I 57A L1716KNplt OOIORNCAL :•"'� - -LMJ ./E90,al MAL CLA 102M SF 1.1%451ALIRMT am.0 to ensM a mor.m. o1 40.000 SF E705T16 L Raa ': WALNUT AVENUE Total 6TICE arm n.1 to-c-d.—I.—or XODO SF�nnc- + w1DVLRn u1E -—- -—' ULlsun:Iasi W LINE . 120N7 3 i I 0 Y lAuon c mn lavoaT � 302.62' ' - } `. LIYd 1 s •1. Sd Room J9J19 Y (f- ) i ri 1 � w i~ `•• t HOTEL TOTAL(152 Rooms). 120.N7 3 NOT NOT i W TOTAL PROJECT AREA 222G17!F•Ia7mLNaAt 1n •�• y . 2�{ d • TomMIX" Lm Iti r 1 I B�'I� >.) 9 p„�K N, Does N0T 7nt5de Yarlkd Qro�aliau Coo k Caridwa N 1 L .: <:: 7 I TTI7AIURESTAURANT/ R tY EXCEPT n HOTEL 1N r OFFICE - z xota - 1 I a • =13' > I I PARIfmC Sl11YARY 125.13' O ' �IETAIIJREST ' I I "f''l'/ I C'[enffRGAI SMALE PAFIaND G SPAM --- - - - - y '<k;!?ii'%.' PARKING SMXFURE 2-La.ek Id..../, ( gads)105 SPACES b I I I 'Jry'w: EIaS1I1G STREET PARKING REYAICNC 7 SPATES - 1 I RtsmprTall I /ii TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED- 418 SPACES oil ------�r � y ( ^;(1;: i..,"7 A.�•'p�!,fr Q ':•, + / I FR0.ca suwARr-Lat055 MIRM AREAI L._____ ;.,•,I t l.. ��;r%. �;•/:. I BULWF,A 10119 5F RC510ENT1A[ y •- �� saw s' I BLM B saA� .,,.;, ':•><. ( teM 1(Reid) rJtA6 Y "' ' :•:'' I ❑ Lnd 2 Y "r`• ALL/RESTAURANi :f +`:>: teal l(Mce) 121775E 1 ' O I lass, foS "I t ..•? ?•. ` '::'*`�' :.:.•�..•....•. 1 , l B111.DING B �A� 1 fti20 s y—BEVY , 1 '' ":':::::'.,'%` + 4607Y ell (R t ertmonl/Aafa!) HOTEL AB�YE as y o %%}[ I i L.t d z(ar J Tru Srql I I r I '%•. =: >�. >: :;.:;,;� .;.,..,:a:,:::::::.:>:: � 9uaDltcc n96s r BLD(� CSLDQ E I l 'r Tr-. t. ImTs EMT PA!ANa ;;>:r s<::> > , Led,(aa ao�,�a.1aa) aTSF Y-zr y RETA1l1BE3T RET JpM�TAURANT oeA o_�_ �O oT A DART %`i:}yi'FJ::iity:Y.S.:>:' I i P6 t.wl z(0L6n) 3(IS sE I [' f �- 1AAMM D.t,F t G 170M SF E r L-_1_J -t - 1 :$; I BWel I •:f%' 4i;i43 aG;BUA;.WNG�' Ip 1 L.M 1(Rafaaon(7R.IdJ 19722Y 1 . ,'.'. y......:. :A::F'ART,: Ri0PEQ1Y ti ® RETABJ �`• ;�;:,s� ;;::s.:;;:�:�:':::::.�:: I LOW z(RDrd) asays L..d 3(Md.0) JAAT9Y m L.M 1(AW) JAM Y at. 1 FW s w NFaG/TaDlem 1 , I - TOTAL PR =.,r O.ECf AREA 2255M SF- J• \ I ' �' :7Y b "• ( "k"Idle,An Pmtcd a clam Cale&C.Mo. 1r 1wm 1 mTW1E HIaERn IlE I PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY l OIT R ffAW TVA®void a ne see AmnOIAL S KD.r.marAnim GROSS SITE AREA(Including 5th St.)= 129M SF.(32.96 AC) Ma Lla .111 A{a1LY PMM A r{"5s fL PAGFlC COAST W AY(100'R/W) OM SIE NSA PROP T+x NET SITE AREA(EXCLUDING 51h St.and a0 skeet deftatims)- IN SF (32.39 AC.) �O,�L n A610 2�551-W - _—_ _—_—_—__—_ _ _ _ _ _—_---_—_—_ _—_—. 17111 7FI52-W f AGFIC COAST IGHWAY 21lsrm SIATVEY PAGFlC CO ST HIGHWAY TI-1ST-m 245.27' 47.25' a mL Nc i1`-l51,1i thT LOT SIZE DWENSpN,IYP. sm MLY.am eoIILYAl01.sm sm T_nT-LI tlGILFK0al GiaalesA WIM Tf15T-11 M aso.- 0a sr E7r779AC P[R»� RIW PAP&M /� T Am r 1 EIISUNG P[A Ta-EST-m T�Iss-aF 71-Iss-la 71-iSYlb N a.MOoha/TA.a-.b I.-e a1II.1 la.is TR.a.Ah Tl 17! 1�\ ma,r.lay R`951 The STRAND-Downtown HnnUngton Beach � c1m pS,y=W6 p�dmep�, 0 60' do' 90' Septanber3,2002 CiienBler. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Appeal of Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 (The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach - Blocks 104/105 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 RCA 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 Attome 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 Not Applicable r EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS r REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial LciiyClerk i EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: dry Space . Only) I RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:rl