Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACIFIC CITY PROJECT (1 OF 6) 5/3/04 - Study Session on P
�J v Council/Agency Meeting Held: — - Deferred/Continued to: Approved J Conditionally Approved =] Denied /�Pfrl City erk' ignatur Council Meeting Date June 7, 2004 Department ID Number: PL 04-06 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION = SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER� 2:; SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, City Administrator I PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning /�L�--�t/'C�� ;/ �— SUBJECT: CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO✓✓✓RT NO,,,. 02-01 (PACIFIC CITY) 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 The Robert Mayer Corporation and an appeal by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01. This application represents a request by Makar Properties to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with development on an approximate 31 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 516 condominiums. a 400-room hotel, up to 240,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses, private and public open space and associated infrastructure. The Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report and staff is recommending the City Council also certify the document because the Environmental Impact Report adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Motion to: "Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 by approving Resolution No. (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." �, t REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 Planning Commission Action on March 23, 2004: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 02-01 BY APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1589 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, LIVENGOOD, RAY, SCANDURA, SHOMAKER, THOMAS NOES: NONE ABSENT: DINGWALL ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (Appellant's Request)." 2. "Continue the Appeal of Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (between 1" and Huntington Streets, south of Atlanta Ave.) Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (EIR No. 02-01) represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a mixed use project that includes up to 516 condominium units, a 400-room hotel, up to 240,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses, private and public open space and associated infrastructure on an approximate 31 acre site. Infrastructure improvements include the extension of Pacific View Drive between First and Huntington Streets and improvements to Huntington and First Streets, Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities and service PL04-06 -2• 5/24/2004 9:52 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 systems. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. The EIR consists of three volumes. Volume 1 is the Draft EIR that was circulated for a minimum 45-day public review period. Volume 2 is the Appendices to the Draft EIR that was circulated concurrently with Volume 1. Volume 3 is titled the Final EIR and includes the Comments received during the public review period, Responses to those comments and Text Changes to the Draft EIR (Volumes 1 and 2) to clarify or correct information in response to comments or as identified as necessary by staff. These volumes are referenced as Attachment No. 3 to this staff report. Attachment No. 4 is the Planning Commission staff report, which provides a review of the EIR analysis and includes an additional comment letter and associated response as well as a corrected Text Change page to Volume 3. An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the City Council after action on the EIR. The companion report reviews applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permits, Coastal Development No. 02-12 and Conceptual Master Plan. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on EIR No. 02-01 on March 23, 2004 (see Attachment No. 5 for the meeting minutes.) The Planning Commission heard pubic testimony from 52 speakers, 34 of which were in support of the project. The 18 speakers that raised issues about the project, including the two appellants, cited concerns related to traffic, soil remediation, wetlands, water quality, the nearby mobile home park, street and sidewalk improvements to Atlanta and Huntington, parking, construction impacts and oil access. The Planning Commission asked questions regarding soil remediation, public services, traffic, wetlands, air quality, cultural resources, oil overlays and water quality. The Planning Commission voted to certify EIR No. 02-01. C. APPEAL: On April 1, 2004, The Robert Mayer Corporation appealed the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR (Attachment No. 6). The appeal letter cites the adequacy of the EIR and lists five specific issues: traffic and parking, water quality, project alternatives, wetlands and the City's responses to the Draft EIR comment letters. On April 2, 2004, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC, appealed the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR (Attachment No. 7). The appeal letter is concerned with the adequacy of the EIR with respect to the Oil Overlay "C" provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan. Numbering has been added to the margin of each letter to enumerate the comments. The numbering corresponds to detailed responses to the comments that are provided following each letter. PL04-06 -3- 5124/2004 9:52 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding Pacific City. The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the development proposal. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Staff believes that the EIR is adequate and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. There are, however, some adverse environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. These include air quality impacts from construction and project traffic, and transportation impacts. These effects can be lessened by mitigation measures suggested in the environmental impact report, and staff and the Planning Commission recommend these be incorporated into the project. The Planning Commission staff report from March 23. 2004 (Attachment No. 4) provides a review of the EIR. The analysis below focuses on the two appeals. A brief summary of each appeal issue is presented. A detailed response to The Robert Mayer Corporation (RMC) letter is provided in Attachment No. 6. A detailed response to the Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (LBBS) letter is provided in Attachment No. 7. Traffic and Parking The EIR examines the potential impacts related to traffic generation, parking demand and access. The analysis takes into consideration the transportation improvements that will be constructed with the project, including improvements to Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street and the construction of Pacific View Drive. A project specific traffic study was completed that includes an analysis of traffic conditions in Year 2008 and Year 2020 to assess potential impacts at project buildout and the long-term effect of the project in conjunction with other growth within the city. In response to comments from the City of Newport Beach, a traffic study addendum was prepared to examine potential impacts to intersections in that city. The addendum was considered by the Planning Commission, is included in the Final EIR and concludes that no significant impacts would result in the City of Newport Beach. Staff and the consultants believe that adequate analysis has been completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The RMC appeal takes issue with the use of internal capture rates, mode shift reductions and shared parking in the traffic analysis asserting that the resulting traffic generation and parking demand projections underestimate the project's impacts. These methodologies are accepted industry practice in traffic engineering. Internal capture refers to reductions in trips 1 PL04-06 -4. 5/2412004 9:52 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 taken due to the interaction of uses on-site, e.g. a Pacific City hotel guest who walks to a restaurant in the visitor-serving commercial component of the project only generates a vehicle trip for the hotel; therefore, the number of vehicle trips associated with the visitor- serving commercial use should be adjusted. For the Pacific City project, internal capture ranges from 8 to 15 percent, based on the type of use and time period. Mode shift refers to reductions in trips to account for trips to and from the site not made via a motor vehicle, e.g. persons that come to Main Street or the beach as a primary trip and visit the site by foot or hotel visitors that would normally drive to a recreation point that instead walk to the beach or downtown area. For the Pacific City project, mode shift reductions range from 10 to 25 percent, based on the type of use and the time period. In total, the overall trip reduction assumed in the traffic analysis ranges from 18 to 32 percent. In terms of the parking demand, the traffic study uses a shared parking approach, which is similar to the mode shift analysis completed for the traffic generation projections. For the Pacific City project, the shared parking analysis results in 13 percent less parking spaces in the project than if the project were parked for each individual use per City code. The Pacific City traffic and parking analyses were reviewed and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. They are consistent with the approach taken on other multi-use projects in the city and the region. Most recently, the approved Strand project included an internal capture of 10 percent and a 30 percent reduction for mode shift. In terms of the use of shared parking, this methodology is the basis for the Downtown Parking Master Plan and was also used for the Bella Terra project. The RMC appeal also references the design of Pacific View Avenue, the omission of the 3`d hotel that may be built at the Waterfront site in the 2008 traffic analysis and a review document on the draft traffic study by the City's subconsultant. In summary response, contrary to the comment the EIR analyzes Pacific View Avenue as a two-lane roadway as well as a four-lane roadway (its ultimate buildout condition) and the potential effects thereof to parking. The 3`d Waterfront hotel, although not entitled/approved, was included in the 2020 (buildout) analysis of the traffic study. It was not included in the 2008 scenario as there was no evidence to indicate that it would be operational at that time. Finally, the City's traffic subconsultant reviewed the draft traffic study. Their comments were provided to the traffic consultant prior to the study being approved by the City and circulated for review. Their comments are incorporated into the study, rather than being a separate reference document. The traffic and parking issues raised in the RMC appeal letter are essentially the same as those in their comment letter on the Draft EIR and are responded to in the Final EIR in responses RMC-4, RMC-5, RMC-8-19, RMC-24 and RMC-28. In addition staff has prepared a separate, detailed response to the appeal letter, which is provided in Attachment No. 6 (items 1-9) of this RCA. Water Quality Currently the project site drains to an existing storm drain pipe that conveys runoff to the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station (ASWPS). Due to the fact that the ASWPS is significantly overcapacity, the City directed the applicant to route most of the project's stormwater to First PL04-06 -5- 5/24/2004 9:52 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 Street to tie into the City's existing stormdrain, which outlets onto the beach. The remainder of the stormwater would continue to be routed to a pipe that connects to the ASWPS. The project's preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which was prepared and analyzed for the EIR, reflects these conditions. Based on the proposed drainage plan, the project will contribute less than 15 percent of the stormwater flow in the First St. storm drain line. To comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions, i.e. Best Management Practices (BMPs), the project's preliminary WQMP proposes to construct an on-site filtration system that would treat first flush storm flows and dry weather flows consistent with current regulations. In addition, the City has agreed to allow the project's dry weather flows to be routed to the ASWPS and then to the Orange County Sanitation District for treatment. The EIR concludes that due to project design features and standard City requirements, impacts related to water quality will be less than significant. The RMC appeal states that the EIR did not adequately consider the potential for bacterial contamination of the beach as a result of project drainage. The Final EIR includes a topical response on water quality that discusses issues related to bacterial contamination. Moreover, as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, there are no standards for bacterial contamination as part of the NPDES regulations. Staff believes that this issue has been adequately addressed. See Attachment No. 6, items 10 and 11, for a more detailed response. Project Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR: • No Project/No Development Alternative — Maintain the project site in its current state. • Reasonably Foreseeable Development— Analyzes buildout of the site pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, includes 1.4 million sq. ft. of visitor-serving commercial. • Reduced Project Alternative — Analyzes a reduction in the amount of visitor-serving commercial uses: 191,000 sq. ft. versus 240,000 sq. ft. with the proposed project. The RMC appeal letter questions the adequacy of the alternatives analysis in the EIR, indicating that alternatives that examine fewer residential units or a smaller hotel should have been considered. These comments were previously raised by RMC on the Draft EIR and responded to in the Final EIR in RMC-31 through RMC-36. The EIR alternatives analysis does include discussion of a reduced residential density alternative in Section 4.3.3, and in response to comments on the Draft EIR additional text was added in the Final EIR to quantify PL04-06 -6- 5/24/2004 9:52 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 potential air quality benefits that might result. However, this alternative was not carried forward for more detailed analysis. Likewise, a limited development alternative was also considered in Section 4.3.2, which examined a smaller commercial component. As noted in CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not analyze every alternative to a project. Rather, the focus is on alternatives that meet project objectives and reduce significant impacts that would not otherwise be mitigated. Staff believes that the project EIR accomplishes this and is adequate. Attachment No. 6, items 12-14, provides a more detailed response on this issue. Wetlands The EIR includes an analysis of potential impacts to plant and wildlife as well as wetlands. Two biological surveys were conducted (2001 and 2003). The 2003 survey was primarily conducted to generally assess the potential wetland characteristics of the site. As described in the EIR, groundwater seepage had occurred in the remediation pits located in the southeastern portion of the site, resulting in vegetation growth. The EIR concludes that once the remediation is finished and the site is brought back to natural conditions, that a determination for wetlands should be done at that time. Based on the site surveys, site history and various planning and environmental documents, the EIR concludes that no significant impacts to biological resources would likely result; however, MM BIO-1 is recommended to address potential impacts to special status plant species or habitat that may exist on site prior to grading. Overall, construction of the project is not expected to have any significant impacts on biological resources. The RMC appeal letter questions the level of analysis in the EIR, the thoroughness of the Planning Commission's review with respect to late correspondence from the California Coastal Commission and conclusions of the EIR with respect to wetlands. Staff believes that the EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA in its analysis of existing conditions and potential impacts to wetlands, consistent with existing Federal and State regulations. With respect to the late correspondence, it was provided to the Planning Commission and there was discussion relative to it. Finally, the RMC appeal letter misrepresents the conclusions of the EIR. The EIR does not state or imply that wetlands, if they exist, could be destroyed or mitigated offsite. A detailed response to the RMC appeal letter is located in items 15-20 of Attachment No. 6. Response to Comments The RMC appeal letter cites three areas of concern with respect to the Response to Comments prepared by the City in the Final EIR. Two of these items pertain to the level of detail provided in the Topical Responses on Traffic, Parking and Water Quality. Staff believes that the Topical Responses and the associated detailed responses are adequately supported by data and industry practice. With respect to the item regarding the number of walk-in customers from the downtown, the traffic generation forecast assumes an approximate 3,000 daily trip end reduction due to mode shift from the beach, adjacent hotels, surrounding residential, and downtown. This equates to a reduction of only 1,500 daily visitations to the site because each visitation has two trip ends (one arriving and one PL04-06 -7- 5/24/2004 9:52 AM I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 departing). Attachment No. 6, items 21-23, includes a more detailed response to these issues. Oil Overlay "C" The LBBS appeal contends that the EIR did not adequately address the issue of geology and mineral resources consistent with City codes because a minimum two acre oil island is not included in the Pacific City project plans. The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) includes an oil island overlay, Oil Overlay "C," on the Pacific City site. In reference to the three oil overlays in the DTSP, Section 4.14 of the DTSP states: "Existing and/or expanded oil production may continue in these areas provided that the additional conditions outlined in this subsection are met." The referenced subsection for Oil Overlay "C" sets forth what needs to be included in a development project's plans to allow for future oil drilling. The LBBS appeal argues that this subsection, which states that a conceptual site plan for the overlay must be submitted and shall include a minimum two acre oil island, is a requirement for the project. Because the Pacific City project does not propose future oil drilling, staff does not believe that the referenced subsection is invoked. In other words, the language of Section 4.14 is permissive in the event that a project chooses to include oil drilling. Although this issue was previously responded to in the Final EIR, Attachment No. 7 contains a specific response to the appeal letter. In addition, the City Attorney's office has prepared a legal opinion on this matter, which is provided in Attachment No. 8. E. SUMMARY Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pacific City project, alternatives which minimize those impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. All comments on the EIR have been responded to in the Final EIR, at public meetings and in the administrative record. Staff believes that the EIR fulfills the requirements of CEQA and recommends that the City Council certify EIR No. 02-01 because: 1) The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and 2) Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Environmental Status: In accordance with CEQA, Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 was prepared by EIP Associates, a consultant hired by the City to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2004. The EIR must be certified by the City Council prior to any action on Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permits and Coastal Development No. 02-12. Prior to PL04-06 -8- 5/24/2004 9:52 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-06 certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the City Council may amend the document. However, removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page Description 1. Resolution No. a otA- 3'1 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1589 certifying EIR No. 02-01 3. Final EIR No. 02-01, includes EIR, EIR Appendices, Responses to Comments and Text Changes (under separate cover-not attached) 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 23, 2004 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 23, 2004 6. Appeal letter from The Robert Mayer Corporation dated April 1, 2004 7. Appeal letter from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP dated April 2, 2004 8. City Attorney Legal Opinion regarding Oil Overlay "C" 9. Late Correspondence received for the March 23, 2004 Planning Commssion meeting 10. Power point Presentation RCA Author: MBB/SH PL04-06 -9- 5/24/2004 9:52 AM ATTACHMENT 1 I RESOLUTION NO. 2004-37 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH 42003011024) FOR THE PACIFIC CITY PROJECT WHEREAS. Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01. State Clearinghouse #2003011024, ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City`) to address the environmental implications of the proposed Pacific City Project (the "Project'); and On January 8. 2003, a Notice of Preparatior/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse. other responsible agencies. trustee agencies and interested parties; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on January 27, 2003, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on October 17. 2003: and. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from October 17, 2003 to December 3. 2003 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared as a section within a separately bound document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific City" (the "Responses to Comments'), dated February 2004: and Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision: and The Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on March 23. 2004, and received and considered public testimony; and The Plannins Commission certified the EIR on March 23. 2004; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on June 7. 2004, and received and considered public testimony. NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. California, does hereby resolve, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR. 04msc EIR-Cenitkatimd?/14/04 I Resolution 2004-37 the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies ' commenting on the Draft EIR), the Text Changes to the Draft EIR (bound together with the Responses to Comments) and all Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach. California 92648. SECTION 2. The City Council rinds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no knoNyn potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if'the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. SECTION 4. The Citv Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project' Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further. the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The City Council finds that the minor refinements that have been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the mitigation measures do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings field on the Project, or through the continents on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation as defined in each mitigation measure. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the Cite' Council reviewed and considered the information contained in 04rew/F IR-C eni tication/i/1404 Resolution 2004-37 the Final EIR prior to approving Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 and Coastal Development Permit No, 02-12. SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a reeular meetin, thereof held on the 7 th day of June . 700 4 �lv<Do APPROVED AS TO FORM: v Clerk City Attorney REVI WED AI APPROVED: INITIAT D AND APPROVED: Citti Administrator Dilector of Planning 04rcso/kiIR-Ccnilicat on/$/14/04 3 Res. No. 2004-37 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly appointed, 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 7th day of June, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Cby Clerk and'ex-offici0clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1589 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2003011024) FOR THE PACIFIC CITY PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01, State Clearinghouse 92003011024, ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Pacific City Project (the "Project`). • On January 8, 2003, a Notice of Preparation/initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on January 27, 2003, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on October 17, 2003. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from October 17, 2003 to December 3, 2003 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission as a section within a separately bound document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific City" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated February 2004; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on March 23, 2004, and received and considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, Califomia, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR), the Text Changes to the Draft EIR (bound together with the Responses to Comments) and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the `'No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the minor refinements that have been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the mitigation measures do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation as defined in each mitigation measure. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02- 20 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 23rd day of March 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: oward Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 3 The Final EIR No. 02-01 is available for review at the following locations within the City of Huntington Beach: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street, 3rd Flr. Huntington Beach Central Library 7111 Talbert, Reference Desk Main Street Branch Library 525 Main Street, Main Desk www.ci.huntinQton- beach ca.us/citydepartments/planninLy/mai.or projects On File for Public Review in the Office of the City Clerk ATTACHMENT 4 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT euanBcioM BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Mary Beth Broeren; Principal PlanneY� DATE: March 23, 2004 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ENIPACT REPORT NO. 02-01 (Pacific City) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 150,Newport OWNER: Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (between 1" and Huntington Streets, south of Atlanta Ave.) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (EIR No. 02-01): - Analyzes proposed development on an approximate 31 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 516 condominiums, a 400-room hotel, up to 240,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses, private and public open space and associated infrastructure including the extension of Pacific View Drive - Documents potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems. - Evaluates three alternatives to the proposed project. - Concludes that the Reduced Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the project and the Reduced Project Alternative with the exception of impacts to air quality and transportation/traffic, which would remain significant and unavoidable. • Staffs Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 02-01 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project, identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 02-01 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1539 (Attachment No. I)." LJ 3/812004 4:17:38 R.1 J� L�j —j MH L— : 44 w. ClIcagO All. I 7-1 > PL bF Bell more Ave- C!l 0 0.1 A > F DO 0 zti Ilk, P z'A'! 11c, ToLI ..--Q 0 0 of g —1 -A-, - --I 2Y, Pacific City Vicinity Map City of Huntington Beach Scaie: !"= -'M' LocationWap ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 02-01 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 02-01 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Imoact Report No. 02-01 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a mixed use project that includes up to 516 condominium units, a 400- room hotel, up to 240,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses, private and public open space and associated infrastructure on an approximate 31 acre site. Infrastructure improvements include the extension of Pacific View Drive between First and Huntington Streets and improvements to Huntington and First Streets, Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. The EIR consists of three volumes. Volume 1 is the Draft EIR that was circulated for a minimum 45-day public review period. Volume 2 is the Appendices to the Draft EIR that was circulated concurrently with Volume 1. Volume 3 is titled the Final EIR and includes the Comments received during the public review period, Responses to those comments and Text Changes to the Draft EIR (Volumes 1 and 2) to clarify or correct information in response to comments or as identified as necessary by staff. These volumes are referenced as Attachment No. 2 to this staff report. Attachment No. 3 provides a corrected Text Change page to Volume 3. 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 EIR. The companion report reviews applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permits, Coastal Development No. 02-12 and Conceptual Master Plans. Background: On June 2, 1999, Coastal Development Permit No. 99-1, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-1 and Negative Declaration No. 99-1 were approved for export of approximately 226,000 cubic yards of soil from the project site to the Hyatt Regency Resort site. This application was initiated by developers of the Hyatt Regency Resort site. The soil was extracted from the northern central portion of the property under the oversight of the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. On December 13, 2000, Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 were approved for the excavation. Sta[Reoort - 3/2=/0u 2 (04sr14) temporary stockpiling and remediation on-site of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. This application was initiated by Chevron Environmental Management Company. The remediation activity pursuant to these entitlements is ongoing. ISSUES: Subject Propert nd Surroutndinp Land Use Zoning And General Platt Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Residential High Density Downtown Specific Plan Vacant and Commercial Visitor (SP 5) —District 7 (Visitor Serving Commercial and District 8A (High Density Residential) North of Subject Residential Medium Residential Medium High Multi-family units Property High Density Density-Small Lot (across Atlanta Ave.): East of Subject Residential Medium Manufactured Home Park Mobilehome park and Property (across Density and Commercial and SP 5 — District 9 Waterfront Hilton Huntington St. : Visitor (Commercial/Recreation) Hotel South of Subject Open Space-Shore SP 5 — District I (Beach South Beach Parking Property(across Open Space) Lot, Beach and Beach PCH): Improvements West of Subject Mixed Use Vertical SP 5 —District 3 (Visitor Commercial, Oil- Property(across I" Serving Commercial) and Related and St.): District 5 (Mixed Use; Residential Commercial/Office/ Residential) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designations on the subject property are CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor- max. floor area ratio of 3.0-Specific Plan) and RH-30-sp (High Density Residential-max. 30 u/gac- Specific Plan). In addition, the project is located within Subareas 4C and 4I of the General Plan. The EIR is consistent with these designations and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Air Quality Element Policv,4O 1.3.2. Require that employment centers with 100 or more employees increase the availability and the "attractiveness" of parking spaces for vans and carpools. Mitigation Measure AQ-7 requires that preferential parking spaces be provided for carpools and vanpools. In addition, it specifies the minimum vertical clearance needed for vanpool access. Jiai°ZCt'.Or[- :"_1T.1 - ( =5C.1) Policv AO 1.8.1: Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. Policv AO 1.8.2: Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 address means by which air emission impacts will be minimized, primarily by complying with the SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust. Policv AO 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 requires that the developer implement a variety of methods to reduce project-related stationary and area source emissions using energy conservation features. B. Circulation Element Policv CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. Policv CE 2.3.4: Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to maintain adequate levels of service. The EIR included a detailed traffic analysis to document potential impacts associated with the project. Mitigation would be required for the intersection of PCH and Seapoint and PCH and Warner, as well as a traffic signal at is` and Atlanta. Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-3 require the developer to contribute its fair share of the cost of these improvements and construct the signal. C. Coastal Element Policv C 1.2.3. Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy. Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-3 require the developer to contribute its fair share of the cost of certain traffic improvements and construct a traffic signal. The EIR analysis further concludes that the development will be adequately served with infrastructure. Policv C 5.1.2: Where new development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources within the Coastal Zone, reasonable mitigation measures to minimize impacts shall be required. The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and recommends Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Staff Repon - 3i2:/0- 4 {0-sr14) D. Environmental Hazards Element Policv EH 1.2.1: Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Nlitieation Measure GEO-1 requires that the grading plan contain the recommendations of the final soils and geotechnical analysis, which would address groundshaking, liquefaction, compaction, foundations, etc. Objective EH 5.2. Provide information to the public regarding tsunami areas and emergency response plans. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 fulfills this objective by requiring the developer to prepare a plan that would include tsunami safety information to project residents and guests, identification of an evacuation site and a plan for notifying residents and other persons on site in the event of a tsunami warning or watch. E. Growth Management Element Policv GM 1.1.7 Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security. Mitigation Measure PS-4 requires the applicant to consult with the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate crime prevention design measures and to incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. F. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected. The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and recommends Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. G. Housing Element Policv H 3.1.l: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. Mitigation Measure P-1 requires the preparation and implementation of an affordable housing plan to fulfill the Citv's affordable housing requirements. >mff Report-:i23I0i 104�ii1) H. Land Use Element Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-3 require the developer to contribute its fair share of the cost of transportation improvements and construct a traffic signal. The EIR also documents that as part of project design, numerous transportation and utility improvements are proposed to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided for the project. Policv LU 2.1.is Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Mitigation Measures PS-5 requires that the developer negotiate with the affected school districts regarding school impact fees to address the project's potential impacts. I. Noise Element Policv N 1.2.1. Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) and an interior Ldn of 45 dB(A), that all new development of"noise sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, and religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation treasures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. The project will be required to reduce potential noise impacts for proposed residential private open space areas along First Street and Atlanta and Pacific View Avenues pursuant to Mitigation Measure N-2, consistent with this policy. J. Public Facilities and Services Element Obiective PF 1.3: Ensure that new developments in Huntington Beach are designed to encourage safety. Mitigation Measure PS-4 requires the applicant to consult with the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate crime prevention design measures and to incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Policv PF 2.3.3: Ensure that new construction is designed with fire and emergency access and safety in mind. The EIR documents that Mitigation Measures PS-I through PS-3 are necessary to ensure adequate emergency pedestrian access for the subterranean parking structures and to provide dedicated fire control rooms to better manage an emergency situation on site. Obiecrive PF 3.2: Decrease the need for rescues and emergency responses by increasing public awareness of marine safety. Staff Reoon- /23,04 6 (0=ar1») Mitigation Measure PS-6 requires the preparation and implementation of a Beach Safety and Maintenance Awareness Program to fulfill this objective. K. Recreation and Community Services Element Policv RCS 2.1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, which includes the beach in the calculation. The applicant will be required to comply with Mitigation Measure REC-1, which specifies that the City's parkland ordinance be adhered to. Zonine Compliance: Not applicable. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: In accordance with CEQA, Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 was prepared by EIP Associates, a consultant hired by the City to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The EIR must be certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permits and Coastal Development No. 02-12. The procedure that was followed during the preparation of EIR No. 02-01 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY January 8, 2003 Staff conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR was necessary. January 8-10, 2003 A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. A 30-day public review period was established. A notice of availability was sent to area property owners, occupants and interested parties. January 27, 2003 A Scoping Meeting was held to take comments on the Initial Study and NOP. September 23, 2003 Planning Commission Study Session on EIR process October 17, 2003 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for 45-day public review period. November 13, 2003 City held a public information meeting to take comments on the project. December 3, 2003 EIR public review period ended. February 23-25, 2004 Final EIR (including Response to Comments on Draft EIR, Text Changes to Draft EIR, Addendum Technical Appendix and Comments) made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.) February 241h and I Planning Commission Study Session March 9rh 2004 March 23, 2004 Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No 02-01 7 Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. There are. however, some adverse environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. These include air quality impacts from construction and project traffic and transportation impacts. These effects can be lessened by mitigation measures suggested in the environmental impact report, and staff recommends these be incorporated into the project. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the Planning Commission may amend the document. However, removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. The analysis section of this report contains further discussion regarding the EIR. Environmental Board: The City's Environmental Board reviewed the EIR and provided a comment letter during the public review period. The letter has been responded to in the Response to Comments. In summary, the Board commented on the following: pedestrian traffic, air quality, water quality, traffic improvements and hazardous materials. Coastal Status: The proposed project is within the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 is being processed concurrently with EIR No. 02-01 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. The 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 effect on redevelopment issues is discussed in a separate report. Design 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. Public rVotirication: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on March 11, 2004, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, occupants within 300 feet, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Staff Report- ?/2=/0 8 Matrix), applicant, interested parties, and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental document. Application Processina Dates: DATE OF COyLPLETE APPLICATION: MANi DATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Jan. 8. 2001 April 7, 2004 (Includes max. 90-day extension allowed by CEQA) ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides an overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. It is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 15 issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. A summary of key issues and mitigation measures as a result of the environmental impact report process is provided below. A complete listing of the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring Program provided as Attachment No. 5. ♦ Aesthetics Implementation of the project will alter views of the area and introduce new sources of light and glare. The EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with these changes, including an analysis of impacts to scenic resources and vistas, the effects of shadows on adjacent uses, and the impacts of vehicle headlights on existing and proposed uses from vehicles exiting the subterranean garage and new street intersections created by the construction of Pacific View Avenue. The EIR includes visual simulations of the project and shadow projection diagrams. The EIR concludes that impacts associated with light and glare from building facades could be potentially significant and recommends Mitigation Measure (ivM) AES-1, which restricts the use of reflective materials. In terms of potential impacts associated with light and glare from nighttime lighting, the EIR concludes that impacts will be less than significant. However, in response to a comment regarding the potential impacts associated with nighttime lighting during foggy conditions, i\I i AES-2 is in in the Final EIR to further reduce impacts by having a lighting plan that addresses this condition. The EIR documents that potential impacts related to scenic resources, views, shadows and vehicle headlights will be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. • Air Quality Air quality modeling was completed by EIP Associates to assess potential impacts related to construction and operation of the project. Consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) recommendations, the EIR analyzed the following emissions: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Nitrogen Oxides (NO,), Sulfur Oxides (SO„) and Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PMio). In addition, the EIR examined if localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections would be increased beyond state and national standards as a result of increased vehicle traffic. The EIR concludes that there will be significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts associated with construction of the project as a result of construction equipment emissions of NO, and VOC. In addition, there will be significant and unavoidable long-term impacts associated with daily operation of the project as a result of vehicle emissions of NO, and VOC. The project results in less than significant impacts for all other emissions. The project will have to comply with standard requirements such as SCAQMD's Rule 403 related to fugitive dust during construction. The EIR also recommends seven mitigation measures to further reduce air quality impacts; however, the impacts noted above will remain significant and unavoidable, thus requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. In response to a comment regarding the City's standard notification radius of 300 feet for grading activities, the City will increase the notification requirement to surrounding property owners and tenants to 500 feet for this project. • Biological Resources The EIR includes an analysis of potential impacts to plant and wildlife as well as wetlands. Two biological surveys were conducted (2001 and 2003). The 2003 survey was primarily conducted to assess the potential wetland characteristics of the site. As described in the EIR, groundwater seepage had occurred in the remediation pits located in the southeastern portion of the site, resulting in vegetation growth. Although the EIR concludes that no significant impacts to wetlands would result, NEvI BIO-1 is recommended to address potential impacts to special status plant species that may exist on site prior to grading. A second mitigation measure is included to minimize impacts related to disturbance of rodents during construction. Overall, construction of the project is not expected to have any significant impacts on biological resources. • Cultural Resources A detailed evaluation of two archaeological sites on the subject property was completed in 2002. CA- ORA-149 is a prehistoric midden site that is historically significant; CA-ORA-1528H is an historic dump that was determined to not be a historically significant resource. In addition, eight paleontological sites have been identified and excavated on the subject property as of 2001. The EIR concludes that implementation of the project would result in impacts to remaining significant paleontological and archaeological resources. The EIR recommends two mitigation measures to reduce impacts to these resources to less than significant, including on-site monitors during grading, trenching and other excavation activities. In response to comments from the County of Orange, the proposed mitigation measures have been modified to reflect compliance with the County of Orange Curation Project. Staff Reoon- ?i_ l0= i0 (0=srt1) • Energv and Mineral Resources The EIR reviews the project's expected energy demands and analyzes potential impacts related to mineral resources. The EIR concludes that the project will not have a significant impact on energy and mineral resources. However. the EIR does recommend N,/LVI EiM-1 to reduce less-than-significant impacts related to energy demand by requiring the project to implement an energy conservation plan. • Geology and Soils The EIR includes an analysis of existing geology, seismicity and soil conditions that would be conducive to geological constraints such as liquefaction or expansive soils. The analysis is based on the preliminary geotechnical study completed for the project, which determined that the project is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The EIR concludes that implementation of the project will require IvrIM GEO-I to minimize potential impacts to less than significant levels. This mitigation measure requires compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical study. • Hazardous Materials The subject property is part of a former oil field operated by Chevron. There are 20 abandoned oil wells throughout the project site. In addition to oily soil conditions on portions of the site, there is documentation of other soil contaminants. Also, in association with former uses on the site (restaurant and hotel), lead and asbestos abatement has been completed. Appendix E of the EIR provides a descriptive listing of previous soil investigations and activities related to hazardous materials. The EIR analyzes the potential for impacts associated with hazardous materials on existing uses, construction workers and proposed uses. The EIR identifies eight mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures call for a site assessment for PCBs, completion of all remediation of the site, submittal of closure reports and procedures to follow regarding the abandoned oil wells. The mitigation measures are structured with the knowledge that remediation will be phased at the site due to the archaeological areas and an existing water line, both areas of which will require remediation. Notwithstanding the phased approach, the mitigation measures require that the entire site be cleaned and a closure report be approved by the City prior to building permits being issued. ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality The project proposes to construct an on-site filtration system that would treat first flush storm flows and .`w dry weather flows. The system would include a below ground detention basin where runoff would be —i detained fer-treatment-prior to being discharged into the City's storm drain system. The project will also be required to comply with standard City requirements related to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions, including the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A preliminary WQMP was prepared and analyzed for the EIR. The EIR concludes that due to project design features and standard City requirements impacts related to water quality will be less than significant. Because the site is located in an area subject to tsunami run-up, the EIR does identify the need for a mitigation measure requiring the submittal of a safety plan for City approval. Staff • Land Use and Planning The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan land use designations for the site. The EER concludes that the project is consistent with the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. As such, there will not be any significant land use and planning impacts as a result of the project. • Noise Potential noise impacts relate to short-term construction activities and long-term changes in ambient conditions relate& to an increase in traffic. Ambient noise levels were measured at five locations around the project site and roadway noise levels were calculated using data from the traffic study. In terms of the short-term noise impacts from construction, the City's noise ordinance exempts noise associated with construction provided the construction takes place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. Despite this exemption, to further reduce less-than-significant impacts the EIR recommends Mvf N-I to limit the hours and days during which pile driving can occur to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. The EIR also identifies the potential for noise impacts to future private recreation areas of the project as a result of traffic noise on First, Atlanta and Pacific View. MM N-2 is recommended to require the construction of noise attenuating walls to reduce these impacts. The EIR also examined the potential for noise impacts associated with delivery vehicles as well as traffic related noise on other street segments and concluded that no significant impacts would occur. • Population and Housing This section of the EfR analyzes the potential for the project to induce population and employment growth beyond current growth projections and the impacts on housing. Because the project is consistent with the General Plan, the expected number of residents and employees is accounted for in growth projections. Moreover, the project's contribution to population and employee totals is relatively small, less than one percent. Thus, these project impacts are insignificant. The EIR documents that the project does not yet have a fully defined, or approved, affordable housing plan. A mitigation measure is recommended pertaining to the plan to ensure that impacts relative to the provision of affordable housing are less than significant. • Public Services Potential impacts to fire, police, schools and lifeguard services are analyzed in the EIR. A total of six mitigation measures are recommended. Although both the Fire and Police Departments confirmed that they have adequate staffing to serve the project, mitigation measures are included to minimize impacts to service. MVt PS-1 through NI LM PS-3 are included at the advice of the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department to reduce potential impacts related to emergency pedestrian access to/from the parking structure and to provide a dedicated area (a control room) for use by the Fire Department in an emergency. MIA PS-4 requires that the project implement Crime Prevention Design measures in final plans to assist in reduced calls for service of the Police Department. The project would also be subject to a standard mitigation measure related to mitigating impacts to school facilities by entering into a mitigation Staff Report- 1;2:/01 12 (04'sr11) agreement. Finally, although impacts to lifeguard services are expected to be less than significant, NEvI PS-6 would require the development of a Beach Safety and Maintenance Awareness Program that would be provided to project residents and hotel guests in an effort to inform beach users of safety precautions and beach reeuiations so as to minimize calls for service in this area. • Recreation The City requires that new residential projects dedicate parkland or pay park in-lien fees, or some combination thereof, to ensure that adequate recreation facilities are available. The EIR recommends ttiiVf REC-1 to address this requirement. With implementation of this mitigation measure, no significant impacts to Recreation are expected. ♦ Transportation/Traffic The EIR examines the potential impacts related to traffic generation, parking demand and access. The analysis takes into consideration the transportation improvements that will be constructed with the project, including improvements to Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street and the construction of Pacific View Drive. A project specific traffic study was completed that includes an analysis of traffic conditions in Year 2008 and Year 2020 to assess potential impacts at project buildout and the long-term effect of the project in conjunction with other growth within the city. The EIR documents that background traffic from existing and other projects, i.e. not including Pacific City, will result in certain intersections exceeding acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). However, the Pacific City project will contribute to a worsening of the LOS at two intersections that warrants mitigation. MINI TR-I and TR-2 require the project to contribute its fair share of the cost of improvements to the PCH and Warner and PCH and Seapoint intersections. Because the improvements to the intersection of PCH and Warner are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans it is utrt own when and if improvements to this intersection will occur. Therefore, the EIR concludes that this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. The project will also contribute to the need for a traffic signal at First Street and Atlanta, which is addressed by MM TR-3. The EIR shows that the project will not result in any other significant transportation/traffic related impacts. In response to comments from the City of Newport Beach, a traffic study addendum was prepared to examine potential impacts to intersections in that city. The addendum is included in the Final EIR and concludes that no significant impacts would result. • Utilities and Service Systems This section of the EIR analyzes potential impacts to water, wastewater and solid waste services. Consistent with recent legislation, a Water Supply Assessment was completed for the project. The EIR concludes impacts related to water and wastewater would be less than significant. However, mitigation is required to reduce impacts related to solid waste. MIA U-1 requires submittal of solid waste management plan that address long-term source reduction and recycling as well as construction waste. Staff R.nar- ='=10- L 04sr1=) 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. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision- making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR: ■ No Project/No Development Alternative —Maintain the project site in its current state. • Reasonably Foreseeable Development— Analyzes buildout of the site pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, includes 1.4 million sq. ft. of visitor-serving commercial. • Reduced Project Alternative— Analyzes a reduction in the amount of visitor-serving commercial uses: 191,000 sq. ft. versus 240,000 sq. ft, with the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the basic project objectives of the City or the applicant. The Reasonably Foreseeable Development would result in greater impacts than the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would meet most of the project objectives of the City and the applicant and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project. The Draft EIR identifies the Reduced Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Statement ofOverridine Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant unavoidable impacts as describe above in the Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic sections, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The SOC is part of the companion report for this project, which analyzes the tract map, conditional use permit and other entitlement requests. Public Comments on the Draft EIR During the public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received 18 comment letters from 17 agencies and individuals, as well as some verbal and written comments at the public meeting that was held during the comment period. The comments focused on numerous issues, including: biological resources, traffic, construction impacts and water quality. Staff has responded to all comments received in the Response to Comments. The Final EIR includes revised text sections as a result of the comments. The analysis sections above discuss where mitigation measures have been revised in response to continents. One additional letter was received after the close of the comment period and is provided in Attachment No. 4 along with a response to the comments. Any written communication received subsequent to the preparation of this staff report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. Staff Report- 1/21/0 14 (0 isrl") SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Pacific City project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 02-01 because: • The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; • The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and • The EIR identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: 2. -Final-E-HZ-�%Io- 62 1)17 trotuderEIR—EFR-Appendices,-Respanse-To- nges —f under-separatex"er--not-attac hed) 3. Revised Final EIR No. 02-01 page 2-62 4. Comment letter received after the close of the EIR comment period 5. Mitigation Monitoring Program SH:HF:NfBB:rl Staff Report- ?/33i0= (02sr1=) Chapter 2 Text Changes from vehicular traffic along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The beaches, particularly Huntington City Beach near the Municipal Pier, have been the sites of many national and international sporting events, including surfing, volleyball, and skateboarding competitions. Huntington Beach is known as one of the best surfing areas_ on the west coast, and has earned the nickname"Surf Cite, USA." Its renowned surf is a result of the shoreline's lone, gradually sloped beach gradient and location in relation to ocean swells. Parks and Recreational Facilities Huntington Beach contains 69 63 recreational parks, located throughout the Citv. :bIanv of the parks have grass fields and landscaping devoted to sports, picnicking, and general enjoyment of the outdoor environment. The City classifies these parks into four categories, based primarily on their size, as follows: ■ Mini Park—Consists of less than one acre and intended to serve the immediate neighborhood in which they are located; provides passive open space and buffering from adjacent developments, with walking paths and benches; e.g., Booster Park, French Park, and Tarbox Park. ■ Neighborhood Park—Usually 2.5 to 5 acres in size and are intended to serve a 0.25 to 0.S mile radius; planned for the activities of children from age 5 to 15; centrally located in a neighborhood and often adjacent to a school; e.g., Arevalos Park, Conrad Park, Lambert Park, Hawes Park, Burke Park, and Wieder Park. ■ Community Park—Designed to serve several neighborhoods within a I- to I.5-mile radius and ranging from approximately 10 to 40 acres in size; planned for youths and adults and hosts a wider range of activities than smaller parks; e.g., Chris Carr Park, Gisler Park, Langenbeck Park, and :Marina Park. ■ Regional Perk—Larger than 4-0 acres and serves a large regional area up to a 30- or 40-mile radius; provides special recreational opportunities such as camping, equestrian centers, nature preserves, trails, and lakes; e.g., Huntington Central Park and Blufftop Park. Based on the City's Pa k Strategy an�Fee and Nexus Study (Park St ategY e udv Ri:eport) completed in December 2001 (City of Huntington Beach 2001 b), the City's 69 park assets and 42; special-use recreation assets comprise a total of 906.7 acres. Parks alone occupy 803.6 acres, while nonpark buildings occupy 4.6 acres and nonpark special-use assets, which primarily consist of :Meadow Lark Golf Course, occupy 985 acres. The General Plan has established a "parkland to population" ratio of five acres per 1,000 persons. The City currently has 05 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, including the City-leased beach and Meadowlark Golf Course. Based on the estimated population in the Park Strategy Report of approximately 190,746 residents, and the City's parkland ratio standard of five acres per 1,000 persons, the present parkland requirement is 953.0 awes. The City's total of 906.7 park acres falls short of the identified ratio requirement by 48.3_7acres. 2-62 City of Huntington Beach reo is u-r u9 : ' �N ORANGE COUNTY COASTBEEPER 441 Old Newport Blvd. Suite 103 Newport Beach, California 92663 Office: (949) 723-5424 Fax: (949) 675-7091 Email; coastkeeperl@ear6-ilink.net littp://ivww.coastkeeper.org February 10, 2003 Mary Beth Broeren ... Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: .. Comments on the EIR for the Pacific City development De.--jr Ms. Bi-oeren . ,. . .. . .. . The Orange County•Coastkeeper'a.a Ir• •.-y n*oiar ization with-a mission to pmtect and preserve.the'marine nabi cis ans ,Nater' ;4 1<<nange Ccuncy through i education, restoration, policy.advocacy, and enturLz;ment. Our into ezr in this project to ensure that a state-of-the-art-water quality management plan is designed and implemented. Additionally, we want to see a plan implemented whereby no net increase of pollutants will be discharged from the site to the beach across Pacific Coast Highway. We have been meeting with representatives of the applicant and in these initial stages of entitlement; they have been both cooperative and committed OCC•1 to develop such a plan. In our previous comment letter regarding the Pacific City Draft ER we discussed ten issues that we think need to be addressed in the final ER. During our subsequent review of the draft ER and our.own research on the potential impacts the proposed project, we would like to submit the following additional comments. 1. Beach Erosion: As part of the drainage plan to have the majority of the runoff drain to the beach at First Street, the;developer proposes building a cistern to hold runoff.during.stonnrs that would,result in over 20 cfs of runoff to the beach. While llmiting the flow of iunoff on the beach to 20 cfs is a good idea, no mention is made of the beach erosion that will occur°from the extended OCC-2 period of 20 cfs flow that will occur as the cistern empties the stored runoff. This needs to be addressed as an extended flow of 20 cfs may be just as damaging to the beach as a shorter higher velocity flow. 7..,a . . 2. Beach Sand Replenishment: Since the diversion of runoff from the proposed project to the beach will result in increased loss of beach sand due to erosion, the city should enter into a agreement with the developer to pay to replace the beach sand that will be lost due to the erosion the project will cause. 3. Beach Maintenance: The beach erosion that the project will cause may result OCC in additional beach maintenance costs to the city. The city should obtain an agreement with the developer to pay any additional maintenance costs the city may occur from the impact of the projects runoff during both wet and dry seasons. Our conversations with the applicant have certainly given us the impression that they stand willing to develop such a water quality plan, with the only condition being that the final plan is fair. We challenge the City to creatively design a water quality management plan that goes the extra mile to ensure coastal water protection. The OCC-a water quality plan described in this EIR is, in our opinion, very inadequate given its Proximity to Huntington Beach's fragile economic er�flne and delicate coastai resource. 'lank you for your conside.atioi,. Sincerely, Garry Brown Executive Director Response to Orange County Coastkeeper Letter, February 10, 2004 OCC-1 Comment noted. See responses to specific comments below. OCC-2 The project would result in a maximum of 20 cfs of runoff to First Street. Total discharge to the beach would be 140 cfs, with 120 cfs discharge from existing development, and 20 cfs discharge associated with the proposed project. The extended period of flow would not result in substantial beach erosion. Energy dissipaters are currently installed on the discharge pipe in order to limit the velocity of water as it discharges onto the beach. Consequently, the runoff that currently empties on to the beach does not move at high enough velocities to result in beach erosion. Rather, the runoff ponds and generally sheet flows across the beach. In some instances, runoff may result in a small ravine cut where sand is pushed laterally as the runoff flows south. In these instances, sand is not transported in large amounts towards the ocean. Further, any minor amount of sand that is transported would remain in the nearshore environment and be returned back to the Beach under normal wave action. The extended period of 20 cfs flow from the proposed project would not increase the velocity of runoff from the discharge pipe to a level that would result in beach erosion. In addition, the beach is approximately 350 feet wide at the location of the outfall, which results in most of the runoff being infiltrated into the sand rather than flowing across it. OCC-3 As discussed in response to OCC-2 above, the project would not result in a substantial increase in beach erosion. The current site, due to existing drainage structures and desilting basins, does not contribute sediment or sand to the beach. Therefore, no beach sand replenishment or additional beach maintenance as a result of the proposed project would result. OCC-4 The commentor challenges the City to design a water quality management plan that "goes the extra mile" in ensuring coastal water protection. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is designed by the Applicant, not the City. The City reviews and approves the WQMP. Runoff from the site is governed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) through the programs that implement water quality standards adopted by the SARWQCB. The Clean Water Act, which is enforced through NPDES requirements, the applicable Basin Plan, and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan would apply to the site, and the City ?acific City E!P, 3 _-- A has determined that the project would meet all standards identified in these programs based on the .Applican s Preliminary WQ'YIP. The Applicant may choose to implement additional water quality control measures, although they are not required to implement measures that exceed the established performance standards. Pacific City EIR 4 47tea—'. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A. INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Cite project (State Clearinghouse #2003011024) identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in die areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ.A) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. zl Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resource Code y21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with die Pacific City project. Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation, or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. The Project Applicant and the Applicant's Contractor shall be responsible for implementation of all mitigation measures, unless otherwise noted in the table. Pacific City =1R Mitigation ivionitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Miigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date Aesthetics MM AES-1:To the extent feasible,the Applicant shall use nonreflective facade treatments, Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning such as matte{mint or glass cowlings.Building materials shall be consistent with the City building plans for issuance of building Wban Desgn Guidelines,and reflective glass shall not constitute a primary exterior inclusion of features permil material.Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project,Ilia Applicant shall indwate provision of these materials on the building plans. MM AES-2:The Ighting plan shall include provisional measures to limit nighttime Lghfing Plan Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning illumination during periods of log.Measures may include but would not be limited to building plans for issuance of budding reduced feel candle illumination levels or reduced number of fighting futures hh use. inclusion of features permit Air Quality MM Aq-1:The project developer(s)shag require by contract specifications that Notes on grading and Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning construction equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per building plans grading and building issuance of grading manufactivefs specification for the duration of conslruclion.Contract specfcakon plans for inclusion permit language shall be reviewed by Ilia City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AO.2:The project developer(s)shall require by caaaci specifications that Notes on grading and Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning construction-related equipment,including heavy duty equipment=for vehicles,and building plans grading and building issuance of grading portable equipment,shad be turned of when nol in use for more than five minutes. plans for inclusion pemul Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading peunn. MM ACI-3:The project developer(s)shall encourage con1mcims In uvtize alternative fuel Notes on grading and Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning censbuction equipment(i.e.,compressed natural gas,liquid petroleum gas,and unleaded building plans grading and building issuance of grading _ gasoline)and low emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment plans for inclusion pennil is readily available and cost effective.Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM A04:The project deve opeds)shag require by contact specifications that Notes on grading and Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning constucion operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction building plans grading and building issuance of grading sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the plans for inclusion pemud extent feasible.Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit ' •;� MM AQ-5:The project developer(s)shag implement dust control measures consistent with Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning '! SCAGMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust during the construction phases of new project grading plan for issuance of grading i development.Contract specificadon language shall be reviewed for inclusion of this inclusion permit language by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.The following actions are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 and 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: Apply water andion approved nontoxic chemical soil sabilfzers according to manufacturers specification to all inactive construction areas(previously graded areas dal have been inactive for 10 or more days) Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible Enclose,cover,water twice daily,or apply approved chemical soil birders to exposed ' tt1 piles with 5 percent or greater silt content tvy 2 City of Huntington Beach +,v Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Afiriyalion Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date 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.Water active grading sites at least twice dairy Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds(as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles ter hour over a 30-minute period All trucks hauling did,sand,soil,or other loose materials are to be covered or should mammin at least two feet of freeboard(i.e.,minimum vertical distance between lop of the bad and the top of the trailer),in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code Sweep streets at the end of the day Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off truces and any equipment Waving Ore site each trip on a gravel surface to prevent din and dust from impacting the surrounding areas Apply water three Wines dairy or Chemical sal stab fzers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking a staging areas or unpaved road surfaces Post and enforce uaffc speed limits of 15 miles per hour or less on all unpaved roads hIM AQ-6:lthe project developer shall include in casWilion and sales contracts the Notes on building plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning k;tlewNg requirements or measures shown to be equatiy e0eclNe to reduce projecbrNaled and building plans and issuance of building stationary and area source emissions:• contrails for inclusion permit Use solar or low emission water heaters in the residential,olfce,and visitor-serving Sales Contacts commercial buildings • Provide energy-efficient heating with automated controls in the residential,office,and vsilor-serving commercial buildings • Use energy-efficient cooking appliances in the in the residential and visitor-serving commercial buildings • if fire places are provided in new residential units,install the loved-emitting fireplaces canmercially,available at the time of development • Require That contract landscapers providing services at the project site use electric or battery powered equipment or internal combustion equipment that is either certified by Ow Caffomia Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the bme of use. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building lemut. .S IAM AQ-7:The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts for die Notes on building plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning wnenenciaf and offices uses on site that preferential parking spaces be provided for and Sales Contacts building plans for issuance of building } carpools and vanpools.Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior specified clearance and permit to issuance of a building permit.A minimum of 7'2-of vertical dearance shall be provided in Orc parking structure for vanpool access.Inclusion of lore vertical clearance shall be Review and approve vedlled on building plans prior to issuance of a building permit. contract for inclusion f iI 9 Paciffc City E�. !.3 Mitigation monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification MW ation Measure Documentation Monitoring Acfiv)fy Timing Monitor Signature Date Biological Resources MM BIO.1:It before the start of ConsWction,substantial growth of native vegetation or Field survey observation Review held survey Plan check prior to Planning sensitive habitats has occurred on the project site as determined by a qualified biologist, shall be completed to notes,and as issuance of grading then special slatus plant or habitat surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate time determine if substantial necessary, permit of the year prior to construction of the proposed project,to determine the presence or growth of native Review and approve absence of special status plant species or habitats.These surveys shall be conducted vegetation or sensitive recommendations and during the appropriate booming period as determined by a qualified biologist It any of habitats exists:and if so, any outer relevant Reese species are found to be present on the proposed project site,then measures would vegetative or habitat documents per this be developed in consulalion with the appropriate resource agencies,it the status of the survey reports shall be species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance.Appropriate prepared as necessary.If mitgation. measures may include avoidance of the populations,relocation,or purchase of oftsite a finding of significance is - Impubtions for inclusion to nearby open space areas.A City-qualified biologist shall made,then appropriate present recommendations to did city for review and approval.Any subsequent avoidance, implementation document relocation,or other mitigation strategies requited to reduce impacts to a less-than- for this mitigation will vary sgnifum level shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. according to Note:Responsible parry for implementation is the Cityqualified biologist who is to recommendations. survey at the request of the Planning Department Tlie following mitigation measure's recommended to further reduce less-than-significant Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning impacts: grading plans for issuance of grading MM BIO.2:Grading shall begin al the perimeter,near existing residences,and proceed inclusion permit toward the center of the site. Cultural Resources MM CR-1:Monilorgmding aid excaval'an tar archaeological and paleontological Proof of retention of Verily retention of Plan check prior to Planning resources: archaeological and qualified monitors, issuance of grading _ (a)The Applicant shall mange for a qualified(as defined by the Orange County paleontological monitor permit ArchaeobgicaOPaleamdlogicel Curolion Project)prolessbral archaeological andand monitoring reports Throughout ground- monitor to be resent du demolition, radi benchi and other Periodic Geld check disturbing activities paleontologicalP mm9 9 n0. n9, excavation on One project silo.The Applicant shall also Contact the appropriate Gabmialino and Juanetlo tribal mpresenatives to delennine whether either group desires Native American monitoring of grading activities.if Native American monitors are requested,life Applicant slap arenge for the monitoring with tribal representatives. Additionally,prior to project construction,construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering signiti am archaeological and paleontological resources,and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential resources.AD construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on Oa project site unfit a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and lnplemenl appropriate measures to protect or scientifically c j remove the find.Coshuoion personnel will also be informed of the requirement t al unauthorized collection of Cultural resources is prohibited. I (b) II archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities,all Construction activities within 50 feel of One find shall cease until the archaeologuUpateonlologst evaluates the significance of the resource.In the absence of a delemlination,all archaeological and paleontological resorces shall be considered 5 mf cant.If the resource is determined to be s niticanl,One arclmaeol st I� -`= 4 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring AdWity Timing Monitor Signature Date or paleontologist,as appropriate,shah prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with Ore Slate Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Sedan 21083.2 of CEOA,as well as Chapter 3 and Appendices E.F. and G of the Curalion Project,The archaeologist o paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings,and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certlied archaeologists or paleontologists.as appropriate.Upon approval of life report,the Applicant shah submit the report to the South Central Coastal Iafotmation Center at Cafifonia Stale University,Fullerton,the California Coastal Cunnmtssion,file City of Huntington Beach,the Orange County ArchaeoPale r Resource Management Facility(APRMF),and the Orange County Historic Programs Office. (c) Monitored grading at the location of CA-ORA-1582H shall invoke the removal of refuse duposh in 15 to 20 cm layers using a skip loader.All materials shall be deposited in small to medium piles for scanning by archaeologists for diagnostic materials.It the resource encountered consists of complete a nearly complete artifacts from CA-0RA- 1582H,then artifacts shall be cleaned and cataloged,in accordance with the ,equiements of the Cumtion Project,Ior oration at a facility within Orange County that is acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach.The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all applicable citation fees,and the oration contact slat specify that materials shall to available tot loans to educational institutions.No further study would be required. (d)fir the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial,human bone,or suspected bunion tone,all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately antl lie area of the find will be protected,II a qualified archaeologist is present,he/she will determine whether the lone a human.If the arcaeoogisl determines that the bale is human,or in the absence of an archaeologist the Applicant Immediately will nosily the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and amply with Ole provisions of P.R.C.Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement,burial healnent and reburial. !AM CR-2:Scientific recovery of archaeological resources associated with CA ORA 149: Research design and Review and approve Prior to onset of Planning Hie Applicant shall retain a quafified archaeologist(as defined by the Orange County recovery plan research design and grading on or near site Department to Archaeological/Paleontological Curabon Project)to develop and implement,in consultation recovery plan CA ORA-149 and verify wish Isle Slate Office of Ifstoric Preservation,a research design and recovery plan for during grading as retention of hernaihirg elements of CA ORA 149.The recovery plan shall emphasize data collection in needed archaeologist: I ecus A,between Test Units 1 and 2,as well as on a core area of Locos 8,centered SHPO to at amid Test Unit 4,and shall be designed to salisy,the requierrhanis of Section 21083.2 of review plan CEOA,as well as Chapter 3 and Appendices E,F.and G of the Curation Project. Euaigy and Mineral Resources 'I Inc huhawingi mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-Nan-significam Energy Conservation Plan Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning impacts: to be submitted with energy conservation issuance of building IAM EM-1:The proposed project shall implement an energy conservation plan that could Project Budding Plans plan permit i include,but would not be limited to,measures such as energy efficient fighting,and hauling,venOlaton,and air conditioning system(HVAC)controls to reduce the demand of c4muicily and natural gas.The energy conservation plan shall be subject to review and approval by Ole City Building and Satery and Pluming Departments prior to Ole issuance of building permits. Pacific City El. 1 Mitigation...,mitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mifigafion Measure Documentation Moniforin Activity Timing Afonitor Signature Date Geobgy and Soils MM GEO-1:The grading plan prepared to the proposed project shall contain the Soils and Geotechni al Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning recommendations of the final soils and geotetlmiral analysis prepared pursuant to CR analysis;Notes on grading grading and building issuance of buiding or _ GEO-A,as approved by the City.These recommendations shall be implemented in the and building plans plans for inclusion of grading permit/ design of the project,including but not limited to measures associated with site soils and geolechnical preparation,fill placement and compaction,seismic design features,excavation stability recommendations and shoring requirainums,dewatedng,establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,cement type and corrosion measures,surface drainage,erosion control, ground improvements,tsunami protection,and plan review.Ad geotectmical recommendations provided in the soils and geolechnical analysis shall be implemented during site preparalkui and construction activities. For reference,the text of CR GEO-A fofews: CR GEO A:Prior to recordation of the final map,a qualified,Licensed Engineer shall prepare a detailed soils and geoteclmical analysis.This analysis shall include Phase II Environmental on-sire soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provde detailed recommendations for grading,chemical and fill properties,liquefaction,foundations, landscaping,dewaleri g,grand water,retaining walls,pavement sections and uWitles. Ilazardous Materials MM HAZ-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading pemdd,a Registered Environmental Site inspection report;soil Review and approve Plan deck prior to File Assessor shall perform a site inspection to identify the potential for presence of PCBs on sampling results and site site inspection report; issuance of grading Department _ the site.If de potential for PCBs exists,then the Applicant shalt,in consultation with the remediation plan and and any other required permit City of Fluntington Beach,sample soil surrounding the affected areas to identity the extent documentation of plans and of contamination.Contamination shall be remediated in aocordmice with MM HAZ-3 and remediation,if necessary; documentation,as HAZA. necessary MM RAZ-2:Prior to de issuance of a grading permit,sampling shall be performed In the Soil sampling results Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire area idendfe d in Figure 3.7-1 re;'Area D.'The extent of sampling shall be determined by sampling results and issuance of grading Department the Huntington Beach Fue Department as that which is appropriate to characterize the remediadon plan permit extent of any potential contamination in Area D.Contamination shall be remedfated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and WA. MM{W2-3:Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the Applicant shall,in consultaton with Remedation Pan Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire the City of Huntington Beach and other agencies,as required,formulate a remediation plan Remet ration Plan for issuance of grading Deparumenl. for further soil contamination that exists on the project site.The plan shall include thoroughness and permit Public Works, procedures for renedalibn of the project site to the City of Huntington Beach standards. completeness Plans shall be submitted In the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Planning,Public Works,and Fire Departments in accordance with City Specification No. 431-92,The plan shad include methods to minimize renedalion-related impacts on die Planning surrounding properties,including processes by which all drainage associated with the .1? remedation effort shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shad escape the site and mquuements to provide wind barriers around remedadon equipment.0ualified 3 and licensed professionals shall pedmnn the reniedalion activities and all work shall be performed under the supervision of the City of Huntington Beach. 6 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program _ Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification hlitigulion Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date MM IIAZ4:Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City Fire Department that Closure reports or other Review and approve Plan check prior to Fite decunnenl life successful completion of requited remedialion activities for contaminated reports acceptable to the closure reports or other issuance of grading Department suits,in accordance with City Specification 43192.shag he submitted and approved by the City Fire Department that reports acceptable to pemnit City Fite Department prior to issuance of grading permits for site development.No document the successful the City Fire Department c onsbuclion shall occur on site until reports have been accepted by the City.Closure completion of required that document the .hods will not be required in life area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as'Area C'final fomentation activities successful completion of i ewedialion of[his area has occurred as pan of project construction;these reports will be required remediation requited pursuant to MM HAZ-6.It remediation is necessary pursuant to MM HAZ-3,then activities soil winedialion permits shag be issued. MM IIAZ-5:In tine event that previously unknown soil contamination ghat could present a Site Health/Safety Plan Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire thteal to human health re are environment is encountered during construction,construction Risk Managementgrading and building issuance of grading' DepaNnenl activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately.A risk Plan plans for indusion permit mdnagemenl plan shag be prepared and implemented that(1)identifies the contaminants �i concem and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the unvitunment during construction and post-development and(2)describes measures to be taken lit protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site haamds.Such un:asures could include a range of options,including,but not limited to,physical site op.tols during construction,remediaton,long-term marinating,post-development ncaeterance or access limitations,or some combination thereof.Depending on the nature fit contamination,if any,appropriate agencies shag be noshed(e.g.,City of Huntington !leach Fee Department).A site health and safety plan that meets OSHA requirements shag Iw prepared and in place prior to the commencemod at work in any contaminated area. The developer shall ensure proper iniplementalion of the healdn and safety plan. MM IIAZ-6:Closure reports documenting the successful completion of required Remedialion closure Review and approve Plan check prior to Fife teuualiaaon activities for(1)areas adjacent to the existing water main on site and(2)areas report(s) closure report(s) issuance of building Department of archaeological sensitivity shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department Permit piimt to issuance of building permits in dhese areas. MM HAZ-7:Where construction is proposed over abandoned oil welts,the developer shall Documentation of Review and approve Plan check prior to Fite consult with DOGGR to determine t plug or repkrg of wells is necessary.Prior to the consultation with Div of documenatiort issuance of grading Department issuance of grading permits,the Applicant shag submit evidence of consultation with Oil,Gas and Geothermal permit DOGGR indicating wells have been plugged or abandoned to current DOGGR standards. Resources MIA IIAZ-g:In the event that abandoned oil wells are damaged during construction, Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire construction activities shall cease in Ile immediate vicinity immediately.Remedial plugging and grading plans for issuance of grading Department ilmations would be required to re plug the affected wefts to current Department of indusion penmdl•and as Rea necessary vnenl plan,as necessary du Conservation specifications.Depending on the nature of soli contamination,it any, ry ri^9 a i hfo mate agencies shall be refitted a City of Huntington Beach Fbe Department). necessary Review and approve construction I t 1 9 ( 9�. hreabandonment plan as The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the realeandoruneol operation in necessary compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Pacific City EI. Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Minivation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activlti Timing Monitor Signature Date Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYD•1:Prior to the issuance of grading permits,go developer shall submit to the City Tsunanti risk management Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning and for approval a plan oullini g specific planning measures to be taken to minimize or reduce and safety plan documentation issuance of grading Fire risks to property and human safety from lsunaml during operation.Planning measures permit Department could induce but would of be bridled to the following: • Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and hotel guests,in addition to posting in public locagons on sge • Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents,hotel guests and persons on site in go event a watch or warning is issued • Identification of an evacuation site for persons on-site in the event of a tsunami wamirig - Noise The following mitigation measure is recommended in further reduce less than-significant Notes on building plans Review and approve Prior to issuance of a Plannkig impacts: building plans for buildlhg permit Department MM N-7:Pile driving activities shall be lirtriled tothe hours o18:0o A nclusionM l0 6:00 P.M Monday Public Works through Friday. Field observation or During any pile driving Departmem review of contractor logs construction activities during any pile driving activity Mtd N-2:Prior to the issuance of Wilding perils for the new multifamihy residential units Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning and Located along First Street,Atlanta Avenue,and Pacific Yrew Avenue,die project building plans for issuance of building Building and developa(s)shall sulvnit building plans that identity walls or barriers of at least 5.5 feet inclusion of design pemtts for residential Safety above the ground surface around each exterior activity area(i.e„private yards,balconies features units located along Departments and recreation areas)that dace these roadways.This can be accomplished by constructing First Street,Atlanta solid walls that match the building exterior and Lapping them off with 1.5-inch thick Avenue,and Pacific Plexiglas windows or sheets to meet the heghl requirement of 5.5 feet.Other means of View Avenue, reducing exterior noise levels to 60 LIDA Lm or less within the exlerfor activity areas may be unplemenled so king as an acoustical analysis demonstrates that the alternative means would in fact reduce the noise to the required level. Population and Hosing MM P-1:The Applicant shall prepare an Affordable Housing Program to the satisfaction of Affordable Housing Review and approve Submittal prior to final Planning arid the City Plaimirg 8 Economic Development DepartntmIs.The Program shall detail the Program(ARP) AHP map submittal i provisions for either on-or off-site affordable housing,of a combination of the Iwo that Execute AHP Execute AHP prior to meet the requbernaus of Community Redevelopment Law and City requirements.The issuance of fast Economic Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and building permit it for Development �t approval prior to submittal of the final map.The agreement shall be executed prior to the msidenlialportion of Depamments issuance of the first building permit for the residential project.The Applicant shall adhere to projecl all provisions of the Program. I✓1 g City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program ----- Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification M1linigalion Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date PUhlu;Services MM pS.t:Provide enclosed,fire-rated stairs to each subterranean level from the exterior Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire wmy 30ff lineal feel of the building perimeter building plans for issuance of building Depar menl inclusion permits MIA PS-2:Project design shall include ventilation of smoke and products of combustion. Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire ?u cod,hnechanical smoke removal system,with manual controls for firefighters shall be building plans for issuance of building Department baled in the lire control room.An emergency power source is necessary and the system inclusion permits shall also comply with Building Code requirements to exhaust CO and other hazardous gk.ses. MIA PS-1:Dedicated rooms for Fire Department exclusive use to observe,monitor and as Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to fire rmc.ssary control all emeigenccy systems operation shall be provided.A total of three building plans for issuance of building Department muns shall be provided as follows:(1)commercial area and the related subterranean inclusion permits flaking garage:(2)high rise hotel;and(3)residential garages and dwellings.Rooms shall 1.:I�ned in an exterior bration at grade level and have unrestricted access clear-lo-the sky. I be lutlowing milgation measure is recommended to further reduce less thamsgnifxanl Documentation of Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning and impacts: Consullairm and Project documentation and issuance of building Police Building Plans plans permits PoIV a hens LIM PS-4:Prior to issuance of a building permit,the Applicant shag consult the Huntington Coach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Come Prevention Design measures,and shag incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. MM PS-5:The developer for the proposed project shall negotiate with the City school Agreement between Review proof of Plan check prior to Planning disuicts regarding school impact fees to address the adverse impacts of the development, Applicant and School payment final map recordation Department thus,ensuring that the new development would bear its lair share of the cost of housing District on school impact additional students generated.The Planning Department shag be provided with a copy of fees and tau agreement prior to recordation of the final map. Proof of fee payment Tire following mitigation measure's recommended to further reduce less-than-significant Beach Safety and Review and approve Prior to issuance of Community impacts: Maintenance Awareness program document firs[certificate of Services, Program document occupancy or final planning MM PS-6:Tlhe Applicant shall develop and institute a Beach Safety and Maintenance inspection of first Awaieness Program to be reviewed and approved by me Community Services residential unit Deportment The Program shall include(1)informational disclosures(i.e.,handouts)to all icsidents and hotel guests and(2)posting of signs on site.Program materials shall include but valid not be fimfled to the following items: • Beach safety guidelines related to swimming,tides,sun exposure,and other potential iisks from beach use • City Regulations on the use of beach propeity,including permissible uses of the beach and appropriate bash disposal • Identification of penalties imposed for violation of City Regulations The City shall ensure strict enforcement of regulations related to beach use and maintenance. l — ' Pacific City El.. Mitigation ,,,,onitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activi Timing Monitor Signature Date Recneallon MM RECA:The Applicant shall demonstrate compliancowith City parkland requirements Project Budding Plans Review and approve Prior In issuance of Planning and identified in Chapter 254.08 of the City of Huntington Boac h Municipal Code.Any on-site building plans for building permit and as Community park provifled in compliance wiN this section shag be improved prior to final Inspection inclusion of parkland necessary,prior to Services (occupancy)of the first residential unit(other than the model homes). issuance of certficale S Services is of oocupancy Inspect any paiks provided as required Tnanspbrtal'IoMraffic MIA TR-1:The Applicant shag contribute a fair share contribution of 22 percent'to the Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issue of Public Works installation of a third nmthbound through lane on PCH consistent with the Orange County payment certificate of Department MPAH and Calhans Route Concept Study for PCH.The County of Orange and Calbans occupancy woulif complete this improvement.The Applicant's fair share contribution shag be paid prior to issuance of me first cedifcale of omrpancy. Note:Applicant is responsible for contribution;Orange County and Caltrans are responsible for improvement MM TR-2:A second westbound right turn lane shag be added on Seapoint Avenue.The Proof of fair share Confirm payment Poor to issue of Public Works City shall ensure completion of this improvement and the Applicant shall contribute a fair payment certificate of Department share contribution of 26 percenP to t is improvement The Applicant's fair share City shall complete occupancy conuihution shall be paid prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. improvement Nate:Applicant is responsible for contribution;City is responsible for improvement 61M TR-3:Install a traffic signal at First Street and Atlanta Avenue prior to issuance of Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issue of Public Works occupancy permits.The City shag provide reimbursement for the balance of the funding of payment City shall complete cerufcate of Department improvements through the Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee account or shag designate credits occupancy against the project lees to that account.The City shall ensure completion of this improvement improvement,and the Applicant shag contribute a fair share contribution of 57 percent'to the improvement. Note:Applicant is responsible for contribution;City is responsible for improvement Fair share calculation is provided in Appendix 11,Trade Impact Analysis Report. Ibid. 16id. i'r1, 10 City of Huntington Beach (f Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program -- Re Implementafion sponsible ConatureeVerification Aligalion Measuro Documentation Monitoring ActivityTim in Monitor Signature Date lifilities and Service System MI.1 u-1:Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project mponern,the Applicant Solid Waste Management Review and approve Prior to issuance of Public Worts .I�„J submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City's Recycling Coordinator. This Plan Sold Waste building permit ermit Department plun sliall discuss how the project will urglernent source reduction and recycling methods Management Plan 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 melhols shall include,but shall not be hurtled to.the folloerinrg: 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 murals rals j I li Pacific City EIR ATTACHMENTS U MINUTES L U�A( HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION l�o o TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 6:05 P.M. - ROOM B-8 — CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER . P P P P P A P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Dingwall, Livengood (Ray arrived at 6:15pm) AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA FOR 3-23-04, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Ray, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED, 1 A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS) — Scott Hess Commissioner Davis discussed the process of how each agenda item would be heard, including questions, comments, public speaker's allotment of time and staff report review. Mary Beth Broeren introduced EIR consultants Marianne Tanzer, T. J. Weule, and Terri Vitar with EIP Associates. B. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS— None. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting — None. 6:20 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER (04p=0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 2 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P A P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Dingwall, Livengood AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MARCH 23, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joey Racano, Ocean Outfall Group, provided comments on Public Hearing Item No. B-1a (Pacific City EIR). He voiced concerns related to archeological site information reported on by Cal Poly, Pomona, carcinogens and other hazardous chemicals, and urban runoff. Although not opposed to the project, he urged the Commission to postpone approval of the EIR until the project site receives more study. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1a. PUBLIC HEARING TO BE OPENED: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 02-01 (PACIFIC CITY). Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Request: EIR: An analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may occur from development of the Pacific City project. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (31-acre site bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street). Proiect Planner: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 02-01 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1589." B-1b. PUBLIC HEARING TO BE OPENED: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12/ CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN (PACIFIC CITY). Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Request: TTM: A request to subdivide approximately 31.5 acres into three parcels for purposes of developing a mixed-use project. One of the parcels will be for residential condominium purposes and the other two (04p=0323) PC Minutes March 23,2004 Page 3 parcels are for a commercial/office/hotel development. In the residential portion of the project, there will be a 2.0-acre village park easement for public usage as well as a lettered lot for a private access road. CUPICDP: A request to develop a mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses (up to 240,000 sq. ft.), a 400 room, eight-story hotel, spa and health club; a 2.0-acre open space/park easement; 516 condominium units above subterranean parking and associated infrastructure including the extension of Pacific View Avenue. The request also includes outdoor dining, alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, and dancing within the proposed restaurants and hotel development; carts and kiosks within the commercial and hotel development; and valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the below grade parking structures. In addition, the request includes a shared parking analysis which includes a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the mixed-use project (retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment, hotel, and spa uses), and tandem parking spaces. Included in the request is to permit development on a site that has a grade differential greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point (approximately 25' from the lowest point to its highest point); and for development in the Coastal Zone. Lastly, the request includes any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on- going remediation activities, and may include but is not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation. Three Special Pennit requests are as follows: 1) to allow commercial buildings to encroach into the required setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Avenue; 2) to allow three driveway ramps into the.residential below grade parking structures at a slope of 15% in lieu of maximum 10%; and 3) to permit retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas. A Conceptual Master Plan is included that provides an overall buildout plan of the commercial and residential portions of the site. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (31-acre site bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street). Project Planner: Scott Hess, Planning Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and the Pacific City Conceptual Master Plan with Findings, Staff Suggested Modifications, and Suggested Conditions Of Approval;" and, B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations." The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas spoke with staff, the applicant, the applicant's consultants, toured the site and spoke with a few interested neighbors; Commissioner Scandura reviewed all written material presented by staff, the applicant and outside parties, attended a Subdivision Committee meeting; visited websites designed by the applicant and the Pacific City Action Coalition, toured the site, visited the Discovery Center, spoke with the applicant and applicant's consultants including Richard Harlow, spoke with representatives from the Pacific City Action Coalition including Steve Kawashima, spoke with Ed Kerins, HB Tomorrow, spoke with Rob Jason and Dr. Thomas Taylor, U.C. Irvine and the Orange County Cancer Surveillance Program; Commissioner Ray attended an Environmental Board meeting, took a tour of the site with the applicant, received emails from various sources, spoke with Michael Gagnet and Ethen Thacher with Makar Properties (applicant), Richard Harlow and John Erskine (consultants to the applicant), Steve (O40=0323) PC Minutes March 23. 2004 Page 4 Kawashima, John Sisker, Ron Satterfield (Pacific City Action Coalition), Eileen Murphy, Sergio Contreras and staff; Commissioner Shomaker spoke with the applicant, applicant's consultants, members from the Pacific City Action Coalition and a citizen; Commissioner Livengood visited the site, spoke with Mayor Green and the applicant; Commissioner Davis toured the site and visited the Discovery Center, met with the Design Review Board and spoke with Michael Gagnet and Ethen Thacher (applicant), Chuck Worhell, John Erskine and Richard Harlow (applicant's consultants), John Sisker, Ron Satterfield and Steve Kawashima (Pacific City Action Coalition), Rob Jason and staff. Scott Hess, Planning Manager, called attention to the posted drawings to identify the components related to the request for Public Hearing Item No. B-1 b. including retail, hotel, commercial, residential, subterranean parking, landscaping, carts and kiosks, live entertainment, outdoor dining, soil remediation, excavation, infrastructure improvements, grade differential, driveway ramps, building encroachment, screen walls, noise barriers, minimum lot size and affordable housing requirements. Mr. Hess identified the staff-recommended modifications to the upper and lower garage (subterranean parking) listed on Attachment No. 9 of the staff report. He also discussed staffs recommendation that the Td Phase of the Phasing Plan not proceed until the retail promenade is complete; discussed setbacks, informing the Commission that staff does not support a special permit for a hotel encroachment; discussed carts and kiosks, informing the Commission that staff recommends scaling back away from 151 Street and Pacific Coast Highway; and, discussed the 1500 retail parking spaces, informing the Commission that staff recommends a modification to designate the first 500 spaces for self parking, and to allow for a greater number of free parking minutes. Mr. Hess identified late communication received by Makar Properties, HB Tomorrow, Orange County Coastkeeper and various emails in support of the item. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, provided a brief analysis of the staff report for Public Hearing Item No. B-1a. including analysis, mitigation measures, air quality and transportation. Michael Gagnet, Makar Properties, gave thanks to City staff and made a PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. He provided an overview of the City's history in oil production and commented on soil remediation discussed within the EIR. He called the project a "community plan" that complies with the City's General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. He discussed commercial, residential and hotel uses, common theme landscaping, architectural styles, public art and a retail promenade with a village concept, including restaurants. He informed the Commission that the project has only one public vehicular access off of Pacific View Avenue, and identified the service entrances and pedestrian accessways. He discussed public sidewalks, water features, neighborhood retail, open corridors, hardscape features, public plaza areas, hospitality components and recreational areas. He continued with his presentation by discussing the project's link to surrounding development, revenue generation, redevelopment goals, open space, infill development and affordable housing. He informed the Commission that qualified (04p=0323) PC Minutes March 23,2004 Page 5 consultants are available to answer questions. He then presented a virtual tour of the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Tamara Campbell, City of Newport Beach, voiced concerns related to the proposed bridge at 19" Street and Banning Avenue, and the potential impacts to the City of Newport Beach. She discussed how the proposal presents a conflict to earlier direction provided by Huntington Beach City Council that included surrounding jurisdictions (Newport Beach) in any future analysis, and requested that the Commission recommend that a Santa Ana River Crossing (SARC) study be performed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Frederick Reif, Huntington Street, voiced concerns related to digging and grading, hauling of dirt and air quality issues. He discussed the need for street sweeping and trucks hauling dirt on Huntington Street as early as 5:15 a.m. He requested that the Commission ensure that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality requirements are met, that mitigation measures be established, and that the property be secured during p.m. hours for safety reasons with contact numbers posted around the entire site. Shawn Millbem, Robert Mayer Corporation, voiced concerns related to EIP Associate's responses to the following EIR issues: underestimated traffic and parking impacts due to the absence of the third proposed hotel discussed in the Mayer Corporation's Development Agreement; number of patrons expected to park downtown; Pacific View Avenue design; and, storm water and bacterial issues on the beach. He also proposed alternatives to his identified concerns. Ken Malone, 8th Street, spoke in support of the item for area enhancement and complimented Makar Properties for being responsive to the concerns and needs of Huntington Beach residents. He described the project as win-win, and asked for the Commission to approve the request. Charlie Bunten, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the item. He discussed how the project would improve the area, generate revenue through sales, transit occupancy and property taxes, create jobs, increase property values, and boost tourism, business and business conferences. He also drew attention to having a full-scale grocery store in the downtown, and urged the Commission to approve the request. John Carter, Habre Lane, spoke in support of the item, calling it a "world class" project. Don Hansen, Wesley, spoke in support of the item, stating that the project would enhance Huntington Beach's position as a leader in Southern California, add diversity to its retail and dining base, contribute to the City budget, compete for non-Huntington Beach dollars and generate tax revenue. He urged the Commission to approve the request. Cathy Meschuk, Kelvingrove Lane, spoke in support of the item and discussed open space, wide sidewalks, tax dollar generation and the project's people friendly environment. She urged the Commission to approve the request. (04p=0323) I PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 6 Nidal Ibrahim, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item calling the project a "vision for the City" serving future generations. He discussed tax dollar generation and the developer's established track record for quality projects. Ray Hiemstra, O.C. Coastkeeper, voiced concems related to an increase of pollutants, the project's impacts to water quality, urban runoff, street flooding and beach erosion. He also discussed the applicant's proposed runoff treatment facility and staffs recommendation to eliminate the idea and route the runoff to the Atlanta Street pump station. Jack Siart, Church Circle, spoke in support of the item and discussed the project's financials and affordable housing elements. Paul Evans, Berlin Lane, spoke in support of the item and discussed job creation and tax revenue generation. John Neal, Local 831, spoke in support of the item and discussed the project's opportunity to create union jobs in Huntington Beach. Richard Samaniego, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) #441, spoke in support of the item and discussed the project's opportunity to provide jobs. He urged the Commission to approve the request and consider language to ensure that the development be built by qualified workers. Hart Keeble, Egret Lane, spoke in support of the item and discussed the project's job and revenue benefits. Paul Cross, Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to certification of the EIR, voicing concerns related to the proposed bridge at 190 Street and Banning Avenue, extension of Delaware Street, destruction of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, Pacific Coast Highway traffic impacts and development on 5+ acres of parkland. He submitted a written statement and urged the Commission to reject certification of the EIR. Jim Adams, Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, spoke in support of the item and discussed creation of union jabs, economy stimulation and sales/bed/property tax revenue generation. He stated the project benefits the citizens of Huntington Beach, and urged the Commission to approve the request. Daniel Miller, 14'h Street, spoke in support of the item and discussed the soil remediation efforts in place and the developer's willingness to protect the existing water line. He also presented project facts in an attempt to inhibit exposure to fear from claims made by environmentally inexperienced parties. Robert Fredrickson, International Surfing Museum, spoke in support of the item and discussed the Surf Museum's hopes of being included as part of the project's cultural element. Glen Nolte, Pipe Trade Local #582, spoke in support of the item and discussed the project's opportunity to create union jobs, project vision and cultural elements. (04p=0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 7 Rob Jason, Waterfall Circle, voiced concerns related to street and sidewalk conditions on Atlanta Avenue near the Huntington/Delaware Streets intersection, including loose rail ties, narrow traffic lanes and flooding that create pedestrian hazards. He also discussed trip generation, bus use, and mitigation measures needed for meandering sidewalks. Ernest Hsieh, Santiago Drive, spoke in support of the item and provided thanks for the downtown development. He urged the Commission to approve the request. Ron Satterfield, Huntington Street, voiced concerns related to parking and following the same standards for special permits vs. variances. He requested that the project be scaled down to allow for future development by the Mayer Corporation, and urged the Commission to reject the request as submitted and call for a reduced proposal. Scott Barkeiew, Florida Street resident and Plasterers Union member, spoke in support of the item. Edmond El Dabe, Pacific Coast Highway, spoke in support of the item, calling it a beautiful development for a beautiful city. Steve Daniel, Downtown Merchants Group, spoke in support of the item and discussed its potential to increase walking traffic northerly from the Hyatt on Pacific Coast Highway to the downtown. He discussed free parking at the Main Promenade facility downtown, and described Makar Properties as a great community developer who supports city functions. Dean Lob spoke in support of the item, calling it a "great project" that would provide local jobs. Dick White, Misty Lane, spoke in support of the item and provided a brief history of past Huntington Beach development activity. Joe Solis, Bricklayers Union #4, spoke in support of the item for union jobs. Fred Speaker, Lake Street, spoke in support of the item and discussed its vision and compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan. Speaking as a former Planning Commissioner, he urged approval of the request. Don Mac Allister, Park Street, spoke in support of the project and urged the Commission to not delay a decision. Sylvia Carr, Pacific City Action Coalition, spoke in support of the request but urged the Commission to approve only if all soil remediation concems are mitigated with independent oversight. She also asked them to take notice of written opinions, noise concerns, outdoor concert venues and private property rights. Bob Traver, Coho Drive, spoke in support of the item. Mike Churchin, Seabreeze Drive, voiced concerns related to health and safety issues and the EIR, including groundwater contamination near the Chevron (04ocm03231 PC Minutes March 23.2004 Page 8 pumping station, the project's impacts on local neighborhoods, and undisclosed information on carcinogens and other hazardous chemicals. He also discussed information provided by the Mayer Corporation and the Pacific City Action Coalition, and urged the Commission to direct staff to add a condition that it be mandatory to hire a third party consultant to oversee environmental activity. John Sisker, Pacific City Action Coalition, spoke regarding policy conflicts within the Coastal Element of the Local Coastal Plan and discussed mitigating adverse coastal impacts with an independent, third party consultant. He voiced concems on the project's traffic impacts on Atlanta Avenue, the extension of Delaware Street, and future encroachments on the Pacific Mobile Home Park. He also identified the Coalition's website address. John Ott, Stand Together In The Fight, spoke in support of the item with a strict environmental process for soil remediation, and an independent consultant agreed to by all affected parties. He also discussed a rare medical illness that claimed the life of his daughter and other area victims, and the possible connection between the illness and petroleum products. He urged that soil remediation be comprehensive to ensure health and safety for future growth of area children. Gaye Churchin, Seabreeze Drive, spoke in support of the item but stressed the importance of protecting quality of life for area residents. She voiced concems related to soil and contaminated groundwater, full disclosure of documented activity by all parties related to environmental issues on the site, parking, noise, traffic and access to coastal routes, and an unusually large number of victims diagnosed with fatal brain stem glyoma tumors in the immediate area. She urged the Commission to add a condition that stipulates hiring of an independent environmental consultant, agreed to by all parties, and spoke of property owners rights. Peter Nicholson, Kiner Avenue, spoke in support of the item for the small landscaping industry, Plasterer's Local and union jobs. Kathy Vaughan, Pacific Mobile Home Park, spoke in support of the item but voiced concerns about the widening Huntington Street and the possibility of the Pacific Mobile Home Park being removed in future. She discussed traffic elements, including a traffic signal at Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. Peter Nguyen, Timber Circle, spoke in support of the project, describing it as modem and in compliance with development code. He also discussed 2 acres of open space, local employment opportunity, and residential growth from inland communities. Tammy Trinh, Timber Circle, spoke in support of the item and discussed landscaping. Bob Corona, Pacific Coast Highway, spoke in support of the item. As a long-time developer and past member of the Design Review Board, he discussed the City's growth and development over the past 35 years and described the project as having "tremendous insight." He described City staff as firm but fair, the developer as environmentally responsible, and discussed hauling of dirt during the construction phase. He urged the Commission to approve the request. (04prm0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 9 Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, spoke in support of the item but asked the Commission to pay special attention to the detailed written comments by interested parties voicing concerns about serious omissions within the EIR. He also discussed a second biological survey, wetland vegetation being illegally removed, petrochemical odors in the soil remediation area, and claims made by the Pacific City Action Coalition. Ron Edwards Jr., Operating Engineers Local#12, spoke in support of the item and urged the Commission to ensure that qualified union workers build the project. Mike Adams, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item. As an active member of the Chamber of Commerce Board, Art Center Board of Directors and Governor's Board for the Surf Museum, he discussed the opportunities for the community presented by the project including jobs, new retail, new outlets and public art display. He also discussed his involvement in co-authoring the Downtown Specific Plan and urged the Commission to approve the request. Chas Rezner, Operating Engineers, spoke in support of the project and the project developer. Frank Brucculeri, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith, LLP, spoke in support of the item but voiced concerns related to continued oil production, municipal code section objectives, consolidating oil production sites, venting of methane gas and underground oil, and the project's goals and objectives. He discussed the Downtown Specific Plan, oil overlay and drill sites, and urged the Commission to delay approval of the request until the applicant meets with oil operators and mineral interest parties. Dr. Wellington Eng, Dentist, spoke in support of the item and discussed his interest in obtaining a commercial space for his dentistry practice. He also discussed the economic benefits of dentistry within the wellness industry and urged the Commission to approve the request. Corwin Reno, Local 831, spoke in support of the item but questioned the public park element within a private community. He cited other shopping centers within the City that need rehabilitation and voiced concerns related to parking, hazardous materials, increased traffic and wetland vegetation. He also voiced support for a convention center. Steve Marion, Alabama Street, asked the Commission to scale back the proposal, voicing concerns related to parking, widening of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, sidewalks on Atlanta Avenue and eminent domain. He referred to information provided on Attachments 2.9 and 4.9 of the staff report depicting sidewalks and small setbacks. He requested that the developer build upscale homes instead of 850 sq. ft. condominiums, and ensure that soil remediation is done right. Bruce Wareh, Huntington Bayshore Homeowners Association, discussed a letter dated June 25, 2003 and sent to the City that addressed the following concerns: excessive number of residential units (516) - too dense, affects traffic; inadequate amount of open grass area causing concerns related to pets; 4-story height and grade differential; high power lines on Orange Street; and soil remediation. (04pcm0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 10 Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the item. As a business owner and commercial building owner downtown, he provided history on downtown development, discussing visitor serving uses supported by the Urban Land Institute, infrastructure, General Plan conformance, City standards and specifications and the Downtown Speck Plans. He informed the Commission that the developer added a public park element at the request of the Community Services Department and discussed oil drilling/production as previously mentioned by Frank Brucculeri. He urged the Commission to defer oil field remediation to the Fire Department and referenced a meeting held where hiring an independent soil remediation contractor was discussed, stating that the developer is agreeable to the request.. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Davis thanked the public speakers for expressing different points of view in a cordial and professional manner. Discussion ensued with questions and comments beginning on Page 9 of the staff report for EIR 02-01. Commissioner Ray asked staff about a meeting mentioned by Richard Harlow that took place between several parties to discuss hiring an independent consultant for soil remediation. Fire Chief Duane Olsen informed the Commission of a meeting that took place on March 19. He stated that it is not uncommon to bring in a third party consultant on large projects, that he has been involved in numerous projects over the past several years using 431.92 standards. He also mentioned that the City is in the recruitment process for a new consultant on soil remediation, and that five firms have been reviewed by Fire and Public Works departments. Mary Beth Broeren stated that the Planning Director attended the March 19 meeting and discussed a condition existing within the CUP that calls for a third party monitor paid for by the City. She also discussed mitigation measures, conditions, specification compliance, additional testing and investigation done by the third party consultant. Fire Division Chief Eric Engberg explained the phasing process of contaminant remediation as follows: Phase One - Historical; Phase Two - Sampling, testing and analyzing data; and, Phase Three - Overview of data for identification of all contaminants. He stated that the consultant would provide information to the City regarding sampling and remediation. Commissioner Davis asked that the Commission focus on information included in the EIR, and that a request for hiring an independent contractor requires a written agreement. Commissioner Ray explained that he wanted to establish a nexus between this issue and certification of the EIR. (04r=0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 11 Mary Beth Broeren explained CEQA requirements relating to the EIR and identified specific mitigation measures. She stated that staff does not recommend hiring a third party consultant primarily to ease the trust issues identified by outside parties, and that Section 431.92 sets the guidelines for a third parry auditor that can be hired by the City. Commissioner Ray identified informational parts within the EIR that provide a nexus for including a condition that calls for hiring a third party consultant for soil remediation. Commissioner Scandura voiced his approval of hiring a third party consultant and asked the Fire Department to speak to information within the EIR stating that the Fire Department didn't feel the need to address operational issues upon construction completion. Chief Olsen stated that the City abides by code requirements and explained how fires would be maintained, including information on fire sprinklers. He also identified the number of medical aides and paramedic engines in the City, along with automatic aid received by other cities (Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa), adequately providing services for the site. Commissioner Scandura asked about Police resources. Police Chief Small described the following as elements that will not demand extra resources: retail, restaurant and residential. However he described the entertainment element as vague, and stated that the City and developer are considering placing a police substation inside the development. Commissioner Davis asked if a third party consultant would act as a policing agency on soil remediation activity. Staff confirmed. Commissioner Ray made reference to Attachment 5.7/Mitigation Monitoring Program, asking about closure reports prior to issuance of grading permits. Chief Engberg explained that closure permits are required for the entire site excluding "Area C". Mary Beth Broeren explained that mitigation measures are structured so that remediation would be allowed during the phasing of where grading activity occurs. However, included on Attachment 1.15 of the CUP, the Fire Department has a recommended condition that requires a "no further action letter" prior to obtaining a grading permit. She also explained that conditions of approval could be more restrictive than mitigation measures, but not more permissive, and that oftentimes mitigation measures differ from conditions of approval and/or departmental standards because EIR's are typically published prior to drafting developing conditions of approval. Commissioner Ray asked staff about the feasibility of constructing a new water line. Staff explained that constructing a new water line requires removal of the existing water line before remediation can be completed. Commissioner Ray asked if a Police substation within the development would service the entire downtown area? Chief Small confirmed. (04p=0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 12 Commissioner Scandura asked about two acres of oil drilling area identified within the Downtown Specific Plan. Mary Beth Broeren identified three oil overlay areas (A, B and C), and explained staffs interpretation, indicating that Oil Overlay C applies in the event oil production is proposed to be in place by the developer and/or property owner. Commissioner Livengood discussed fugitive dust and SCAQMD Rule 403. He stated that mitigation measures would be incorporated into the CUP. Commissioner Ray voiced concerns about biological resources and conducting a survey in December 2003 to identify wetland activity, native vegetation and species on the site. He stated that he visited the site on several occasions after December 2003 and found wetland indicators and species. He read a mitigation measure stating "before the start of construction, another qualified biologist will be on the site to investigate" and asked if the statement was correct. Terri Vitar with EIP Associates, explained that the biological survey was first conducted in September 2001 with no wetland indicators or species identified. She explained CEQA requirements that call for a baseline establishment. The site was reinspected in December 2003 and wetland species were discovered due to a site change or mix caused by certain activities such as ponding, grading, etc. Commissioner Ray asked about underground pooling. Ms. Vitar described the testing methods used to measure water content, and called the possibility unlikely. She also identified state and federal standards that protect endangered or protected vegetation or species. Commissioner Ray mentioned the ORA 149 study from Cal Poly Pomona relating to archeological or paleontological finds, and asked about the steps to ensure proper removal of any materials uncovered during the grading or construction process. Staff described the process, confirming that any material discovered would be inspected and protected, and that grading or construction would come to a halt. Commissioner Livengood addressed the issue of urban run-off and on-site treatment of bacteria. He voiced concerns about mitigation measures precluding the conditions of approval, and was prepared to identify a list of items to be considered when reviewing the CUP. Commissioner Thomas echoed Commissioner Livengood' concems. Mr. Hess discussed water quality and drainage issues, DAMP 2003 Regulations and City code requirements. Mr. Webb explained the City's recommended water treatment and drainage diversion alternatives using the Best Technology Practical (STP) practice. Commissioner Ray discussed the nexus between findings in the EIR and establishing conditions related to water treatment and drainage. Mr. Hess stated that the EIR must include substantiated findings that would call for a condition of approval to exceed standard code requirements for water treatment, drainage, etc. (04P=0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 13 Commissioner Scandura identified the lack of a "regulatory driver", and that the project's estimated runoff equals only 117 of the water that flows into the 1" Street storm drain, therefore presenting an insignificant finding within the EIR. He also requested that the Commissioners take a comprehensive approach on this issue when reviewing the CUP. Commissioner Davis cited past examples of mitigation measures precluding conditions of approval, and mentioned that the applicant would present material on treatment of bacteria at the April 13, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Thomas asked about the hours of construction, voicing concerns related to noise. Mr. Hess stated that the issue would be discussed during the CUP process. Commissioners Ray and Davis asked about code requirements and staging of vehicles before 7:00 a.m. Scott Hess restated that the issue would be discussed during the CUP process. Commissioner Ray asked about presentation of an affordable housing plan. Scott Hess replied that the item is included as an attachment to the CUP staff report. Commissioner Livengood complimented the developer for keeping the same amount of parking spaces in the commercial element even though the square footage was significantly reduced. Commissioner Davis asked about prior agreements relating to the 1g`" Street/Banning Avenue Bridge between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, including whether the bridge was considered a long-term infrastructure item, and if the EIR's traffic study ignored the possibility of a third hotel development on the Hilton site. Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager, provided history on the City Council's opposition to a bridge at the subject location. However, he stated that staff has maintained future roadway plans for a bridge in that area because it is identified in the 2020 scenario of the City's Master Plan for infrastructure. He also stated that Newport Beach is close to resolution regarding a Santa Ana River Crossing study, and that the OCTA has not taken steps to approve any related environmental documentation, making the issue non-applicable. He described the issue as a "near term/long term scenario" that doesn't include futuristic plans. He also added that the EIR includes no mention of a third hotel on the site within the 2008 scenario because entitlement plans have not been submitted. Mary Beth Broeren explained that a third hotel concept is only identified in the Hilton development agreement, and that no entitlement is considered until the 2020 scenario. Commissioner Ray attempted to explain the nexus between issues related to Atlanta and Huntington Streets. Mr. Stachelski discussed the streets being exceptionally narrow and stated that discussion of accident areas within the EIR didn't exist. He also stated that it is unknown whether or not the project would have a great impact on this area. (04ocm0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Ray discussed lack of, or inadequate sidewalks on Atlanta street, causing pedestrian safety issues. Mr. Stachelski stated that the condition currently exists, and requested that an EIR consultant identify the level of burden to assess the number of pedestrians using those streets. Terri Vitar, EIP Associates, explained that when evaluating existing conditions, determining the impacts or what type of pedestrian movement would occur would be speculative. Mr. Hess followed by stating that the issue needs to be addressed during CUP review. Commissioner Shomaker stated that all parties involved need to address the traffic issues in that area. Commissioner Davis stated that the project will impact that intersection, and that the Commission is looking for a basis within the EIR to improve that corner. Ms. Broeren provided perspective, explaining that.the City's future infrastructure calls for improvement on Atlanta Street and improvements to the surrounding, affected properties by the developer. Commissioner Davis asked if the Commission could use the project's EIR findings to obligate the developer to make street improvements on certain areas of concern. Mr. Hess explained that the applicant would pay traffic impact fees, and that although other alternatives may exist, the issue will be considered during the CUP phase. Hess also explained the Statement of Overriding Consideration. Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see futher study. Commissioner Thomas commented on traffic impact fees, calling them a vehicle to directly connect traffic-related improvements to the CUP. Commissioner Scandura agreed with Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Ray voiced concerns related to Delaware Street extension impacts. Mr. Stachelski described the extension as a concept similar to the 19`" Street Bridge concept. He also discussed updating the City's Circulation Element within the General Plan. Commissioner Ray voiced concerns about impacts to Pacific Mobile Home Park residents relative to vehicular entrance and exit of the park, and why no impacts were identified within EIR. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED THOMAS, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 02-01 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1589, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (04p=0323) PC Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 15 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-02, SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12, PACIFIC CITY CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN AND CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO ARIL 13, 2004 WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:20 a.m. on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of April 13, 2004, Huntington Beach Civic Center. APPR ED BY: -714 /11L HAdrd Zelefsky, Secretary Rod Davis, Chair (Odp=0323) ATTACHMENT 6 THE - I,OBEIRT MAYER `Cil. CA CORPORATION IOU4 APR - 1 P 3: 4 1 April 1, 2004 BY HAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council Planning Commission Certification of EIR 02-01 (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Brockway: On March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (the "EIR") for the Pacific City project in Huntington Beach (the "proposed Project"). The Robert Mayer Corporation hereby requests that such certification of the EIR be appealed to the City Council. We believe that the EIR is deficient in a number of respects, including, but not limited to the following: (1) The EIR does not accurately identify and quantify the traffic and parking impacts arising from the proposed Project; (2) it fails to properly identify impacts and mitigation measures relating to the water quality of runoff from the proposed Project onto the public beach; (3) it fails to adequately consider --fable alternatives to the proposed Project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); (4) it misleads the public by noting the possible existence of wetlands on the site while neglecting to accurately assess such fact, and instead incorrectly states that if such wetlands do exist, they can be mitigated offsite, which under law they cannot; and (5) it fails to adequately address the written comments submitted by this company and others including other public agencies by providing inadequate, dismissive and often inaccurate responses to such comments. By way of specific examples, such deficiencies and failings include, but are not limited to, the following: With respect to traffic and parkin impacts: - The EIR improperly assumes significant reductions in total traffic generation that otherwise would be reported for a project of this magnitude based on the combination of W Newport Center Drive . Suite 1,5: . Newport Beach,CA 92660 P.O- Box 363C . Newport Bex' . CA 92653.3680 %e1 9= 9.3C91 . fax - 9.720.IC17 City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 2 of 7 unsupportable "internal capture rate" and "mode-shift" assumptions made by the J 2 developer's traffic consultant. Even the City's own independent review by an outside traffic consultant identified those assumptions as lacking any empirical data or citation of a professional source to support them and called for more data to assure that such assumptions were reasonable, yet none has been provided Further, the California Department of Transportation, acting in its capacity as a "Responsible Agency" under 3 CEQA also questioned these assumptions noting that they were "too high", and in rebuttal to the EIR's response to their comment asked that "the consultant provide local collected data to substantiate both the internal capture rates and the mode shift rates used in this study". Still, no data has been provided in response to this request. As a result, the EIR seriously underreports the potential traffic generation arising from the project by approximately 25%-30%. - The consultant that prepared the above-referenced traffic report for the City that questioned the assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant was listed in the EIR as a preparer of documents for the EIR. Therefore, that skeptical traffic report was d in fact a part of the total EIR documentation. Nonetheless, that report was not included in 1 the documents released to the public or the Planning Commission, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. As a result, a legally sufficient public disclosure of all relevant information was not made in this EIR. - When assessing the cumulative impact of other foreseeable developments around the proposed Project, the EIR fails to account for the fact that rite 3rd hotel site at The Waterfront project will be developed This 3rd hotel site, a mere 500 feet from the proposed Project, is approved by the City for development of up to a 300 room hotel, pursuant to an existing Development Agreement, Disposition and Development 5 Agreement and approved Commercial Master Site Plan. Those agreements provide for time frames of development consistent with the time frame of study within the EIR. It is standard methodology when preparing traffic studies to include all known approved or likely projects in the analysis of cumulative impacts, even when there is a possibility that the project may not be completed precisely within the time frame of study. Worse still, the EIR's response to our written objection to this incorrect assumption is dismissive, indicating that the preparer took no effort to understand the terms of these agreements or to inquire of the current planning efforts underway by this company. Moreover, it prejudicially fails to consider the reasonable and appropriate assumption that this company will perform under the terms of its agreements, as it has in developing the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa. The certification of this EIR by the City based on this overtly incorrect assumption, while at the same time being a party to the above-referenced agreements, is wholly unjustifiable and could be construed as an inexcusable attempt to repudiate them. Such action is inconsistent with the doctrine of good faith and fair dealings implicit in those agreements. The calculations for parking contained in the EIR greatly underestimate the true needs of] the project by employing numerous computational tricks, including reliance on the —] City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 3 of 7 previously referenced unsupportable traffic generation assumptions to further reduce baseline assumptions of parking needs; employing other unsupported assumptions in joint-use calculations; making misleading comparisons to City parking codes that serve to mask the true extent of the parking reduction proposed; relying on adjacent beach parking rather than adequate onsite parking as required under City code; relying on the unfounded assumption that an immense number of customers (some 3,000 per weekday) will park in the downtown area and walk ''/x mile to the proposed Project rather than considering this 7 project as a primary destination; failing to consider whether there will in fact be excess parking in the downtown area sufficient to allow for the aforementioned assumption; and by failing to consider the actual parking rates experienced by the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort per a written survey previously submitted to the City. Reliance on any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions is questionable, but reliance on the multiplicative effect of all these assumptions without verifiable, empirical evidence to support each of them is wholly unreasonable, improper and renders the EIR deceptive and inadequate. Pacific View Avenue is classified on the Orange County Master Plan of Highways and the City's General Plan as a primary arterial with a design standard of four lanes with a center divider. The EIR fails to adequately address the impacts resulting from the sub- standard proposed design of Pacific View that reduces the number of lanes from four to two, and then worse still places angled parking on the south side that would significantly g inhibit the free flow of traffic. This condition is exacerbated by a concentration of entries to both the residential and commercial phases of the project at only two intersections in very close proximity to each other. The entire design is virtually the opposite of that design required by the City and built by this company between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street, even though the total occupied square footage of The Waterfront and the proposed Project are equivalent. Instead of properly considering the potential impacts of this deficient design, the EIR assumes that at some unknown time in the future Pacific View Avenue would be rebuilt to the proper, ultimate configuration. However, no objective criteria are described in the EIR or elsewhere that would clarify under what conditions the roadway would be widened; nor does it consider the practical realities of the changes to the proposed Project (from setbacks to loss of public parking in the coastal zone) that would occur from such a future change. In truth, the EIR has chosen to analyze a project that is different than the proposed Project, resulting in a misleading conclusion about the real impacts of the proposed Project. With respect to water quality impacts of runoff from the proposed Project onto the City beach: - The EIR fails to adequately consider the potential for bacterial contamination on the I U beach even though the proposed Project plans to alter the drainage patterns of the site such that a large majority of the site's runoff will be redirected to the beach, when previously it was not. - The EIR fails to adequately identify and require appropriate mitigation measures to deal with the potential for bacterial contamination. In response to this company's written comments, and our submission of expert analysis of the issue, the City revised certain City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 4 of 7 language in the EIR to indicate that dry season flows from the proposed Project might in the future be diverted from the beach to the Orange County Sanitation District (as is the case now for the whole of the site), but only "at the City's election". The revision in language to indicate the possibility of diversion of the dry season flows is implicit recognition that a significant environmental risk exists (even though such risk is otherwise improperly trivialized in much of the balance of the responses). However, even given that the EIR did at last recognize the environmental risk by suggesting that the diversion would be the solution, it failed to properly identify such diversion as being the mitigation measure that in fact it is. And worse, the EIR then failed to implement that mitigation measure with certainty, as required by CEQA, choosing instead to leave the action to be "at the City's election". Such language is inappropriate and lawfully inadequate. With respect to the consideration of prrgiect alternatives, as required under CEQA: - The EIR only considers only one reduced-intensity project alternative in detail, that being the "Reduced Project Alternative" wherein the commercial use square footage was reduced from approximately 240,000 sq. feet to 190,000 square feet, but all other phases of the proposed Project remained unchanged. This 50,000 sq. ft. reduction represents only an 8% reduction in the occupied area of the commercial portion of the development, e1 and a mere 3% of the total occupied area of the proposed Project as a whole. It must be noted that the area eliminated consisted of the least desirable 3rd floor retail and office space with little viability in any event, and restaurant use was actually increased by 10,000 sq. ft. Although resulting in a decrease in impacts, this trivial reduction in total project intensity hardly deserves the status of being the only alternative to be studied in detail in the EIR. - The EIR fails to meaningfully consider a range of other alternatives, such as a reduction in the number of residential units or in the size of the hotel proposed. Such options are dismissed without serious study for two dubious reasons, as follows: o The option would not lessen certain impacts to a less-than-significant level, even though it may significantly reduce certain environmental impacts. However, restricting consideration to only those options that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level is a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic 13 alternatives to be unworthy of serious study. Under the rationale used in the EIR, if a proposed project had no significant environmental impacts, then no alternatives would be studied (since only alternatives that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level are supposedly worthy of consideration). However, in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, the Supreme Court held that even if all the project's significant impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures, an EIR must still discuss project alternatives. Therefore, the rationale used in the EIR is not consistent with applicable law and the alternatives analysis is flawed. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 5 of 7 o The option would not meet the City's or applicant's objectives. A long list of broad objectives is declared that again creates a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study since they may not meet one of the many objectives. For instance, one of the objectives listed is to "provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre..." However, this objective effectively rules out the consideration of any alternative short of a maximum density build out of the residential portion of this project. It is ! 1 instructive to contrast this manufactured standard with the revised plan of The 71 Waterfront project approved by the City wherein one entire hotel and an entire 75,000 square foot retail plaza was eliminated, and the residential density was cut to I/O of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan allowed density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Such a reduction was determined by both the applicant and the City to be a fully viable alternative and is successfully underway today. Yet at the proposed Project, such a reduction in intensity has been deemed to be out of the question and not worthy of serious consideration in the EIR. With respect to the possible identification of wetlands on the proposed Project site: - The EIR notes the possibility that wetlands exist on the site. Individuals have submitted letters and photographs lending credence to this possibility. The EIR further outlines the more liberal criteria used by the California Coastal Commission for consideration of S potential wetlands located in the coastal zone, which is the applicable standard for the site pursuant to the Local Coastal Plan. However, the EIR errs in only evaluating the potential wetlands based on the more restrictive (but inapplicable) criteria used by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. No evaluation was made under the applicable guidelines of the California Coastal Commission and Local Coastal Plan, nor were the areas of concern mapped or reviewed by a qualified biologist for these purposes. - The California Coastal Commission provided written commentary to the above point, but in its haste to certify the EIR on March 23rd, 2004, the Planning Commission did not consider the Commission's request that the EIR be modified to include an evaluation of 1 b the potential wetlands under the applicable criteria. This omission occurs even though the project applications were not approved at that meeting (and as the date of this appeal have still not been approved) and therefore adequate time exists to make such corrections to the EIR without unduly delaying consideration of the project approvals. - Not only does the EIR fail to adequately evaluate the potential wetlands at the site under applicable criteria, it erroneously concludes that if wetlands do exist at the site, their 1-7 existence can be determined at a later date and they can be destroyed and the impact mitigated by some undisclosed offsite mitigation. This approach is flawed for three reasons: City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 6of7 o Reasonable information has been presented, and is also referenced in the EIR, that a potential for a significant environmental impact exists by way of the destruction I of wetlands. The EIR should properly evaluate this potential, and should not defer evaluation to a later, unspecified date. Under the flawed approach taken by the EIR, any suspected siffiificant impact, be it traffic, cultural resources, air quality, etc. need not be properly evaluated in the EIR, but instead could be left to later study. o The EIR is flawed by assuming that a generalized mitigation measure, such as an unspecified offsite wedand restoration activity, may be applied in the future. The purpose of the EIR is to properly identify the impact, and to adopt a specific mitigation measure with a factual and analytical basis. No analysis is presented to �9 determine whether the proposed unspecified offsite mitigation activity would in fact mitigate for the impact, if the impact exists. o Existing law does not alloy for the destruction of wetlands in the coastal zone with offsite mitigation in this instance. The EIR errs by considering this alternative to be viable, when in fact it is not. If wetlands do exist at the property, the proposed Project will have to be redesigned to preserve those wetlands, but the EIR fails to even recognize this possibility. Further, in the EIR's response to comments, it repeats this error by defending the potential for offsite mitigation by inaccurately summarizing the applicable case law. The EIR incorrectly asserts 20 that the prohibition against development on wetlands in the coastal zone is limited . only to environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHAs"), when in fact, in addition to rulings on ESHAs, Bolsa Chiea Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 493 Wiled that development of wedands (not specifically ESHAs) is controlled by Public Resources Code section 30233(a) which limits such development to only certain port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial uses. With respect to the responses to comments: - In response to this company's comment that the EIR's traffic calculations indicate that 3,000 customers per weekday, and 330 people in the evening peak hour, are anticipated to park in the downtown area and walk % mile to the proposed Project, which is a wholly incredible assumption likely to render the downtown area virtually vacant of visitors, the 21 EIR response to the comment states that such calculation is correct, but "equates to five people per minute and six people per minute, respectively" as if that is a sufficient justification and explanation for the assumption Simply converting the statistics from people per day or hour to people per minute is not an adequate response. - The EIR included an additional "Topical Responses" section that in reference to the suspect assumptions of mode shift and internal capture spends a good deal of words �l rationalizing the developer's traffic consultant's conclusions; but nowhere does provide the empirical evidence requested by the City's own reviewing traffic consultant or the California Department of Transportation. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 7 of 7 - The EIR's Topical Responses attempt to further explain issues with respect to Water Quality, Traffic and Parking; however, they present a wholly one-sided perspective defending the inadequate analysis in the EIR, rather than properly disclosing the differences of opinions between experts on the issues. Where differences in expert o13 opinions exist, such as between the developers traffic consultant and the City's review consultant, the EIR should summarize and explain the main points of disagreement. Instead, the EIR only obliquely mentions that "public commentators have identified disagreement with the conclusions" without faithfully disclosing to the reader the nature of those disagreements, particularly those disagreements between experts involved in the preparation of the EIR. In conclusion, we do not believe that EIR No. 02-01 meets the standards of accuracy and fairness that the City of Huntington Beach should expect and demand for a project of the intensity of the proposed Project. We ask that after a duly noticed public hearing wherein ourselves and others be given adequate time in advance to submit further written comments and to provide oral testimony without cursory time limits, that the City Council act to deny the certification of EIR No. 02-01. THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION Shawn K. Millbem Senior Vice President, Development The Robert Mayer Corporation, April 1, 2004 I. Please see responses 2 through 23 below for detailed responses to the general issues raised by the conunentor in this introductory paragraph. This EIR was prepared in )till accordance with all substantive and procedural requirements for a legally adequate EIR including, but not ncccssarily limited to the requirements of CEQA, CI_QA Guidelines, and relevant case law. Consequently, there is no basis for the denial of the certification of FIR No. 02-01. Nevertheless, the City Council will consider the appeal and will conduct a de novo hearing on the I-Ilk certification, in accordance with the Zoning Code Section 248.20. 2. "Phis comment was already raised and responded to as part of the topical response on traffic generation presented in the final C-IR (pages 3-176 through 3-179). for the reader's convenience, relevant portions of this response are provided below: ITE 'Trip Rates arc considered "hale trip rates" and reflect the numhcr of it that would occur Flom each use as a stand-alone development, with no reductions hm transit, pedestrian uses, or individuals parking once and accessing more than one use. As such, it is appropriate to apple reductions to these base trip rates to reflect the local environment of the development, which influences the numhcr of trips the project generates. This conceit is spccilically cited in the TTF Trip Generation Users Guide (ITE 1997)...l'herefore, it is standard indusvv practice to apple trip reductions baser) ran the prolcssional discretion ofthe analyst.... The project itsCll represents a uniquC clevclopnICIn in the area. and as a result, no one prior traffic siudv can be relied on as containing the data that would he appropriate to list- in this analysis. The unique characteristics of' the project include its size, mix of uses, and location. The project site, at 31.5 acres, represents a singularly large scale mixed use development in the Downtown- area. 'I'hc site would result in internal capture rates unlike those experienced in smaller scale mixer) use developments in the area, because, the project site would include a greater number of uses that would share patrons as compared to smaller developments_ With respect pr the ntix of uses, the project site would include lour non-residential uses that would generate trips: hotel, retail, I'CSIaL11'ant, and officC. Iblixed-LISC developments tvpically include only two ur three different types of uses. The total of, four uVpCS of useS increases the complexity of interaction among uses. With respect to the location, the project is sited imrnediatch, adjacent to not only the beach but also the Downtown core. in a location intended to maximize the projects interaction with these uses. Notwithstanding the uniyuc aspects of the project, several recent do(URICm>support the range of the internal capituc and mode shift percentages used in the FIR. The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPJ'iP) is contained in Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The DPiNIP identifies reductions that average 38 percent of G:TRGEREt1\Ennrm\PACIFIC ClV\RMC responses.om Pacific City 1 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 code raluirement, based on the particular land use. While this Plan lUCU3Cd on parking use, it also demonstrates the synergy of the mix of retail and restaurant uses within proximity to hcach amenities. This study supports the conclusion that a 30 to 40 percent recduction in overall trip generation has been experienced in the Downtown area Compared with the individual base trip generation that would he estimated for stand-alone uses. The recently approval and ceriilicd-The Strand EIR (SCH No. 200005 1 109). located at PCH and S" Street also applied mode shift and internal capture reductions. 'I his development includes appruximatch• 100.000 square feet of commercial retail and a IS2-room hotel. 'fhe trip reductions applied in that analvsis included 30 percent reduction fur mode shift and an internal capture raIC of 10 percent_ The Pointe Anaheim project in the Citv of Anahcim also exhibits characteristics similar to the proposed project. While this project is not in a beach cmmrnwnity, the project site is Siwatecl adjacent to another regional attraction— That project includes hotel, theater, retail, restaurant. and entertainment uSCs totaling apprnximatcly 1 .5 million square feet in all. '['he traffic analvsis presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Anaheim. 1999) used internal capture rates ranging from 20 to 30 percent and mode shift ranging Gom 45 to SS percent. l'hcrefore, as seen in these examples• the hase trip generation reductions taken for the project, including mode shift ranging from 10 to 2S 1xrcent and internal capture ranging from 8 to IS percent, resulting in overall reductions rangin,, from IS to 32 percent• are comparable to, anti often Tess than, reductionS taken for other developments that exhibit some similarity to the proposed projce:t. ht addition to the example., provided above, additional examples are summarized below. lath time this issue has been raised, the traffic engineer has reexamined other examples and compared them to the project to review the mode shift and traffic generation factors in the FIR. These examples, in combination with the examples alreack in the record, confirm that the methodology and data used in the FIR are appropriate: ■ l hr Summary of Restamant Studr—Determination of the Internal Capture Credir or the Warner Center Project, prepared by LLG, \larch 9, 1999 provided the results of a survey of walk-in and drive-in trips from restaurants located in the \Varner Center, a mixed-use. development. The total walk-in percentage was 29.8 percent. ■ The Shared Parking Anolrsis Report. South Coast Metro Center L.rpansim? Project, Costa Mesa. CA, prepared by LLG, January 20, 2000, analvzed parking demands for various office uses. Reductions in required parking could be as much as 50%, although a reduction of 2S'%n was Used in the analvsis for a more conservative approach ■ The Shared Use Parking Study for the Paseo Project, San Diego State Unherciti, Foundation, prepared by David Belson, Ph.D., October 16, 2003, indicates reductionS in required parking between I S and 75 percent due to the interaction of residential, office, cinema, restaurant, and retail uses GI\BPOEREII\En nron\PACIFIC CITY\RMC respmse5.00c 2 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1,2004 The commenter also states that the developer's traffic consultant makes the assumption, in the FIR. l-he traffic: analysis report was completed by Linscott, law, and Greenspan (ULG), the developer's irafGc consultant, following extensive coordination and direction provided by the City. The City reviewed and commented on several iterations of the traffic analysis report in order to ensure that it reflected the City's independent judgment. In addition, I-SA, a Subconadtant to 1-I1' Associates also reviewed and commented on the traffic report in order to ensure its accuracy. Further, as identified in CFQA GuidelineS Section 21082.2, the determination of significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Specifically, "substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and ezpert opinion supported by facts." The facts, and expert opinion supported by facts, summarized above, form the substantial evidence used to make the mode shift and internal capture rate reductions identified in the FIR. -I-hc statement that Ilse. FIR under reports the potential traffic generation is a statement of opinion that is not supported by atl evidence of' its own. 3. The review referenced in this comment was a letter sent from USA to the FIR consultant, FII' Associates. 'I'll(- letter concluded, "the traffic impact analysis represents a fair evaluation of the potential circulation impacts attributed to the proposed project as described. ... LSA's derailed comments ... are intended as clarifications and contributions to the comprehension of the document. The comments and the requested revisions do not materially alter the results of the impact analysis or the identification of appropriate proiect-related mitigation measures." (emphasis added). Comments provided b.v USA recommend providino an explanation for the Internal Capture and Mode Shift in order to provide some level of assurance and reasonability. The review does not question the concept of internal capture or mode shift or the numbers used in the analysis, but rather requcstS inclusion of more information to support these data. hollowing receipt of comments on the mode shift and internal capture ratio, these assumptionS were revisited and verified as appropriatee for the analysis. Additional data to support the concept of internal capture or mode shift is also provided in the topical response to trip generation, as identified under response 2 above. -I-his comment also refers to a Calt-ans comment leucr provided on the Final EIR, dated March 22, 2004. This letter does not raise any issues not aheadv responded to in the Final FIR. The Caltrans comment referenced in the RMC Appeal letter, identified as continent 3, states: C:\aRCEREI I\En nron\PACiFIC CITY\RMC responses.doc Pacific City 3 The Robert Mayer Corporation, April 1, 2004 As indicated in the IT[ Trip Generation Flandhook (October 1998) and acknowlad,,ed by the consultant, the internal caliture I-MCS Should be adjusted baSCrl on the project characteristics. professional judgment of the engineer in consultation with the Cily based on local experience. For the Department's records, we request that the consultant provide local collected data to Substantiate hoth the internal capture rates and the mode shill rates used in this study. This comment from Caltrans therefore agrees with the approach used in the traffic study, and only requests additional data. As stated in the topical response on traffic generation and indicated above under response. 2, "the project itself represents a unique development in the area, and as a result, no one prior traffic study can be relied on as containing the data that would be appropriate to use in this analysis." The local collected data has been provided in the record (sec responses 2 and 7 in this (Jocument). In sunuTtarv, contrary to the statements made in this comment, the Citv undertook an extensive review, using a variety of sources, as summarized above, in order to reach a conclusion as to the appropriate traffic generation for the project. 4. This issue was already raised as comment RrMC-28 identified on page 3-8.3 of the Final E-111 and responded to on page 3-271 of the Final EIR. For the reader's convenience, the response is provided below: LSA wab retained by the City to conduct an independent review of the traffic Study prepared by Linscott, law and Greenspan. This review is part of an internal review and comment. process ILr the preparation of the Draft FIR. LSA commented on a working drati ul the ualfic :tudv, and their input was used to reline and revise the analysis. Similar to prcliminar-v draft rlocumencs, this information is not tvpicallY part of the refereneC material fin- an I:IR. - The F.IR complies with CFQA Guidelines Section IS129, and identifies all individuals involved in EIR preparation, as identified in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of the FIR, including LSA. CEQA Guidelines SCCCIOtt 15148 states that "the EIR shall cite all documents used in its preparation including, where possible, the page and section number of anv technical reports which were used as the basis for anv statements in the EIR.° The letter front LSA was internal correspondence used to inform the traffic report; it was neither a technical report nor was it used as the basis for anv statements in the EIR. At the request of Rr\4C, LSA's internal correspondence was readily provided during public review of the Draft EIR. Appropriate EIR-related material, including references and back-up documentation, was available upon request at the City. The LSA letter that is referenced by the conunentor was not a document incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA G:\9ROEREn\Enxon\PACIFlC OTY\RMC responses.0oc 4 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 Guidelines Section 151 50, which would necessitate public review of the document. The I-SA letter was a working paper and a preliminary document used by the City before circulating the Drab FIR for public review. The City utilized the letter in preparing the f_IR, and as such, the content of the biter is reflected in the Draft FIR that was circulated for public review. S. This response was already raised as comments RrMS9 and RNIQQ21 on pages 3-79 and 3- 96, respectively, of the Final EIR, and responded to on pages 3065 and 3094 of the Final EIR. For the reader's convenience, the response is summarized below: Although the Development Agreement allows for a third hrrtcl, the hotel is subject. I,) the approval ofa Conditional Use Permit. (CUP) and Coastal DcvA,prnent. Per (CDP) as well as retluired environmental documentation. No proposal, application, or other project subrninal rrlated to project entiticrucnt un the Watertn-in's Our hotel site_ has been provided to the City, and until such time that hotel could be mortified in scope or character be the devCloper consistent with the procedures Set forth in the amended Development Agreement. Because nn information indicating that this project would be developed in the reasonably fnresccahle near future was available, this project was not included in the year 2005 analysis. However, the hotel development is included in the General Plan 13uildout analysis included in the Draft. FIR, and nr, new impacts, he_y,md those identified in the Draft EIR, are indicated as a result of its inclusion. h its consideration of cumulative projects, the City reviews the development applications Submitted and pending projects on file at the time the analysis for a specific: project, such as Pacific Cite, is completed. 'Those projects that would be completed by the time the proposed project is occupied are included in the cumulative analysis. The Development Agreement ( )A) and Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) provide information on timeframes under which the hotel must be built. Neither of these agreements rec{uireS hotel construction by 2003. Thus, the exclusion of the third hotel in the near-term traffic analysis remains valid. T'hc RNAC Development Agreement on the third hotel site expires September 2013, after the Pacific City project will be completed. The developer is not required to submit conceptual plans on the third hotel until December 31, 2008, as the DDA requires Chat the developer must submit a proposal for Parcel C (th(- location of third hotel) to the Redevelopment Agency by this date. "Phis deadline does not apply to submission of plans to the Planning Department, Which could be submitted after 2005. Further, since the site of the Add hotel is owned by the Redevelopment Agency, the developer must have entitlements for the hotel in order to close escrow on the property. -The DDA states that escrow must close by December 3 f, 2009, although three one-year extensions may be granted, extending the close of escrow date to 2012. 'The developer must complete construction of the hotel within 24 months of close of escrow. -Therefore, based on this information, the DDA does not require G:\aROEREn\Environ\PAOFIC CITY\RMC responsesAoc Pacific City 5 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1,2004 the third hotel to be built until 201 I, and extensions could be granted through 2013. To date, as stated above, no proposal, application, or other project submittal on the third hotel sit(- has been provided to the City. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this third hotel could be built and occupied after the Pacific City project is completed. 6. As previously stated, this response was already raised as comments RIbIC-9 and 12rbIC(A)-21 on paces 3-79 and 3-96, respectively, of ill(- Final E-IR, and responded to on pages 3-265 and 1-294 of the Final FIR. ']'his response is reiterated above. It is standard industry practice to base the cumulative analysis on information on record at the City, rather than to contact each individual developer that may develop a project in proximity to the site. Undertaking such a process would be unnecessarily burdensome for the FIR preparation process, and CI QA does not require the methodology sugg,cstal by the conunentor. Further, the [lot(-[ is included in the long-tern (General Plan Buildout) analysis of' the traffic: impacts. The City understands and believes that the RMC will continue to perform in good faith under the teens of its agreements. However, the timing of implementation of the third hotel remains undefined beyond the sunset date in the development agreement. 7. Nlost of ill(- issues were already raised by th(- RMC and responded to in the Final FIR. There is no new information in the comments, and no rerhnical analvsis that substantiates the commenter' assertions. The Parking Demand Analysis (dated October 15, 2003), provides the documentation for the analytical procedures for the shared parking analysis. As stated on page 6 of that report, in addition to the Urban Land Institute (LILT) Shared Parking publication, several cities in the area (c_g., Costa (Mesa, Irvine), and several other projects, including, projects in Huntington Beach (e.g., the Strand, Plain Almeria), have utilized these same procedures, and ill(- decision-makers For those projects have expressed their confidence in the methodology, by utilizing the LILI techniques. For the reader's convenience, each of RNIC's comments that were raised in the letter are provided below in sunmary format in italics, and, where applicable, portions of the relevant responses that weree included in the Final IJR are also provided: ■ Reliance on prariouslr rfcrenaxl unntpportaAlc it,] generation assurnprions to further reduce baseline assumptions o) parking needs: Refer to response 2 above, which reiterates the relevant. portions of the topical response on traffic generation and demonstrates that the traliic veneration data arc supported. ■ Frnploring other unsupported assurnprions in joint-use calculations: The Topical Response on Shared Parking, (page I80 through 182 of the Final FIR) identifies the methodology used in the joint use calculations. As indicated in that response, the joint use calculations are based G:\BROEREtI\En nron\PACIFIC CI TY\RMC response5.00c 6 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1,2004 on ULI data, and not unsupportable assumptions. In fact, for analysis purposes, some ULI recommendations have been increased during particular times of day to provide a more conservative approach. ■ Making misleading comparisons to GI`V parking codes that scrrc to mask the true extant of the parking reduction proposed: '['his issue was ah-cady raised as comment RIMC(A)-45 on page 3-100 of the Final FIR and responded to on page 3-293 of the Final FIR. As staged in that response, "application of separate City Code requirements is not appropriate Ibr the project site, as the site includes unique FC.atUtCS that promote the use of shared parking on-site." The comparisons to City parking code do not represent the analysis of shared parking, appropriate for a mixed-use\development project of this magnitude and location. The. Topical Response on Shared Parking validates the concept of shared parking. As staged in that response: When uses sham a common parking Footprint, the total nurnbet of spaces needed to support the collective whole is deterntincd by adding parking prutiles (i.e., the percentage of spaces occupied at a given time), rather than individual peak ratios as rCprescntcd in the City of lltntington leach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO, Chapter 231—Off-Strcct. Parking and Loading Provisions). The shared parking nx;thudolooy is applicable to the commercial portion of the proposed project because the individual land uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, hotel, and ottice uses) expel ience. peak demands at different times of the day. ... The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DP,ti1P) contained in Seclion 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan validates and usCs the concept of shared parking. Although the DPIb1P parking rates do not apply to the proposed project because the proposed project is not within the DPNIP boundaries (which extends approximatel' one Mock cast and west of \twin Strcct, from PCII to Acacia AwCntIC). The project site is within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and thcrcfore would interact with the Downtown, as panuns of the project site would include patrons of the Downtown area. Due to the uniquenCss of the project, as discussed in the Topical Response on Traffic Cenciation, site-specific data were used to determine parking talcs.... ■ Reh ing on adjacent beach parking rather rhon adequate onsite parking as required under Cin code: This issue was already raised as comment RMC-14 on pages 3-80 through 3-31 of the Final FIR and responded to on page 3-267 of the Final EIR. As stated in that responsc, "Beach parking is not relied on to satisfy parking demands of the proposed project. Rather, ill(- analysis acknowledges the expectation that. patrons with a primary purpose of visiting the beach would also patronize the proposed project." The parking analvsis is consistent with the trip generation analysis in its use of the mode shift. ■ Re/ring oil the unfounded assumption that 3,000 customers per weckdm loll park in the downtown area and rrolk % little to the project rather than considering this project as a priman destination: This issue was already raised as RINIC(A)-f 6 on page 3-96 of the Final FIR and responded to on page 3-293 of the Final FIR. The response indicated that "this comment correctly defines walk-in tr'allic on an hourly basis. However-, over a tell hour (i.e., daily) period and one hour I'M peak period, the walk-in traffic equates to approximately five people per GABROEREn\Enmon\Pn.CIFIC Cny\RMC responses.am Pacific City 7 The Robert Mayer Corporation, April 1,2004 minute and six hcoplc her minute, respectively, dispersed throughout the total 240,000 square feet of developrncnt." The Final I IR did not take the opportunity to correct the factual misstatenicmts made in the initial cunttnent. The determination that 3,000 customers per clay would walk to the site is based on the mode shift data presented in Table 3. 14-10. The total number of vehicles associated with the mode shift is approximately 3,000 vehicles, which equates to 1,500 inbound and I,500 outbound trips. Since each vehicle generates one inbound and one outbound trip, there are actually I,500 vehicles, and thus I,500 persons, associated with the mode shift. In addition, contrary to III(- reference that the project site is 'h a mile from the nearest parking facility, the Downtown parking garage is approximately US of a mile From the visitor serving commercial component of the proposed project adjacent to first Street, and the hotel is less than '/r a mile (OAS mile) from the downtown parking garaoe. Other subterranean parking facilities, such as those at Pierside Pavilion below the nrtlltiplex movie theatre, are even closer to the Pacific Citv commercial retail and can logically be expected to result in pedestrian utilization of the easy access thereto. further, the comment significantly oversimplifies the concept of mode Shift in general, and as applied in the traffic: impact Study. While the concept of customers walking from the downtown area is a legitimate example of mocle shift, it is only one of at least ten potential mode Shift opportunities applicable to this project_ The following matrices present a more detailed rcvicw of the types of mocle shift opportunities considered in evaluating the mode Shift asSumhtionS used III the Stuch. Mode Shift Sources Surrounding Surrounding Oft site Downtown Residential(<0.5 Residential(>0.5 Mode hotels Beach Businesses mile radius) mile radius Transit Walking x x x x x Bicycle x x x x x Interaction Potential Surrounding Surrounding Project Beach/ Downtown Residential(< Residential(> Interaction OH site hotels Pier Businesses 0.5 mile radius) 0.5 mile radius) Transit Retail/ X X X X X x Restaurant Hotel x X x x Residential X x X Office x x x x It is recognized that the interaction and mode shift potential varies considerably between individual uses and that a very detailed estimate of each would be impractical. In reviewing but a few of,the potential interactions, it is reasonable, for example, to assume that people staving at the adjacent Hilton Elotel would consider having a meal at one of the restaurants G:\BROEPEII\En ,ton\PACIFIC CITARMC responses.00c 8 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 within the Pacific City project and ill ans• may choose to visit by walking across I Ioutington Sired to the project. This interaction demonstrates how the project is not only likely to experience reduced trip generation based on mode shift, but other adjacent facilities may generate less vehicle trips due to improved access to uses contained vvithin the project. Project employees at office, hotel, restaurant or retail components may also use transit to cornmute to and from work. This will vary considerable among the uses, and represents a relatively small portion of the nuxlc shift, but is a reasonable consideration based on other similarly situated projects. Project hotel guests are also likely to visit not only restaurant and retail clements of the project, but also visit the beach, the pier and downtown commercial areas—all within reasonable walking distances. This is an example of it fundamental principle being applied to the development of the project and the beach area of the City—creating a destination that attracts visitors and keeps them in the downtown- beach-pier area to recreate, shop and dine. ■ Failing to consider whether there hill ill jet be e.rcess parking in the downtown area sti icienr to allow for the a firrvmcntioned assumption: Excess parking in the downtown area is not needed to meet project. demands. The use of the mode shift is based on the concept that persons in vehicles already in the downtown area will access the project site without driving and re- parking their cars. Consequently, the project will not generate demands for off-site parking areas. It is also important to recognize that the oversimplification of the mode shift concept serves to exaggerate the assumed interaction with downtown businesses. It is only one component of the mode shill "equation" described above, and people who may be parked downtown represent only one "direction" of the interaction. People are also likely to stav within the project and walk to the downtown area to shop, dine and browse, replacing a vchielc trip they would have made somewhere outside of the area. ■ Failing to consider rile actual larking roes experienced br rile Hilton per a written study previouclr submitted to the CirV: 'I'he actual parkino rates at the Hilton differ from the project site due to differing features in each of these projects. The Hilton is a hotel only, with no retail component. As such, shared parking concepts do not apply to that site, and a hotel-only te1e development is not comparable to the project site, whose key traffic generated during the peak parking hour is retail. S. This issue was already raised as part of comment RaNIC(A)-SO on page 3-101 of the Final I_IR and responded to on pages 3-298 through 3-299 of the Final FIR. For the reader's convenience, the response is provided below: file deskm and operation of Pacific. View Avenue includes a 17-hrot through lane that would allow vehicics to back out of their parking space, reducing affects n❑ through traffic. In addition, the diagonal parking is proposed as ill interim condition, and the roadway would ultimately include tan lanes of travel in each direction. G:BROEREn\Ennrpn\PACIFIC CITY\RMC re5ponses.doc Pacific City 9 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 The construction of 2 lanes on Pacific: View Avenue will be an interim condition, and the ultimate configuration of Pacific View Avenue will be 4 lanes, consistent with the Orange Couniv MPAli. Impact TR-9 on pages 3.14-73 through 3. 14-75 analvzes emergency access, and this analysis also addresses queuing length for entry into project access driveways. Based on the analysis presented, adequate drivewav and queuing access for the proposed project will he provided, such that no constraints to vehicular movement on Pacific Vicw Avenue will result. Contrary to statements provided in this comment, the City did not require The Waterfront project to be built with development of Pacific: View Avenue with 4 lanes. Rather, this was the design provided by the applicant, and no other alternative was proposed. 9. 'I-his issue was already raised as comment RNIC-23 on page. 1-82 of the Final EIR and responded to on page 3-270 of the Final EIR. For the reader's convenience, relevant portions of the response are summarized below: The reconfiguration of Pacific View Avenue to a 4-lane secondary arterial would he subject. to ❑ project wndithm requiring posting (,f a perhnnrance b�rnd or .rill(,[ security h_v the Applicant to ensure future funding. Reconfiguration schedules would he based un the identified need tin' such rnodilicati,ms to occur. Reconfiguration would he triggered by other area development traffic enalvscs and observed incremental growth that rellect this need. Contrary to the statements in this comment, the EIR does in fact consider the effects from the change of Pacific View Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. This information is disclosed on pages 2-22 and 3. 14-37 of the Draft EIR, under the discussion of improvements to Pacific View AVcnuc. Further, Impact TR-8 considers the effects of the project to off--site parking and on- site parking needs. The angled parking on Pacific View is not included in any of the count: for the number of parking spaces that will result from the proposed project, and this parking is in addition to all required on-site parking that would be provided in the Subterranean garaEes. With respect to the issue of setbacks, Section 3.9 Land Use, page 3.9-17 identifies the need for a special permit in order to allow deviation from the required setback of 20 feet from Pacific Vicw AVC11Ue. As stated in the analysis of this issue on page 3.9-19: The setback encroachments on PCH and Pacific View Avenue would not change the character (,f the development fnlm that envisioned under the Specific flan. On PCH and Pacilic View, where some strucuucs would be located closer than the required setback, landscaped plans and other (,pen areas would he hocaied further Irom the street. This would ensure that the intensity of deeeloprnent along these roadways is G\BRGEREt I\En nron\PACIFIC CITY\RMC responses.00c 10 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1,2004 not substantialh, greater than lormitied, and the character of the development would be in keeling with that cnyisionccd under previous planning etfurts. This analvsis remains true under the 4-1ane configuration of Pacific View Avenue. The 90-foot right of way on Pacific View Avenue will remain regardless of the number of lanes on the roadway. l he only difference between the 2-1ane configuration and the ultimate 4-lane street configuration will be the dcsion within the 90-foot right of way. As such, the setbacks will remain and no additional anafesis is warranted. 10. This issue was already raised in letter RNIC(B) and responded to in the Topical Response on Water Qualitv on pages 3-173 through 3-175 of the Final EIR. For the reader's convenience, relevant portions of the response are provided below: Runoff-from the site is governed by the Santa Ana Regional AVatcr Qualitv Control Board (SARWQCI3) thruu11h the lrr,gram., that implement. water quality standards adopted b_v the SARWQCB. With. and through the authoriU_• of, the State Water Resources Board, the SARWQCB acts as the water pollution control agency for all purpose,stated in the Chan Water Act in the Santa Ana Region. Section 3.5.2 of the Draft d_lR diSUlsses the Regulatory Framework applicable to the proposed project. As discussed under this Section, the Clean Water Act. which is enforced through NPDIS requirements. the applicable Basin flan, and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan woulrl apply U, the Site, and the prujeel would meet all standards identified in these programs. The Drainage Study Including Preliminary Flvdroingy Analvsis and Water Quality Analvsis fur Pacific Citv (liunsaker R Associates 2003a) dcinonsuates the project would be in compliance with these standards once the final documents arc submitted and approved. ... Thus, the proposed Project would conform to all water quality requirements adopted by the SARWQCB. As diSCUSSC(I under Impact HYD-1 of the Draft BIR. the propoScd project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements: result in substantial >OUreCs of Polluted runoff; or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Although bacterial contamination has been a subject of disCUSSIom in recent years, the SARWQCB has not adopted water quality standards for bacteria and Pathogens in urhan runup). Further, according In the U.S. Environmental Proie:t.ion Agcncy (LI.S. IPA 1991): Stormwater runufl' is often rich in bacteria originating from ... nun-human (and largely non-disease Producing) sources and can contain high densities of indicator bacteria. Consequently, tier receiving waters containing discharges which originate primarily from separate storm drainage systems (and do net contain sanitary wastewater), these indicators arc ill-suited to accurately assess the water'S disease- producing capabil it ics. Drv-weather Bows in the rmnons of the Ciu• that drain to the ASWPS arc ctnrcntly treater) fur bacterial contamination ht• the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The basis for current treatment of drv-weather flows is set forth in Resolution No. OCSD 01-07, which acknowledges that certain hype.,of rdrv-weather urhan runoff create public health and/or environmental Problems, and that this G:\BROERErl\En nron\PACIFIC Cm1ARMC responses.00c Pacific City 11 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 runoff is inf-amblc a. cconomicall'v ur practicall II y conof. As the OCSD m has Illtcd capacity available in its system to allow drv-wcathcr runoll, to be acccptcd, only a portion of the drv-wcathcr flows in portions of the City arc discharged to the OCSD, and the treatment of drv-wcathcr Ilows is not required by the SARWQCI3. As discuved abovc, no standards have been adopted to address bacterial Ieycls in runoll.... The proposed project would include various mriaSnreS to reduce the potential fur bacterial contamination (& IUnolf. On-Site drainage m'eaS would have the first flush (SS-percentile 24-hour storm event nr the maximum flow rate of runoll' produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch per hour) and drv- weather flows treated by filtration systems included as part nil project design. Also, as described on pages KS-IS to 3.S-19 of the Draft FIR, the Applicant would he rcyuirerl by the Cil'V to deveh,p and implement a Water Qualitv Managenl nt Plan (WQMP) For the proposed project to maintain compliance with NPDF.S standards. The WQMP would include site design, Source control, and treatment control 13XIPs to address the specific pollutants anticipated firm the project and project mic...In addition to ensuring that the project meets current water qualiu' Standards—including troll- point SourceS of contamination—these RMPs would also reduce the potential for bacterial contamination of the water supply. In addition, tile, project would comp]• wish the conditions of the City', NPDI-S Slormwatm' NIS4 permit (NPDI--S No. CAS618030) and the Drainage Area Nlanagement. flan (DAMP) adopted under the terms of the permit. The goal of the permit is to prntcct bcncficial uscS of receiving waters by reducing pollutant loading to Surface waters IFom urban runofl to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). EMIT as defined in the permit. k the maximum extent feasible, taking into acnrunt considerations of, senerOstic, additive, and competing factors, including but riot limilcd to graviu' of the problem, technical Icasibilily, fiscal G:asihility, public health risks• societal concerns, and social benefits. The Applicant would be bound by the Oh•'s Water Qualitv Ordinance adopted to cnsurc compliance with the NPDFS Slot ntwater Permit., applicable provisions of the DAMP, and the Statewide General Permit fur Siorm eater Discharge Associated with Construction Activiu'. With respect to dry wcathcr flows, Drainage Area "A" would continue to go to the ASWPS fur all dr'v-wcalher and stormw•ater flows. In addition, the clry weather flow fur Drainage Area -13" can he routed into Area "A" and to the ASWPS, in order that, at.the Cov's discretion, these Ilows mac be routed Ibr treatment by OCSD.... -]-his comment notes that a large portion of the site's storm flows will be redirected to the beach, where previously it was not. All runoff, including that diverted to the beach, will be required to conform to the standards adopted by the SARWQR. As indicated above, the project would comply with the conditions of, the City's NPDI_S Stormwater MS4 permit (NPDI S No. CAS618030) and the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) adopted under- Ili(- terns of the permit. The goal of the permit is to protect beneficial uses of receiving waters by reducing pollutant loading to surface waters from urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable (MI-T). As the project would meet these standards, diversion to the beach would not significantly impact water quality. G,\BROEREIJ\En Jron\PACIFIC CnY\RMC responses.aoc 12 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 For the purpose of providing the most current information, it is also worth noting that subsequent to certilication of the FIR, the Huntington Bcach Planning Commission adopted a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to participate in developing a regional urban runoff treatment for the First Sweet watershed. Identified as Condition of Approval S.b. for the CUI' and CDI' for the proposed project, this condition requires the applicant, at their expense, to develop concept and design plans and costs estimated for a regional urban runoff treatment solution for the First Street watershed storm flows. Upon approval by the City, the applicant will post a minimum S-year bond for 1/7" of the capital construction costs of the treatment. system. In addition, the Pacific City master CC&Rs will require. the project to pay for 1/7 h of the ongoing annual operation and maintenance costs of'the treatment system. 1 I . The City has acknowledged concerns related to bacterial contamination, as provided in the Topical Response on Water Quality and reiterated above. It is the Citv's intent to great the dry weather flows and then divert the flows from the project site to the Atlanta Siormwater Pump Station for discharge into OCSD. However, this action would be subject to the ongoing permit to divert dry weather flows issued by OCSD. If this permit issued by OCSD is not in place, diversion cannot: occur. In addition, il' the City cannot meet all permit conditions imposed by the OCSD, then the diversion cannot be implemented. The potential additional diversion of dry weather flows is not necessary to offset an impact; instead, it is in part in response to public input on this issue, and the Cit:y's implementation of conservative water quality measureS, based on current technology and practical considerations. Bacterial contamination, while a current issue, is not a water quality parameter with standards identified by law or regulation by anv of the public agencies that establish water quality control programs that would be applicable to the project site. Consequently, because no standards or thresholds have been adopted by the SARbVQCB to address the issue of bacterial contamination, this issue is not identified as significant, as explained in the Topical Response on Water Quality and reiterated in response 10 above. "Thus, because impacts will not be significant, no mitigation measures are necessary to address this impact_ The potential for future dry weather diversion is a measure agreed to by the applicant ancf City as a design feature of the project to minimize effects of bacterial contamination. However, it is not a required measure to address project impacts that results from exceedance of a threshold of significance_ The [IR remains adequate with respect to its analysis of water quality issues. G:\ePOEREI I\En nrm\PnCIFlC CRy�RMC responses.doc Pacific City 13 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1,2004 12. These issues have ah-cadv been raised in comments RrNIC-31 , RMC-33, RAMC-34, and RMC- 35 on pages 3-98 through 3-99 in the Final EIR and responded to on pages 3-272 through 3- 280 in the Final GIR. These responses address the overall adequacy of the alternatives analysis presented in the FAR and affirm the number of alternatives analyzed in detail. The reduction in commercial uses from 240,000 Square feet to 191, 100 square feet represents a reduttion of approximately 20 percent of the connmea-cial uses. ']'his comment attempts to mask the extent of the reduction by comparing the reduction in retail space to (1) tilt- total occupied area of the commercial and hotel uses, which include over 300,000 Sf of guest rooms and (2) the total amount of development on tilt' entire 31-acre site. The reduction to 191, 100 square feet considers the increase in 10,000 sf of restaurant uses. However, the net reduction in development under- this alternative is 48,900 sl-. Mort- Substantial reductions in development in order to eliminate impacts entirely were considered. However, the reduced project alternative that is analyzed in detail is feasible, meets project objectives, and reduces significant project impacts. For the readcl 's convenience, relevant potions of the responses that have already addressed the issues raised in this comment arc provided below: RMC-31 As noted in this comment, Cl-QA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) slates that an GIR must consider `a range of reasonable altcrnatives...which tyould feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the prujCct but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant cliects of the project..." In identification of project alicrnativcs, consideration is given to whether- development of the project in a ditlei-cm location would reduce significant impacts. Since nearly all significant impacts can be reduced to Icss-than-significant levels through mitigation measures. the focus of the alternatives analysis is on significant and unavoidable impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts from the proposed project are related to air quality and translt,ortation. Impacts on thcsc resources would ,as:ur even if the project tva-e to be developed at a diflerent location, as these impacts are relaierd Io specilie project characteristics, not project location. Location of the project at another site could reducC impacb to the Warner Avenuc/PCH and Seapoint. Avenuc/PCH intersection. However Ili,: total trip generation would be the same, and relocating the: project to lessen impacts to these inter9eetions would not necessarily eliminate u'aflic impacts of the project, as it is likelY that any other location in the City would have irnpacts Io intersection operations. Further, the consu-uctiun activities would result in the same emissions, irrespective of project location, and mobile in, emissions would be the same, since trip generation would be the same. fhu'cGrre, signifitant and unavoidable impacts would occur, even at an alternative location. ... G:\BROEREIJ\Ennron\PACIFIC CUARMC resoonses.aoc 14 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 Alternatives to the general land uses proposed at the project site were also evaluated nn a programmatic level in prior environmental documentation, and the hrllowing d15CU>Slon provides a review of these previous alternatives considered for the Site within a lar,,cr planning context.. As discussed nn page I-I oh the Dratt FIR, development on the project site is addressed on a programmatic level as part of the analysis inClu prepared dcd in several previous Program EIRS by the Cite of Huntington Rcach. These documcnt:, which are incorporated by reference. in flies Draft FIR on page I-I in accordance with CFQA Guidelines section I5I50. include (1) The Huntington Beach DTSP FIR 82-2 and Addendum to SFIR 52-2; (2) 'I'hc I-luniinvtnn Beach Gcncral Plan Update FIR 94-9; and (3) the Huntington Reach Redevelopment Projcca EIR 96-2. A range of alternative-s I�nr the area analtv.cd in each 1112, which included the project site, were considered in each of these documents, including a No Project Alternative in all three EIRS. f_ach ol'thc relevant plans that inCILJdCd the project Sites was adopted, and the No Project Alternative aSSCSsed in each FIR was determined not to he the appropriate alternative. The Huntington Bcach General Plan Update EIR, which addressed development Citywide, also contained the following relevant alternative: ■ Reduced Buildout Altcrnativc—Reduce development in the City by 23 percent. The 1-1 unt ington Beach Redevelopment. Project. FIR, which was prepared for the redevelopment project area that includes the project Site, contained the followinu relevant alternatives: ■ Alternate Project Location Alternatives No Suitable location could be identified. ■ Increased Development. Altcrnativc—iblaximi'ic development up to capacities greater than development intensity allowed under the City General Plan. ■ Rcduced Development Alternative Reduce programs to fund capital improvement projects within the Redevelopment rArca. The Final DTSP FIR, which was prepared for the DTSP arca and includes the project Site, reviewed the following relevant alternatives: ■ Lower Intensity Alternative—Rcduce the allowable densities and decrease the building envelope in the DTSP at ■ Higher Intensity Alternative—Intensify dcvclopntcnt in the DTSP area. AS diSCUSSCd on page 3.9-20 of the Draft. EIR, the City determined that the uses idemifled in each ol'the three planning documents, which included the project Site, were appropriate and fullilled the City's objectives fin the larger planning area. The alternativcS identified above did not. Substantially reduce Significant impacts and/or did not newest objectives for the area. Thus, the allowable uses and alternatives to these uses were considered on a macro-level within the Program EIRS icicntilied above. The analvsis provided in the FIR considered the Specific oh development on the site, and analvzed a range of alternatives for the Site, as discussed in detail in Chaplet 4o1'the Draft EIR. G:\OROEREI'I\'cnnron\PACIFIC C TY\PMC responses,doc Pacific City 15 The Robert Mayer Corporation, April 1,2004 RA1C-33 ...As .stated on park 4-26 of the_- Draft L-IR, a reduction in the density of residential units would recluse the severity of impacts, but would not lessen any significant and unavoidable impacts to ICss-than-Agnilicant levels. ... As shown in Table 3.14-10 on page 3.14-29 of the Draft FIR. a total of 12,002 trips would he generated by the proposer] project. Oh this total, residential uSCS would generate 2,048 trips, or slightly less than 20 liercent ol'total project trips. As shown in ]'able 3.246 on page 3.2-I5 of the Draft FIR, VOC emissions from the project would total 70.94 pounds per day (lbs/day), exceeding the threshold of SS Ibs/day, thus. exceeding thresholds by approximately 30 percent. Even it the number of, residences were to be reduced by hall, a reduction of 1.024 trips would not be substantial in comparison to the-trips generated as a whole, and would neither Substantialh• reducC impacts to traffic or air duality, nor reduce impacts to Icss-than- signilicant levels. Further, the site is zoned for a density. of 30 units per acre, and it is appropriate to develop the site in this range, as development of this density has been envisioned on the site in the City Gencral flan and DTSP. Thus, the City has aheadv made fundamental policy decisions about the appmpriatc residential dcnsiu• fur the site. In keeping with the legislative goal of long-term comprehensive planning, the City does nor need to rcarmidcr their past policv decisions about the density on the site (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupCrvisolS, (1990) S2 Cal.3d 553). CFQA police and Guidelines limit the environmental anal vsis iccluircd un a project that is consistent with ihC general plan and zoning and/or a redevelopment plan (refer to CI:QA Sections 21083.3 and 21093 and CFQA Guidelines Sections IS180 and ISIS3). RA1C-34 Please refer to Response to Comment RMC'.-32 on page 3-276. As rdiscusscd, several alternatives were considered but not carried 1iwwmd lot detailed analysis. These alternatives were part of the initial screening proco-sS and were not. "Surmoarily rejecter].' As identified in Practice Under the Cdlfomia Environmental Ltality Act (Stephen L. KoAka and iblichael 1-I. 7_ische), Section I.S.S. "There arc two stages of analvsis in selecting alternatives to be included in air FIR. At the first Stage, the ]cad ar,Cncv identifies potential alternatives that meet the threshold tests dclining suitable alternatives, and CxcludC> those that do not. At the Second stage of analvsis. the lead agency must consider the Suitable alternatives that remain and identil-N. a reasonable range- for review in the FIR. The "threshold tests" reler to several criteria to determine whether an alternative should he considered in detail. These include whether or not the project could (1) reduce significant impacts; (2) meet project objectives; (3) are feasible; or (4) are plainly unreasonable. Section 4.3 of the FIR identifies fur the record those alternatives that were part of the first stage of the alternatives analysis, and, thus, includcS those alternatives considered, but that did not meet the threshold tests for alternatives that should he analyzer) in detail in the 1:1 R. O',\BP.OERE9\Environ\PnCIFlC CitV\RMC resoonses.eoc 16 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 The first two alternatives would result in dificrent outcome at the project Site, ']'he No Project/No Development alternative was prepared to disclose the effects of no development nn the site. The No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development was prepared to present the effcet if the proposed project were not approved. and another development proposal weir. submitted. Thus, one alternative addresses nu development on site, air(] the other addre,es future development on Site_ As such, these are two cdifTerrnt future scenarios, and the statement that three alternative were Selected for detailed analv,is is an accurate Statement and iS not "misleading." RAIC-3S Contrary to the int4mation presented in this comment, three alternative are analrzed in detail in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.3 on pages 4-4 through 4-24 of the Draft GIR: (1) No Project/No Development: (2) No Project/Reasonably ForeSccable Development: and (3) Reduced Project. The CC-QA Guidelines Section 1S12(,.((a) state that "there is no iron clad rude governing the nature or SCupr of'thC Alernalivcs to be discussed other than the rule of reason." -]-he rule of reason reyuirCS that un]v those alternatives needed to permit a reasoned choice need to be analezed in cdetail, and the alternative should be limited to those that would avoid or rrdueC signiHeart impacts, and only those that would Ivasibly meet most of the project objCOIVCS require detailed study (CGQA Guidelines Section IS12(.((1). -thus, as discussed in Response to Comment RMC-31 on page 3-272, the Gx:us of the alternatives was on those reducing S[gniltcant an, qualitv and ualfic impact. The Conclusions of the f_IR and the land use designations of the site—permittinu residential uses in certain arras and commercial uses in others—thereby limited the feasible rant:ul alternatives that warranted rdetailed analysis. A Reduced Hotel Alternative wnu]d not Satisfy the intent of the adlcrnativcs analysis. A reduction in hotel tucs would not be Sufficient enough to reduce trip generation to a level that would substantially lessen operational in, emissions and trip generation. Additional inl�xntalvm has hero added to the Final GIR discuSSinn of the RednCCd Residential Density Alternative to providC CvidCoCV as to why this alternative was not considered in detail.... As Shown in -['able 3.14-10 on page 3.14-29 of the Draft GIR, a total of 12,002 trip, would he generated by Ili,: proposed project. Of this total, the hotel would generate 2,249 trips, or ,dightle less than 20 dxrcent of total project trips. AS shown in Table 3.2-( on page 3.2-15 of the Draft FIR. VOC emissions from the project would total 70.94 poundS per cdav (Ihs/dav), exceeding the threshold of SS dhs/cdav, thus cm,ceding thresholds by approsimateiv 30 percent. A 50 percent reduction in the number of hotel rooms would result in fewer trips. however, the number of trips would be reduced by less than hall (I,12S trips). The reduction in hotel trips would nut be Substantial in comparison to the trips generated as it whole, and would neither Substantially reduce impacts to trallic of air quality, nor t'CdtICC impacts to less-than-Significant levels. - AS cdiSCuSScd under SCction 3.1, Impact,Af_S-2 and AGS-3 on pages 3.1-30 through 3.1-34 of the Draft ELM, visual changes were determined not to adversely impact the visual quality of the area or the public availability of scenic views. A three- or four- Story hotel would have less Severe impacts in terms of mass, hulk, and density, as G'.\6ROEREJ\En iiron\PACIFIC OTY\RMC responses,eoc Pacific City 17 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 indicated in this comment. I-Iowcver. since no significant aesthetic impacts arc identified, it would not be appropriatc to analaze a reduced hotel on the basis of reduced aesthetic impacts.... This comment states that the area eliminated under the Reduced Projcct Alternative is the "least desirable 3`a floor retail and office space..." Given that the concern of the alternatives analysis is the reduction of significant impacts, which arc air and traffic, the location of the development on the site itself does not have bearing on the ability to reduce impacts- Rather, the reduction in over-all development achieves the goal of reducing significant impacts. Consequently, the desirability of the 3"I floor space is not a iSSue in this portion of the analysis. Response RIbIC-33 explains why the reduced residential development alternative was not. considered in detail, and response RMC-3S explains why a reduced hotel alternative was not considered in detail, and these responses are provided above. To further elaborate on the adequacy of the number of alternatives anal\zed in the EIR, additional information is provided in this response. As noted in CFQA GuidclincS Section 1 S 126.6(a), an FIR need not discus every alternative to the project. In Citizens ojGoleta Vallee r Bourd of Supen'isors(1990), the courts noted that an EIR should present "a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that adequately represents the spectrum of reasonable alternatives. -these standards do not establish ironclad rules relating to the range of alternatives to be discussed in an EIR. Instead, the nature and scope of the alternatives to be studied in an EIR is guided by the rule of reason, which dictates that an EIR Should only discuss those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." The number of alternatives presented is dictated by the need to present alternatives that (1) conform to the Downtown Specific Plan and (2) reduce sionificant impacts that would not otherwise be mitigated and (3) meet most basic project objectives. Due to the nature of the significant and unavoidable impacts at the site (air quality and ti-affic), the number of alternatives that meets the criteria is limited. Reductions in residential and/or hotel uses in a manner that would allow the project to remain feasible would not achieve these ci-itcria; an alternative site design with the same Square footaoe as the proposed project would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts; and the mix of uses is governed by those allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan. The EIR alternatives analysis identifies those alternatives considered, explains why certain alternatives were not carried forward for detailed evaluation, and provides alternatives that would achieve the objectives of an alternatives analysis required pursuant to Section &\BROEREII\Eniron\PACIFIC Clty\RMC respwse5.am 18 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 1 S 126.6(a) of the CGQA Guidelines. Thus, the alternatives presented in the EIR for the Pacific City project meet the standard of providing a reasoned choice. Moreover, the 1990 Golew decision held that an FIR is not deficient if it excludes other potential alternatives from its analvsis if it discusses a reasonable range of alternatives. In Village Laguna If Laguna Reach, hie. r Roa21 f'SnPerricors (19S2), the court held that an FIR that discussed a reasonable range of alternative densities lot- a major development was not defective becausee it failed to consider other reasonable intermediate density alternatives in addition to those that were studied. For the reasons above, as well as all the information in the Graft and Final EIR, the City concludes that the EIR meaningfully considers a range of reasonable alternatives, and no further alternatives analysis is warranted. 13. This comment incorrectly Gates that. the methodology in the: selection of the alternatives was to eliminate front detailed study those alternatives that would not lessen certain impacts to a less-than-significant lewd, even though it: may sianificantly reduce other impacts. Rather, the rationale for selection of alicniatives is to focus on those significant impacts that could not otherwise be mitigated to less than significant. The intent of CEQA is to provide an alternatives analvsis that identifies alternatives that would have the ability to substantially reduce significant and unavoidable impacts, rather than alternatives that would fiLH-thCt' reduce impacts that would be less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant. Pile Laurel Heights decision identified in this comment is not relevant to this project. That decision focused on an Elk that did not have either alternatives analvsis or significant impacts, unlike the proposed project. This decision required that, even though significant impacts could be mitigated, alternatives were still required. The Pacific City EIR analysis differs from this case in that there are significant and unavoidable impacts that need to be considered in germs of how to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, 'tile project site, unlike that in the Laurel Heights decision, was the Subject of previous environmental and planning analysis that affirmed the intensity and types of land uses for tile site, as discussed in response to comment RMC-31, which is provided above under response 12. Thus, this is the focus of the alternatives analvsis, and the analysis does not conflict with the Laurel lleighrs decision. 14. The clear intent of the alternatives analysis, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 is to identify alternatives "which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the G:\BROEPEH\Enn:pn\PACIFIC CItY\RMC responses.tloc Pacific City 19 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project..." "thus, alternatives that do not meet most of the basic project objectives arc. not in keeping with the intent of the alternatives analysis. The issue of an alternative with fewer housing unit: was aheadv raised in comment RNIC-33 on page 3-3.5 of the Final FIR and responded to on page 3-276 through .3-277 of the Final FIR. -]'his response is provided above under response 12. That response also explains, consistent. with case law, that. the City does not need to reconsider their past policy decisions about the density on the site. In addition, compliance with the General Plan density assigned to the site is consistent with planning and zoning law, and the legislative goal of' long-term comprehensive planning. The reduced plan for the Waterfront referenced in this comment was at the election of the Rr41C, based on development preferences and market conditions_ It was not required or initiated by the Planning Department. With respect to the proposed project, a reduction in lotCoSity is n t not "ou of the question," rather, the applicant has designed a project of a certain Size, which is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, making a reduction other than that analvzed in the EIR unnecessarv. I5. This issue was already raised as comments RM(-,-42, RAiC-43, and I3ixbv-24 on pages 3-37, 3-88, and 3-136, respectively, of the Final EIR, and responded to in responses to comments on page; 3-282, 3-253, 3-309, and 3-310 of the Final EIR. Relevant. information from those responses is included in the response provided below. As stated in Impact 1310.5 on page 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR, ongoing operation of the permitted remcdiation plan at the project site currently inhibits the assessment of "normal conditions" with respect to the potential presence of wetlands. As also stated in Impact 1310-5 on pages 3.3-21 through 3.3-22 of the Drali. EIR, until the remediation activities are completed, a determination of the presence or absence of wetlands under normal conditions would not be possible, as the site is Currently in an altered state due to the remediation process. The majoritv of the hydrophytic (or wetland) vegetation that is present on the project site is within or closchl associated with the remcdiation footprint and is either Supported by groundwater seepage emanating from the remediation pits (occurring at approximately IS feet below grade) or by low topographic swales that have been created by the remediation activities (i.e., truck traflic, soil removal). To (late, the Coastal Commission has not offered a conflicting statement indicating that tilling of'the pits would not be allowed, nor cyould return of the site to its pre-remediation State not be allowed. In fact, the G:VROEREI I\En,iron\PACIFIC 0n11RMC responses.doc 20 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 4 2004 remediation plan that is the subject of Conditional Use Permit (CDP) 00-36 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 00-09 specirically require that the remediation excavations are backfilled (see Remediation Plan. Rerision 3. Atlanta Site Pmpern' Rounded hr PCH. Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, and First Sweet, Huntington Beach, Calybrma. Conditional Use Permit 00-36. Coastal Dereloprnenr Permit 00-091P61'01-023, L01-1SS, Mali 22, 2002. pages 9 and 10, Flarding ESE). Therefore, consistent with wetlands delineation practices and the terms of CLIP 00-:36 and CDP 00-09, the applicant shall assess wetland vcgclalion after the remediation is complete (that is, when the bits arc re-lilled and the project site is returned to its normal state), yet bclirc consumction. To address the current condition of the project site, and to ensure that no significant impacts to wetlands would result from construction of the proposed project, (Mitigation Measure RIO- I was developed. -Mitigation tNicasure RI0-1 requires that appropriate habitat, wildlife, or plant surveys, which could include wetlands habitat survevs, are conducted if sensitive habitats are present on the project site: Specifically, (Mitigation Measure 1110-1 also requires that survevs arc conducted by: (I) by a qualified biologist; (2) during the appropriate time of year; and (3) prior to construction of the proposed project (but after remediation is complete). Further, if any sensitive habitats are present (as determined under normal circumstances, prior to construction activities), all applicable State and federal permits must be obtained, which is consistent with Sections 15126.4(a)(1)(A), 15126.4(a)(1)(13), 151 26.4(a)(2), and 15126.4(a)(4)(B) of CEQA, and the issuance ofthese permits, if required, would also outline the terms of mitigation as established by the relevant permitting agencies. ']'his is consistent with Impact B10-5, presented on pages 3.3-21 through 3.3-22 of the Draft FIR, which states that if, after filling the remediation pits, wetland vegetation still exists, "the Applicant would be required to obtain all necessary permits required by the City (as trUSte'e' For the CCC) and the CDPG in order to be in compliance with the Fish and Game Code of California and the California Coastal Act." North noting, while the EIR provided wetlands definitions pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Sections 1600 et al of the Fish and Game Code of California, and the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code 30121 and 14 CCR 13577), no formal or informal wetlands delineation was completed, nor was one required due to presence of"non- normal circumstances." Nonetheless, pages 3.3-20 through 3.3-21 of the Draft FIR state that Ng 1101dnds deli❑Catlgn9 were ncccs.�V c to support isatance gt CtIP tMl-36 gr CUP OO-09, nor%,cre any requested by any member nl the public in asauciaumi kith issuance of dwse permits. Further, the CUP was nut appealed to the Caliti ern m Coastal Cummicsiun by the Coinims_aign asell'or he a member nl'the puhlic. G:\BROERErl\Ennron\PACIFlC CinlRMC respwses,Wc Pacific City 21 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 wetlands do not exist on the project site because normal circumstances, which existed prior to retnediation activities, did not indicate the presence of wetlands, as further substantiated in the paragraphs provided below. Therefore, as staged in the FIR, the appropriate time to definitively confirm that wetlands are not present, as Suggested by history, would be after the site is ITILI CCI 10 normal Circumstances, vet prior to construction. The CI QA Guidelines and case law acknowledge that the conditions that exist at the tinge of issuance of the \'OP is the normal requirement to determine existing conditions, but that other information may also be appropriate to consider. Because the Pacific City site has been studied for over twenty years, and has been occupied by a variety of land uses in the past, it is appropriate to consider those past uses and Studies in determining whether wetland_- have been known to occur on the Site. A study of the. past 20 years of the project site gives no indication that there ever were wetlands present. The current Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the site leas certilied by the CCC on June 14, 2001, which consists of the Coastal Element Of the City of 1-4fluingto11 Beach General Plan and District 7 and District. Sa of the Downtown Specilic Ilan, including the specilic coastal-related policies governing development in the Coastal Zone as set forth in those approved documents. The. LCI' does not contain any wetland-related maps, graphics, or policies that would delineate or sukgest in any way the existence of wetlands, Environmental Sensit.ive Habitat Areas (I-SHAs), hvdric soils, or wetland indicator species at the project site. Further, Figure C-21 of the Coastal Element, which identifies F_SHAs (including wetlands) as determined by the Department of Fish and Game and approved by the CCC in 1956, does not indicate that the project site contains any Such sensitive habitat areas. There is also other supporting documentation to suggest that wetlands have not been historically located on the project Site. Section 4. 15 of the Downtown Specific Plan (2000 version) includes a Conservation Overlay designation. The purpose of this designation, as stated on pave 68, is "to regulate those areas which have been preliminary [sic] identified as wetlands." Figure 4. 15 depicts both restorable and degraded wetlands, and none are identified Oil the project site. This is also the ease in the 1989 version of the Downtown Specific Plan. In reviewing the zoning of the site, the l' llowing designations have been assigned: 1946— Industrial District; I948—Multiple Fanlily and Hotel; 1959—I\lultiple Residential and Services; 1960 to 1982—General Business in the western half of the Site, Professional, Motel, Trailer Park in the eastern half of the site, and Limited (Multiple Family Residence in a small Section along most of Atlanta and a portion of the interior of the site; 1982—(Mobile in the G\9ROEREI I\En'nron\PACIFIC CITY\RMC responses.oa 22 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 southeast area; 1983 to present—Downtown Specific Plan. At no point was an open space conservation zoning assigned to the propert.y, which is the Chy's typical designation for an area that contains sensitive habitats, including wetlands. A review of the Huntington Beach wetlands, as determined by the California Coastal Conservancy, does not identify the. project site as containing wetlands (help://%vww•.coastalconsez-van(:yAm goy/smvT/SkePks/20_FH&html, May S, 2004). Similarly, a visual inspection of a 1994 aerial photograph (hall//teraserver-usa.com, May S, 20DQ and 2000 aerial photograph (Appendix I of the Final EIR) does not indicate the presence of wetland or riparian areas. "rhe Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 31-Acre. Project Site Soil Export (Environmental Assessment No. 99A) also does not indicate that wetlands were found on-site, which is the same conclusion made in the Biological 'Technical Report completed for the proposed project based upon field work conducted by professional biologists in December 2001 . Consistent with Section IS126 of the CFQA Guidelines, the analysis of impacts to biological resources was based on the physical conditions in the affected area, as they exist at the time of the publication of the Notice of Preparation. The physical conditions that: exist: at the time of publication of the NOP, including the areas of concern noted by the commentor, were determined by professional, qualified biologists and are set: forth in Appendix I of the Draft EIR (Pacific City Biological Technical Report, February 2002, HonTerra Conwlting). At this time, the site was in mid-remediadon phase, and no wetland vegetation was present. Therefore, the vegetation map provided by Figure 3.3-1 (On-Site Vegetation -hypes), which reflects existing conditions at the time the NOP was released, does not include. any wetland- associated habitats. Nonetheless, page 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR describes the conditions that existed after release of the NOP based upon a second field survey conducted by a professional biologist in September 2003. The Draft E[R states that, "Small patches within the remediation pits had vegetation drat are conunonly Bound in moist to wet soils. These species include. tall flat sedge (Gpcnls cnegrgsris), rabbit`s loot grass (Fah-pngon rmxrspclieasi.:), saltgrass (Sp,frti lot s)), woolly sea-blite (Suaccla ra.rJolia), salt-marsh sand spurry (Spergularia marina), and arrowgrass (7righwhin concinna). Due to the temporary nature of the pits, and the short duration that they were present (between 10 and 17 months), the vegetation was sparse, poorly developed, and had extremely low to no hahhm value.° Further, although not consistent with the requirements of CEQA (with respect to when the "existing condition:' are cmalshAwd) or the process for conducting wetlands delineations (under normal circumstances), it would be G:\BROEREI I\Enmron\PACIFIC CITY\RMC resoonses.tloC Pacific City 23 The Robert Mayer Corporation, April 1,2004 arguable whether the vegetation comprises a recognized "habitat type" or"habitat community" because it is sparse, poorly developed, and with little habitat value, if anv. 16. As previously stated, the LIR notes the need to confirm that wetlands do not exist on the project site clue to the fact that normal circumstances do not exist as a result of the remediation activities that have been previously authorized by CUP 00-36 and CDP 00-09. Therefore, anv further analysis of wetlands, beYond the review of historic aerial photographs and documents, as well as recent site visits by professional biologists, is not appropriate at this time; instead, the FIR states that the appropriate time to confirm that wetlands do not exist would be alter the site is returned to normal circumstances, vet prior to construction. Further, even if all project approvals were granted, the Applicant must still comply with all prevailing laws and regulations that govern development: on wetlands, if for some unforeseen reason, the\- are found to exist after the site is returned to its normal condition. In addition, the FIR never draws a conclusion as to whether wetlands, if they even exist on the project site under normal conditions, would be destroved or retained, or mitigated off- site or on-site. Instead, it is assumed that compliance with the required permitting processes, if applicable and as required by law, would CnSwe a no-net-loss of wetlands with appropriate mitigation (i.e., amount, type, location, monitoring and maintenance requirements, ctc.) approved by the involved permitting agencies and dearly established as a legally enforceable permit condition. It is standard industry practice to assume that compliance with all applicable laws and regulations would occur and, therefore, they are typically not identified as mitigation measures. For example, with respect to vehicular and pedestrian safety, it is assumed that drivers will comply with all prevailing speed limits, and for worker safer, it is assumed that construction employers will comply with the legal requirements established by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Compliance with anv precautionary or compensatory laws is assumed to occur and, in fact, must occur. Establishing these provisions in a mitigation measure does not provide any additional level of assurance of implementation. Lastly, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) did not provide ally comments on the Draft EIR during the 4.S-clay public review period, which commenced on October 17, 2003, and ended on December .3, 2003, nor did the CCC attend the Public Information 69eeting that was held on November 13, 2003. In fact, the CCC did not Submit a comment letter until March 18, 200#, which was received by the Citv on March 23, the day of the Planning Commission certification hearing, and over three months after the close of the comment C.\BROEREr\En nron\PACIFIC CITY\RMC responses.00e 24 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 period. However, the CCC's Ieuer of Ibtarch IS, 2004 was submitted to the Planning Commission for review and consideration prior to the certification hearing, a hearing that was also publicly noticed on March 11, 2004 and March 13, 2004- Similarly, the CCC's recent letter of April 13, 2004, which was received by the City on April 18, 2004, will be submitted to the City Council for their- review and consideration prior to action on the project. 17. Refer to responses 15 and 16 above for a discussion of why it is not appropriate to confirm that wetlands are not present at this time, as well as the process for determining adequate, feasible, implementablc, and enforceable mitigation, if required- 1 S. Refer to responses I S and 16 above for a discussion of why it is not appropriate to confirm that wetlands are not present at this time, as well as the process fir determining adequate, Feasible, implementable, and enl trceable mitigation, if required. Further, the site would be evaluated at a specified time in the process, which is after the remedianon activities are completed pursuant to CLIP 00-36 and CDP 00-09, vet prior to construction activities. 19. Refer to responses 15 and 16 above for a discussion of why it is not appropriate to confirm that wetlands are not present at this time, as well as the process lot- determining adequate, Icasible, implcmentable, and enl'rccable mitigation, if required. 20. Over 20 vears of documentation has not indicated the presence of wetlands on the project site. As PI-MOLISly stated in response 16, above, the L'-IR never draws a conclusion as to whether wetlands, if by Some unforeseen event, they were to exiSI on the project site under normal conditions, would be destroyed or retained, or mitigated off-site or on-site- As also arid in response 16, there is an established permitting process, required by law, that determines the terms and conditions of habitat removal or retention, as well as the Specific requirements for mitigation, it wetlands are present. As previously stated, the presence of hydrophytic vegetation has occul-red as a direct result of the activities authorized by CLIP 00- 36 and CDP 00-09, Worth noting, no such vegetation was present during the original field survcv conducted in December 2001 (as supported by the aerial photograph provided in Appendix I of the Draft I-Ilk, which is dated 2000), nor in a preliminary review of historical aerial photographs that were provided during the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission public hearing on March 23, 2004, by a commenting member of the public. 21 . The comment referred to, identified in the FI'IR as RINK-5 on page 3-79 of the Final fIR, converts the mode shill percentage used into actual numbers of persons, and identifies that 3,000 people each day and 330 people in the evening peak hour will walk to the Project site. ONBROEREMEnwomPACIFIC CIty�RMC respp se5.0oc Pacific City 25 The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1, 2004 from the beach or downtown area. A., stated in response 7 above, lifth bullet, this comment contains factual errors and oversimplification of the mode shift issue. Refer to re polue 7 above for detail. 22. See response to comment 2 to this letter, which disCOSSCS the topical response on traffic: generation. The project itself represents a unique development in the area, and as a result., no one prior traffic study can be relied on as containing the data that. would be appropriate to use in this analysis. The City evaluated empirical evidence from a number of other projects as detailed in the topical response on traffic generation, as identified in response 2, above. These other projects and real-world experience were combined with published materials and the City's professional judgment to determine the traffic generation. As stated in response 2, above, the traffic analysis report was prepared with extensive coordination and direction provided by the City. The City and City's consultants reviewed and commented on the traffic: analysis report in order to ensure that it reflected the City's independent judgment. 23. Review of the comment IetterS makes disagreement among the experts plainly clear. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the Ellt provides the main points of disagreement among experts as presented in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments. Further, the FIR is in keeping Nvith the Berkelrr Krepleis Orer the Bar Comm. r Board nf'Porr Commissioners (2001), which requires that an FIR acknowledges the conflicting opinions and explains why they have been rejected, and provides a good faith, reasoned analysis in response to eonuncntS that an FIR analysis relies on flawed methodology. The comment identifies that `where differences in expert opinions exist, such as between the developer's traffic conSttliant and the City's review consultant, the EIR Should Summarize and explain the main points of disagreement_" "There was no disagreement in expert opinion between LLG and LSA. As stated in response 3 above, LSA alfirmed the cunclusionS of the tralfic analysis, and made comments intended as clarifications of the analysis. The review letter provided by LSA does not reach the level of disagreement among experts. In fact, the LSA review was used by the City to refine and clarifv the traffic analysis. l 24. Public notification of the City Council meeting that will review the appeal on the EIR is provided to all relevant parties. As demonstrated in the responses above, the EIR not only meets the standards for accuracy and fairness maintained by the City Ibr environmental documents, but, more importantly, the Ellk also meets the substantive and procedural requirementS of CE•QA, CC-QA Guidelines, and relevant case law. Consequently, the City believes there is no basis for the denial of the certification of EIR No. 02-01 . Nevertheless, &\BROEREII\En,,ron\PACGIC CITV\RMC respwses.Om 26 Pacific City The Robert Mayer Corporation,April 1,2004 the City Council will lull, consider the appeal and will hold a de novo hearing as stated in the. /_oning Code Section 248.20. GABROEREti\En nron\PACIFIC CITf\RMC responses.dm Pacific City 27 ATTACHMENT 7 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.850. 1030 1 WEBSITE: www.lbbslaw.com c o _ 0 FRANK C.BRUCCULERI April 2, 2004 4F E NZ). DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 2a658=1 L =- E-MAIL brucculeriQlbbslaw.com — _- I _ IV "- City of Huntington Beach r- Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street c� Huntington Beach, California 92648 A D Re: Appeal of Huntington Beach City Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (PACIFIC CITY) EIR Approval Date: March 23, 2004. Dear Counsel: As you are well aware,this firm represents the interests of South Coast Angus,LLC("South Coast'). We write to formally appeal the Huntington Beach City Planning Commission's March 23, 2004 decision to approve the Environmental Impact Report No.02-01 (PACIFIC CITY). Enclosed herewith is our check in the amount of$2,335.00 to cover the required fee for appeal of the City Planning Commission's decision. We also enclose herewith and incorporate herein our previous written submissions dated December 3,2003 and March 23, 2004 addressing the proposed Pacific City EIR No. 02-01. A. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNING HUNTINGTON BEACH CODES AND Z SPECIFICALLY THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTOti BEACH,AD ADOPTED JUNE 1995 AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 6, 2002 The "Intent and Purpose"of the Downtown Specific Plan (adopted June 1995 and amended February 6,2002)(hereinafter"Downtown Specific Plan"or"DTSP')makes plain the City of Huntington Beach's binding decision and promise to "provide for orderly development and improvement within the Downtown Specific Plan." As to the purpose of the DTSP, the preamble language found in Section 4.0.01 too makes clear the overall importance of the DTSP in governing future development and expansion in the area encompassed by the DTSP. At Section 4.0.01 the DTSP provides in relevant part, LOS ANGELES SAN FxwctsCo SAN D1EGO COSTA MESA SAN BERNARDNO SACRANE%-r0 NEw You LAS VEGAS 213.250.1500 415.362.2590 619,233.1006 714.545.9200 909.387.1130 916,564.5400 212232A300 702.$93.3383 4822.3317-6832.1 LEwis BRISBOIs BISGAARD&: SMITH UP April 2, 2004 Page 2 The plan is established to guide the development of the area which is characterized by its unique location, geographic features, land uses and ownership patterns, and should not be regulated by zoning district standards applicable throughout the city. This specific plan will replace the existing zoning with policies, development standards and descriptive maps specifically designed for the downtown area. The specific plan provides for creativity at the individual project level, and at the same time ensures that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive 3 community. In Section 4.0.02,the DTSP mandates that the property described therein must be subject to "the policies and development standards" set forth in the Plan. Again, Section 4.0.02 states in relevant part, The property described herein is included in the Downtown Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development standards set forth in this article. (Emphasis added). B. THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, INCLUDING OIL OVERLAY"C" APPLY TO"ALL DE VELOPNIENTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" As set forth in the General Provisions of the DTSP found in Section 4.2, the provisions of the DTSP are made applicable, without reservation, to "all developments within the Downtown Specific Plan,"which would,of course, necessarily include the Pacific City Project here proposed. Moreover,at Section 4.2,the DTSP also makes clear that"all developments"must also comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance and Municipal Codes. As the City admits in its Response to Comment Letter LBBS(December 3,2003)(hereinafter "Response'), "[t]he Oil Overlay consolidation project was implemented in order to address environmental effects of dispersed oil recovery operations." As the City is well aware, Section 15.50.010 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code lists eight objectives,which must be taken into account when considering development within the City which might impact or promote any of the listed objectives. The objectives, fairly summarized in the City's Response, areas follows: (1)to consolidate oil operations onto specified locations; (2)to obtain the abandonment and replacement of outdated and hazardous wells and tanks; (3) to eliminate or substantially lessen environmental effects with mitigation; (4) to offset unavoidable impacts with overriding implements in other areas; (5) to minimize visual impacts; (6) to protect the public from damage and nuisance associated with operation of oil recovery facilities; (7)to maintain consistency with the General Plan; and (8) to provide a higher level of safety for the public. 4322-3317-6832.1 LEwis BRISBOIS BISGAARD&SMITH ttP April 2, 2004 Page 3 South Coast avers that against the backdrop of the narrowly directed provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and its Oil Overlays (including the operative Oil Overlay "C'), the objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 compels that the Pacific City EIR (and CUP) provide for an overall strategy to achieve the purposes set forth both in Municipal Code 5 Section 15.50.010 and Oil Overlay"C." Indeed,it is plain from the language found in Oil Overlay "C"that it was drafted with an eye toward using the land situated thereunder as a means of achieving some or all of the important objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010,or at least that "any proposed development"of the land provide for a harmonious relationship between the need to preserve future oil production on the site and the desire for further urban residential and/or commercial development. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: A. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. B. The plan shall Include at least one(1)oil island of not less than two(2)acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the �o scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay"C." Indeed, in its preamble verbiage, Section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") explains that the regulations concerning the overlay are intended to "facilitate continued oil recovery and provide[s] for future oil production needs" (Emphasis added). There is simply no reasonable construction of this language which supports the City's conclusion that the Pacific City Development as presently proffered, provides for future oil production needs on the property, let alone addresses the very real prospect that at least a small portion of this property was intended to be set aside to achieve the City's objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.10. Presently, there remain numerous small pockets of oil production in and around the Huntington Beach Townlot area. South Coast believes that the City's stated objective in enacting both Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 and the three oil overlays(including Oil Overlay"C')was to phase out many of these wells situated so closely to Huntington Beach homes, shops and restaurants in favor of fewer consolidated modem underground oil production facilities,which are 7 more energy efficient, environment friendly and safer to the public at large. See, e.g. Oil Overlay "B"(Section 4.14.2) South Coast submits that the language found in all of the oil overlays(Sections 4.14.01,4.14.2 and 4.14.3)and especially in Oil Overlay"C"indicate that it was the City's mandated decision and plan to ensure that the land under Oil Overlay"C,"because of its relatively large size, unique character and proximity to other existing wells,be utilized to achieve the important objectives found in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010. 4822-3317- 8321 LEwis BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH LLP April 2, 2004 Page 4 By approving a Pacific City EIR that does not address the important objectives found in Section 15.50.010 (or the mandate of Oil Overlay "C") the City Planning Commission effectively ignores and then sweeps asunder for all time those important objectives; for once the Pacific City project is completed, there will be no other Oil Overlay, or available land to which existing oil production facilities might be consolidated and modernized. Moreover, access to the significant remaining oil resources underlaying the proposed project site will be forever lost, as there simply is no other available land or drilling site from which those reserves might be viably accessed via slant drilling or otherwise. The City's theoretical "band aid"suggestion that "slant drilling is possible" p is flatly misleading and fails to account for the fact that with the development of the land over Oil 0 Overlay C,there is no otherplace in Huntington Beach from which economically viable slant drilling might proceed. Perhaps most important, with the development of all of the land occupied by Oil Overlay"C" and the phase out of other drilling into the subsurface formation in Oil Overlays "A" and "B,"dangerous pressures will be allowed to build up and could well lead to an emergency and needless tragedy of the kind we have already seen in Fairfax, Beverly Hills, and Newport Beach. Clearly, some provision needs to be made to address the objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.10, failing which, the proposed Pacific City Project, EIR and CUP, will be in direct contravention of the laws that the City itself passed for the health, welfare and safety of its" constituents. C. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FROM LENVIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP DECEMBER 3, 2003 Essentially, the City's Response suggests that the rather unambiguous language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan supports an intent to"permit,but not require, oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay"C."Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the Oil Overlay relate 9 only to Oil Development projects(". . .preparation of a conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable onlywhen a project proposes drilling or otheroil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-serving reading of the clear terms of 4.14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that its terms apply to any development on the land. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there 4822.3317-6832.1 LEWIS BRISBois BISGAARD&SMITH ur April 2, 2004 Page 5 simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to 19 support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. J In addition,that the"Regulations"section of Oil Overlay"C"demonstrates that the drafters envisioned a Project containing residences, and that the any Project Plan would both O "minimize the visual impacts on the residences"while still allowing"safe access to the oil sites." In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the City Counsel to overrun the City Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the EIR at this time and ask that the Counsel direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties, including the City Planning Office to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. South Coast believes that there are viable solutions to this problem that I do not necessarily require the complete reconfiguration of the Pacific City Project as proposed and which further all of the concerned parties interests in seeing the Pacific City Project proceed while doing justice to the legitimate objectives and requirements already found in the City Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. Very ly yours,ofrcc EWIS RSBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FCB/jlc Enclosure 4822-3317-6932.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, C-A 92§ 6 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.850.1030 1 NEBS1[TE� www.lbbElaw.com FRANK BRUCCULERI March 23, 2004 DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 E-MAIL:brucculeri@lbbslaw.com = o = VIA MESSENGER v __ City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street w - Huntington Beach, Califomia 92648 N 7 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Re: Public Comments Re Environmental Impact Report No. 02-0 1/Tentative Tract Map No. 16338/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 With Special Permit No 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12/Conceptual Master Plan (Pacific City) Planning Commission Meeting Dated March 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m Dear Ms. Broeren: As you know from our previous correspondence, we represent the interests of South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") with regard to opposition to approval of the referenced project and Environmental Impact Report. We write to provide our further comments and opposition to the referenced application of Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Hatcher. Please see attached hereto our previous correspondence dated December 3, 2003, the content of which we incorporate herein as though fully set forth. A. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FRONT LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Sb1ITH LLP, DECEMBER 3. 2003 By way of general comment, the City's Response to the issues and arguments raised by LBBS's correspondence dated December 3, 2003, is flatly intellectually dishonest. Essentially, the Application suggests that the rather unambiguous language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated"Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan("DTSP") supports an intent to "permit, but not require, oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay "C." Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the LOS AVG.FI FS SA.;FRANcrosco SAY Dmuo CosrA.MESA SAN BUNAROLyo SACR1.NEYM Nsw YoRK Lks VEGAS 213.250.1800 415.362.2580 619.233.1006 714.545.9200 909,387.1130 916.564.5400 212.232.1300 702.366.92 t2 '329 3008-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD&SMITH LLP March 23, 2004 Page 2 Oil Overlay relate only to Oil Development projects [". . .preparation of a conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable only when a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-serving reading of the clear terms of 4.14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: 1. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. 2. The plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay "C." No other fair reading of the section can be rationally countenanced by these terms. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. In addition, that the preamble language in Oil Overlay"C" differs demonstrably from that contained in the other Oil Overlay's "A" and "B," demonstrates that the terms contained in Oil Overlay "C" were designed to facilitate and make provision for the town's FUTURE OIL PRODUCTION NEEDS. Indeed, the introductory language to 4.14.03, makes plain, by comparison to that found in the other oil overlays, that the property covered by Oil Overlay "C" is largely undeveloped requiring a plan to protect the future oil drilling and production needs in . the area. 4339.3008-1536.1 I LEWIS BRISBois BISGAARD& SMITH LLP March 23, 2004 Page 3 In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the Commission to not approve the Plan at this time, but postpone its approval pending resolution of this issue. It would be helpful if the Commission would direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. Very truly yours, Frank Brucculeri of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FCB 1ffi9.3008-L`36.t LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TORN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAY: 714.850, 1030 1 WE13SITE: wwwAbbslaw.com FR.4:YK BRUCCULERI December 3, 2003 DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 E-NLUL bcucculeri@lbbslaw.com ti VIA MESSENGER o City of Huntington Beach - 2000 iiMain Street - Huntington Beach, California 92648 v Attn: Mary Beth Broeren w Re: Public Comments Re Pacific City DRAFT Environment Impact Report Dear V1s. Broeren: We have been retained by South Coast Angus, LLC (.'South Coast") to lodge formal public comment with the City of Huntington Beach ("the City") in response to the City's imitation to provide public comments regarding the Pacific City Draft Emironmental Impact Report ("EIR"). You may recall that we attended the November 13, 2003 public meeting, scheduled by the Planning Commission for the City of Huntington Beach, and we placed, on the audio-taped record, public comments regarding the draft EIR, specifically referencing deficiencies in section 3.5 (Energy and Mineral Resources] of the draft EIR and the incorporated appendices referenced therein. This serves to further memorialize and delineate the comments we made at the November 13 meeting, and now does so formally on behalf of South Coast. A. FUNDAMENTAL DEFII.'IENCIES IN THE DRAFT EER 1. Summary of Inadequacies of Section 3.5 of the EIR [Energy and Mineral Resources] In direct contradiction of the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws, the EIR proposes to eliminate direct access to Oil Overlay C at the proposed Pacific City development site. The zoning laws of the City and the City's tMunicipal Code established the mineral rights of the City and private mineral owners to the minerals found at the region in the City, designated as Oil LOSANrELES S,:N FP NC!SCO S,,i DGGO COSTA.%L'-SA SA.V BERNAADZ�o SACFL.NMN[0 Nsw Yom L.,VEG,;s 213.250,1300 415.362.2580 619233.1006 714.545.9200 909.337.1130 916.564.5400 212.212.1300 S02'66.92i2 -329 003-15.16.! LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD&SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 2 Overlay C. The proposed Pacific City development, through the draft EIR, seeks to repeal the agreements reached between the City, the State of California and the California Coastal Comrrilssion and the statutory mandate of section 4. 14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, specifically the consolidation of the City's oil fields and authorized direct access points in the City to the Huntington Beach oil field. The proposed alternative to direct oil production access at Oil Overlay C, by the EIR, is slant drilling at another region—not identified in the EIR-- in the City. The slant drilling, as proposed by the EIR, effectively and absolutely bars direct access to Oil Overlay C, as intended by the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws. Indeed, glaringly absent from the EIR is any discussion of how the proposed slant drilling preserves the legislative intent of, and complies with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and how the proposed slant drilling is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to the existing laws of the City by providing direct access to Oil Overlay C. Without any detailed, or authoritative anahsis, the EIR proposes slant drilling at an unidentified location in the City in an apparent effort to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 4. 14.03 of the Downtown Speck Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and in an apparent attempt to mitigate the potential specter of claims that slant drilling constitutes = an unlawful taking of the mineral rights of private mineral owners. More disturbing is that the proposed slant drilling belies established black letter law, that the mineral estate owner is the dominant estate or tenement, and the surface estate owner is the subservient estate or tenement. The EIR refers to an alleged "consultation"between the City's fire department the City's petro-consultant, Mel Wright, concerning the feasibility of slant drilling "near" the project site, however, no discussion of the factors and concerns allegedly considered by Mr. Wright, to support his purported opinion that slant drilling was a feasible alternative to extracting mineral resources directly on top of Oil Overlay C, is found in section 3.5 of the EIR or any of the appendices to the EIR. Surprisingly, the opinions and conclusions of the City's petro- consultant, Mel Wright, were not memorialized so as to provide credible support for the pFvpG3�ir'aliiiiraii v'e"v'i S'13Tli:dl'Rlhlg. 2. General Comments At the November 13 meeting, the agents for EIP presented the public with three questions, as follows: 1. Did the EIR capture the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? 2. Did the EIR address those irnpact(s) LF-wis BRISBGIS BISGAARD & SMITH uP December 3, 2003 Page 3 3. Did the EIR provide adequate mitigating alternatives to address the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? First, the scope of the public inquiry presented by the agents for EIP did not adequately address all phases of the impact on the mineral and energy rights of Huntington Beach mineral owners as the public inquiry EIP was limited to two phases of the project, (1) during construction, and (2) post construction. As such, the scope of EIP's public inquiry did not take into account the impact(s) on the City, its residents, and its resident business owners before construction commences, and the impact(s) on Oil Overlay C. As designed and currently proposed to the City, the Pacific City project completely covers Oil Overlay C, and does not provide direct access for oil production from Oil Overlay C. The EIR suggest that oil production may be accessed by slant drilling, but fails to provide any meaningful analysis in support thereof. Second, the EIR does not sufficiently state, in any detail, an analysis outlining the proposed mitigating alternatives to the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the energy and mineral resources available to resident mineral owners and the City, including but not limited to, the potential wrongful taking of the Oil Overlay rights established by Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and why the proposed mitigating alternatives do not violate the City's zoning laws. In sum, while EIR recognized the purpose, and public policy of the City supporting the establishment of Oil Overlay C at page 3-15-4 of the EIR, it is resoundingly silent as to hove the rights of resident mineral owners will be preserved, as currently proposed. 2. Conformity With The Chapter 15.50 Of The City's Municipal Code And Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.03 It is unclear from the EIR that the City and/or the developer of the Pacific City project `iniinii 4o CGiilFiiy"iv'iiii'i'li`upi'cf'i 5:.`rD'vfZiii;'cIfi '-n lvii3IIiViVai��7c's-c;-spev-i Ival'1y §i 5.50:v f". ...Section 15.50.010 mtabiisl~d3he.intzTivE:lle City,'along with the intent Rnd ags-emiuNit 3f the State of California and the California Coastal Commission, to consolidate the oil operations in and around the City and off the shores of the City. The EIR does not provide any analysis as to how the City and/or the developer intend to comply with § 15,50.010 of the Municipal Code, or if it does not comply, how the violation should be mitigated. a. Was it the intent of the City, through the passage of Chapter 15.50, to consolidate the oil production/ operations throughout the city by reducing access to the Huntington Beach oil field by establishing three (3) primary access points at Oil Overlay A, Oil Overlay B and Oil Overlay C? 4329-3003-1536.1 LEwis BRISBOF ;HARD& SMITH LLP December 3, 200' Page 4 The EIR fa:... explain, in any detail, how the proposed mitigating alternative of"slant drilling" at site sepa: and apart from the location of Oil Overlay C conforms with section 4.14.03 of the Down: .a Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. b. Dc, the City intend to enforce section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, a 1 Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and thereby preserve the rig] tul access of resident mineral owners to Oil Overlay C? c. If so, hen does the City intend to require the developer of Pacific City to set asidL it least 2 acres at the Pacific City site pursuant to the requirements of sectio. 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan? Impact ENI-3 of :e EIR, at page 3.5-10, shows that as currently proposed, the Pacific City plan does not props : or allow for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property as required by section 4. : -'.03. Section 4.14.03 specifically requires, "[t]he [cc .eeptual site] plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than hvo t -') acres in size for new oil well drilling and oil production. Suck island(s) s :all be incorporated into the overall development plan so that noise, odor and , iial impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil site(s) is ;;rovided. Findings that at least one such island so designed is incorporate ? into the plans shall be made by the Planning Commission before approving ;. .•y development project." The EIR does not address ' >w the proposed Pacific City project pro-,ides for a two (2) acre oil island over Oil Overlay C, . A as statutorily mandated by section 4.14.03. d. Was it t1 : intent of the City;through the passage of section 4.14.03 of the 'Y7vtirYiitli,li IrcchiC•il:'iri;<u t-rsei.e-tiubierraueantiirmi: acLesnrioi4rc m ne-rals.in ',e..Huntington Beach oli field by designating.Oil OYL-rlay C? e. Prior to, r at the time of the City's decision to approve the location of Oil Overlay C, r d the City consider the geological and engineering impact(s) on the resident_ �f the City and the City by establishing a region of the Huntington each oil field, such as Oil Overlay C? If so, what were the potential im, iet(s) considered by the City? Appendix A of the E . at page 22, recognizes the potential significant impact(s) and value of the mineral resource :fiat are located in the region of the City designated as Oil Overlay i29-300 1-:436.I LEWIS Bltlsms BISGAARD&SMITH u.p December 3, 2003 Page 5 C. The text of section 3.5 of the EIR, however, obliquely references Appendix A, but then fails connect its application to the discussion set forth in the EIR. f. Was public safety a factor in the City decision-malting analysis when it considered creating direct access to the Huntington Beach oil field at the regional location designated as Oil Overlay C? g. If the City approves the Pacific City plan as currently proposed, is it the intent of the City to preserve the designated Oil Overlay regions, specifically Oil Overlay C, as established by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? And, how will it comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? h. If the City intends to approve the Pacific City plan, including ELP's proposal of slant drilling at an unknown site in the City, then how does the City intend to comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? As currently proposed in the EIR, there is no detailed analysis as to how the Pacific City project intends to preserve the legislative intent of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code City insofar as it relates to the preservation of the Oil Overlay C, or how it intends to preserve the historical agreements between the City, the State of California, and the California Coastal Commission relating to Oil Overlay C, as embodied by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. B. MISLEADING AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE EIR 'I. Mismpresentativns of Purported Statenienu by t+1,i Wright That Other Sites Are Available The EIR indicates Mel Wright, referred to in the EIR as the City's Consultant, that there are off site locations that one can drill from to reach the minerals under the_Pacific City property, so that, in Pacific City's opinion, thought wrongly implying it is hlr. Wright's opinion, it is no longer necessary to reserve such natural resource production site as called for in Natural Resource Overlay C and previously approved by the State Land Commission, Coastal Commission, and the City. LEwis BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 6 a. However, in our discussions with Nlr. Wright, he indicated that he never spoke to the Pacific City representatives, and the last work he remembers performing as a consultant for the City of Huntington Beach, in the early 1990s, was surveying for possible drilling locations in the Huntington Beach Onshore Area, without regard to any 1101" zoning (oil production and new drilling, such as the approved overlays here). Mr. Wright never Indicated there were any other "01" zoning, and instead has informed us that there are no other passible "01" locations in the area. b. Even moving across the zoning street to an existing "0" only site (existing production), would require obtaining approval from various state agencies, to approve any further drilling from the existing site, plus the unit operator of the majority of units mineral.rights. C. The nearest other alternative site is more than a mile and half away, many thousands of feet away, while the minerals in the area are as shallow as 500 feet. This would require not just directional drilling, but almost pure lateral drilling. The costs of drilling such a well are not economically. reasonable or feasible. d. Since the 1920s, there have been regulations on where and when to drill, ending with residual locations, agreed to by all responsible agencies in the State of California and the City, including the "Ol" zoned Resource Overlay here in question. Thus, contrary to the "opinion" of Pacific Cities, as stated in the EIR, the Resource Overlay in question here is the ONLY economically feasible drilling site in the area that is currently so approved by the responsible state agencies. ":il YJI'CI]l{:]Cigtii*UllS'i jai" lSt3\I"l.l ll lri'r'he'tv�cu IsTurportedly hisignifrcant The EIR wrongly suggests there are no significant amounts of methane in the area to be remediated. This is incorrect. a. The closest existing active oil well has reported build up pressure caused by natural gas, on the casing side of the well, that exceeds 1000 Ibs per square inch, within several hours of the well being shut in, indicating very significant natural gas pressures remain in the reservoir. LE\wIS BRISBDiS BISGAARD&SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 7 b. The decades of oil production has created pressure voids, and in those pressure voids, natural gas escapes solution and tills those pressure voids, building up significant pressures as more and more gas escapes from its natural solutions in liquids such as grater, due to the low pressure. Local conditions then allow these pockets of natural gas to easily migrate to the surface, and once there, they become potentially explosive— such as the occasional explosions and fires in the Los Angeles Farmers D•Iarket area. d. This potentially dangerous problem is remediated by injecting liquids such as water into the gas pockets voids. The more dense liquid forces the natural gas in the pockets back into suspension within the liquid, as the liquid fills those pockets. This injection remediation requires an active drill site, such as the "0 V zoned site in question here. The loss of the site will mean the loss of any feasible, meaningful opportunity to remediate this potentially significant problem for the residents of the City. 3. Implicit Misrepresentation that Existing -Mineral Owners Will Not Be Denied:. .. Access to Very Substantial, Multi-Million Dollar Mineral Reserves The EIR implicitly represents to the existing mineral owners that they will be able to capture their very valuable (multi-million dollar) mineral rights. Those mineral owners include not only voting tax payers within the City but even the City itself (which could, e.g., help fund schools as done in Beverly Hills). a. As discussed above, there are no other zoned, approved, feasible, economical drill sites in the area, zoned as "0 V. b. r`iic'rc Uiil'tivn'V'i'inl'a'lCu'g'd5'ptYlcriYttlon'aiilx"rlkc l-raCu3'bi F2Svnuees Ove:& y concept was designed as a compromir e:ruetween mineral ownea"s xawt the surface owners. Mineral owners normally own the "dominant tenement", which would otherwise control over the rights of all the surface owners. Thus the creation of the Overlays was intended as a compromise, to allow substantial surface development, while reserving sufficient surface area for use by the dominant tenement mineral owner's to drill for and produce the minerals. Thus, loss of this sole remaining site is would mean City will have denied the existing mineral owners their constitutional right to property, without providing just compensation. -s.9-3003-:53e.1 LEwis BRIsms BISGAARD&SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 8 In conclusion, we are happy to meet with the City or anyone else concerned to discuss in more detail these and other relevant points related to this development. V • ruly ours, rank Brucculenc.of LEIVIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP LiMK -339-i003-iS6.i Response to Appeal Letter LBBS (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, April 2, 2004) 1 . Comment noted. Comments provide(] on December 3, 2003 were responded to in the Final Filk on pages 216 through 223. Comments provided on (March 23, 2004 were provided at fit(- Final EIR certification hearing and are duplicative of the comments provided in this letter, which arc responded to below. 2. Conformance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Downtown Specific Plan with respect to mineral resources was an issue raised as part of the LBBS comment Ieticr provided on the Draft EIR dated December 3, 2003. This issue is address(-(] in responsc to comment, LBBS-2 and 1-1313S-10 on pages 3-216 through 3-213 and 3-220, respectively, of the final FIR. For the reader's convenience, relevant parts of the responses arc 1wovided below: LBBS-2 Neither Chalner 13.)O (Consolidation Projects) of t6e Cit v's Municipal GKIc nor City zoning laws, through Downtown Specific Plan (D'I'SP) Section 4.14.03, create any right of direct access to Oil Ocerlac"C" at the project site. Oil Ocerlar'C" in the DTSP••facilitates" or allows 14 existing and/or expanded oil production On the project site, il'the owner of the site's real property surface rights proposes to continue Or cspand such production. This Oil Orcrlav does not (real,- rights of surface entry where none exist; the Oil Oycrlay m,u intcudcd to provide an enabling nrechanisnt for properly owners to ospand Or consolidate dispersed, csisfing operations. The Oil Overlay consolidation project was implemented in order to address the em'inmmeotal eflccts of dispersed nip recovery operations. The Oil Overpay has eight objvclices, as listed in 1 3.50.010 ill the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and summarized here: (1) to consolidate oil operations onto specified locations; (2) to obtain the abandonmcnl and replacement of oil t(lat cd and hazardous \vells and tanks; (3) to eliminate or suhstantially lessen environmental ellccts with mitigation; (4) to offset unavoidable impacts with overriding impruremenu in other areas; (3) to minimize visual impacts; (6) to protect the public from d:ouuge and nuisance associated with operation of nil recovery facilities; (i) to maintain e oil sisIcitcy frith the Gcu,-ra1 Plan; and S) to provide it higher hnvd of ,.&etv for the public. -I'he intent of Section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay"C") of the DI SP is in permit, hilt not require, nip-drilling operations on arras within the City drat are designated as Oil Overlay "C." Because the DTSP, of Much Oil Overpay "C" is a part, overlies still-productive oil reserves, gip production will continue to he penniurd in parts of this area. The City has designated oil "s uffis" zoning districts which permit the nil lacilitics allowed by suffix (see :Municipal Code §220.02) and�the underlying base zone roc, such AS commercial ur residential derclopment lie rcicvanl parcels in the DTSP area. The base zoning fir this overpay area is high density residential; a 30 unit per acr o residential project is proposed without any Oil production. Existing and/or expanded nip production unw continue ill these areas provided that the additional Conditions outlined in the DTSP 4.14.03 are nml. In particular, preparation of a C'.\Dowmenm and Sewngs\prowenm\Local Sewn&s\Temporary Internet FlIes\0LK86\LBBS responses.00c Pacific City 1 Response to Appeal Letter LBBS (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard&Smith LLP,April 2, 2004) conceptual sile plan Illm indIIdos at least one oil island of no Tess than two acres in sire would [)cell to be provided fin new oil well drilling and ,it production is applicable only when a prnjcct propetcs nil drilling or other oil production act ieities. The oil island raquircment Ibr proposed drillim, or pox fiction is intended to mitigate the enrironmaual effects of such activities. The lower nil production activities nn the project site have been terminated for a period of time and die site is currently scant. As discussed on page 3.3-4 of the Draht EIR, oil well ab:ufdounient at the projecl site occurred over a number of rears, begimm y in 1976 and occurring through 1999. The majority of on-site wells were. milialk abandoned in 1988 and subsequently re-abandoned in 1995; additionally, all ollhc abandoned oil well site.,have also been remediated, thus. those wells are no longer operational. This project proposes rvsidential au<I conuncrrial use, fin' the site, in keeping with the DTSP-zoned base, use Iirr the project site, and with General Plan Coastal Element Pulicy C 5.+.3 to encourage comprehensive planning Ibe new' use on large oil parcels. Further, accordi[)y to the deed lire the parcellsl dial constitute file project site, the owucr of file mineral rights has no rights to access those resources through surface [)teal[): ill(- 'Grantor, its successors and assigns, ,shall not use the surface of said land [Parcel 131 in the exercise of any said rights [all petroleum vein other hydrocarbon substance, and producisl and shall not disturb the surface of said land or am impro%emeutx thereon or remove ill- impair the lateral and .subjacent support of said land or any improvements thereon, and shall conduct no operations within i00 feet of the surface of said land" (deed re(nrdod September 13, 1960, Book �;41 3, Page 4+9). Tliv deed notes the Grantor holds Ibe"sole and cxdttii%e right to drill slanted frills from location on other lands into and Through, and Iu construct or develop mines, tunnels, shafts, or other works in and through the subsurface ul said land Ibe the purposes of ret-merim, said rescued substances From said land or rccoveriny like >ubst;uxtes Irom other I:mds; provided, hoteerr.r, that the surface of said land shall not Ix: used for the exploration, derclopment, extraction, or removal of said mineral., or substances from .said and or other lands, as reserved in the deed from City of I luntingum Beach, recorded January 1 3, 1960 in Book 5051, Page 3S3 of ollicial records." In light of the deed restrictions on the project site parcel, the mineral estate owner is not accorded dominant Icneotem; Ihat right is reserved e.splicitly in the deed for the surface estate omict. A, the deed was recorded well in advance of the develop lwilt of the Oil Overlay zones, Overlay"C" does not supersede the deal nor athmi direct surface access to the mineral estate holder. ... LBBS-10 Implementation of the prolwscd project would not violate Section 4.14.03 of the DTSP, .t Section 4.14.03 is intended to permit, but not require, nil-drilling operations on the area designated as Oil Overlay "C" and permits commercial and residt-mi;d uses on the project site."A, the project site is no lou_rer occupied by nil operations, Chapter 13.50 of the City Municipal Code, r,garding dto consolidation of oil o1w atious, is not applicable. "rberefore, the proposed project would be in conlnnnance with these two sections of City code. ... Finally, it is worth noting that South Coast Angus, the appellants of this letter, do not appear to have property rights to the site or mineral rights to the resources beneath the site. 3. This comment accurately reflects that the intent of the DTSP is to provide liar ordcrly development within the downtown area, and development within the DTSP area is subject to C'.\Documents and SemngS\dreerepm\Local Settings\temporary Internet Poes\0LK86\LBBS resoonses.doc 2 Pacific City Response to Appeal Letter LBBS (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard&Smith LLP,April 2, 2004) the policies and development standards set forth in the plan. Appendix F of the Draft FIR provides a detailed analysis of project conformity with DTSP policies. 4. This comment notes that the provisions of the DTSP apply to all projects in the downtown area. The City agrees that all projects in the downtown area, including the proposed project, are Subject to the relevant policies and development standards in the DTSP. However, this comment misunderstands the intent of Section 4. 14.03, where the intent is to permit oil recovery operations in addition to development in conformance with the -zoning of the parcel, and to provide development standards if oil drilling is proposed. In addition, Section 15.10.010 of the Municipal Code is generally inapplicable to the proposed project. These issues were addressed in responses LI313S-2 and LBBS-9 on pages 3-216 through 3-218 and 3- 219 through 3-220, respectively, of the Final F.M. Relevant portions oP Response LBBS-2 are provided above under response 2. For the reader's convenience, relevant portions of response 1-1313S-9 are provided below. LBBS-9 "the original intcnt of the City rrgardim, die r0mionsbip bet8%een Chapter ISSO and Oil Overlay designations is not within the scope of the prolesscd project. ,Aevnrtbcless, ano. anions associated with the consolidation of the on-site ,if operations as defined under Chapter 15.i0 were considered Prior to the termination of these oil production activities on the project site. The Project would not result in termination of auv oil pnafuction on site, and, ae such, Chapter 1 330 is largely inapplicable to the project and implementation of the proposed project would not violate Chapter ISSOufthc City's Municipal Code.... S. This issue was already raised in comments 1-13BS-2, -9, and -I I on pages 3-35 through 3-38 of the Final FIR and responded to on pages 3-216 through 3-220 of'the Final FIR. Two-acre oil islands are the required acreage of areas for oil production facilities, only if such facilities are proposed as part of a larger projet:t that complies with the underlying zoning of the. Site. Responses LIMS-2 and LBBS-9 are reiterated above. For the rcadcr's convenience, relevant parts ofresponse LBBS-II are provided below- [ill section 4.14.03 of the DTSP,j the lira clause of the regulations section states that "woll drilling and redrilling shall be lier111mcd in accordance with Title I S of dx Huntington Beach Municipal Code.." which Premises the regulatorq prescription fin' du provision of a two- acrc nil drilling island. Such it set-aside is not 1equired for the project, .aiucc it dues out propose oil-drilling activities. 6. This issue was already raised in comments L.BBS-2, -9, and -I I on pages 3-35 through 3-38 of the Final F-Ill and responded to on pages 3-216 through 3-220 of the Final FIR. Responses LI313S-2 and LITS-I I are reiterated above. For the reader's convenience, relevant parts of response I-BBS-10 are provided below: C:\Doaments ana Seumgs\broerenm\Local Settings\Temporary Internet files\0LK86\L8SS responses.am Pacific City 3 Response to Appeal Letter LBBS (Lewis Bdsbois Bisgaard&Smith LLP,April2, 2004) Imlilemenratiun of the prolwsed project teould not violate Section 4.14-03 of the DTSP i, Section 4.14.03 is intended to permit, I'm not require, ui1-drilling operation, oo the area designated as Oil Overlay "C" and permits commercial and residential uses on the project site. A, the project site is no longer ucaipicd b3 oil operations, Chapter 13.50 of the Cliv'', :Municipal Code, regarding the, cuusolidation of oil operations, is not applicable. Therefore, the prolluwd project would he in conlbrmance with the-w Iwo sections of Cite.code. Contrary to the inlornraiion pre,ented in this comment, the DTSI3, Section 4.14.03 neither states nor mandates that a conceptual site plan shall ineludc at least one oil island of not Icss than two acres in size I.r ne%% well drilling and nip production. The subsection entitled "regulations" in Section 4.14.0:3 of the DTSP specifically states: "Well drilling and redrilling shall he permiuvd in accordance with title 25 of the I-lumingtun Reach :Municipal Code and with the 0 or 01 sullu and related provisions in the I-iuntin{tun Reach Ordinance Code...." (emphasis added). Note that the regulations do not state that drilling and redrilling shall be required. The statement that the overlay provides for future oil production needs is intended to identify that drilling is allowed on the site, it the surface estate o\vner proposes or allow, this activitq. Section 4. 14 of the DTSP states: "Existing and/or expanded oil production play continue in these areas provided that the additional conditions outlined in this subsection arc rncl." 7. The commenter correctly notes that one of the purposes of Section 15.50.010 is to consolidate oil operations; the intent of this section is also to minimize impacts from oil operations. Oil Overlay "C" was identified to allow continued oil recovery operations. However, Overlav C was not identified as the implementing mechanism for Section 1550.010. Rather, if oil recovery is proposed within Oil Overlay "C," those activities must. he consistent with the purposes Set forth in Section 15.50.010. The commentor frames the language in the tMunicipal Code as "the Citv's mandated decision and plan." The conunentor's interpretation is not supported by the language of the Code, the DTSP, or other Citv action. As stated throughout the response to comments to the 1_13I3S continents on the Draft E.lR, neither the Codc nor the DTSP require oil drilling operations. 8. With respect to compliance with Section 15.50.010, its objectives, and the mandate of Oil Overlay C, this issue was responded to in response to 1-1313S-9 on page 3-219 through 3-220 of the Final EIR, which is provided in response 4 above. With respect to the issue of future access to oil resow'ces underlying the site and slant drilling, this issue was raised in comments LIMS-3, -19, and -21 on pages 3-36 though 3-40 of the Final EIR and responded to on pages 3-218 through 3-221 of the Final EIR. Nor- the reader's convenience, these responses arc 11 provided below. LBBS-3 C\Doamenm ano Seamgs\broerenm\Loal Semnµs\iemporary internet Fjes\0LK86\LBBS resoonses.doc 4 Pacific City Response to Appeal Letter LBBS (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard&Smith LLP,April 2, 2004) lllhuu consultation %%ill] the IiBFD and the City's pet rnleum-consuhant, slut drilling was identilied as a Ieasihlr nuc;uls of accessing mineral resources beneath the site. As stated on Page 3.3-11 of the Draft FIR, the Cite., petroleum consultant, ::%let Wright, communicated to the City in March 2003 that"Resource,beneath the ptrujeo site.arc located at a depth drat it is Possible Ihr slant drilling to occur m a%ailahlc off-site locations in order to extract mineral resources From the site." 'I-he. deed fir the Property clearly states that the mineral ,',talk-holder would not liner.surface access to those right-,, :utd tl]c deed specifically calls out slant drillimr as a method to realize those re,ource..11 ... LBBS-I9 l'he consultation trill] :Mel AA'right was strictly to assess the feasibility of slant drilling onto the project site. EIP Associates contacted Met Weight on March 24, 2003 via telephone to inquire about the leasibility of slant drilling lot the project site, not to identity it other nearby areas were zoned for slant drilling. ... LBBS-21 Tba deed fin' the prolm ty clearly state.., that the mineral estate holder would not have Burl;wc access to those right,, and the deed sI)mlically calls out slant drilling as a method to realize those resource,. Therelbre, the Draft EIR discussed ,[ant drilling in keeping with deed restrictions as an option to preserve access in these mineral resources.... With respect to the issue of "dawwrous pressures" being allowed to build up, this is in rcicrenec Ig methane gas, which bras raised in comment LI313S-2S on page 3-40 ol'the Final EIR and responded to on page 3-222 of the Final FIR. LBBS-2S A,staled un page 3.7-12 of the Drai EIR, the site is located entirely within a methane gaff uverlar district desieenated by the City, and as such, nhnihane gas ntuv underlay the site. Impacts HAZ-1 and"FI:A"/_-2, un pages 3.7-16 to 3.7-IS of the Draft EIR, discuss Potential hazard, that could result 1'rom the presence oh methane u❑ the Project site. The project would comply wilh City specifications neecs,arr to maintain standard., ul' construction required within the \IcI bane Overlay District. As discussed un Fage 3.7-16 ofthe Draft FIR, Cily Specilitatiun429 specifies requirement, liter Permits liter construction widen methane dislrict, (i.e.. in the vicinity of abandoned oil wells), including the provision of methane harriers fix structure-. Furthermore, City Requirement (CR) HAZ-B would be applied to the Project, which requires the project huh comply with all provisions of the IIBMC Section 17.04.083 and Fire Dept. City Specification 429 prior to the issu:mce ul grading permits. Finally, any risks associawd with firmer nil wells (inclu(jing methane gas) have beenh taken into consideration in the geotedmieal report and ,lie characterization studie, Perlirnhed fix the pnhjeel, the lixmer oil wells on the site h:n'e been abandoned In DOGGR standards, :md the rv,ojhtory IFamework that covers this issue has bccn followed Ihr the Proposed project. . Further, despile the commentor's assertion that there will be no other Oil Overlay or available land to which facilities might be consolidated and modernized, there are two other Oil Overlays in the Downtown Specific Plan area, Overlays A and B. The City has also designated oil "suffix" zoning districts, which permit the oil facilities allowed by Suffix. With respect to whether there is anv other place in Idunlinplon Beach from which economically viable slant drilling might procee(I, the issue of economic: viability of slant drilling is outside. C',\Down. nu ano SetUngs\Oroerenm\Loral Setungs\rempyary Internet Files\0LHB6\LB3S responses.aoc Pacific City 5 Response to Appeal Letter LBBS (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard&Smith LLP,April 2, 2004) the scope of the EIR and is not an impact of the proposed project. As stated previously, the Cky's petroleum consultant has indicated that slant drilling is feasible; that is all that is required to be addressed under CEQA on the issue of availability of a known mineral resource. Finally. with respect to access to the mineral resources, as indicated in response LBBS-2, provided above under response 2, the owner of the mineral rights has no rights to access those resources through surface means. The right to grant access is exclusively that. of the surface estate owner. 9. The City does not contend that the requirement for the 2-acre oil island is limited solely to oil development projects. Rather, that statement that the standards are "applicable only when a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities" is intended to indicate that the standards apply when, in addition to the use for which the site is zoned, such as residential for this site, a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities; in that situation, oil- related uses must occupy a least a 2-acre island, as opposed to a series of disparate and discontinuous islands of smaller site: and to satisf\ purposes of 15.50.010 of the City's Nionieipal Code. 'Thus, there is no contradiction. 10. Again, the regulations of Oil Overlav C (Section 4. 14.03 of the DTSP) have been n7isC011SIRICd. If oil production facilities are proposed, then they must be designed in accordance with the regulations so that "noise, odor and visual impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil sites is provided." No oil production facilities are proposed as part of this project. I I . Comment noted- Your comments will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration. c\Documents ana sewngs\groerenm\Lops Senings\remporary Internet Nes\OLK86\1 BBS responses.aoc 6 Pacific City ATTACHMENT 8 J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director FROM: JENNIFER MCGRATH, City Attorney DATE: May 24, 2004 SUBJECT: RLS 2004-192 INDEX: Internal Organization and Operation/Police Power/Land Use/Planning/Specific Plan BACKGROUND: The proposed Pacific City project contemplates development of approximately 31 acres of currently vacant land bounded by First Street, Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway within the Downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach ("City"). The project proposes a combination of residential, mixed-use/visitor-serving commercial center and right-of-way improvements ("Project'). The Project is located within Subarea 7 and 8A of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan identifies a portion of Subarea 8A as being subject to the requirements of a Resource Production Overlay. (Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.10.12.) In particular, a portion of the Project is identified as within Oil Overlay "C" of the Downtown Specific Plan. Maps depicting the Subareas 7 and 8A, and Oil Overlay "C" are attached hereto as Attachment 1 for your reference. South Coast Angus LLC ("South Coast') has appealed the City Planning Commission's certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 for the Project. In its appeal, South Coast contends that the Downtown Specific Plan requires that a conceptual site plan for the Project must include an oil island of not less than two acres in size to provide for new oil drilling and oil production. However, the Project does not contemplate oil production facilities and the conceptual site plan for the Project does not depict a two-acre oil island. QUESTION: If the Project does not propose any oil production activities, must the conceptual site plan depict a two-acre oil island? Howard Zelefsky Page 2 5/24/04 ANSWER: No. The development standards set forth in the Downtown Specific Plan relating to the Resource Production Overlay apply when oil production activities are proposed within the overlay areas. Because the Project does not propose oil production activities, its conceptual site plan is not required to depict a two-acre oil island. ANALYSIS: Chapter 4.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan provides, in relevant part: RESOURCE PRODUCTION OVERLAY Purpose. The Downtown Specific Plan area overlies long- productive oil pools. Many facilities are still operating because of the extent of the remaining reserves; therefore oil production will continue to be permitted in parts of this area. The City provides for oil facilities by designating oil "suffix" zoning Districts in connection with an underlying base zone such as a commercial or residential District. Both oil facilities allowed by suffix and the other uses allowed by the base zone are permitted. Currently, the City has two oil suffixes the "0" which allows existing oil wells and attendant facilities but no new wells, and the "01" which allows the drilline of new wells in addition to all uses in the "0" District. These suffixes, with certain modifications, are also employed in this Specific Plan. In addition to the oil suffixes three Resource Production Overlays have been identified. Existin and/or expanded oil production may continue in these areas provided that the additional conditions outlined in this subsection are met. (Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14) (emphasis added). A portion of the Project area is within the Resource Production Overlay identified as Oil Overlay "C". As to Oil Overlay "C", the Downtown Specific Plan further provides: Oil Overlav "C" The regulations in the overlay facilitate continued oil recovery and provides for future oil production needs. Boundaries. Oil overlav "C" is an irregularly shaped site in District '13A between Lake Street and Hunting-ton Avenue and 2QnuI v ii?ip.;Lancmo/ui l-ovcri,n' Howard Zelefsky Page 3 5/24/04 Atlanta Avenue. Regulations. Well drilling and redrilling shall be permitted in accordance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and with the 0 or 01 suffix and related provisions in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlav area must be submitted prior to permitting any proiect development or subdivision of land within the overlay. The plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new oil well drilling and oil production. Such island(s) shall be incorporated into the overall development plan so that noise, odor and visual impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil site(s) is provided. Findings that at least one such island so designed is incorporated into the plan shall be made by the Planning Commission before approving any development project. (Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.03) (emphasis added.) A fundamental rule is that a statute must be given a reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the legislative intent as expressed in the language of the statute. (Welch v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 h 1421, 1428.) Relying entirely on the emphasized language, South Coast contends that the intent of Chapter 4.14 is to set aside property to provide surface access for oil production activities. However, it is well established that legislative intent is gathered from the whole statute, as opposed to isolated parts or words. (ibfci rujo v. Hunt (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 972, 977.) Effect should be given to the statute as a whole, and to every word, so that no pan or provision is rendered meaningless. (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity. (1999) 19 Cal.4" 1 106, 1 1 18.) Further, the literal meaning of the words of a statute may be disregarded in order to give effect to "manifest purposes that, in light of the statute's legislative history, appear from its provisions considered as a whole." (Da Vinci Group v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilisation and Arbitration Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4a' 24, 29.) The stated purpose of Chapter 4.14 is to allow oil production to continue within the overlay zones provided that specific conditions are met. (Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 4.14, supra.). Ignoring this stated purpose and clear expression of legislative intent, South Coast instead focuses on the following phrase: ":A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. The plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new oil well drilling and oil production." --him I,ihi I VO4r,-.cmauiI.,rvc, a,' Howard Zelefsky Page 4 5/24/04 (Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.01.) However, reading Chapter 4.14 in its entirety and giving each word meaning, it is clear that the development standards for the oil overlay "C" apply only when oil production activities are proposed. The phrase "[e]xisting and/or expanded oil production may continue in these areas provided that the additional conditions outlined in this subsection are met' must be given import as they reflect the legislative intent to permit oil production subject to certain development standards. Consider also the phrase: Such island(s) shall be incorporated into the overall development plan so that noise, odor and visual impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil site(s) is provided. (Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.03) (emphasis added). The language emphasized reflects an understanding that the oil island is necessary to, among other things, provide safe access to the oil site. It is axiomatic that if there is no oil site, safe access to an oil site is not necessary and, therefore, is not required. Other rules of statutory construction also do not favor South Coast's interpretation of the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. For instance, a literal interpretation that leads to absurd impractical results should be avoided. (In Re J. W (2002) 29 Cal 4'h 200, 213; People v. Souza (1993) 15 Cal.App.4`h 1646, 1652.) South Coast's interpretation would require the Project to include a two-acre oil island although the development does not contemplate any oil production. In fact, the deed for the Project property specifies that any owner of mineral rights has no surface rights to access those resources. It is also well established that interpretation of the Downtown Specific Plan must be made with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized to have effect. (Boivland v. Municipal Court, 18 Cal.3d 479, 1489.) California law requires that cities adopt a general plan and that all regulatory controls and development approvals be consistent with such general plan. (Longtin's California Land Use, 2"d Edition, Chapter 2.40.) Although charter cities can exempt themselves from the zoning consistency mandate, the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance provides that its purpose is to implement the policy of the City's General Plan. (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, Section 2.01.06.) Thus, the Downtown Specific Plan must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the City's General Plan. As to mineral resources, the General Plan's stated policy is as follows: "Identify appropriate access areas, and permit extraction of significant oil and other mineral resources in designated resource areas." 9inul c iiiill/0•Anunry uil-oeeiav Howard Zelefsky Page 5 5/24/04 (General Plan pg IV-ERC-24) (emphasis added). Another policy is to: "Ensure that mineral/oil resource production activities are compatible with the adjacent land uses by reviewing and applying appropriate conditions which: a) mitigate noise, odor, and dust impact and may limit the hours of production activities; b) provide for visual integration with adjacent uses (e.g., incorporation of onsite landscape buffer and decorative walls); c) provide for the restoration and reuse of abandoned oil sites subject to the discretionary approval of the appropriate decision making body-; d) require that specific development proposals for mineral/oil extraction be subject to the discretionary approval of the appropriate decision making body; e) require that access roads to resource extraction areas meet standards for noise, dust control, erosion control and grading to minimize adverse impacts to adjacent residential and commercial areas: f) provide for safe and appropriate recovery methods; g) establish measures to guarantee accurate reporting of production figures and enforce abandonment regulatory measures; and h) require annual inspection monitoring program. (General Plan pg. IV-ERC-24.) These "compatibility" requirements are consistent with the additional conditions imposed on oil production activities within the overlay areas. Also, these policies are consistent with the objectives relating to consolidation of oil operations that are contained in Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.50. The stated objectives of Chapter 15.50 are to harmonize oil activities with adjacent land uses. The General Plan, however, does not support South Coast's claim that a portion of the Project is a "set aside" for continued oil production. In fact, in the schedule of intended uses for the Project area, which are identified as subareas 4C and 4I on Table LUA of the General Plan, does not even list the possibility of continued oil production. This omission is significant, because Table LU-4 does recognize continued oil production in other areas of the Downtown Specific Plan. (See,for example, Subarea 4B. Table LUA attached hereto as Attachment 2 for your reference.) Notably, the General Plan was most recently updated in 1996, nearly 13 years after adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan, and as South Coast would contend, the creation of an exclusive oil production set aside area. The City has also adopted a Local Coastal Program ("LCP") pursuant to the California Coastal Act. The LCP never mentions that a portion of the Coastal zone has been set aside for oil production •u mulvi h i l 1pl:mcmn/nil-uvr.la•. Howard Zelefsky Page 6 5/24/04 access rights. In fact, as to oil production in the Coastal zone, the LCP's policy provides for existing oil operations to remain, but anticipates that the facilities will continue to phase out to make way for planned land uses. (Local Coastal Plan, 2001, p. IV-C-74.) Finally, the stated purpose of the entire Downtown Specific Plan is to provide for the orderly development and improvement within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and to ensure that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive community. (Downtown Specific Plan 4.0.01.) To this end, the Downtown Specific Plan states that it includes overlays that permit special uses in select areas. (Downtown Specific Plan 4.0.03.) Note, this language is permissive, not mandatory. Thus, we believe that interpreting the oil overlay as a permissive regulation that allows oil production activities, subject to certain standards, is consistent with the City's land use regulations for the entire downtown area. In preparing this memorandum, our office reviewed archived materials of the Planning Commission and City Council relating to the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan and the enactment of HBMC Chapter 15.50. A Request for City Council Action submitted in connection with the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Specific Plan notes that the Specific Plan would change the zoning for approximately 336 acres of property and specifies that special districts along the beach and the pier would protect access and view in the limited developments to those appropriate to for public beach front and pier recreation. (Attachment 3, Request for City Council Action, July 1,1983, p. 2.) There is a complete absence of any indication that the City Council intended to set aside a portion of property for oil production activities. As to the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan itself, minutes of the Planning Commission specifically reference the Resource Production Overlay, noting "[t]he overlay represents the actual areas in which resource production can take place." (Attachment 4, Minutes, Huntington Beach Planning Commission, August 23, 1983, p. 10) (emphasis added). Once again, we note that the language is permissive. It should also be noted that the Planning Department's interpretation of the City's zoning regulation is entitled to deference. While not necessarily controlling, construction of a statute by administrative agency charged with administration and interpretation is entitled to great weight and should clearly be respected by the courts unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized. (Carson Harbour Village Limited v. City of Carson Mobile Home Review Board(1999) 70 Cal. App. 281 at 290.) CONCLUSION: In its appeal to the Project's EIR, South Coast contends that the Downtown Specific Plan requires at least one oil island of not less than two acres be included on all conceptual site plans for all development within Overlay Area "C" regardless of whether the development contemplates oil production activities. South Coast claims that these requirements effectuate the City's intent to preserve access to the Project area for future oil production. We disagree with South Coast's interpretation of the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan and find no support for South Coast's claim that the City intended for the Project area to be set aside as a consolidation site. lmuIV hH1101memoin i b1 facia. Howard Zelefsky Page 7 5/24/04 South Coast completely ignores the standard rules of statutory construction that require all words of the statute to be given meaning. Therefore, other than South Coast's own speculation, there is no evidence of any legislative intent to preserve the Project area for future oil production. The City's land use policy documents, which include the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, simply do not evidence an intent that Oil Overlay "C" was to be set aside for future oil access. South Coast makes this claim notwithstanding the fact that the deed for the Project property specifies that any owner of mineral rights has no surface rights to access those resources. Finally, we believe the Planning Department's interpretation of the requirements of Downtown Specific Plan is entitled to deference in this matter. JENNIFER MCGRATH, City Attorney /Im t4nul�ihilli�:rt;emoi+ih�ceaac ATTACHMENT NO . 1 11 --- _ -- --o�uuLI-1� 00000 I��JC1�111L�J�JC�JLU[�C� �[l��[1JI�l� - 00� 11 HITTIJMMM11J11J11JlUT o 0 �lfl IE IE IEn]TTIT®[u n]11 _ r U�m o _ B �l �f PACIFIC OCEAN uae psrorno ram„ DISTRICTS BY NUMBER PLANNING DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN � 00000 � a0 O Oo O O �� aoa000a Oa � iffluu, Hill PACIFlC COAST HWY. DISTRICT #7 J� HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN INMINGTON B[ACII � 00000 � 0�00 O 0 0o OO O�:h3 m �Y Oo00 � C�� �� L1� �0I�IJI oo � Oho 0 `4f> PACIFIC CDAST}11W. �� py pq pq DISTRICT #8 JI DN BEACH CAUFORNIA PLANNING DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC Pi,AN PLANNING DEPARTMENT IIUHtI CW INACH 000 00 moo oa 0 0 000LULUb�i �o� REHU o® ooE®oor� o�� 00�0 ®o�lE oo® aa�moo �oa� -= - - ool�oo ��l�o19 1 �pq o� ro- °�__ IACIi1CmA5T IIWY. I "Bfp o PACIFIC OCEAN amp J� A4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA FIGURE 4.14 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OIL DISTRICT OVER I.,A.Y HOMMGtON t[ACH ATTACHMENT NO . 2 o" 1 I i e p. y ,: . mill lilll i � s El 11 I III `� I �I U1J r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER S LAND USE ELEMEYT Residential Mobile Home Park(-rmp) DEVELOPMENrPOLICY: COMMUNITY SUBAREAS Objective Goal LU 15.6 LU 16 Facilitate the preservation and development of Achieve the development of distinct neighborhoods, Residential Mobile Home Parks. boulevards,and centers. Policies Objective LU 15.6.1 LU 16.1 Allow mobile home park developments located in areas Provide for the differentiation of the City's designated as "Residential Mobile Home Park (-rmp)" neighborhoods, boulevards, and districts by their to exceed the underlying density. This designation is functional role, uses, form, scale, and character of . specifically intended to allow mobile home park development. developments in Low Density Residential areas to exceed the maximum density of seven(7)units per acre Policies up to the existing density(I-LU l and I-L U 10). LU 16.1.1 Accommodate development of the City's Mixed Use(-mu) neighborhoods, boulevards, and districts according to ' the Community Districts and Subareas Schedule(Table Objective LU4). (1-LU1, I-LU2, I-LU4, I-LU5, I-LU7, I-LU LU 15.7 10, 1-LU 13, and]-LU 15) . Allow for the developmentof mixed use projects. Community District and Subarea Schedule Policies . LU 15.7.1 The Community District and Subarea Schedule Allow the development of residential uses in describes the intended functional role of each of the conjunction with the underlying commercial City's principal subareas(as depicted in Figure LU-4 designation. The Mixed Use overlay permits the and references the applicable permitted uses,densities, development of horizontally or vertically integrated and pertinent overlays(as listed in the Land Use, mixed use projects (See LU 11.1.1). The design and Density and Intensity,and Development"Overlay' . density for a mixed use project shall be as shown on the Schedules,defined by Policies LU 7.1.1 and LU 7.1.2). Land Use Map in parentheses(See Table LU-2B for Development shall adhere to the policies for permitted more detail). If a mixed use project is not proposed, use and design and development prescribed for each then the density of the underlying commercial land use category in the preceding section of this designation shall be utilized(I-LU1, ]-LU13, and/-LU Element and any additional specific design and 10). development standards listed in this Schedule. 1 _ . ! 0 UN - i `iGTQN ? = .NCH GENERAL ? LAN 'NMUNITy LtvtLurMtN1 �,1-tAY1tK - L�.��jvD USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Community District and Subarea Schedule . Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 1 Area wide. Maintain the City's-downtown as a principal focal point of community Downtown Functional Role identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving e (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented,"villagal ikc"environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. IA Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Vertical Integration of Housing("MV") Main Street/ Uses permitted by the "CG" and"CV" land use categories),shared parking PCH"Core" facilities, and mixed-use structures vertically-integrating housing with commercial uses. e Density/Intensity Category: "-1712" • Height: three(3)stories for buildings occupying less than a full block; four(4)stories for full block structures Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp")and Pedestrian District("-pd") Development • Requires the preparation of a Specific Plan- e Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. • Maintain and expand streetscapeamenities. • Establish an unified architectural character and highly articulated facades. • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories. • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. • Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages(walkways)to adjacent streets;providing connectivity of public open spaces and plazas. 1B Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Verticallntegrationof Housing("MV") Main Street/ Same uses as Subarea IA. Olive"Core" Density/Intensity Category: "-F6/25" • Height: three(3)stories for buildings occupying less than a full block; four(4)stories for full block structures d Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and Pedestrian District ("-pd").Same as Development Subarea 1,except standard for shoreline viewshed. i r THE CITY OF HUNTiNGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN ii-�-,i—i3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEbIENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule 1 Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 7C Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Horizontal Integration of Housing("MH") Abutting Professional offices, supporting retail commercial,restaurants,cultural,and Downtown civic(as permitted in"CO" land use category)shared parking facilities,and "Core" free-standingmulti-family residential. Density/intensity Category: "-F4/30" • Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp")and Pedestrian District("-pd") Development Requires the preparation of a Specific Plan. • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity. • Establish an unified architectural character and highly articulated facades. • Require vertical setbacks above the second story. • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and as a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Provide linkages with the Main Street/PCH"cores" (Subareas IA and . 1B) ID Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("NV) 1 Main Street, Uses permitted in Commercial General ("CG") and Commercial North of Neighborhood ("CN') land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures vertically-integrating housing and commercial,and free-standing multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units should be . excluded. Density/Intensity Category: "-F112.5' • Height: three(3)stories for buildings occupying less than a full block; four(4)stories for full block structures 1 Design and Same as Subarea 1C Development 1 R.- i♦ iH2 Cr " Y 0F c? UV ?' IYGTpN 3 CH GCUE2Ai. ? BAN -�.•.......... ' —ruvnrmn1 �.tIAYl tK , LAND USE ELEMENT 1 1 TABLE LU-4 ((-ont ) Community District and Subarea Schedule l Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles _- 2- Functional Role Maintain the .:Huntington Beach Pier and'. adjacent Pier beach-related recreational properties, for. purpose:,emphasizing Its Identity as a coastal and . Culturalamenliy. - - Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV-) • Visitor-serving commercial(surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes,beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. . Density/Intensity Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of • the Pier • • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "footprint" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category:—Specific Plan Plan -sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish an unifying architectural character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier asacommunirylandmark. • Facilitate pedestrian access. • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the"Old Town" residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community"focal points to enhance its"village" character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisionsshall be maintained. 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RN') PCH Frontage Density Category: "-30" Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development 0 Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. A THE C i T V O F H u V T I N G T O N 9 E a C G _ V = R q r a r A v COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELE.NENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule = -Subarea I Characteristic Standards and Principles - 3B Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" I Design and 0 Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. I • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from I public places. I 3C Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Vertical Integration ofHousing("MV") PCH Nodes Visitor-serving commercial uses permitted by the Commercial Visitor ("CV") land use category, excluding uses that may adversely impact character of surrounding residential, and mixed-use structures 1 vertically-integrating housing with commercial. I Density/Intensity Category: "-F8" 1 Height: three(3)stories 1 1 Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development 0 Design structures to achieve a consistent visual character and be 1 compatiblewith adjacent residential units in scale and mass. 1 • Require structures to be sited along the PCH frontage,with parking to the rear,sides,or within structures. 1 • Site and design developmentto maintain public views of the coast from ( public places. ( 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN') 1 1 Density/Intensity Category: "-Fl" • Height: two(2)stories 1 1 Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") 1 Development . Design structuresto be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. Design and site structures to achieve a"village'character. CommuNrrY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles• 4 - Area wide Preserve and enhance the recreational characterof the Pacific Coast Highway PCH Coastal Functional Role coastal corridor by the expansion of_visitor-serving uses and maintenance of Corridor open spaces and recreational opportunities: .Establish distinct commercial nodes,residential communities,and open spaces along its length. 4A Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV') Peter's Landing Density/Intensity Category: • Height: three(3)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development 0Promote the revitalization and enhancement of the Peter's Landing commercial center. ) • Establish a unified"village" character,using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. • Establish a pedestrian character. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential areas, where feasible. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH. • Physically and visually link development to Huntington Harbour's waterways and PCH. • Incorporate measures to mitigate the noise impacts of vehicular use of PCH. • Incorporate elements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas. r 4B Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Horizontal Integration of Housing(ME) Existing Oil0 Residential Medium High("RMH") Property 0 Single and multi-family residential (Continued on Visitorserving commercial(as permitted by Commercial Visitor["CV"] " next page) land use category) a • Parks,golf courses,and other recreational amenities • Open spaces • Continued Oil Production r) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEM£;VT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) ' Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 4B Density/Intensity Category:"F2-30" Existing Oil 0 Height: four(4)stories Property . Average Density: 15 units per acre ' (Cont.) Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development . Requires the preparation of and development in conformance with a Conceptual Master Plan of Developmentand Specific Plan. • The preparation of a Specific Plan may be phased in conformance with the conceptual Master Plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance ' with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential ' Subdivisions' (Policies LU 9.3.1 and LU 9.3.4). • Allow for the clusteringof mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four(4) stories to ' promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. • Commercial development shall be prohibited along the Palm Avenue ' frontage. • Residential development along Palm Avenue shall be compatible in size, scale,height,type,and massing with existing development on the north side of Palm Avenue. • Visitor Serving Commercial development shall be oriented along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage. ' a Minimize vehicular access points onto arterial streets and highways ' including Palm Avenue, Golden West Street, Pacific Coast Highway, and Seapoint Street. 1a Open space and neighborhood parks, which may be private, shall be provided on site. 1 1 1 t i l t T33 CITY O ? 3li ti " : \1 \j 3 AC :� G = 'J = 2Ai. ? : AN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER • LAND USE ELEwEvT TABLE LU4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule ......... :Characteristic,, les— . .. .... p 4C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") P irst Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, ake) Street entertainment, and other uses(as permitted by the"CV' and"CG" land use categories) Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • 0 Height: eight(8)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") • Development Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open spaces for public activity. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH. • Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. 4D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV') • Waterfront Hotels/motels and supporting visitor-serving commercial uses (in accordance • with Development Agreement) Density/Intensity Category: "-177 • Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690 • Commercial: 75,000 square feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement. 4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the PCH/Beach Commercial Visitor ("CV") land use category, and free-standing Northeast multi-family housing('RM'). (Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land use designation.) (Continued on Density/Intensity Category: 7. next page) 0 For RM designations, 15 units per acre • For CV designations,F2 • Height: three(3)stories 3 E N E 1 L N C 1 7 OF HUN T 1 "N C r 0 N' 3 A C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCHP.PTER LAND USE ELEMENT 1 TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 4B Design and Category: PCH/Beach Development Establish a major streetscape element to identify the Bea ch Northeast Boulevard•PCH intersection. (Cont.) Site,design,and limit the scale and mass of development,as necessary, . to protect wetlands. • Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown. • Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents. . • Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an internal roadway system. • Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape. 4F Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Wetlands Wetlands conservation. 4G Permitted Uses Category: Public("P")and Conservation("OS-C") Edison Plant a Wetlands conservation. • Utilityuses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 13A.8. Development 4H Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Brookhurst- Wetlands conservation. 6 nolia 41 Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RT') lanta-First Multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools,and (Lake)Street open spaces. Densityflatensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance toaspecificormasterplan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisiong' (Policies9.3.1-9.3.4). • Allow for the clusteringof mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two(2)to four(4) stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. o v COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCHAPMR L,4.vD USE ELF_tyEvT 1ADLE mi-4 (corit.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea ;Characteristic Principles 41 Permitted Uses Category: Shoreline("OS-s,,) Beach • Coastal and recreational uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 14.1.3. Development 5 Area wide Enhance, 1.Huntington.'.,.Center',the�Edi6'g�r.0 'Regio'in�a` �'Puf; I onridor,�and adjacent D iction .......... rot of regional cornmercca _ ore 5A ...... Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Regional("CR") Huntington Region serving commercial uses permitted by the "CW land use category Center and mixed-use structures vertically-integrating housing wid, commercial uses permitted by the"-mu"overlay. Density/Intensity —Care—go—ry • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: 0 ;Specific Plan_( sp) Development � Require the Preparation of and development in conformance with a specific or master plan. a Design and site development as a cohesive and integrated center and as stipulated by Policy LU 10.1.16. 6 Locate buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. 0 Locate a portion of development along the Beach Boulevard frontage. 0 Improve the signage and sense of entry from the interstate 405 Freeway, Beach Boulevard,and other major access points. 0 Implement extensive streetscape improvements along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger street frontages. 0 Promote the economic enhancement and revitalization of the Center. 5B Permitted—Uses —Cate go—rylMIxed—Use—(--M--) Corporate Center Density/Intensity Category: "-F4" • Height: per existing structures Design�and Category: Specific Plan Development •0 Require the preparation of and development in conformance with a specific or master plan, a Design additional uses and buildings to complement existing structures and improve visibility from the Interstate 405 Freeway. ruc T 7 V H U N T ! N G T 0:7_ 77 ::;: A C H G L AV COMMUNITY DEVELOPIM CHAPTER E�4 H"'LAND USE TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Charactenstic I_ Standards afidTHncipl&*-` ..... 5C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Regional("CR!') Edinger Region-serving commercial uses, including "big-box" retail uses permitted Corridor by the"CR" land use category. Density/In tensity Category: "42" • Height: three (3)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-cr') Development * Design and site development as a cohesive and integrated center as stipulated by Policy LU 10.1.15. 0 Mitigate noise and vehicular impacts that may occur on adjacent residential neighborhoods. 0 Implement extensive streetscape improvements (landscape, signage, lighting,etc.)along Edinger. 5D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") "Old World" Community-serving commercial uses, motel/bed and breakfast, restaurants, cultural facilities, and similar uses (as permitted by the "CG" land use category)and free-standing multi-family housing. Density/Intensity Category: "-F2/45" * Motel: 12 units a Height: three(3)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development 0 New development shall be designed to be consistent with the style of existing buildings. a Provide pedestrian linkages to uses within the subarea and adjacent centers. E Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG") Student Community-serving commercial uses permitted by the "CG" land use Center" category. Density/Intensity Category: "-Fl" * Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design('-d") Development 0 Design and site development to achieve a unified"village" environment (as defined by Policy LU 10.1.12). 0 Locate buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. 4 Discourage the development of office uses on the first floor. 0 Establish pedestrian linkages to Golden West College and adjacent regional commercial centers. L THE r T v 0 F ri '12 N 7 1 N G T 0 N 3 E A. C H C E N E '.k ' LAN 1- 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LA,VD USE ELENE,VT ` 1 1 TABLE LU4 (Cont ) Community District and Subarea Schedule / Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles , 5F Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Vertical Integration o£Housing("MV") Transit Community-serving commercial uses permitted by the Commercial General •Center ("CG")land use category and transit-related uses. Density/Intensity Category: "-F8" • Height: four(4)stories e Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development Design to integrate commercial and transitorientedusesandfacilities. • Cluster buildings on common walkways,open spaces,and/or plazas. • Incorporate unifying design elements(signage,streetscape,architectural design,and other). • Link Transit Center with adjacent parcels in the Regional Core. • Design structures to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. 6 Area wide Provide for the evolution of the Beach Boulevard corridor into a series of Beach Functional Role distinct commercial,mixed-use,and residential nodes. Develop a high level Boulevard of design identity for each node,which improves the visual character of the Corridor Boulevard and establishes a unique "sense of place." . Facilitate pedestrian activity_within each to,minimize thrneed`for automobile travel among individualuses....: 6A Permitted Uses` Category: Commercial Office("CO") y SWC of Uses permitted by the"CO" land use category. Beach and Warner Y Density/Intensity Category: "-F3" a • Height: per existing structures Design and Category: Special Design Development • Designadditionalusesandstructurestocomplementexistingstructures. a • Design and site structures to maintain pedestrian activity. • Improve pedestrian linkages to surrounding land uses,where feasible. 49 L .a V II-LJ-:3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER L 4,vD USE ELE.NE.vT R TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) ' Community District and Subarea Schedule ;:Subarea Charactenshc Standards and P:rincrples 611 Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG");and Mixed Use-Vertical Integration Beach of Housing("MV") Warner area Commercial and community-serving commercial uses permitted by the Commercial General("CG")land use category. Density/Intensity Category: "-F13";and"-FT' ' • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Special Design("d"),Automobile District("-a") Development a Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and ' highly articulated facades and building masses, and siting buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Locate buildings along the Beach and Warner street frontages and incorporate a visual landmark at the intersection (signage, landscape, architectural element,etc.). ' Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. ' • Limit access to and from Beach Boulevard clustering driveways and entrances as feasible for multiple businesses. ' Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Encourage the creation of an automobile district. 6C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG") Five Points Commercial uses permitted by the"CG" land use category. a s. Density/Intensity Category: "-f'r" • Height three(3)stories -'S Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development • Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and !; highly articulated facades and building masses, and siting buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Integrate new development to be consistent with existing structures. • Achieve a high level of development quality in accordance with Policy � . LU 10.1.12. CU tK lir' tx:f `i T E Ci 0 = tiT1NGT0N B3AC71 GE ` EI PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ` LAND USE ELE.NENT L f TABLE LU-4 (font ) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea I Characteristic I Standards and Principles. = f 6D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-("M") ` Five Points Medical facilities,professional offices,and supporting retail commercial uses Medical permitted by the Commercial ("CO") land use category, congregate care Center facilities,multi-family and seniorhousing,and shared parkingfacilities. i Density/Intensity Category: "-F3/30" • Height: four(4)stories i Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") ` Development • Require the preparation of and development in conformance with a specific or master plan. • Integrate new developmentwith existing to ensure compatibility. • Require vertical setback of building heights along the peripheral street frontages,except Main Street. i • Establish pedestrian linkages to surrounding neighborhoods and districts,where feasible. 6E Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Office("CO") Office Node Uses permitted by the"CO" land use category. (Adams-York town) Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • Height: four(4)stories Design and 0 Design to be consistentin scale and architectural character with existing Development structures. • Require vertical setback of elevations above the second story. • Limit access to and from Beach Boulevard, clustering driveways and entrances as feasible for multiple businesses. • Implement pedestrian linkages to surrounding areas,where feasible. 6F Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG") Newland Commercial uses permitted by the"CG" land use category. Center Density/Intensity Category: "-Ft" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development Design structures to maintain the scale and character of the adjacent Heritage Park. T - C i - `! O ? Hu ?iTitiGT0N 3 ' ACH GE -NERAL iI- "J-80 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELE.vmvT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule . aract ,.,Subarea':..': :Ch eHStic �-[Stafidaids'afid:Principles; P 6G Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG") General Commercial uses permitted by the"CG" land use category. Commercial Density/Intensity Category: "-Fl" 0 Height: two(2)stories Design and 0 Design and site structures to achieve a high level of quality in Development accordance with Policy LU 10.1.4 and Policy LU 10.1.12. 0 Limit access to and tom Beach Boulevard, clustering driveways and entrances as feasible for multiple businesses. Commercial uses permitted by the Commercial General ("CG") land use category. , and shared parking, mixed-use structures vertically-integrating housing with commercial uses, and automobile sales and related uses. (Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land use designation.) Area wide Provide for the tahanc6ment:of.the,Civic.Center as a prjmary:f foc al pint of � entity"an Center Functional kale g(*w'em-m- entafand dculturali'd d intefisificatioh*of adjacent ai� ........... Nude uses that support and:reinforce: R, 7A Permitted Uses Category: Public("P") Civic Center Governmental administrative, cultural, and similar uses permitted by the"P" land use category. Density/Intensity To be determined based on community needs. Design and 0 Design and site new development to complement existing structures, Development maintaining the"civic" identity of the site. 0 Site and design additional development to maintain compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods. 0 Maintain significant open space, plazas, and other areas for outdoor community activities. 0 Establish pedestrian and bicycle linkages to surrounding neighborhoods and districts. THE r V OF '71 UNTTiNGT ON 37— AC '.-i GENERAL ? LAN Tl (l_:_U_6i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER i LAND USE ELEMENT 4 TABLE LU4 Wont.) f Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 7B Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Office ("CO") Commercial uses, civic theater, and Civic Center similar uses permitted by the Commercial Office("CO")land use category. Village (Yorktown- Main) Density/Intensity Category: "-172" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Development Establish a unified"village' character,using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses, and siting buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporateart in public places. • Incorporate extensive streetscape amenities (landscape, signage, lighting,etc.)along the Main Street and Yorktown frontages. • Provide pedestrian linkages with the Civic Center and Subarea 7C. 7C Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Horizontal Integration of Housing("MH") Seaclif[ Commercial uses, civic theater, and similar uses permitted by the Center Commercial General ("CG") land use category, professional offices [as permitted by the Commercial Office ("CO") land use category], and free-standing multi fam ily residential. Density/Intensity Retail commercial: 200,000 square feet • Office commercial: 100,000 square feet • Residential: 475 units • Height: 80 feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development Same as Subarea 7B. 8 Area.wide Maintain and establish commercial centers toserve surrounding residential Commercial Functional Role neighborhoods and the greater community. Nodes - 8A Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG") Community Commercialusespermittedby the"CG" land use category. Commercial ok Density/Intensity Category: "-Fl" all • Height: two(2)stories Design and Design to achieve a high level of quality in conformance with Policy LU Development 10.1.4.and Policv LU 10.1.12 O ? 7 7N ' 1VG70N BEACH 0SN7- RAL PLAN il-LU-•i_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELE.NEvT ti TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule S—u—b—s—rea-7 Characteristic Standards and Principles 8B Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN') Neigh- Commercial uses permitted by the"CN" land use category. borhood Commercial Density/Intensity Category: "-FI" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Design to achieve a high level of quality in conformance with Policy LU ' Development 10.1. 10 9 Area wide Ensure the development of industrial uses to provide employment for the ' Industrial Functional Role City's residents and contribute revenue for the City's services. 9A Permitted Uses Category: Industrial("I") McDonnell Uses permitted by the"I" land use category. Douglas Density/Intensity Category: "41" Height: consistent with existing development, with vertical setbacks ' adjacent to residential areas and the site's periphery Design and Category: Special Design("-d") ' Development Design and site development to achieve a "campus-park' setting in adherence to Policy LU 12.1.5 and buildings to achieve a high level of design quality in accordance with Policy LU 12.1.4. Integrate new development to be compatible with existing structures and ' open spaces. • Incorporate extensive landscape along the primary street frontages. • Design and site buildings to ensure compatibility with adjacent ' residential neighborhoods. 9B Permitted Uses Category: Industrial(,r) ' Bolsa-Spring Same as Subarea9A. dale Park Density/Intensity Category: "-F2" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-(F) Development 0 Same as Subarea9A • Encourage the preparation of a specific or master plan to guide ' development in a unified manner. • Incorporate visual elements to distinguish key entries along principal streets. T ;ic C1TY 0 = uNi1NG i0N 3EAC H GEV E2AL P '_ AN I UMMUNI I Y UEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea I Characteristic Standards andTrincipies 9C Permitted Uses Category: CommercialOffice("CO") Industrial/ Offices,and supporting retail uses permitted by the "CO" land use category Office Park and light industrial uses permitted by the"I" land use category. Density/Intensity Category: "-F2" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development Integrate structures into a cohesive development. • Encourage the preparation of a specific or master plan to guide development. • Design structures to convey visual interest, including modulation of building masses and extensive facade articulation. • Encourage parcel consolidation to support larger scale development. 9D Permitted Uses Category: Industrial("I") (;ot hard Uses permitted by the"I" land use category. Corridor Density/Intensity Category: "-F2" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development 9 Same as Subarea 9A • Incorporate visual elements to distinguish key entries along principal streets. • Incorporate design and site planning elements that facilitate the long-term developmentof the railroad corridor for rail transit use. 9E Permitted Uses Category: Industrial("I") Gothard Light industrial,office, and similar uses, provided that the existing historic Historic structuresare retained. t District De nsity/Intensity Cate go gry: « F'-).. 1 Design and Category: Historic District("-h") Development Design usesto retain character of historic structures. 1 f 1 1 1 1 I -I .- C ! T ( 0 i HUNT ? VGTO V 3 c .� C GEV Z .� L ? LA V CommuNITy DEVELOPMENTCHAnER ' LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Wont.) . Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles. . 9F Permitted Uses Category:Industrial("I") Newland Uses permitted by the"r, land use category. Hamilton . Industrial Density/Intensity Category: "-F2" on the northern portion of the area only. • Height: two(2)stories . Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development Same as Subarea 9A 1 Site,design,and limit the scale and mass of development,as necessary, to protect wetlands. 10 Permitted Uses Category: Public("P") Public Uses permitted by the"P" land use category. Density/Intensity To be determined on an individual basis to reflect the character of surrounding land uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 13.1.8. ' Development Note: Areas designatedby the Land Use Plan Map for single family and multi-family residential are not delineated as Community Subareas,other than those listed above. Refer to the Land Use Plan Map and associated policies to determine appropriate use,density,and design and development standards. 1 I 1 1 1 1 'i THE i ! Y O ? HUV - iVG - ON 3c :� H GSN = 3 :1L PLA ;J �' i-LU-6: ATTACHMENT NO . 3 REQUEST F_C�s- 1(- r%ink t � 01 ACTION APPROV ' C Dat Julv 1 , 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayo y UoZTy1CLERbL Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson , City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin , Director of Development Service Subject: Resolution No. 5284 Adopting Draft Final EIR 82- for the Downtown Specific Plan Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : Draft final EIR 82-2 analyzes the maximum impacts that could occur under the draft Downtown Specific Plan at full build-out . This EIR, when adopted, will also serve as the basis of the environmental documentation for Amendment No. 1 to the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Because all the impacts are analyzed in EIR 82-2 , the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Amendment can receive a negative declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 5284 adopting draft final EIR No. 82-2 for the Downtown Specific Plan ANALYSIS : Planning Commission Action on June 28, 1983 OAT MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE DRAFT FINAL EIR 82-2 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Ayes : Porter, Higgins , Livengood, etc. Noes : None Absent: None Abstain: None Draft final EIR 82-2 analyzes the maximum impacts that could occur under the draft Downtown Specific Plan. The development of the draft Down- town Specific Plan was authorized by the City Council on March 16, 1981 and is intended to be the implementing zoning of the Coastal Land Use Plan for that portion of the Coastal zone . The Coastal Land Use Plan was adopted by the City Council as the Coastal Element of the Hunting- ton Beach General Plan on January 19 , 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in November of 1982. Draft Downtown Specific Plan The Downtown Specific Plan would chance the zoning on approximately 336 acres on both side of Pacific Coast H4chway between Goldenwest Street Resolution No . 5284 Adopting Draft Final EIR 82-2 for the Downtown Specific Plan Julv 1, 1983 Page 2 and Beach Boulevard. The present zoning includes high density residen- tial (R4) , general business (C3) , office professional (R5) , residential agricultural (RA) , Mobile Home (MH) , shoreline district (S1) , neighbor- hood commercial (Cl) , Oldtown Specific Plan District One, and Old Civic Center Specific Plan. Some of the zoning designations are combined with oil suffixes which allow new or continued drilling and oil produc- tion activities . The proposed Specific Plan would allow for a number of mixed use districts which combine commercial uses with residential uses and/or office. Special districts along the beach and on the pier would protect access and views and would limit developments to those appropriate for public beachfront or pier recreation. Public Hearing and Comments on draft EIR No. 82-2 Draft EIR No. 82-2 was disseminated for public review and comment on January 14 , 1983 . A public hearing was held before the Planning Com- mission to take public comments on February 15, 1983 . The 45 day public review and comment period ended on February 28 , 1983 . All com- ments received in writing or during the public hearing were responded to in the errata which is part of the bound draft final EIR No. 82-2. The modifications suggested by the Planning Commission during. their, consideration of the resolution recommending adoption of the. draft final EIR have been incorporated into the document . Resolution No. 5284 Resolution No. 5284 , ' which is attached, certifies that EIR 82-2 has been completed in compliance with CEOA and that the information it contains has been reviewed and considered by the Council together with all significant effects and measures proposed to mitigate such effects . The resolution also contains a finding of overriding consideration, which states that some effects are generated by forces outside the jurisdication of the City, and that the economic and social benefits of the plan to the City override-these effects. ; .Such a finding is re- quired by law when an EIR cites impacts which cannot be completely mitigated. The resolution further accepts and adopts EIR .No. 82-2 . FUNDING SOURCE: None needed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS : 1. Do not adopt Resolution No. 5284 adopting EIR 8272 . If the EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan is not adopted , a negative declara- tion cannot be used for Amendment No . 1 to the Main-Pier Redevelop- ment Project Area, since the negative declaration was granted based on the information in the EIR . i"'!P :.i 7 : s r ?.t mac hi-,,en RESOLUTION NO. 5284 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2 FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the Downtown Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2 have been prepared ; and The Planning Commission has held a public hearing to con- sider such Specific Plan and its accompanying EIR; and All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given, have been heard by the Planning Commission and such re- sponses and comments as were made duly noted for incorporation in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2; and The Planning Commission recommends approval of Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2 by the City Council , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1 . The City Council hereby certifies that Environ- mental Impact Report No . 82-2 has beer. completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and all state and local guidelines therefor, and that the information contained in such environmental impact report has been reviewed and considered by this Council . SECTION 2 . The City Council has recognized and considered all significant effects detailed in the environmental impact re- port , together with existing and proposed measures to mitigate such significant effects . SECTION 3. The City Council further finds that notwith- standing measures proposed to eliminate or substantially lessen the aforementioned significant effects , the forces which generate such ef_`ects are outside the jurisdiction of the City of aht Huntington Beach. SECTION 4 . The City Council finds that the benefits ac- cruing to the city , both economically and socially, by virtue of the Downtown Specific Plan override the significant effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2, and this Council does hereby accept and adopt Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2. SECTION 5 . The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file with the County Clerk of the County of Orange a Notice of Determination for Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2, as required by Title 14 , Chapter 3, Article 7 , section 51O85(h) of the California Administrative Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held do the 18th day of JLJly 1983 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �x�'�-�- � �_��j 4. Ll__� City Clerk City Attorne l V REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator irector of Development Services Res. No. 5284 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of July 19 83 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly MacAllister Finley Bailev NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas (out of room) , Mandic (out of roam) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California L . ry THE pUS%Gl Superior Court -0S3 87 �v�9$ �zYA' OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,,t4 CNI In and for the County of Orange G PROOF OF PUBLICATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CLERK PUBLIC HEART.NG PMJc N0T1Z. iRZvj1%r',.I''. : rgnz Or pu"flp.�AMAMZNDKLNT i State of California ) 'PTO ru ��� County of Orange )sa btk�"Non".i0b®�E�y,.N SJt7, ppuu N Couoal d the My d Nmtinct-Bdi4 k th.Coa.na Ch.mber of th.Clvk Cali the h66'0:2) APRIL L. ELLIOTT ""°ta"°° tr` a M.. y r.�the y d r A That 1 am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of Mmpdwryy�t.Y lath d.y d Jue��19N.6. �`ty Dv.a o.e gpetlk Pl.e'te kdtidi the United States.over the age of twenty-one emit and that 1 m am not a perry to, nor interested in the above entitled matter; �erding skpadbytd"tate C.Mthat 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the r Ati Corm r - shes.'.brier PIL H C."Led "Pl.e seelci= HUNTINGTON BEACH IND. REV. Ati eb mefernu?tMga7 Aat . - .A Vy of Vied"AmeedmenYln a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Do.e -of Pko it 615'IIL'fa"11y Orrw d D..elopm mAn 9uvie ', HUNTINGTON BEACH ie��a a»� r md County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the Further mlureuti.e m.Yai,tbt fam th. Otfin'd th. Chy. disemination of local news and intelligence a(e general charec- Male strat.Huvtle�nrea _ ter, end which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had oiL 92SOa 4ay6a7T7•�"-3 and still has a bona fide subscription list of paving subscribers, DATED td.rr��1,19M CITY D FtUt�CI7+CT'ON HP.AG7i and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- B��yy.Alicv M.W.aiYdil; lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the Pub.ht>7.1a61 i r4 Nub.Bt+rh led Nw.taetfd annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit JUNE 7r1984 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. GARDEN GROVE Datedat................................................ California,this ...8.thdavof JUNE lg 84.... Apri 1 L. E.I.I.iott� Signature Y 1 / REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL- ACTION Date June 4 , 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrate t 6' Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services �o Subject: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN r'S 53 8? Nt)"b Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : The resolution would add to the Downtown Specific Plan wording which was adopted by the California Coastal Commission as suggested modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan zoning implementation into conformance with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission adopted the suggested modifications at their hearing in Los Angeles on April 11, 1984 . If the suggested modifications are incorporated into the zoning , the Coastal Commission staff could administratively deem ' the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program certified, and the City would receive its coastal permitting authority. RECOMMENDATION : Adopt a resolution amending the Downtown Specific Plan. ANALYSIS • Planning Commission Action: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR RESOLUTION NO. 1321 WAS ADOPTED RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDMENT THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The resolution would make the following changes to the Downtown Specific Plan: 1. Require compliance with sections of Article 969. 9 (Coastal Zone Suffix) regarding hazards ; buffers; diking , dredging and filling ; energy; and signs. 2. Limit terraced parking decks and walls on the ocean side of PCH to 12 inches below the top of the bluff. 3. Add the definition of wetland. 4. Require compliance with Article 989 . 5 (Coastal Development Permit) . 5 . Specify which standards can be relaxed for a special permit. Standards which cannot be relaxed are building heights in Districts 1 , 2 , 4 , 10 and 11, maximum densities, parking requirements, and requirement of the conservation overlay. 6 . Require one for one replacement of any ocean side or onstreet parking which is removed. 7 . Allow paddleboard courts and parking lots as permitted uses in District 11. 8 . Requiring coastal development permits for developments in the Downtown Specific Plan area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : On July 18, 1983 , the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report No: 82-2 for the area included in the Downtown Specific Plan. These modifications would not change that project substantially. Section 15067 of the CEQA Guidelines states "where an EIR . . has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless : 1) subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, 3) new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available." Staff has reviewed the findings stated above and determined that a subsequent EIR on the revised plan is not necessary. FUNDING SOURCE : 1. Do not adopt the resolution. In this case, the California Coastal Commission will not be able to certify the City' s zoning implementation for the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. Adopt alternative language amending the Downtown Specific Plan. In this case, the zoning implementation for the Coastal Land Use Plan will be considered for certification by the California Coastal Commission at a new public hearing . - - 6- -2a - 3CI. ATTACHMENTS : 1. Planning Commission staff report of June 5, 1984 2. Resolution No. 3 . Revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan CWT:JWP:JAF : jlm 0759d -?- 0- -31 - RCA huntington beach development services department STA f f . REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE : June 5 , 1984 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO . 1321 , amending the Downtown Specific Plan 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: After a public hearing , adopt Resolution No. 1321. 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION : Resolution No. 1321 would add to the Downtown Specific Plan wording which was adopted by the California Coastal Commission as suggested modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan zoning implementation into conformance with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission adopted the suggested modifications at their hearing in Los Angeles on April 11, 1984 . If the suggested modifications are incorporated into the zoning , the Coastal Commission staff could administratively deem the Huntington Beach Local. Coastal Program certified, and the City would receive its coastal permitting authority. 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On July 18, 1983 , the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 for the area included in the Downtown Specific Plan. These modifications would not change that project substantially . Section 15067 of the CEQA Guidelines states "where an EIR . has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: 1) subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, 3) new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available ." Staff has reviewed the findings stated above and determined that a subsequent EIR on the revised plan is not necessary. :73 4 .0 ANALYSIS : The resolution would make the following changes to the Downtown Specific Plan : 1. Require compliance with sections of Article 969. 9 (Coastal Zone Suffix) regarding hazards; buffers ; diking , dredging and filling ; energy; and signs. 2. Limit terraced parking decks and walls on the ocean side of PCH to 18 inches below the top of the bluff. 3. Add the definition of wetland . 4 . Require compliance with Article 989 . 5 (Coastal Development Permit) . 5. Specify which standards can be relaxed for a special permit. Standards which cannot be relaxed are building heights in Districts 1, 2, 4 , 10 and 11, maximum densities , parking requirements, and requirement of the conservation overlay. 6 . Require one for one replacement of any ocean side or onstreet parking which is removed. 5 .0 RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends_ that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No: 1321 and recommend that the City Council adopt a similar resolution. ATTACHMENT : 1. Staff Report of May 15, 1984 2. Draft Changes 3. Resolution No. 1321 JAF :jlm 0654d/1 ATTACHMENT NO . 4 Approved 10-18-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , California TUESDAY, AUGUST 23 , 1983 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Erskine , Livengood, Winchell , Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter In the absence of Chairman Porter Vice-Chairman Livengood con- ducted the meeting . DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The staff presentation will follow as closely as possible the 8-23-83 staff report for clarity. However, Secretary Palin noted that staff will also wish to address the handouts given to the Commission this evening - the response to the July 12 letter from the Huntington Beach Company, a diagram of Districts 7 , 8 , and 9 showing the mobine home zoning areas , an outline of how staff is proposing to organize each district in the Specific Plan for ease in locating zoning provisions , and the updated Greer Report on projected downtown traffic and circulation . Item 1 : S . 4 . 11 . 03 - Intensit in District 9 Item 2 : S. 4 . 11 . 0 - Maximum Building Heivht in District 9 Mike Adams prefaced his presentation on this item by calling the attention of the Commission to the drawing depicting the relative heights in districts abutting Pacific Coast Highway, pointing out that this drawing represents heights and heights only and not building density or bulk . The grade differentials between the districts effectively mitigate the visual effects of the different heights which the Commission has recommended . (This had been requested by the Commission when it deferred action on building heights in District 9 . ) Staff is recommend- ing that if any height restriction is placed on this district it allow 12 stories . Mr. Adams compared the heights , lot coverages , and floor area ratios in Districts 3 , 7 , and 9 . Commissioner Mirjahangir indicated that he would like to see the FAR in this district re- duced to 3 . 5 because he is concerned that heights allowed in District 9 will provide an inducement for that district to dev- elop ahead of District 3 . In response to questioning from Commissioner Schumacher , Secretary Pali n COnCurreC that with d 35 percent lot coverace a : R of 4 . 0 could result in some tall Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission August 23 , 1983 Pace 3 Commissioner Livengood , nowever , expressed his opinion that the special permit will open the door for each individual developer to ask for more height and building bulk . It will constitute a loophole in the Specific Plan and the height restrictions should remain as set forth district by district . Other commissioners felt that the special permit would be a mechanism under which the " Commission could address special circumstances without having to make adjustments to the Plan itself at a later date . Commissioner Winchell asked that the wording be changed to make sure that maximum density or parking requirements could not come under the special permit in any district . She also said that , since Districts 1 , 2 , and 4 are directly adjacent existing residential , it would definitely not be desirable to permit any flexibility in heights in those buffer districts . ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER SECTION 4 .1 . 02 WAS APPROVED WITH THE AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY LEGAL COUNSEL DE LA LOZA AND COMMISSIONER WINCHELL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Schumacher , Mirjahangir , Erskine NOES : Livengood ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN : None Item 5 : 4 . 1 . 05 - Appeals from Director ' s Decisions Mike Adams explained that throughout the document the Director ' s decisions are the deciding factor for a number of issues , so the staff is recommending that the wording in all such instances be changed to the General Provisions to state: "The decision of the Director of Development Services on non-zoning matters may be appealed to the City Administrator and his decisions on all zoning matters may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Ad- justments . " Secretary Palin further explained that such an appeal to the BZA would then follow the regular appeal channels provided by District 9 ; i .e. , to the Planning Commisison and thence to City Council if necessary . ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4 . 1 . 05 WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYFS : Erskine, Livengood , Winchell , Higgins , Schumacher , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN : None Item 6 : 4 . 2 . 04 - Parkinc Mr . Adams informed the Commission that , due to confusion as to what constituted "subterranean" and "semi-subterranean" oarkinc , Planning staff has -,,orked out a cefintion and table of lot coverage allowance for such Uses , as presented In the Staff re- pert . Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission August 23 , 198.3.' Page 5 Secretary Palin explained that pedestrian access is a reouire- ment of the Coastal Act. and the City must comply . However , it could be established that there be easements for a certain amount of frontage, possibly one access for every two blocks . Wording could be added that would state that where a street vacation allows a consolidated parcel of more than 600 feet there shall be a public accessway provided. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION DIR- ECTED STAFF TO DELETE SECTION 4 . 2 . 27 AND AMEND SECTION 4 . 4 .10 (IN DISTRICT 2) TO ADD THE WORDING THAT "A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT SHALL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT WHERE CONSOLIDATION WILL CREATE A PARCEL EXCEEDING 600 FEET IN LENGTH , " BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Erskine, Livengood , Winchell , Higgins , Schumacher , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT : Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 8 : 4 . 3 - District Map, District 1 Staff explained that this is a request that in this non-contiguous district a letter be attached to identify the separate sections ' of the district. In the northwest portion of the map the desig- nation of 1-a will be attached; the area around 17th Street will be 1-b, and the area down between 8th and 9th Streets will be 1-c . ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE DISTRICT MAP FOR DISTRICT ONE WAS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Erskine , Livengood , Winchell , Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN : None Item 9 : 4 . 4 . 03 - Density - District 2 (Lot Size ,Frontage) Mike Adams said that this item is to permit 50 foot lots on 17th Street or Goldenwest to have a maximum of four units , in lieu of the present three permitted units in the Specific Plan .docu- ment . He stated that this will give owners parity with previously developed lots in the same areas . The Commission discussed what it felt had been the intent to allow fourplexes on residual parcels only where development on either side would preclude consolidation; staff responded by saying that this amendment would take all lots on 17th and Gold- enwest and treat them equally without consideration of whether or not they were residual. These streets had been selected because they are arterials . Minutes , H .B. Planning Commission August 23 , 1983 Page 7 Item 12 : S . 4 . 5 .02 - Permitted Uses ,. District 3 Staff is asking for minor chances : just shifting auditoriums and motels from uses permitted with a conditional use permit to uses permitted by a use permit , and adding theaters under uses per- mitted by a use permit. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S . 4 . 5 . 02 WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE BY STAFF , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Erskine , Livengood , Winchell , Higgins , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Porter , Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Item 13 : S . 4 . 5 . 02 - Permitted Uses , District 3 In this section staff is also recommending that the Commission reconsider its prior deletion of residential uses from this district and re-insert residential uses and time-sharing resi- dential in (C) of this section . It is staff ' s feeling that the residential potential may be a deciding factor in whether or not the City will have developers interested in the downtown area and may be a very crucial element for mixed-use develop- ments . ' The prior action was reviewed for Commissioner Schumacher , who had been absent from the meeting when the residential was deleted. After extensive discussion of its reasons for removing the residential uses , Commissioner Schumacher said that her basic concern had been the development of a viable economic center for the City and if removing residential from District 3 encourages the other districts to develop their residential uses first that should enhance the need for commercial in 3 . Given the Commission ' s establishment of height restrictions , she can support the preservation of the area for commercial . Commissioner Winchell suggested that perhaps residential could be allowed on one side of Main and not the other, since the higher buildings had been moved over to the east, and asked if the district could be divided by an (a) and (b) designation . Mike Adams indicated that would not be necessary because the text could simply carry an asterisk next to the residential uses with a footnote stating that they would be allowed in speci- fied areas only . Commissioner Higgins reminded the Commission to keep in mind that the residential had never been intended to occupy an entire building and the lowered heights would proportionally lower the residential units which could be built . ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4 . 5 . 02 WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL AND TIME SHARING RESIDENTIAL USES IN DISTRICT 3 ONLY IN THE AREA NORTHWEST OF MAIN STREET , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Livencood , Winchell , Hiccins , Erskine , Mirjahancir NOES . Scnumac.':er ._SENT : Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission August 23 , 1983 Page .9 ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL DISTRICT MAP FOR DISTRICT 8 WAS REVISED AS RECOMMENDED BY. STAFF , BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES : Erskine , Livengood , Winchall , HIgcins , Schumacher , Mirjahangir NOES : None 1 ASSENT: Porter ABSTAIN : None Item 17 : S . 4 . 13 . 01 - Permitted Uses , District 11 Staff reviewed its research and reported its recommendation that beach concession stands should be limited to a size of 2500 square feet . No limit has been proposed as to number of stands to be allowed . Commission discussion centered on a definition of the concession stands and the question of whether or not something like this inside another structure would also be required to comply with a size limitation. Also reviewed was a means for limiting the number of concessions . ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4 .13 . 01 WAS APPROVED WITH THE SIZE LIMITATION FOR FREESTANDING BEACH CONCESSION STANDS SET AT 2500 SQUARE FEET WITH A DISTANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 1 , 000 FEET BETWEEN SUCH STANDS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Livengood , Winchell , Higgins , Schumacher , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT.: Porter ABSTAIN: Erskine SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED FORMAT OUTLINE Mike Adams reviewed some changes in the recommended format to make it simpler to interpret the Specific Plan document when it is adopted . Commissioner Livengood asked that , for. ease in tracking the changes which have been made and the actions that have been taken, there be a cross-reference in numbers in the new document referring back to the numbers of the same section in the original document. After discussion it was the consen- sus of the Commission not to do this , as it could make the approved document difficult to follow . ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE NEW PROPOSED FORMAT OUTLINE WAS ADOPTED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF , BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES : Erskine, Livengood , Hicgins , Winchell , Schumacher Mirjahangir NOES : None .°SENT . Porter AnS-A7N : Ncne ATTACHMENTS t, CHANCE COUNTY C®ASTKEEPER %. Own 441 Old Newport Blvd. Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92661 Office: (949) 723-5424 Fax: (949) 675-7091 Email: coastkeeperl @eardalink.net h ttp://u-w w.co asi keeper.or2 March 23, 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments on the EIR for the Pacific City development Dear Commissioners, The Orange County Coastkeeper is a non-profit organization with a mission to protect and preserve the marine habitats and watersheds of Orange County through education, restoration, policy advocacy, and enforcement. Our interest in this project is to ensure that a state-of-the-art-water quality management plan is designed and implemented. Additionally, we want to see a plan implemented whereby no net increase of pollutants will be discharged from the site to the beach across Pacific Coast Highway. We have been meeting with representatives of the applicant and in these initial stages of entitlement; they have been both cooperative and committed to develop such a plan. In our previous comment letters regarding the Pacific City Draft EIR we discussed 13 issues that we think need to be addressed in the final EIR. During our subsequent review of the final EIR and our own research on the potential impacts the proposed project; we would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider the following comments. 1. O.C. Coastkeeper participated in discussions with the applicant for the last year and a half and we have found them to be legitimately concerned about the potential impacts that the proposed project may have on the water quality in Huntington Beach and willing to address those issues. However the City has refused to consider creative solutions that have been suggested by the applicant that would not only address the runoff from the proposed discharged as the cistern empties. Currently the short term flows create up to 4 foot of beach erosion. With the extended period of peak flows created by the cistern emptying out the erosion could become quite a problem. The EIR needs to address the erosion issue and a method for dealing with and paying for the erosion needs to be created. 3. Street Flooding: The EIR call for storm flows over a 25-year storm to be conveyed down First Street outside of the stormdrain system. Why would the city allow a new development to purposely flood a street that empties directly onto PCH, A major commuter highway. On top of all of the flooding issues for the immediate neighborhood this will end turning PCH into a river during significant storm events and causing any number of problems. This issue needs to be further examined and a workable solution found before the development goes forward. Our conversations with the applicant have certainly given us the impression that they stand willing to work with the city. We challenge the City to creatively design a water quality management plan that goes the extra mile to ensure coastal water protection. The water quality plan described in this EIR is, in our opinion, inadequate given its proximity to Huntington Beach's fragile economic engine and delicate coastal resource. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ray Hiemstra Water Quality Projects Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHwARZENEGGER.Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office W. JJ 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 _ i ! �` •Sa, ,.'+'y Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 ` " - (562)590-5071 r ^,� ,i {� March 18, 2004 Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)—SCH # 2003011024 Pacific City, Huntington Beach, Orange County Dear Ms. Broeren: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pacific City project. We understand that the comment period has passed, but appreciate the opportunity to submit comments prior to City Council action. The project under consideration involves 10.6 net acres of mixed use visitor-serving commercial development, 17.2 net acres of residential village and 3.7 new acres of right-of-way improvements on a vacant site. The comments provided below convey project concerns and questions which Coastal Commission staff believes should be addressed in any final action the City takes on the project. Wetlands Section 3.3.2 of the DEIR discusses the regulatory framework for protecting biological resources and provides the various criteria used for identifying and delineating wetlands. The DEIR outlines the criteria used by the USACOE, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). As stated in the report, "the CDFG wetland definition and classification system is the delineation methodology generally followed by the CCC." However, in the evaluation provided on pages 3.3-20 through 3.3-22, the analysis applies only the Corps and CDFG criteria when evaluating the presence of wetlands at the subject site. Please note that the definition that should be used in determining whether wetlands exist on-site should be the LCP definition, which is found in the LUP Glossary (IV-C-154), in Section 216.04 F of the IP, and also in Section 4.0.04 of the DSP. The LCP definition of wetland is: Wetland. Lands within the Coastal Zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; or 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil,- or 3. The substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. The DEIR states that there are areas within the site where sparse areas of hydrophytic vegetation were temporarily established after the creation of remediation pits. In order to determine the character and function of these areas, additional information should be made available for consideration. The location and extent of these areas should be mapped. In addition, the City DEIP, Comments—Pacific City i Page 2 of 5 should fully evaluate the potential that the site historically contained wetlands and whether there is the possibility that these are re-emergent wetlands. The LUP policies require that adverse impacts to ESHAs and wetland areas be minimized (section C 7.1) and that new development contiguous to wetlands or ESHA include buffer zones (section C 7.1.4). Furthermore. Section C 6.1.20 of the LUP limits diking, dredging, and filling of wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Section 30233 and 30607.1 of the Coastal Act. The DEIR indicates that the remediation pits will be backfilled as part of the project. Please note that any City approval authorizing filling of wetlands for a use that is not specifically outlined in C 6.1.20 of the certified LCP would be problematic. If any wetland area is discovered on site, the preferred alternative is to avoid any adverse impacts. Additionally, if wetlands are determined to exist on site, the project will be considered appealable. Sensitive Plants The LCP defines Environmentally Sensitive Habitat as "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat area rare or especially valuable and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." Mitigation Measure BIO-1 indicates that special status plant or habitat surveys will be conducted prior to construction if substantial growth of native vegetation or sensitive habitats has occurred on the project site. If special status species are determined to be present, the DEIR states, "appropriate measures may include avoidance of the populations, relocation, or purchase of offsite populations for inclusion to nearby open space areas." Certain sensitive plants known to occur at the subject site may qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat. The LCP requires protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat from any significant disruption of habitat values and that only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas. The LCP also requires development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas. As such, a comprehensive survey of sensitive plant species should be completed prior to the approval of a final design for the proposed project. If an Environmentally Sensitive Area is identified on site, the project may have to be redesigned if it is necessary in order to avoid significant impacts. Project redesign should occur prior to the filing of the coastal development permit application. Parkin Regarding public access to the coast the certified LUP states: Provide coastal resource access opportunities for the public where feasible and in accordance with the California Coastal Act requirements. Parking is an integrally related component of public access. Regarding parking the certified LUP states: Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. And: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. DEIR Comments—Pacific City Page 3 of 5 As discussed in Section 3.14 of the DEIR, the parking demand for the project was calculated using a shared parking criteria. The shared parking analysis allows for a reduction in City parking code requirements. The total parking demand for the visitor-serving component of the project is calculated to be 1,535 spaces at peak demand times. The total parking supply is estimated to be 1,543 spaces. As stated in the report, "a theoretical parking surplus of eight spaces is forecasted at peak demand times." This calculation appears to leave a significantly small margin of error. The City should evaluate how a potential parking shortage at the subject site would be addressed . The project description states that motorists entering from the easterly access from Pacific View can either "drop off their vehicles to be valet parked, or access the subterranean garage." It is unclear whether hotel patrons would have the choice to valet park or self park. A valet parking system may discourage some members of the public from parking at that location. As such, the hotel and commercial should have a self park component. The DEIR states that existing parallel parking along the north side of PCH will be eliminated under the project and replaced "on-site." To the extent feasible, any parking impacted along PCH as a result of the project (e.g. due to road widening) should be replaced along PCH in approximately the same location. Where such in-kind replacement isn't feasible, these parking spaces should be relocated to a site which is clearly visible to the public traveling along PCH, such as in a surface lot with appropriate signage. The replacement parking should be managed as a separate parking resource, apart from the parking supply for the commercial development. We note that some on-street parking will be provided on a temporary/interim basis. However, those spaces would eventually be removed. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the residential village will be gated to public vehicular traffic. As such, the streets within the residential village will not be available for use as a public parking resource. To off-set potential adverse impacts resulting from gating the residential development, the City should consider providing permanent on-street parking along the publicly accessible streets within the development area. Visual Impacts Regarding visual resources, the LUP contains the following policies: Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs and significant public views. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The DEIR addresses public views in the area, particularly from the beach and pier and along Pacific Coast Highway. It is unclear from the project description and photo simulations whether the proposed 8-story hotel building would be sited on an elevated pad or at current grade level. In order to minimize the visual mass of the development, the City should consider limiting the pad elevation at or near street level. In addition, the commercial and hotel structure(s) should be articulated to reduce the apparent mass and scale of the development from public vantage points. Lower profile, less massive development would be preferred. Special Permits The DEIR indicates that "special permits" will be required to allow building encroachment into setback areas along PCH and Pacific View Avenue and to allow the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of ten percent. The report states that special permits are required to allow "flexibility regarding design issues in order to promote a better project." It is unclear if any DER Comments—Pacific City Page 4 of 5 special permits are to be considered for building heights. The City should evaluate whether the allowance of such special permits is consistent with the certified LCP or would trigger the need for an LCP amendment. To ensure consistency with the currently certified LCP, the City's final approval of the project should limit the extent of special permits to be considered as part of this project. Parkland and Lower-cost Uses Issue No. 23 in the certified LUP says "...the City should promote and provide visitor serving and recreational facilities for a variety of market preferences and market ranges. Preference should be given to development providing public recreation opportunities. Lower cost facilities should be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." The DER states that the proposed project would contain privately owned, publicly accessible recreational areas on the site. The largest recreational area is the privately owned 'Village Green' contained within the residential area. Other smaller green space areas and pedestrian walkways and 'paseos' are associated with the residential development and commercial component. The DER acknowledges that since these areas aren't proposed to be dedicated as public parkland to the City, the proposal would not be consistent with City parkland dedication requirements, without the payment of an in-lieu fee. Commission staff encourage the City to pursue on-site provision of public parklands, rather than acceptance of an in-lieu fee. If the on-site provision of public parklands is deemed infeasible, we encourage the City and developer to identify off-site areas within the coastal zone suitable for use as public parkland and the acquisition and dedication of that land for public park purposes as part of the project, rather than use of an in-lieu fee. If an in-lieu fee is deemed to be the only feasible alternative, and acceptance of an in-lieu fee can be found consistent with the certified LCP, the in- lieu fees should be designated for use within the coastal zone. Also, other than pedestrian thoroughfares and private green spaces that are closely affiliated with the residential and commercial components of the project, the development appears to contain few components that could be classified as 'lower-cost'. We encourage the City and developer to provide a lower-cost component (e.g. lower-cost overnight accommodations) as part of the project. Arch aeology/Paleontologv The DER describes the presence of two archaeological sites and eight paleontological resources sites, and one of the archaeological sites has been determined to be a unique site for the purposes of CEQA. Please note that avoidance of impacts to these resources is preferred. The last resort should be recovery. Pedestrian Bridge The DER states, "although not currently proposed as part of the project, a grade separated pedestrian overcrossing could be constructed in the future, which would be located midway between Huntington Street and First Street to provide a connection from the beach to public areas near the hospitality uses in District No, 7." Please note that the pedestrian overcrossing will be appealable, as the seaward side landing will be located between the sea and the first public road. Develooment Phasing The Construction Schedule indicates that hotel construction will not commence until the second phase of residential development. The City should ensure through the permitting process that construction and opening of the public amenities and visitor serving uses are prioritized over what is considered "lower priority" residential development. Water Quality The City's LCP contains policies (e.g. C 6.1.6) requiring that new development employ the use of non-structural and structural Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize the volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, prior to runoff discharge into stormwater conveyance systems, receiving waters or other sensitive areas. The DER indicates the development will include post-construction water quality treatment measures consisting primarily of storm water filters to manage water quality impacts caused by the proposed development. The proposed DER Comments—Pacific City Page 5 of 5 measures must be sized and designed to mitigate water quality impacts generated by the development. In addition to use of storm water filters, Commission staff would encourage implementation of a treatment system that integrates one or more structural best management practices. Using a treatment train approach would include use of filter systems, such as that proposed, which remove gross pollutants, before flowing into a biological filter such as constructed wetlands, wet ponds or grass swales. These t3MP trains can be very effective at achieving good water quality and are generally considered superior at removing pollutants such as oils, nutrients, and some pesticides than use of any single approach. Appeals Area As noted above, if the subject site contains wetlands, the coastal development permit processed by the City would be appealable to the Commission. Other aspects of the project may also meet the criteria in Section 30603(a) of the Coastal Act regarding appealable development. We recommend additional discussions on this topic in order to determine whether the project is appealable. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Pacific City project. We apologize for the delay in providing comments and hope that the City can appreciate and accept that we are prioritizing this effort, but are subject to substantial workload constraints and limited staff resources at this time. We look forward to reviewing the final environmental document. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (562) 590-5071. 1 Sincerely, arl Sch f Supervisor, Regulation & nning Orange County Area cc: State Clearinghouse, File HlettenACEOAIEIRIPacific City-HB.doc U.ATE Of r>rt m04\'lA—Bllc J'r. 9 "�y9I-paIA7 10�'A\D HO}jc_r��.ncn1X Y IZ:rDLD.SS'F.uA,nir.�-VZnxc I1 UPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, SWtc 390 mire, CA 92612.8994 F,a ,,,yam.•.., Tel: (949)777A-7167 Fax:(949)724.2592 FA,K& MAIL March 22, 2004 Mary Beth Broerer File: IcI:..CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCHO: :'i:.i3l'r11024 2000 main Street Log 9: 11'9::1C Huntington Beach,.CA 92648 SR: PC] 1 Subject: Pacific Cit-v Dear Ms. Broeren, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Final Errrifollmental Impact Report/ Response to Comments for the Pacific City Project. Till! project p1%,.j3drEs to develop.a 31.5-acre vacant site bounded by Pacific Coast Highway(PCH), I st,Street, Hul)'iiit!t.on Ave, Atlanta Ave into a mixed-use commercial and residential center including a 400-rc'.ar1 :',hospitality/hotel, 240,000 square feet of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and enteriair ',rata;t facilities, 516 condominiums, and improvements to vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The r!:ai-Nt State Routes to the project site are PCH and SR-39. Coltrane District 12 status is a r¢cponsible agency on this ilIqroject amll' wr%r. the following comments: 1. Comment DOT-2: Disagree with the response. As previously staffed, State .Qic4i'ry improvements recommended in the Caltrans Transportation Concept Report (pret?ously knc,l;il :as Route Concept Report) are not programmed, approved or funded, and they ld not br pup_I tl-- as committed immovemen Further verification with the Southern California AssocivUl!in. of Governments (SCAG) 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2004 DraftRTP revesillha't neither the third southbound nor northbound lane on PCH are programmed to be built in the futli,cl. s is 2. Comment DOT-3: Concur with the tespuuse. 3. Comment DOT-4: Response noted. As indicated in the TffF. Tripi Generation 3jindb00k (October 1998) and acknowledged by the consultant, the internal capture rater should bc+:+jijtlsted based on the project characteristics, professional judgment of the engineer in consultation t,i i+.ihe City based on the local experience. For the Department's records, we request :chat the ccdur.3nt provide local collected data to substantiate both the internal capture rates and the mode ;rlEft. ates used in this study. 4. Commeru DOT-5: Concur with the responx. Post-It"Fax Note 7671 "t_l.. -04 R+'J'° ra (Y\• O0.v� 5. Comment DOT-6: Conan anti the respnnse. F o�ef�1y—silo-sa�� �► -lam-aa ..Cbrnanl tnprow mabi(. rm a ( _�lt,, i Mary Beth Broeren March 22, 2004 Page: 2 6. Comment DOT-7: Disagree with the response. According to Table!, 3.14-14 (t ;a:: 2008 Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary) and 3.14-16 (Year 2020 Genertd Plan Buir.itut.Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Surnmary), several PCH and Beach Blvd. segnnat cxyeriene! _macceptable LOS. This is NOT only due to the regional and background traffic. These tables t:,Jly project-related increwcs in V/C ratios for scvcral highway segments are gei.ter than ( 'Y,. Clearly, the unacceptable LOS at these segments is partially due to the impact o!-the propoa ril i(evelopment. In addition, while both arijacem intersections of a problematic se> mentmight ope.':"ia at the acceptable LOS due to additional capacity, the roadway link continues to op'rrate at the :mncceptable LOS. This "bottle neck" situation must be addressedimitigated in ord?r to mair:ii.n the satisfactory operational condition on the state facilities. 7. Comment DOT-9: Disagree with the response. The effect of the trxisting pia t project pedestrian traffic on the operation of the intersection has not addressed. Analysis shai! bc.executed using Highway Capacity Manual software for existing and project generated pedestriar. 461.1mes. 8. Comment DOT-10: Disagree with the response. If the pedestrian bridge is not o instructed as part of this project, then the pedestrian circulation and intersection analysis affected br .1 hcv!project shall be executed taking this factor into consideration. Please continue to keep us informed of any future developments; which could of ii atially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, pleat it do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267• sincerely, if lL/V_U Robert F. 7useph, Chicf IGR/Community Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic,,Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning Gail Farber, District 12 Deputy Director of Planning Isaac Alonso Rice, Tratlic Operations North Charlie Larwood, Transportation Planning "Calbans lmp,ows inability across Ca(tromla" March 16, 2004 MAP 18 2004 Honorable Ron Davis, Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Reference... • Planning Commission Agenda — March 23, 2004 • Pacific City • Public Comments / Input • John Sisker • Pacific Mobile Home Park Resident / Representative • Co-Founder Pacific City Action Coalition Dear Mr. Davis and Members of the Planning Commission: This information and my personal comments are in reference to how the Pacific City Project will ultimately impact Pacific Mobile Home Park and the surrounding neighborhoods. This also is to take into consideration the total project build-out and impacts to areas outside the project boundaries itself in accordance with state and federal requirements. In addition, any and all know and future impacts to the residents Pacific Mobile Home Park must be reveals as part of the disclosure requirements, along with the roll other agencies, such as Cal-Trans and the City would have during or after final build-out. Likewise, and in spite of what the residents of Pacific Mobile Home Park have been told, the Pacific City Environment Impact Report (EIR) itself reveals the fact that the Delaware Street extension, south of Atlanta Avenue, will indeed need to be part of the ultimate build-out plan for the Pacific City. This appears to take place sometime between the years 2008 and 2020. This would in essence eliminate Pacific Mobile Home Park. Yet, no disclosure or other type acknowledgement has been forth coming at all by the Park Owners, Park Management Company, the City, and/or Makar Properties. Currently, the residents of Pacific Mobile Home Park are relying on seemingly conflicting verbal information from the developer and city itself, and are therefore replacing existing mobile homes with new manufactured housing, as part of our 'upgrade the park' program. Encroachment, Traffic and Density The development involves a 400-room hotel and a project 240,000 square feet of commercial/retail space on 10 acres coupled with 516 condominiums on 17 acres. At an average of 30 dwelling units per acre, this is the maximum density allowed by the city for 3 residential development and more than three times that of the pending residential development behind the Hyatt hotel. In addition to the unanswered questions as to how Pacific City's density and increased traffic will impact the surrounding neighborhoods, one looming issue pertains to the future of nearby Pacific Mobile Home Park. How will the Project Impact both the Pacific Mobile Home Park and the Surrounding Neighborhoods? (Issues involving Pacific Nlobile Home Park, Surrounding Streets and Potential Wetlands) These comments address the Pacific City project impacts to Pacific Mobile Home Park and the Draft EIR's failure to analyze the ultimate outcome during and after build-out of Pacific City to Pacific Mobile Home Park. This would include the Delaware Street extension, which the EIR seems to indicate would eliminate the mobile home park and the widening of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street. According to Councilmember Connie Boardman, the City has been meeting with the owners of Pacific Mobile Home Park, Mark Hodgson and brothers as to the impact Pacific City will have on the park and the residents. Any and all known future impacts to this mobile home park and the residents must be disclosed. The residents have been told, both directly and indirectly, that the present owners of this park intend to keep said property as a mobile home park well into the future. Residents, acting upon this information, are putting in new homes as well as fixing up existing ones. The Environmental Impact Report fails to address the project's impact on the park. THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE EH2: • TOTAL AND ULTIMATE IMPACT(S) TO PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK: Regarding Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, Delaware Street (extension), and Pacific View Avenue... • Precise alignments and/or improvements • Mobile home park entrance/exit • Total number and identification of mobile homes to be displaced • Ingress/egress from Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue into Pacific City and/or Pacific Mobile Home Park • Number of inlets and outlets • Set back requirements on street, restricted flow of traffic • Intended land use if not a mobile home park • Time frame • Known factors by park owners/management company • ULTIMATE EXTENSION OF DELAWARE STREET: Regarding the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and City Circulation Element from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View / Huntington Street • Will eliminate Pacific Mobile Home Park • Time frame • THE TAKING (POSSIBLE EMINENT DOMAIN) OF ANY OR ALL OF PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK: • Compensation to residents / landowner • Market value • Time frame • THIRTEEN, TEN AND/OR SIX FOOT EASEMENT(S) INTO PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK: • Parallels Huntington Street • City and/or Edison easement • Effects on mobile home park • Time frame • PACIFIC VIEW/ HUNTINGTON STREET: • Designated for signalized intersection • When and what configuration • Eliminate connect to pacific view/dead end Huntington Street • Time frame • THE PRECISE WIDENING / REALIGNMENT OF HUNTINGTON STREET, ATLANTA AVENUE, AND 1ST STREET AND RELATED INTERSECTIONS: • All projected / future circulation elements and traffic flow patterns • Configuration for all curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bikeways, on- street parking, underground utilities and other infrastructure needs; curb cuts, bus routes, ingress / egress into development and/or surrounding communities • Needs to be determined for both sides of each street • Time frame • THE EIR FAILS TO ADDRESS HOW THE PACIFIC CITY SITE AND/OR OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL BE USED FOR ANY FUTURE PARKING ISSUES: • The Waterfront Hilton/Hyatt seemingly not providing adequate parking for guests and/or employees • Has no on-site parking areas for tour buses and/or moving vans for convention equipment • Hotel employees still required to park off-site at peak times, and have been since the early 1990's, on the Pacific City site itself • Impact to surrounding neighborhoods when Pacific City site is no longer available for overflow Waterfront parking • It is believed Waterfront hotel employees are being charged if they do park within the hotel parking areas that were supposed to be part on the approved on-site employees parking management plan • Some employees parking within the beach public parking lot instead, and before hours to avoid being charged • POSSIBLE TAKING OF HOUSES / PROPERTY ALONG DEVELOPED SIDE OF ATLANTIA AVENUE: • Possibly through future eminent domain • Any improvements to existing road circulation • Time frame • IMPACT ON THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: • With the addition of a projected 3,000 cars per day to the Pacific City site alone, the City of Newport Beach anticipates that at least half these cars will end up in their city • This will cause increased traffic on already congested Pacific Coast Highway and other roads within their city • Concerns about the proposed 19`h Street bridge across the Santa Ana River - what if the bridge isn't built? How will traffic be handled in this case? • POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS VEGETATION AND/OR PONDING ON SITE: • Potential wetlands vegetation and ponding identified by Mark Bixby was not adequately addressed in the EIR • Developer Makar Properties was stopped twice in September of 2003 for grading without a permit immediately after Bixby's presentation on this subject to the City Planning Commission PROPOSED ivIITIGATIONS • The widening of Huntington Street, from Pacific View Drive to Atlanta Avenue, for proper traffic flow for north / south circulation (including right- and left-hand turn pockets, center landscaping, bicycle lanes) using the Pacific City developers property. We oppose any encroachments into surrounding neighborhoods including that of Pacific Mobile Home Park. • The widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street, to eliminate the bottleneck, and to be configured so that no existing mobile homes will be effected within Pacific Mobile Home Park. • Elimination of the decades-old realigned plans and proposed Delaware Street extension, as currently projected on both the City and County master traffic plans. The extension is intended to connect Delaware Street with Huntington Street at Pacific View Drive, thus eliminating Pacific Mobile Home Park according to the Pacific City Environmental Impact Report (EIR). • Full and complete disclosure from the owners and property management company regarding impacts to Pacific Mobile Home Park. • Reducing the proposed density of 516 residential units, as this will cause major traffic and parking impacts in the region, particularly during the summer months. • Maintaining as many existing view corridors for all residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. • Perform a totally new and updated traffic study using today's actual traffic flow, street congestion, parking issues, etc., which would then be the basis for any future traffic projections because of Pacific City. • Pacific Mobile Home Park, and/or other adjacent properties, not to be used as a solution for future parking and/or other related issues, by Makar Properties, the Robert Mayers Corporation, and/or the City. PACIFIC CITY ACTION COALITION DRAFT EIR COMMENTS • The EIR does not adequately address amplified noise from the commercial portion of the development. Significant impact has been experienced in the neighborhoods surrounding the Hyatt as they frequently have outdoor amplified concerts/events that intrude on the generally low level noise of a residential area. • The EIR does not adequately outline "public access" to the bridge over PCH that is proposed. If the measure of "public access" experienced at the Hyatt project is an indicator, this would be deemed unacceptable. Public access and utility should include consideration of useful route, maximum width, clear signage or views indicating access, no limits/obstructions on public access i.e. events/restrictions on common beach access modalities such as bikes/roller blades/wagons. Access should be clear and functional for all these modes. • The EIR does not adequately address light contamination that results from significant use of"up" lighting as demonstrated by the Hyatt. Impact on surrounding neighborhoods is significant at night and intolerable during the frequent foggy weather we experience near the beach. • Erosion control was poorly managed at the Hyatt development and the residential project to the North of it despite fines and significant community/public works/water quality board involvement. There needs to be clearly outlined process with active city involvement, oversight and significant negative impacts to the developer should erosion control fall out of substantial compliance. The city public works department was unable to change the gross inconsideration and impact of silted storm drainage into neighboring communities and our wetlands/ocean. • The timeline proposed is unacceptable. If the developer is hindered by finance concerns (as experienced by the Hyatt project) perhaps a more stable, more aptly funded developer should be considered. IF such a timeline is unavoidable, the impacted residents should be afforded EXTRAORDINARY accommodation in minimizing intrusion and impacts (noise blankets, temporary relocation, monitoring of air/noise/storm drain quality). • Alternatives to the proposed density were not adequately explored in the EIR. Current development at the Waterfront residential project is not as dense, yet the EIR states that lower densities would not meet current planning goals. • Pedestrian access in and around the project is not adequately address in the EIR. If this project were to be an asset to the community and not just to the developers that sell it, pedestrian issues would be a primary consideration. Sidewalks on all borders and throughways to the property, clear rights of way for pedestrian and bicycle/roller blade traffic would create a project open to area residents and facilitating access to commercial, pier, beach and downtown venues by paths other than PCH. The "commercial" aspects of the Hyatt project were oversold to the community and remain primarily hotel oriented. Sidewalks on one side of the street and not the other create an uninviting environment for local pedestrian traffic... a major source of revenue in the off- peak seasons. • The balance of commercial to residential space is too far toward residential. If this project and the city are to seek destination status, there needs to be a greater draw than very dense resident traffic/consumption. This city could use a few more active cash registers in the primary tourism areas adjacent to the coast. High quality dining absent the pricing and limitations of a hotel venue are the first opportunities that come to mind. • Parking, while it may be in compliance with code, is inadequate for a "destination" project, and does not consider the downtown area as having been built prior to generation of current parking codes. Parking for residential and commercial uses is inconvenient and inadequate. Multi level garage parking may put money in the pockets of some and "adequately" manage focused concerns, but ample street and single level parking creates the feeling of open space and quality of life that the pier/downtown area is worthy of. It is of interest to note that the Hyatt directs its employees to park in the adjacent communities when holding large events ... presumably because the parking designed is inadequate to accommodate both employees and guests. The downtown area can ill afford this impact. • Increased traffic in the area is inevitable. While traffic studies in the EIR don't suggest a traffic light at the intersection of Atlanta and Huntington, common sense does. As frequent travelers to this intersection confidently state, summer traffic is already a concern, without the proposed development. Without a timed break in traffic, access to downtown areas becomes tenuous and crossing Atlanta via the crosswalk at Delaware to access the local park quite hazardous due to the incline, lines of sight and speed along the wide Atlanta corridor. • Significant unavoidable impact on traffic at PCH and Warner creates a question of air quality impact on the Bolsa Chica. Idling traffic can already be a problem as commuter traffic backs up from Warner south along PCH. There is no consideration of air quality impact due to idled traffic for this avian sanctuary or for the wetland areas south of the development that will experience increasing traffic loads and idle time. • Significant conflicting messages exist regarding traffic concerns as they relate to the county plan. Most proximate is the extension of Delaware to the south. Is this being proposed and used in traffic projections? Are the traffic projections considering the 19"' street bridge over the Santa Ana River? These two issues are contentious and are not reliably prone to inclusion or exclusion when projecting traffic impact. • Impact on local schools should be considered WITH projected impacts of current and planned future development in the downtown area. • Height or number of stories above curb height should be portrayed. The 4 story limitation presented for the Hyatt was misleading to the public as the project resulted in a final height far above that presented publicly when soil compaction and parking garage additions to height were added. • Traffic impacts to the south including nearest freeway access to the 55 are not addressed in the EIR draft. • The contaminated soil, along with the conflicting reports from both Makar Properties (Chevron Oil Company) and the Hyatt Regency (Robert Mayers Corporation in reference to the 1999 soil transport from the Pacific City Site to the Hyatt Site has yet to be truthfully addressed. • A Deed Restriction and/or Conditional Use Permit that is final and permanent, needs to be in place so the public access through the Pacific City Project itself, in accordance with Coastal Commission requirements, cannot simply be voted out at some future time by the Pacific City Homeowners Association - or other such entity. Summary • WIDEN HUNTINGTON STREET INTO THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY to ease traffic flow to and from Pacific Coast Highway, including right-and left-hand turn pockets and bicycle lanes. • ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED DELAWARE STREET EXTENSION FOR THE LIFE OF THE PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK as currently projected on both the City and County master traffic plans. • REDUCE TRAFFIC IMPACTS BY REDUCING THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. • FULLY ADDRESS AND RESOLVE THE OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS that affect Pacific Mobile Home Park and the surrounding communities. • DISCLOSE ANY AND ALL KNOWN, AND FUTURE, IMPACTS TO PACIFIC MOBILE HOME Park and other adjacent areas. Sincerely, i John Sisker ,80 Huntington St., #266 Huntington Beach California 92648 (714) 536-3850 Broeren, Mary Beth From: Mark Bixby [mark@bixby.org] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:52 PM To: Tom Livengood; Jan Shomaker; Ron Davis; John Scandura; Bob Dingwall; Steve Ray; Carrie Thomas; Mary Beth Broeren Subject: a late communication regarding Pacific City M HBPC-040321-Pacift c-City.pdf Hi Planning Commission and Mary Beth, Please see attached for my latest findings regarding the wetlands issues at Pacific City. Mary Beth, can you please print the attached PDF file for inclusion in the Late Communications packet that will be available to the public at the hearing' Thanks . . . Mark Bixbv 714-625-0876 mark©bixby.oro Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons. . . March 21, 2004 City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Pacific City Dear Planning Commission and staff. I wanted to update you with the findings from my most recent Pacific City site visits. On March 14,2004, I conducted a vegetation survey of the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Huntington Ave. Vegetation was fairly sparse, with the biggest change since my November 28, 2003 site being the presence of moderate amounts of Erodium sp. (common name "filaree"or"stork's bill"), a non-wetland plant. I also observed a shallow pond (and associated vegetation) measuring approximately 8 feet by 10 feet a little bit north of the intersection of Huntington & Pacific View as shown in the photo below: v.s..�. i - .1-q "•�.t rr.. On March 21, 2004, I made another site visit to check to see if the pond was still present. and it was as shown in the photo below: 67 ♦^+SAS a,ir„,.4 - c�•,t�.r, - . Y The vegetation growing in and around this pond had multiplied since my previous visit. The following close-up in of the plants indicates that the species may possibly be Spergularia marina (common name "salt sandspurry'), an obligate wetland indicator plant (found in wetlands 99% of the time): < � it , 1fli•;� . �� - a tti yt} J) y Please note that this pond has persisted for at least 7 days. the threshold the Coastal Commission uses to make a wetlands determination based on hydrology alone. Given that the last time any rain fell in Huntington Beach was March 2. 2004, it seems likely that this particular pond is being fed by groundwater. The site is currently in a highly disturbed state, with soil remediation in progress. It is difficult to tell what the rue grade of the property is at the location of this pond. 1 estimate that the surface of the water is approximately 2 or 3 feet below the current round surface. Regulatory bodies talk about "consecutive days of pending" as a wetland indicator parameter, but the actual standard is soil saturation to within 12 inches below ground surface. If the Pacific City site was level at its true grade, how far below ground surface would soil saturation be found? If the true grade was restored and the pond was covered over, moisture would no longer be lost due to evaporation via direct contact with the air. Increased moisture would then be available and be expected to migrate upwards in the soil a bit due to capillary action. 5o how hieh would the moisture migrate? I do not know since I am not a soils or hydrology expert. But it seems likely that the saturation line would be closer to the ground surface than the current 2-3 foot level. If the true grade of the ponding area is 6 inches less than today s adjacent grade, and if the saturation line rises by 6 inches, then this portion of the site may be meeting the 12 inches below ground surface wetland standard. 1 strongly urge the Planning Commission to give close scrutiny to this project which is being proposed for one of the lowest areas of the city in combination with one of the highest water tables. As I explained in my EIR comment letter, I do not believe this project to date has adequately explored these wetland issues or offered meaninaful mitigation in terms of incorporating bio-swales and other more natural means of improving both aesthetics and runoff water quality. Yours truly. Xc4 A 9 Mark D. Bixby , 17451 Hill-ate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.ora P5: During my site visit today there was a noticeable petrochemical odor plainly evident at the Huntington Ave boundary fence downwind from the soil remediation zone. I hope that the Planning Commission gives due consideration to the soil contamination and cleanup concems of the Pacific City Action Coalition and other residents who live adjacent to the property. Page 1 of 1 Broeren, Mary Beth From: JonV3@aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:20 PM To: contact-pro@mindspring.com; carrie.thomas@sce.com; TomNeilLivengood@aol.com; rdd@socal.rr.com; steveray4surfcity@hotmail.com; shomaker@att.net; jdscandura@earthlink.net Cc: hbdac@hotmaii.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surcity-hb.org; CBoafdBCLT@aol.com, Hbmissjill@aol.com; glcoerpl@gte.net; CB4Council@aol.com, cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;jhardy@surcity-hb.org; phouchen@surcity- hb.org; dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; PPcgreen@aol.com; city.council@surfcity-hb.org; rramos@surfcity-hb.org; mbroeren@surfcity-hb.ora; shess@surfcity-hb.org; hzelevsky@surfcity- hb.org Subject: HB Planning Commission 3-23-04, Pacific City EIR, CUP, TTfvl Dear Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express concern about the water quality section of the Pacific City EIR, which you will consider the Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 23, items number: 6-1a and B-1b. There do not appear to be provisions for onsite detention of runoff in a bioswale or constructed wetlands in this project. I would recommend that this type of best management practice or best available technology be required for this development. Runoff from this project will wind up in the ocean, and the ocean and beaches of Huntington Beach are polluted. It is therefore imperative that runoff from this project be retained onsite and not be allowed to contaminate the ocean. Such onsite retention and treatment can be accomplished by a treatment wetland system. A nearby example of a treatment wetland system at Little Shell could be used as a model for the Pacific City project. Ironically, the treatment wetland system at Little Shell is being constructed by Fuscoe Engineering, the consultant for the Pacific City project. Thank you for your consideration of this water quality feature at the Pacific City site. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-848-0770 Message Page 1 of 1 Broeren, Mary Beth From John Scott Liohnscott@oickstation.net] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 10:06 AM To: rdd@socal.rr.com, Bob Dingwall; 'Steve Ray'; carrie.thomas@sce.com; 'J Scandura'; 'Jan Shomaker' Cc: 'Pam Houchen', 'Cathy Green'; 'Cathy Green'; 'City Council'; 'Connie Boardman'; 'Connie Boardman'; 'Connie Boardman'; 'Dave Sullivan'; 'Dave Sulllivan'; 'Debbie Cook'; 'Gil Coerper'; 'Gil Coerper'; 'Jill Hardy'; 'Jill Hardy'; 'S Hess'; 'H Zelevsky'; 7vI Broeren'; 'R Ramos' Subject: Pacific City EIR Dear Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners. I am writing to express concern about the water quality section of the Pacific City EIR, which you will consider the Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 23, items number: B-1a and B-1 b. There do not appear to be provisions for onsite detention of runoff in a bioswale or constructed wetlands in this project. I would recommend that this type of best management practice or best available technology be required for this development. Runoff from this project will wind up in the ocean, and the ocean and beaches of Huntington Beach are polluted. It is therefore imperative that runoff from this project be retained onsite and not be allowed to contaminate the ocean. Such onsite retention and treatment can be accomplished by a treatment wetland system. A nearby example of a treatment wetland'system at Little Shell could be used as a model for the Pacific City project. Ironically, the treatment wetland system at Little Shell is being constructed by Fuscoe Engineering, the consultant for the Pacific City project. Thank you for your consideration of this water quality feature at the Pacific City site. Respectfully, John F. Scott 22032 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8309 963-1746 ',i221=00- Written statement of Paul Cross before the City of Huntimeton Beach Planninia Commission relative to the Final Environmental Impact Statement . dated February '004, concerning Pacific City. It is here recommended that the EIS be rejected and in support thereof the appended pages are respectfully submitted. Please note that because of time constraints. this written statement is more comprehensive than an oral statement contemporaneously given to Planning. Commission on March. -73. 2004, IHAR 1 o 9004 fl Chairman Davis and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Paul Cross. I reside at t09 HuntinLnon Street. within 150 feet of a 3 i-acre site(Pacific City) proposed for development by Makar Properties. Makar is a Newport Beach development company which has owned the development site for many years. During 1985, before Ntakar acquired the site, the land was proposed for ultra high density use. Because of complaints made to the California Coastal Commission, during 1994 and 1995, the ultra high- density zoning was chanced to high density. High-rise buildings in excess of four stories are prohibited. Instead. there must be a mix of two and four story buildings, with the exception of a hotel which might be taller_ The California Coastal Commission approves only "up to 30 units on a fully consolidated block." The CCC also imposes an absolute vertical height limitation measured from the"highest adjacent street." Further, the CCC requires"transit-bus stops and non-obstructed handicapped accessibility''. The CCC further requires a public walkway through the entire project along an abandoned rail right-of-way from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, The CCC further requires that residential units on Atlanta not be inure than three stories above ground leveh(Makar appears to comply with the Atlanta Avenue requirement of three stories except that the units will add four feet at their base and five more feet it the pitch of the root. producing a total height of 43 feet, eight feet higher, than permitted for other homes located north of Atlanta) The obvious intent of the CCC is to provide view, light and air corridors to the ocean. In this regard, the site exhibits a natural downward slope from north to south, particularly the residential component of the project. In fact, at the northwest corner of the site, the highest street elevation is 32 feet above sea level, whereas at the intersection of Huntington Street and Pacific View Drive (the south east corner)the adjacent street level is only 5 feet above sea level. Instead of respecting all of the the CCC requirements. Makar proposes to erect a platform called the podium level which will be 30 to 32 feet above sea level throughout the entire project. This platform will extend all the way from Atlanta.avenue to the Pacific Coast Highway, with the result that over much of the project, Makar will install six and Five stor; buiidings on a site which is restricted by the CCC to a mix of two and four story structures. The fact that there will be one level of parking under all of the podium or platform level and two levels under much of it does not provide Makar with justification for the construction of five and six story units. Makar, in fact. will build only a token number of two story units on its proposed platform. The actual number of units that will have a true two story configuration is less than ten. Virtually evervili mg else is a two story piled on top of a two storm, further piled on top of one or two sto y parking garage much of which is far above grade of the adjacent street. Here please note that the proposed extension of Pacific View Drive also does not follow the natural downward slope of the land. Instead. upon its approach to its intersection with Huntington Street. it will swoop down sharply From an elevation of 30 feet to an elevation of; feet. Makar. thus seeks to create an artificial benchmark for the adjacent street elevation. In fact, the audacity of\iakar is simple amazing. For example, the massive buildings projected for Huntington Street will top out at about 90 feet above sea level, except for one skinny tier of units sitting almost directly atop the street. Even that narrow tier will rise to almost 60 feet above sea level, whereas the adjacent existing street level of Huntington Street is as low as five feet. This kind of bootstrapping by Nlakar should be rejected by the Planning Commission. It is not beyond the ability of Makar to respect the natural downward slope of the 3l acres. For example, thev could still have their proposed above-grade platform, and simply build one or two stories fewer on top of it. Or, they could do what they have somewhat clone for the mentioned single tier of four story units along Huntington Street. that is, to follow the natural slope of the land. Simply stated. Makar is charged with building a mix of two and four story units, not a pile ul'si.x stot buildings. One such downtown building already exists and that of course is the mammoth Pier Colonv. One building of that kind is enough. Why build four more of similar size as proposed by Makar. In uranting permission for uo to 30 units on a fully consolidated block, or 30 per acre, no authority was conferred enabling waiver of other legal requirements. The CCC requires measuring the permitted vertical distance from the highest adjacent street, not the highest of any surrounding street or from a newly created street graded anificially high so as to thwart the will of the CCC. There are ntanv other topics that need to be covered. but because time is limited I %%ill not be able to discuss them in my oral presentation. I hope that you also will consider the following matters. (I)The public walkway promised by CCC extending from Atlanta Avenue to the Ocean improperly is cut in half by Makar. (3) First street which already is too wide at Orange-Atlanta is to be widened turther at PCH. This street alreadv has a 135 foot crosswalk at Orange-Atlanta and is to receive similar treatment at PCH. It never will be possible to connect Pacific City to downtown Main Street and the pier area when pedestrians are confronted with a super-wide arterial highway as is proposed for I" Street. Clearly the intersection of I" Street and Orange-Atlanta is exceedingly dangerous, and is a nightmare of highway planning with thousands of additional autos to be crammed onto this proposed seven-lane arterial, the thought of Pacific City becoming part of the downtown area is unrealistic. Thus, sufficient parking is not provided. Few visitors will want to walk to a site surrounded by busy arterial roadways. Keep in mind too that neither the Hilton nor the Hyatt Hotels presently have sufficient parking for their quests when occupied with a special event such as a wedding. Shared parking will not work when all of the Hotels, including the second hotel tower already approved for the Hilton and the new 400 room, plus ballroom, hotel proposed to be built by Makar are up and running. Again too much is being crammed into a small and busy place. (3) Public transit is not even considered for the project. Over 150 busses traverse the perimeter of the site every day and insufficient consideration is given to the means by which access to the site will be gained by handicapped individuals, again in disregard of CCC requirements. Not even a single bus route will gain access to Pacific View Drive. (4) Project traffic studies assume destruction of the Pacific Mobile Home Park on Huntington Street because of a planned extension of Delaware Avenue through the heart of the mobile home community. The traffic studies also contemplate construction of bridges across the Santa Ana River and a freeway across Big Shell wetland and Talbert Marsh. In addition to the Pacific Mobile Home Park, it appears that Cabrillo Mobile Home Park is threatened by the large scale of the proposed project, and the resulting need to disperse a large volume of additional traffic. .Again, too much is planned for a small space. (5)The tiny proposes to donate a strip of land fronting PCH to Makar. The city gets nothing in return. No sidewalk on the north side of Atlanta. No burial of the 66-K power lines along Atlanta, no bridge over PCH. The answer to all of this is to downsize the project. (6) The hotel is too large, the offices planned overtop of the commercial area are not necessary, the residential area is too dense. A smaller project can be built without the delay of eight years inherent in the grand project proposed by Makar. The land in back of the Hilton and Hyatt in common with the subject Pacific City tract also was set aside for high-density development, but is now proceeding rapidly to completion as a moderate density housing project. Circumstances have changed greatly since the 1995 zoning action of the city, and such change is properly recognized in the case of the land behind the Hyatt. (7) Makar wants a eight-,year window for completion of Pacific City. This is outrageous and again tells us that their project is too ambitious. Why must we put up with dust, din and noise for such an extended period. (3) On the subject of low-cost housing it makes no sense to put in a relatively few such units at Pacific Citv and at the same time insure the demise of Pacific Mobile Home Park where there are 250 homes. These homes are located on 20 acres of land and are far less dense than the 516 super expensive units which are to be built at Pacific City on 17 acres. (9) Nlakar is attempting to cram too much into its 31 acres and has only itself to blame for the prolonged delay between its purchase of the site and the sought approval for construction. Instead of spending so much money on public relations, Makar could have done proper testing of the site for the existence of BT\, and now could be proudly walking away from a smaller and completed project. (10) The city of course is in desperate need of new tax dollars, and I personally have to look every day at the ugly hole called Pacific City. However, its time to call for downsizing. Makar has profited greatly by its delay. Because of sharply rising land values, the anticipated profit of Nfakar rises by 50 to 100 million w idt ever passing Year. yet at the end. Makar will walk away leaving the city with huge tratTic and parking problems. (I I)The payment of"in lieu of Fees-by Makar does not resolve the requirement for more city parkia nd. There is no land anywhere near Pacific City which could be purchased for a city park with in lieu tees. The required parkland must come out of the project itself, because there is no other feasible alternative. Here we are not talking about a few square feet, but instead a major parkland deficit of about six acres. Auain. downsizing is required for the project to proceed. (12) As an important aside, I call attention to the relationship between the dispute over the proposed density of Pacific City (516 residential units) and the proximity ofdowntown(Ylain Street) real estate offices to the site(about a 1000 leer away and there are no other closer) and submit that such offices(because of their location) produce an economic interest among those affiliated with such offices substantially greater the than the economic interest of the public generally Consequently. no public official affiliated with such offices should participate in this matter as a decision- maker. (13) Huntington Street between Pacific View Drive and Atlanta, already is too narrow for the heavy load of busses and beach bound bicycles which use the street. Even .without more traffic created by Pacific City, the street presently is unsafe and should be widened_ In any even[. upon the erection of Pacific City, two traffic lanes, with a median strip should be added to the width of Huntington. (14)The mobile home park on Huntington consists mostly manufactured homes. and is not uoinR to easily disappear as assumed by Pacific City traffic studies. Tall buildings looming over the manufactured homes should not be allowed without a buffer(a median with palm or other evergreen trees of suitable height). Sixty foot buildings, a mere 50 feet away from low-rise homes would not be allowed anvwhere else in the city, and should not allowed on Huntington Street. (15)The proposed hotel would be sited only 20-feet from the Huntington Street curbside and less than a 100-feet from the from the westernmost wall of the adjacent Hilton Hotel. This siting will cause a major wind tunnel effect and also will block the remaining view looking south down Huntington. As previously noted, downsizing of the proposed hotel is required and in any event it is necessary to move the hotel about 50-Feet west so as to preclude the noted extremely adverse effects upon the city's namesake street. Submitted by Paul Cross PACIFIC CITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THIS PRESENTATION REPRESENTS THE INTERESTS OF THE PACIFIC CITY ACTION COALITION , A GROUP OF CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PACIFIC CITY DEVELOPMENT . • Potential groundwater contamination near the former Chevron gas pumping station . The EIR claims Area D (southwestern portion ) needs investigation , but the prior testing there has been kept secret. According to a sworn affidavit by Kamron Saremi of the California Regional Water Quality Board , Chevron 's consultant, Harding ESE , approached him in 2002 with a proposal to leave contaminated soils in place which were near groundwater in the west central portion of the site . Saremi visited the site with Chevron and their consultant. He stated that Harding ESE presented groundwater testing samples to him taken from sample bores in the impacted area , the sampling area being approximately one acre . Saremi said the vertical extent of impacted soil was approximately five to ten feet below the ground surface . He stated that Chevron knew that a City of Huntington Beach requirement mandated the soil involved would have to be excavated . Saremi told the consultant that the groundwater test results necessitated them conducting more extensive testing in a larger area and suggested they submit a work plan for this purpose . Chevron said they would talk to their consultant and prepare a work plan for submittal . Chevron then contacted Saremi two weeks later and said they had decided to work with the City of Huntington Beach to implement the required soil excavation . A document dated January 3 , 2002 was then submitted by Harding ESE to Saremi and cc'd to the City's Fire Department, Chevron and developer Makar referencing the above discussion . The report includes a groundwater testing plan , but references the southeastern part of the site , an area totallv separate from the section visited and discussed by Saremi . A letter from city consultant Mel Wright dated September, 2003 identified a pumping station in this area , with the possibility of underground tanks located below. Coincidentally, this letter was not made available for review by the city until after the deadline for responses to the EIR had expired , even though information on the operation had been requested for weeks before . MERRILLE. WRIGHT 16531 Bolsa Chica St. Suite 301 Huntington Beach CA 92649 (714) 377-9234 September 15, 2003 City of Huntington Beach .Attn: M. McGrath - Development & Chem. 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr. McGrath At your request I have investigated the reported ChevronTexaco Gas Processing Plant that is supposed to have existed on the Atlanta production lease. There was a small gas shipping facility on the Atlanta Ave. lease. This was not a processing plant it was a gas transfer pressure booster, station for the lease production. It comprised a single compressor in a corrugated steel enclosure that boosted pressure and "scrubbed" out some of the liquids. It was located near the Atlanta Ave. entrance to the lease. The compressor would gather the lease gas and insert it into a 1611 transmission line that went to the actual gas processing plant. There was a liquid casing head gasoline "drip" collection system, that may have been fin-fan cooled. The natural gasoline was vacuum trucked to. either the oil tank farms, or the gas processing plant tanks for sale. The "drip" tanks were located underground and probably have been removed. These data are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and recollection concerning the operations on the Chevron Texaco Atlanta lease. Sincerely M. E. Wright Petroleum Consultant In addition , the test records identified by Saremi have been requested from the City and developer Makar for months and have not been disclosed to the public. In 1990 , warning signs identifying the presence of carcinogens and chemicals which may cause birth defects was present on the site , but they have since been removed . This warning was precipitated by the Proposition 65 guideline regarding potential groundwater contamination as the sign itself cited California Health and Safety Code Section 25249 . 61 which governs Proposition 65 warnings . 1 / / Hazardous Chemicals waming Pacific �i Where are the test t> r ..L ' LL p�•. 1��' i 3.�kv: n. j u i t . , ' , . . .;: �`~ � . ' ' � : .}fir •" results Potential health and safety risks for the community from exposure to petroleum contamination . According to our environmental expert, Matthew Macleod , petroleum contamination on the Pacific City site could potentially pose health risks to residents of the adjacent community, particularly if there are low molecular weight carcinogenic hydrocarbons such as benzene , toluene , ethyl benzene and xylene ( BTEX) at the site . If present at sufficient levels , BTEX could form a non-aqueous phase that would leach through the soil to the soil- groundwater interface and spread out along the top of the groundwater. This could lead to exposure of residents in nearby houses by infiltration of vapors and subsequent inhalation . This information is particularly relevant given recent cases of brain stem glioma among Huntington Beach residents who lived along Yorktown Avenue and were potentially exposed to oil field contamination . See LA Times story — www. latimes . com - "Oil Left at Resort Site Sparks Fear" - January 20 , 2004 and Orange County Weekly story - www . ocweekly . com - "Crude Attitude" — January 30 , 2004 . During a discussion of the preceding issues , the Pacific City Action Coalition , the City and developer Makar Properties reached an agreement on Friday, March 19 , 2004 . The terms of the agreement are ( 1 ) that the Coalition , the City and Makar have equal input on the City's hiring of an independent environmental consultant to monitor the soil testing and clean-up of the Pacific City site and (2 ) that the consultant have the right to re- evaluate questionable areas of the site through additional testing , as needed . As a means of implementing the agreement, the Coalition is requesting the Planning Commission incorporate these terms in the conditions of approval for the project. For the Coalition ' s detailed EIR response , visit www . pacificcityactioncoalition . info LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 Tow,,,, CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.850.1030 1 WEBSITE: www.lbbsla�; .com FRANK BRUCCULERI March 23, 2004 DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 E-MAIL:brucculeri@lbbstaw.com VIA A'IESSENGER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Re: Public Comments Re Environmental Impact Report No. 02-0 1/Tentative Tract Map No. 16338/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 With Special Permit No 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12/Conceptual Master Plan (Pacific City) Planning Commission Meeting Dated March 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Dear Ms. Broeren: As you know from our previous correspondence, we represent the interests of South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") with regard to opposition to approval of the referenced project and Environmental Impact Report. We write to provide our further comments and opposition to the referenced application of Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Hatcher. Please see attached hereto our previous correspondence dated December 3, 2003, the content of which we incorporate herein as though fully set forth. A. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FROM LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, DECEMBER 3. 2003 By way of general comment, the City's Response to the issues and arguments raised by LBBS's correspondence dated December 3, 2003, is flatly intellectually dishonest. Essentially, the Application suggests that the rather unambiguous language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan ("DTSP") supports an intent to "permit, but not require, oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay "C." Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the LOS,V4GELE5 SAN FRL VC1SCO SMN D[Eoo COSTA\MESA SAN BmNARDr4o SACRA\MNTO NEW YORK I.AS VEGAS 213.250.1800 415.362.2580 619.233.1006 714545.9200 909.387.1130 916.564.5400 212.232,1300 702.366.9212 =329-3003-1536.1 LEMS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP March 23, 2004 Page 2 Oil Overlay relate only to Oil Development projects [". . .preparation of a conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable only when a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-serving reading of the clear temis of 4.14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: I. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. 2. The plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay "C." No other fair reading of the section can be rationally countenanced by these temtis. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. In addition, that the preamble language in Oil Overlay "C" differs demonstrably from that contained in the other Oil Overlay's "A" and "B," demonstrates that the temps contained in Oil Overlay "C" were designed to facilitate and make provision for the town's FUTURE OIL PRODUCTION NEEDS. Indeed, the introductory language to 4,14.03, makes plain, by comparison to that found in the other oil overlays, that the property covered by Oil Overlay"C" is largely undeveloped requiring a plan to protect the future oil drilling and production needs in the area. 481_7-3003-1536.1 I EwIS BPISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH LLP March 23, 2004 Page 3 In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the Commission to not approve the Plan at this time, but postpone its approval pending resolution of this issue. It would be helpful if the Commission would direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. ae urs,len o LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FCB 4329-3003-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA IVIESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.850. 1030 1 WEBSITE: www.!bbslaw.com FRA?JR BRUCCULERI December 3, 2003 DIRECT DIAL:714.6685512 E-MAIL:bmcculeri@lbbslaw.com VIA MESSENGER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Re: Public Comments Re Pacific City DRAFT Environment Impact Report Dear Ms. Broeren: We have been retained by South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") to lodge formal public comment with the City of Huntington Beach ("the City") in response to the City's invitation to provide public comments regarding the Pacific City Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). You may recall that we attended the November 13, 2003 public meeting, scheduled by the Planning Commission for the City of Huntington Beach, and we placed, on the audio-taped record, public comments regarding the draft EIR, specifically referencing deficiencies in section 3.5 (Energy and Mineral Resources] of the draft EIR and the incorporated appendices referenced therein. This serves to further memorialize and delineate the comments we made at the November 13 meeting, and now does so formally on behalf of South Coast. A. FUNDAIMENTAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE DRAFT EIR 1. Summary of Inadequacies of Section 3.5 of the EIR [Energy and Mineral Resources] In direct contradiction of the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws, the EIR proposes to eliminate direct access to Oil Overlay C at the proposed Pacific City development site. The zoning laws of the City and the City's Municipal Code established the mineral rights of the City and private mineral owners to the minerals found at the region in the City, designated as Oil Los A:�GELES Sari FRA;Nclsco SAN DIEGO COSTA MESA SAv BERYARDD�O SACRA.MEBTO NEW YORE: LAS VEGAS 213 150.1300 415.362.2380 619 233.1006 714.545.9200 909.337.1130 916.564.5400 212 232.1300 702.366.9212 4329-3008-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS B[SGAARD &SMITH u.P December 3, 2003 Page 2 Overlay C. The proposed Pacific City development, through the draft EIR, seeks to repeal the agreements reached between the City, the State of California and the California Coastal Commission and the statutory mandate of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, specifically the consolidation of the City's oil fields and authorized direct access points in the City to the Huntington Beach oil field. The proposed alternative to direct oil production access at Oil Overlay C, by the EIR, is slant drilling at another region—not identified in the EIR-- in the City. The slant drilling, as proposed by the EIR, effectively and absolutely bars direct access to Oil Overlay C, as intended by the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws. Indeed, glaringly absent from the EIR is any discussion of how the proposed slant drilling preserves the legislative intent of, and complies with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and how the proposed slant drilling is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to the existing laws of the City by providing direct access to Oil Overlay C. Without any detailed, or authoritative analysis, the EIR proposes slant drilling at an unidentified location in the City in an apparent effort to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and in an apparent attempt to mitigate the potential specter of claims that slant drilling constitutes an unlawful taking of the mineral rights of private mineral owners. More disturbing is that the proposed slant drilling belies established black letter law, that the mineral estate owner is the dominant estate or tenement, and the surface estate owner is the subservient estate or tenement. The EIR refers to an alleged"consultation" between the City's fire department the City's petro-consultant, Mel Wright, concerning the feasibility of slant drilling "near" the project site, however, no discussion of the factors and concerns allegedly considered by Mr. Wright, to support his purported opinion that slant drilling was a feasible alternative to extracting mineral resources directly on top of Oil Overlay C, is found in section 3.5 of the EIR or any of the appendices to the EIR. Surprisingly, the opinions and conclusions of the City's petro- consultant, Mel Wright, were not memorialized so as to provide credible support for the proposed alternative of slant drilling. 2. General Comments At the November 13 meeting, the agents for EIP presented the public with three questions, as follows: I. Did the EIR capture the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? 2. Did the EIR address those impact(s) 4K9-3003-1536.1 I-Ewis BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 3 3. Did the EIR provide adequate mitigating alternatives to address the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? First, the scope of the public inquiry presented by the agents for EIP did not adequately address all phases of the impact on the mineral and energy rights of Huntington Beach mineral owners as the public inquiry EIP was limited to two phases of the project, (1) during construction, and(2) post construction. As such, the scope of EIP's public inquiry did not take into account the impact(s) on the City, its residents, and its resident business owners before construction commences, and the impact(s) on Oil Overlay C. As designed and currently proposed to the City, the Pacific City project completely covers Oil Overlay C, and does not provide direct access for oil production from Oil Overlay C. The EIR suggest that oil production may be accessed by slant drilling, but fails to provide any meaningful analysis in support thereof. Second, the EIR does not sufficiently state, in any detail, an analysis outlining the proposed mitigating alternatives to the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the energy and mineral resources available to resident mineral owners and the City, including but not limited to, the potential wrongful taking of the Oil Overlay rights established by Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and why the proposed mitigating alternatives do not violate the City's zoning laws. In sum, while EIR recognized the purpose, and public policy of the City supporting the establishment of Oil Overlay C at page 3-15-4 of the EIR, it is resoundingly silent as to how the rights of resident mineral owners will be preserved, as currently proposed. 2. Conformity With The Chapter 15.50 Of The City's Municipal Code And Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.03 It is unclear from the EIR that the City and/or the developer of the Pacific City project intend to comply with Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, specifically §15.50.010. Section t 5.50.010 established the intent of the City, along with the intent and agreement of the State of California and the California Coastal Commission, to consolidate the oil operations in and around the City and off the shores of the City. The EIR does not provide any analysis as to how the City and/or the developer intend to comply with § 15.50.010 of the Municipal Code, or if it does not comply, how the violation should be mitigated. it. Was it the intent of the City, through the passage of Chapter 15.50, to consolidate the oil production/ operations throughout the city by reducing access to the Huntington Beach oil field by establishing three (3) primary access points at Oil Overlay A, Oil. Overlay B and Oil Overlay C? 4929-3005-1_36.1 LEWIS BRisms BISGAARD & SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 4 The EIR fails to explain, in any detail, how the proposed mitigating alternative of"slant drilling" at site separate and apart from the location of Oil Overlay C conforms with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. b. Does the City intend to enforce section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and thereby preserve the rightful access of resident mineral owners to Oil Overlay C? c. If so, then does the City intend to require the developer of Pacific City to set aside at least 2 acres at the Pacific City site pursuant to the requirements of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan? Impact EM-3 of the EIR, at page 3.5-10, shows that as currently proposed, the Pacific City plan does not propose or allow for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property as required by section 4.14.03. Section 4.14.03 specifically requires, "[t]he [conceptual site] plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new oil well drilling and oil production. Such island(s) shall be incorporated into the overall development plan so that noise, odor and visual impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil site(s) is provided. Findings that at least one such island so designed is incorporated into the plans shall be made by the Planning Commission before approving any development project." The EIR does not address how the proposed Pacific City project provides for a two (2) acre oil island over Oil Overlay C, and as statutorily mandated by section 4.14.03. d. Was it the intent of the City, through the passage of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, to preserve subterranean direct access to the minerals in the Huntington Beach oil field by designating Oil Overlay C? e. Prior to, or at the time of the City's decision to approve the location of Oil Overlay C, did the City consider the geological and engineering impact(s) on the residents of the City and the City by establishing a region of the Huntington Beach oil field, such as Oil Overlay C? If so, what were the potential impact(s) considered by the City'. Appendix A of the EIR, at page 22, recognizes the potential significant impact(s) and value of the mineral resources that are located in the region of the City designated as Oil Overlay 4329-300 1536.1 I,EWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 5 C. The text of section 3.5 of the EIR, however, obliquely references Appendix A, but then fails connect its application to the discussion set forth in the EIR. f. Was public safety a factor in the City decision-making analysis when it considered creating direct access to the Huntington Beach oil field at the regional location designated as Oil Overlay C? g. If the City approves the Pacific City plan as currently proposed, is it the intent of the City to preserve the designated Oil Overlay regions, specifically Oil Overlay C, as established by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? And, how will it comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? h. If the City intends to approve the Pacific City plan, including Ef.P's proposal of slant drilling at an unknown site in the City, then how does the City intend to comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? As currently proposed in the EIR, there is no detailed analysis as to how the Pacific City project intends to preserve the legislative intent of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code City insofar as it relates to the preservation of the Oil Overlay C, or how it intends to preserve the historical agreements between the City, the State of California, and the California Coastal Commission relating to Oil Overlay C, as embodied by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. B. MISLEADING AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE EIR 1. Misrepresentations of Purported Statements by Mel Wright That Other Sites Are Available The EIR indicates Mel Wright, referred to in the EIR as the City's Consultant, that there are off site locations that one can drill from to reach the minerals under the Pacific City property, so that, in Pacific City's opinion, thought wrongly implying it is Mr. Wright's opinion, it is no longer necessary to reserve such natural resource production site as called for in Natural Resource Overlay,C and previously approved by the State Land Commission, Coastal Commission, and the City. 1329-3003.1>36.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 6 a. However, in our discussions with Mr. Wright, he indicated that he never spoke to the Pacific City representatives, and the last work he remembers performing as a consultant for the City of Huntington Beach, in the early 1990s, was surveying for possible drilling locations in the Huntington Beach Onshore Area, without regard to any 1101" zoning (oil production and new drilling, such as the approved overlays here). Mr. Wright never indicated there were any other "01" zoning, and instead has informed us that there are no other possible "01" locations in the area. b. Even moving across the zoning street to an existing "0" only site (existing production), would require obtaining approval from various state agencies, to approve any further drilling from the existing site, plus the unit operator of the majority of units mineral rights. C. The nearest other alternative site is more than a mile and half away, many thousands of feet away, while the minerals in the area are as shallow as 500 feet. This would require not just directional drilling, but almost pure lateral drilling. The costs of drilling such a well are not economically reasonable or feasible. d. Since the 1920s, there have been regulations on where and when to drill, ending with residual locations, agreed to by all responsible agencies in the State of California and the City, including the "01" zoned Resource Overlay here in question. Thus, contrary to the "opinion" of Pacific Cities, as stated in the EIR, the Resource Overlay in question here is the ONLY economically feasible drilling site in the area that is currently so approved by the responsible state agencies. 2. Misrepresentations that Build-Up of Underground Natural Gas in the Area Is Purportedly Insignificant The EIR wrongly suggests there are no significant amounts of methane in the area to be remediated. This is incorrect. a. The closest existing active oil well has reported build up pressure caused by natural gas, on the casing side of the well, that exceeds 1000 lbs per square inch, within several hours of the well being shut in, indicating very significant natural gas pressures remain in the reservoir. 4379-. Lms BRiSBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH u.a December 3, 2003 Page 7 b. The decades of oil production has created pressure voids, and in those pressure voids, natural gas escapes solution and fills those pressure voids, building up significant pressures as more and more gas escapes from its natural solutions in liquids such as water, due to the low pressure. Local conditions then allow these pockets of natural gas to easily migrate to the surface, and once there, they become potentially explosive—such as the occasional explosions and fires in the Los Angeles Farmers Market area. d. This potentially dangerous problem is remediated by injecting liquids such as water into the gas pockets voids. The more dense liquid forces the natural gas in the pockets back into suspension within the liquid, as the liquid fills those pockets. This injection remediation requires an active drill site, such as the "01" zoned site in question here. The loss of the site will mean the loss of any feasible, meaningful opportunity to remediate this potentially significant problem for the residents of the City. 3. Implicit Misrepresentation that Existing Mineral Owners Will Not Be Denied Access to Very Substantial, Multi-Million Dollar Mineral Reserves The EIR implicitly represents to the existing mineral owners that they will be able to capture their very valuable (multi-million dollar) mineral rights. Those mineral owners include not only voting tax payers within the City but even the City itself (which could, e.g., help fund schools as done in Beverly Hills). a. As discussed above, there are no other zoned, approved, feasible, economical drill sites in the area, zoned as "01". b. The regulation of oil and gas production and the Natural Resources Overlay concept was designed as a compromise between mineral owner's and the surface owners. Mineral owners normally own the "dominant tenement", which would otherwise control over the rights of all the surface owners. Thus the creation of the Overlays was intended as a compromise, to allow substantial surface development, while.reserving sufficient surface area for use by the dominant tenement mineral owner's to drill for and produce the minerals. Thus, loss of this sole remaining site is would mean City will have denied the existing mineral owners their constitutional right to property, without providing just compensation. =829-3003-1536.! LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH ALP December 3, 2003 Page 8 In conclusion, we are happy to meet with the City or anyone else concerned to discuss in more detail these and other relevant points related to this development. Very truly yours, Frank Brucculeri of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP LMK �329-5003-1i36.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 9 bcc: Steve Harris '329-3003-U 36.i CEWFD MAR .1 6 200A March 16, 2004 Honorable Ron Davis. Chairman &: Members of the Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 96248 Dear Mr. Davis and Members of the Planning Commission: This information is submitted by the Pacific City Action Coalition for the March 23, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing in reference to Pacific City. It is intended to be included in the Planning Commission packet for that evening and to be available for public handout on that night as well. Thanks you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, �- 1 / J n Sisker Pacific Citv Action Coalition c/o 80 Huntington St., 9266 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-3850 iF4 8 Via De La Mesa elf Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 (949) 233-1814 /V (949) 459-1620 November 26, 2003 Pacific City Action Coalition 16787 Beach Blvd., #316 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 RE: Response to the Pacific City Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific City project and present the following comments and observations. Proiect Description The project is a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center together with a residential village located on a 31.5-acre vacant parcel in the City downtown on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Major project components include: Visitor-serving Commercial Center This component would occupy approximately 10.6 acres of the site adjacent to PCH and provide hospitality and commercial facilities. Upscale-oriented hospitality facilities (hotels) would include up to 400 guest rooms and associated amenities, and up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses that could include retail, office, restaurant, cultural and entertainment facilities. Approximately 2 to 8 story buildings are proposed on this site, consisting of 8-story hotel and 2 to 3 stories of retail and office uses. Residential Village The residential component would occupy the approximately 17.2-acre northeastern portion of the project site. A total of 516 condominiums would be developed at an average of 30 dwelling units per acre. Development would include 2- to 4-story structures with a variety of architecture, dwelling unit types and sizes, clustered around recreational amenities to serve the residents of the village. Parking would be provided in a subterranean garage and in surface parking areas along the interior collector street. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site would be provided by a combination of existing and proposed roadways. Pacific View Drive would be extended through the site in a 90-foot right of way. On Huntington Street, between Pacific View Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, additional right of way would be dedicated west of the centerline to allow for the full secondary arterial right of way with sidewalks and curb and gutter EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 2 improvements. On Atlanta Avenue, between 1s` Street and Huntington Street, additional right of way would be dedicated south of the centerline to allow for arterial improvements. Seftinci Project Area is bounded by 1'C Street on the west, Huntington Street on the east, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway to the south. The project site is also located within the California Coastal Zone and the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The project would be constructed in major phases over a two- to ten- year period, beginning in 2004. The project site is currently vacant, although construction activities and various land uses on the project site have occurred since the late 1800s. Southern California Edison currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the I" Street property boundary and regional 66KV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. On-site oil facilities have been abandoned and soil remediation is underway, with completion expected in 2003. A portion of the southwesterly corner of the site was recently used as a staging/storage facility for beach cleaning equipment for the City of Huntington Beach. The site is no longer used for this purpose, although a storage bin remains on the property. As of 1999, a portion of the site was listed as an archeological resource (ORO-149). Portions of the site may contain paleontological resources. Remediation In 1996, prior to the acquisition of the site by Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Shea Vickers development, LLC, the prior owner, initiated an extensive site investigation and subsequent oil remediation program. Remediation of the site was performed pursuant to a Remediation Work Plan approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department and included excavation and stockpiling of oily soil and the abandonment of several oil wells. In March 1998, an application was filed by Shea Vickers Development, LLC for a Coastal Development Permit to allow remedial grading of the property to remove oily soils and to import approximately 23,630 cubic yards of soil. This request was tabled and was not acted upon by the Zoning Administrator. CEOA In January 2003, the City of Huntington Beach issued a Notice to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Citing CEQA Section 15183(a), an EIR has been prepared for the project. The EIR addresses impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Cin• of Hunrin,ton Beach —Pacific City 2 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 3 Proiect Obiectives Several objectives were identified for the project; they include: 1. Assist in the implementation of the City's General Plan, downtown specific plan, and redevelopment plan. 2. Enhance the downtown area as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities. 3. Expand residential opportunities in the downtown to provide for a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector of the downtown. 4. Enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through design and construction of high quality development consistent with the urban design element of the General Plan. 5. Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development. 6. Mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. Analysis The following project related impacts were considered significant and unavoidable in the EIR: 1. Air Quality 2. Transportation — under the Year 2008 conditions, project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH & Warner Avenue and PCH at Seapoint by increasing traffic volumes. Proiect Alternatives Three project alternatives were considered; they are: 1. No Project Alternative/No Development 2. Reasonably Foreseeable Development 3. Reduced Project Alternative, which would reduce the commercial component of the proposed project and is considered by the EIR as environmentally superior alternative to the project. Project Impacts City of Huntington Bench —Pacific On, The Urban Planning Cnnsultinti Croup EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 4 The analysis provided in the EIR for the following topics are considered weak: Air Quality. This section omits an important threshold of significance required by CEQA, which is the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. If this threshold of significance were analyzed, the impacts could be considerable significant and would change the complexity of the conclusions derived from the project. This section also fails to analyze the environmental impacts of paint and other solvents that may be used during post construction of the site. Most air quality analyses have standard conditions dealing with this issue, including type of paint to be used on buildings and the quantity that can be painted on a daily basis. Most importantly, the proposed mitigation measures are weak and inadequate for a project of this magnitude. A more thorough air quality analysis needs to be prepared, including the environmental effects of this project's pre-, during-, and post-construction impacts on surrounding land uses (the mobile home park) and other sensitive receptors. For additional comments, see Attachment A Cultural Resources. Because of the paleontological discoveries on the site, and potential for archaeological discoveries) the site contains a California prehistoric archaeological site CA-ORA-149), adequate mitigation measures need to be in place to prevent annihilation of any precious paleontological or archaeological artifacts. These mitigation measures should include standard, acceptable measures widely used in the industry. Energy and Mineral Resources. The project site is located within the Huntington Beach Oil Field and is designated as District No. 8A by the Downtown Specific Plan. The site is also identified as an oil overly "C" district to allow for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property. A Phase II environmental analysis and aerial maps of the site identified 10 aboveground storage tank, pipelines, 20 abandoned oil wells, and abandoned water well. The proposed project would result in the development of residential uses on a portion of the site underlain by mineral resources. However, the only mitigation measure proposed under this section pertains to an energy conservation plan. No mitigation measures are proposed for handling the oil and water walls identified on the site. At a minimum, this EIR should identify a contingency plan for dealing with the potential discovery of oil wells and water wells. Cin• of Huntin-ton Beach -Pacific Cin• 4 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 5 Geology and Soils. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 24 feet below ground surface on this site. The site is also located within a methane overly district in the City's General Plan. A soils testing plan is therefore required as part of project implementation. There is a high potential for ocean-related corrosion to building materials due to the site's proximity to the Pacific Ocean (500 feet). Additionally, project implementation would locate structures on soils that are considered potentially expansive, unstable, prone to settlement, and corrosive. 15-20 feet of loose-to-medium dense alluvial deposits found in the southeastern portion of the site where the hotel and portions of the commercial development are proposed, are settlement prone. However, only one mitigation measure was proposed. This mitigation measure requires the grading plan to include recommendations of a proposed soils and geotechnical analysis. This is not acceptable. The results of the soils and geotechnical analysis should be the driving factor in the location of buildings on the site. Mitigation measures need to be identified to deal with the issues related to expansive, unstable and corrosive soils. These measures need to be identified in the EIR and not in a separate document to be prepared in the future. For additional comments, see Attachment A Harardoas Materials. The .project site was identified in the State of California Hazardous Materials Database. There is a potential for residual oil contamination in the soil and possible methane emissions. There are also unclosed oil wells and a site investigation has revealed the presence of oil-impacted soils with total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon levels above allowable limits. There also is the presence of lead-impacted soil and methane gas accumulation on the site. The MM HAZ-1: This mitigation measure delays the findings of a potentially significant impact to prior to issuance of a grading permit. The concern with this approach is that if PCB were detected, members of the public and other who have commented in this EIR would not be privileged to such information and the accepted method of remediation. Also, if the remediation delays the project or causes a significant change in the project, the EIR would not have analyzed it and there is no avenue for the public to request preparation of adequate environmental documents to address the issue. MM HAZ-2: Same comments as in MM HAZ-1, above. MM HAZ-3: The public is entitled to the contents of the remediation plan proposed under this mitigation measure. This is delaying an impact to a future time convenient to the developer rather than the public. All related impacts of this project should be disclosed now and adequate remediation recommended. The remediation plan City o(Huntington Beach —Pacific C'in, The Urban Planning Consultin-, Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 6 should be outlined in the EIR so that monitoring of the impact can be carried out is conformance with CEQA. For additional comments, see Attachment A Hydrology and Water. The project site has the potential to affect drainage facilities at the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station and the First Street Storm Drain System. Potential water table contamination has not been adequately addressed. The EIR's position is that since the ground water in the vicinity of the project site is not potable (due to possible salt contamination from the Pacific Ocean), this impact is not significant. Our contention is that water table contamination is an environmental concern regardless of the quality of the water. There are no mitigation measures proposed to address possible groundwater contamination. In addition, the EIR mentions an oily soil remediation process currently underway on portions of the project site pursuant to CUP 00-36 and Coastal Development Permit 00-09. However, the EIR fails to incorporate the recommendations or conditions of approval of these discretionary actions into the EIR as possible mitigation measures. This is crucial since portions of the site in questions are critical to overall development of the project. The EIR should provide the link between these actions. For additional comments, see Attachments A and C Land Use and Planning. There are relatively few structures more than four-stories high along the waterfront area. The proposed hotel would add an 8-story tower to the waterfront area. The proposed development would generate approximately 601 employees and 1,419 residents. The project includes land uses more intense than those surrounding the site and would increase development density of the area. The northerly portion of the site would be developed with high-density residential uses. The mobile home park located to the east of the project site is developed at Medium Density with up to 15 units per acre, half of the density of the proposed development. The area is identified with one-story high building; the project proposes two-to-three story buildings in some areas and four-story buildings in others. The proposed 90-foot separation between the hotel and commercial areas and the residential area is inadequate based on the level of activity proposed within these uses. This section of the EIR fails to address land use compatibility issues between existing developments within the project vicinity and the proposed project. Also, this development requires special permits to allow structures within 50-foot front yard setback from PCH. Special permits are also required for front yard setback encroachment from Pacific View Avenue and for the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of 10%. The EIR did not disclose why these special permits are City o Huntington Beach —PuciJic City 6 The G'rhan Planain� Cunsultin,, Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 7 necessary or recommend alternative designs to eliminate the need for the special permits. Also, the EIR did not disclose what the proposed parking garage ramp standard would be. Additional discussion is required in this area. The proposed project density of 30 d.u. to the acre exceeds that of any existing development within vicinity of the project. This impact is not thoroughly analyzed in the EIR and the conclusion that the proposed project would not substantially conflict with existing permitted uses can be challenged. For additional comments, see Attachment B Noise. It does not appear that the mitigation measure proposed in MM N-2 is adequate to address the noise impacts identified in the EIR. For additional comments, see Attachment C Population/Housing. The proposed project may not meet the City's affordable housing requirements. Public Services. The proposed project would add residential and visitor-serving uses to the area, and would increase demands on police protection. Mitigation Measure MM PS-4 requires that prior to building permit issuance, the applicant consult with the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate crime prevention design measures. The stage prior to issuance of building permits is too late to implement any crime prevention design elements. This needs to the done at the planning stages or the design review stage to ensure that the recommendations of the Police Department are incorporated into project design. Recreation. The City's total of 906.7 park acres fall short by 48.3 acres the identified ratio of five acres of park land per 1,000 persons. Project implementation would not provide adequate recreational facilities to meet increased demand from the project. Mitigation Measure MM REC-1 does not include language that is clear as to what the obligations of the project proponent is in regards to parkland mitigation. Transportation/Traffic Based on the current parking problems within the project area, the use of an internal capture/mode shift is unnecessary and undermines the understanding of the true impacts of this project on transportation, traffic and parking. City of Huntington Beach -Pacific City 7 The Urban Planning Consultin- Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 8 Also, the use of a 1% growth factor in the volume of traffic at key intersections is too low to provide a true picture of conditions. A 2% or 21/2% factor would provide the type of responses needed to truly analyze impacts. It is also not clear why the Future Year 2008 conditions with the proposed project are not different from the Future 2008 conditions without the project considering the project contributes an underestimated 12,002 daily trips. No analysis was presented in the EIR to support the conclusion in Impact TR-8. The parking reductions proposed in the EIR and the liberal use of off-site parking spaces for the project masks the actual parking impacts of this development and does not aid in resolving the parking situation within the project vicinity. The use of parking demand reduction is not appropriate in this case because of the existing parking conditions within the area. There is a 20% City parking code reduction, a 15% retail parking reduction, and a 5% residential parking reduction for a total proposed parking requirement of 1,482 spaces for all proposed uses. This is insufficient. For additional comments, see Attachments B and C Alternatives The EIR identified three project alternatives - a no project alternative, a reasonably foreseeable alternative and the reduced project alternative. The impacts related to the Reasonable foreseeable alternative were found to be more severe than the proposed project. The impacts of the reduced project alternative were found to be environmentally superior to the proposed project. The reduced project was also found to meet the proposed project goals and objectives and implementation would result in a project with significantly less impacts on the environment. This alternative will provide less visitor-serving commercial uses but maintain the same level of residential development. This alternative is highly recommended. Ciq' of Huntington Beach -Pacific Cin, 8 The Ur9an Planning Consultin- Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 9 Conclusion In summary, environmental documents are informational documents required to provide detailed information on proposed developments and recommend adequate mitigation measures along with such disclosure. This EIR has not done a good job with recommending adequate mitigation measures to the project's identified impacts. Sincerely, THE URBAN PLANNING CONSULTING GROUP For comparison, the following information was presented to the City as part of public comments on the notice of preparation of the EIR earlier this year. It is clear that the recommendations in the comments have not been followed. Remediation In 1996, prior to the acquisition of the site by Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Shea Vickers development, LLC, the prior owner, initiated an extensive site investigation and subsequent oil remediation program. Remediation of the site was performed pursuant to a Remediation Work Plan approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department and included excavation and stockpiling of oily soil and the abandonment of several oil wells. In March 1998, an application was filed by Shea Vickers Development, LLC for a Coastal Development Permit to allow remedial grading of the property to remove oily soils and to import approximately 23,630 cubic yards of soil. This request was tabled and was not acted upon by the Zoning Administrator. CEOA In January 2003, the City of Huntington Beach issued a Notice to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Citing CEQA Section 15183(a), the EIR being prepared for the project is considered subsequent to EIR 82-2, which is a Program EIR for the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. According to Environmental Assessment 02-05, prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, the project site has been addressed on a programmatic level of part of the analysis included in several Program EIRs prepared by the City. These documents, in addition to EIR 82-2, include: The Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR 94-9, and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2. Existing Analyses Traffic Linscott, Law & Greenspan, engineers, prepared a traffic impact analysis report for the Pacific City project in April 2002. The report concluded that the Pacific City project is expected to generate, Ciro of Huntington Beach —Paci/ic City 9 The Urban Planning Omsultin_, Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No.02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 10 Phase I and II combined, 12,076 daily vehicle trips (one half arriving, one half departing), with approximately 752 vehicle trips anticipated during AM peak hour (416 inbound, 336 outbound) and 1,122 vehicle trips (579 inbound, 543 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. According to the 2002 report, there are four related projects, identified from a list of 14 potential related projects provided by the City, which are included in the General Plan Update Analysis (The Strand, The Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort, The Beachside Project, and The Boardwalk Project) in the City of Huntington Beach that could impact the key study intersections and roadways. The total forecast traffic generation for the related projects in the City of Huntington Beach is estimated at 25,750 two-way vehicle trips per day with 1,752 AM peak hour trips (802 inbound, 950 outbound) and 2,297 PM peak hour trips (1,320 inbound, 977 outbound). Proposed Improvements In conjunction with development of Pacific City, the project frontages of Atlanta Avenue, 1s` Street, and Pacific Coast Highway will be widened to accommodate anticipated traffic. Pacific View Avenue will be extended through the project from Huntington Street to 1" Street as a 52-foot roadway within a 90-foot right-of-way. A traffic signal will be installed at the project access driveway on Pacific Coast Highway, at the existing median break, and two pedestrian bridges are proposed across PCH for improved access to the beach. Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker & Associates prepared a Water Supply Assessment for the Pacific City Development in November 2002. The City's public works department contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc. to perform a computer model hydraulic analysis of water services for the Pacific City project site and the surrounding area based on City Planning data, and data provided by the applicant. The analysis noted various water distribution system deficiencies resulting from the proposed project that will require mitigation (in the form of infrastructure improvements), to meet the demands of, and for the benefit of the proposed project and the surrounding area. The report concludes that, upon completion of the improvements identified in the report, the City of Huntington Beach can provide adequate water supply for the proposed development, in accordance with the adopted Water Master Plan. Analysis The City of Huntington Beach has prepared Environmental Assessment 02-05 that identified potentially significant environmental factors as a result of the proposed project. These factors are: Land Use, Population and Housing, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water, Air Quality, Transportation and Traffic, Biological resources, Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous materials, Noise, Public Services, Utilities/Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. On the basis of this initial evaluation, the City of Huntington Beach has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is required. Ci0• nfHuntingron Beach —Pad tc City 10 The Urban Piunninq Cnnsuitinti Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No.2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 11 The Pacific Action Coalition Group would like the City of Huntington Beach, as Lead Agency in preparation of the environmental documents for this project, to consider the following recommendations: Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Initial Study indicates that the property north of the Huntington Shores Motel was formerly occupied by a (natural) gas plant. This resulted in the presence of Benzene and Toluene leaking into the soil from the condensate due to processing of the gas. No recent tests have been conducted in this or adjacent areas of the site. The last tests occurred in 1996 and are not current enough (See Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan Atlanta Areas - December 1996). Additional soil gas testing for volatile organic compounds was only conducted in certain portions of the site. With 20 oil wells scattered throughout the property, the likelihood that contamination was limited only to the region tested is remote at best (See Remediation Plan, Rev. 3 Atlanta Site - May 2002). State Division of Oil and Gas records show that the re-abandonment of the oil wells in the late 1990's was necessary to stop leaking gas. They had been previously abandoned in the late 1980's. The wells have not been tested by Oil and Gas since the re-abandonment and the agency states that their tests are only good for a one-year period. Thus the wells must be re-tested to ensure there are no leaks presently. And there remains the question of the extent of any groundwater contamination (See Remediation Plan). Because of a lack of recent extensive soil gas and oil well testing, there is a likelihood that contaminants exist which have not yet been identified exist. Therefore, any additional excavation or movement of the soil would be premature until the site's true soil condition regarding hazardous materials is known. Transportation/Traffic: Residents believe keeping Huntington Street in its present width and alignment, except for some curb and sidewalk improvements (on Pacific City side) will not work. Residents would also like to see some improvements into the entrance / exit of Pacific Mobile Home Park, along with curb improvements or installation of sidewalks, removal of overhead utility poles, and a retaining/sound (and for esthetics) wall on mobile home park side of Huntington Street at developers expense (without removing any homes). Consideration should be given to relocating the entrance/exit of Pacific Mobile Home Park to present dead-end configuration of Delaware Street, and officially abandoning the Delaware Street extension south of Atlantic Avenue to connect with Huntington Street at Pacific View Avenue. Cih, of Huntington Beach - Pacific Citi 1 1 The Urban Punning C'nnsulth g Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 12 • The City should consider abandoning the extension of Delaware Street, which is currently on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and Huntington Beach Precise Plan of Street Alignments (PPSA) as this new extended configuration. • The developer should be required to pay for all related traffic improvements, removing of Pacific Mobile Home Park entrance from Huntington Street to Delaware Street, and the installation of curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, underground utility poles, retaining walls, etc., all around the mobile home park. No mobile homes should be affected along Huntington Street. Developer should be required to relocate those affected with new Delaware Street entrance back into the park. • Sound walls should be constructed around and on park side because of noise from increased traffic due to Pacific City development. • Consideration should be given to Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue) extension from is` Street to 6"' Street, and Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue extension from Beach Blvd. to connect with Hamilton / Victoria (Costa Mesa) and the 55 freeway. The City should consider the possible extension of Delaware Avenue south of Atlantic Avenue. • Residents believe that the parking projections for the Hyatt/Hilton Waterfront Projects may be incorrect because it is based solely on total valet parking. Lessons learned from this development should be applied to the proposed project to avoid the same problems. • The parking garages should be designed to fit hotel tour buses and moving vans and trucks. Moving vans and trucks currently park on Pacific View Avenue because they will not fit into parking garage. In preparation of the EIR, the City should revisit all previous reports and findings (EIR) for the Waterfront Resort and/or expansion projects in regards to Pacific City. Information need to be updated to current standards and conditions, as it appears Pacific City is now exceeding all original projections. Residential and retail development will likely increase traffic significantly during peak commuter hours, weekends and during the summer. The EIR should consider impacts on traffic flow/congestion in the immediate vicinity of the property and regionally (e.g., Beach Blvd, Goldenwest St., PCH and freeways). • Impacts from traffic/parking needs for site workers, materials/waste delivery to/from site need to be addressed in the EIR to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and ensure access to adjacent resident sites is not impeded. Cin, if Huntington Reach —Pacific Citv 12 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 13 • Specifics regarding proposed pedestrian access for the public should be stated in the EIR. For example, hours that public access will be available must be stated. Also, since the pedestrian access ways are proposed to be gated, availability of the access to the public should be considered such that public access will not be further restricted than initially proposed. • Bicycle lanes should be maintained on all streets surrounding the site. No non- pedestrian access (e.g., bicycles, skates, etc.) is proposed through the facility. Therefore lanes for safe travel for bicyclists and skaters must be provided on streets surrounding the site. • Since zoning allows higher buildings on the east (Huntington Street) side than on the north (Atlanta St.) and west (First St.) sides, and since the site is surrounded on the east, west and north by residential homes, the City should consider the same height restriction on the west side as for other adjacent residential areas. This would ensure that ordinances for aesthetics (e.g., view, glare, noise, etc.) are appropriately maintained for residents adjacent to the west of the site. • Any future traffic studies must take into account peak periods for the region. This is particularly relevant to this project as the new Hyatt Hotel just south of the site hosts an 110,000 square foot convention center, which will bring thousands of business travelers to the area. The Linscott study doesn't appear to address this.. • The impact of the increased density of the project on access and service to existing neighborhoods such as the adjacent Pacific Mobile Home Park, homes along Atlanta and Huntington streets as well as patrons of the commercial and residential parts of the development should be carefully studied. The Linscott study did not seem to address this issue. • Any proposed parking analysis should account for (1) project usage, (2) Hyatt's new convention facility and (3) regional parking during the height of the summer tourist season. • The anticipated increase in residential and retail population as a result of the project will impact already overcrowded parking conditions downtown. The specific number of parking spaces to be provided for residents, guests and commercial vehicles must be provided in the proposal so that the sufficiency of parking proposed can be evaluated based on the estimated demand for resident, guest and commercial visitor parking. The proposal also notes that on-street parking on adjacent streets will be allowed. Currently there is no on-street parking allowed on Atlanta and Huntington since these are single lane roads. Again, this proposal taxes the existing single lane roadways and the proposal does not state that dedicated right of way will be used for additional vehicle and Cin,o Huntington Beach —Pacific On, 1= The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No.02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 14 bike lanes, or space for on street parking. The proposal only notes that sidewalk and curb and gutter improvements will be made. • How will buses be accommodated along adjacent streets with the increased traffic? • The project is anticipated to increase traffic on Huntington Street and surrounding streets. Huntington Street is proposed to be widened to a 90-foot right-of-way. Where would the additional ROW be taken from? From the developer property or public and/or residential property? Public Services • In light of the $7 million City of Huntington Beach deficit due to the current State budget crisis, the EIR should identify project impacts on current public services such as Fire, Police and Lifeguard services. • The EIR should clarify whether the proposed roadways within the residential development would be private or pubic. If the roadways are public, impacts for access for Police and Fire departments in emergency conditions should be analyzed. Public Beach Access • While not specifically addressed in the Initial Study, the issue of public beach access is critical for any coastal development. The EIR should identify the project's impacts on beach parking during peak summer months. The Linscott study does not seem to address this critical peak period. Aesthetics • The EIR should address impacts on the elimination of existing ocean views of residents in adjacent neighborhoods along Huntington, Atlanta and First streets, and propose measures to preserve the vistas the residents have had for years. • Impacts from shade and shadows, light from both the commercial and residential parts of the project, and glare should be adequately addressed, as they will severely impact surrounding neighborhoods. Recreation • With city park ratios of five acres per 1,000 persons, how is .90 acre for the project's park space allowed? Is one fifth or less of the required space acceptable? There must be both an increase in park space and reduced density to accommodate this guideline. Cih, of Huntington Beach —Pacific Cite 14 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 15 Noise • The EIR must specifically propose mitigation measures to address the issue of excessive noise during the construction phase on neighboring development. In addition, the city should inform the public how compliance with noise regulations will be enforced. • Noise during site operations during/following completion of the construction phase also needs to be addressed. Hotel, bars, restaurants, and other commercial facilities proposed to operate at the site will create noise that may be a nuisance to neighboring residents. Schedule for Construction and Operations • The construction schedule proposed is basically without restrictions and does not consider the adjacent land use and quality of life of the neighbors. The proposed operating schedule is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Mon-Sat. This schedule should be restricted to Mon - Fri only, with working hours restricted to allow neighbors morning and evening hours undisturbed by noise. Recommend 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. operating schedule Mon - Fri. The approved schedule should remain in effect for the life of the project or until adjacent site uses change. In addition, set-up for site work should be monitored by the city so that residents are not exposed to excessive noise and emissions from idling trucks, and loading/unloading operations at times outside the construction schedule. • The timetable for construction should be specific with regard to when public access ways and other facilities (public park space, etc.) are to be constructed. Provisions should be included that require completion of the promised public facilities to be provided (parks, street improvements, etc.) on a specified schedule. City of flitntington Beach —Pacific Cin• 15 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 16 ATTACHMENT A PACIFIC CITY DRAFT EIR RESPONSE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The Pacific Action Coalition has researched records and interviewed Huntington Beach residents and city officials about the presence of hazardous materials on the site of the proposed Pacific City development. An environmental chemist consulting for the Pacific City Action Coalition reviewed the Hazardous Materials section of the Pacific City Draft Environmental Impact Report and other reports describing remediation and characterization activities on the site. This document presents the Coalition 's concerns related to hazardous materials on the site that are not satisfactorily addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. We conclude ivith a recommended course of action that will ensure adequate assessment and mitigation of environmental and human health risks associated with development on the Atlanta Avenue site. THE EIR CLALNIS AREA D NEEDS INVESTIGATION, BUT THE PRIOR TESTING THERE HAS BEEN KEPT SECRET. (1) The EIR, in Section 3.7-10 states, "The area where further investigation is necessary is Area D, in the southwestern portion of the site...These areas do not include former oil wells or storage tanks. Sampling completed as part of the 1996 Phase H Investigation delineated the areas where remediation was necessary. Test results from that sampling effort did not detect that the contamination on the northern and eastern portions of the site had migrated to this area on the western portion of the site." The EIR implies that no remediation is necessary in the western part of the site while at the same time saying that further investigation is necessary. What the EIR fails to address is the testing which had been conducted in Area D by developer Makar Properties, Chevron and their consultant, Harding ESE in late 2001 or early 2002, identifying potential groundwater contamination by hydrocarbons. According to a swom affidavit by Kamron Saremi of the California Regional Water Quality Board, Chevron's consultant, Harding ESE, approached him in 2002 with a proposal to leave contaminated soils in place which were near groundwater in the west central portion of the site. Saremi visited the site with Chevron and their consultant. He stated that Harding ESE presented groundwater testing samples to him taken from sample bores in the impacted area, the sampling area being approximately one acre. Saremi said the vertical extent of impacted soil was approximately five to ten feet below the ground surface. He stated that Chevron knew that a City of Huntington Beach requirement mandated the soil involved would have to be excavated. City nt'Huntington Beach —Pacific Citv 16 The Urban Planning Consulting Croup EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 17 Saremi told the consultant that the groundwater test results necessitated them conducting more extensive testing in a larger area and suggested they submit a work plan for this purpose. Chevron said they would talk to their consultant and prepare a work plan for submittal. Chevron then contacted Saremi two weeks later and said thev had decided to work with the City of Huntington Beach to implement the required soil excavation. These test records have been requested from the City and developer Makar for months and have not been disclosed to the public. A document dated January 3, 2002 was then submitted to Saremi and cc'd to the City's Fire Department, Chevron and developer Makar referencing the above discussion. The report includes a groundwater testing plan, but references the southeastern part of the site, an area totally separate from the section visited and discussed by Saremi. (2) The EIR, in Section 3.7-17 states, "While not anticipated once closure reports have been submitted, the possibility remains for unidentified soil contamination...or for unidentified underground storage tanks to be encountered during grading or excavation activities...It is possible that underground tanks may have been in use at the project site prior to permitting and record keeping requirements." A sworn affidavit by resident John Sisker, identified six to eight narrow, cylindrical tanks with pipes extending into the ground, located near First Street, approximately halfway between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, the same area as the potential groundwater contamination noted above. These tanks and pipes are believed to be the type used in distilling or separating operations that separated and distributed crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuels. It is likely that the tanks referred to are located in the west central part of the site, Area D, and were repositories for the gasoline products referenced above. There is therefore evidence that the southwestern portion of the site (Area D) is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, but the extent and composition of this contamination has not been characterized in the EIR and no plan for remediation of this area has been submitted. The potential impacts of contamination in Area D on workers and residents near the development are unknown, but must be analvzed in the EIR rather than deferred until after development has already proceeded. (3) In 1990, a warning sign identifying the presence of carcinogens and chetnicals which may cause birth defects was present on the site, but has since been removed. This warning was precipitated by the Proposition 65 guideline regarding potential groundwater contamination. Where are the test results or reports which generated this warning? It is believed that Chevron, who owned the property at the time, was aware of prior groundwater contamination and has reports indicating such. Citt, of funtington Reaeh —Pacific On, 17 The Urban Planning Cimsulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 18 (4) The EIR states, in Section 3.7-10, that "goundwater beneath the project is also brackish due to saltwater intrusion, and as such, is not used as potable water by the City' as ajustification for why groundwater contamination should not be a concern. This statement ignores the scientific fact that petroleum contamination on the Pacific City site could potentially pose health risks to residents of the adjacent community, particularly if there are low molecular weight carcinogenic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX) at the site. If present at sufficient levels, BTEX could form a non-aqueous phase that would leach through the soil to the soil-groundwater interface and spread out along the top of the groundwater. This could lead to exposure of residents in nearby houses by infiltration of vapors and subsequent inhalation. A study released last year in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine found an increased risk of gliomas (a type of tumor) in Swedish men and women over two decades when occupationally exposed to petroleum products and other chemicals such as arsenic and mercury. The study is indicative of current research interest in this area, and is particularly relevant given the recent cases of brain stem glioma among Huntington Beach residents who lived along Yorktown Avenue and were potentially exposed to oil field contamination. The EIR does not address the possible impacts of hydrocarbon contamination of groundwater on residents living adjacent to the site, and the extent of this groundwater contamination remains unknown. THE EIR IDENTIFIES AREA A AS HAVING COMPLETED REMEDIATION. (1) The EIR states in Section 3.7-7 that the soil involved in the 1999 export to the Hyatt (approximately 215,000 cubic yards) exceeded city specifications for hydrocarbon contamination and was either excavated or remediated on site. The EIR also states in section 3.7-17, "Residual oil could be present in the areas remediated, and this cannot be confirmed until closure reports have been submitted and accepted by the City Fire Department that verify the site has been satisfactorily remediated." The "Final Environmental Closure Report ' for the Hyatt submitted to the city by Hyatt developer Robert Mayer Corporation claimed there was no evidence of contaminated soil in any of the samples tested and thus contained no documentation of either excavated or remediated soil. The Mayer Corporation conducted limited sampling in Area A during the period of August through September 1999, even though soil continued to be excavated and transported through November of that year. Cin• of Huntington Beach —Pacific Cin l3 The Urhan Plmtnin� Cbnsultin Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 19 Residents John Sisker and Ron Satterfield completed sworn affidavits attesting to soil being vented for a period of six months to one year after being stockpiled at the Hyatt location. It is believed that the venting was carried out to purge the soil of low molecular weight hydrocarbons (BTEX chemicals). Photos of the site taken during the 1999 soil transport reveal the soil to be very dark and in some instances, nearly black. Considering the site's history of oil production, it is likely that the soil samples taken did not accurately reflect the nature and extent of the area's contamination. Furthermore, mixing of soils as a type of "remediation" does not remove contaminants from the site, leaving the possibility that high concentrations of contaminated soil could still exist. (2) IN/laver Corporation has a history of non-compliance with state and local requirements spanning the last decade, including: A 1990 class action lawsuit filed by Pacific Mobile Home Park residents against the Mayer Corporation for violating AQNID dust control guidelines while constructing the Hilton hotel. Ironically, the dust which covered homes in the park came from stockpiles of soil at the Pacific City site, which at the time had signs posted warning of soil contamination. The suit was settled for S 100,000. A 1991 AQMD lawsuit filed against the Mayer Corporation for dust control violations during the construction of the Hilton hotel which was settled for $15,000. Several neighborhood complaints were lodged with both the AQMD and the City during the 1999 soil transport. Although the Mayer Corporation had a dust control plan in place, measures to control the dust were not implemented until the surrounding homes had been covered with dust. A S55,000 fine assessed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for stormwater runoff violations occurring in December, 2002. Among the violations were the dumping of sediment laden storm water directly into the storm drain. According to Seaside Village residents, who face the new residential development behind the Hyatt hotel, the Mayer Corporation continues to violate Water Board guidelines by allowing runoff from the project to impact their homes. The above facts raise several questions—(1) Did the City's Fire Department know that there was contaminated soil which was found and not included in Mayer's report? If so, why did they sign off on the project? (2) Was the Fire Department unaware of any such findings? (3) Where are the records to support the EIR's claim that the soil was contaminated, excavated and remediated, despite months of requests from both the city and developer Makar for more details on Mayer's report, (4) Was the contaminated soil actually excavated and remediated on site or just transported as eyewitness accounts verify, (5) Why is the soil contamination being disclosed now despite the public being told On, of Huntington Bench —Pacific Ciro 19 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 20 for years that the soil involved was clean? (6) Does this mean that the "Final Environmental Closure Report" for the Hyatt was inaccurate? (7) If so, why doesn't the EIR address this issue? (3) Moreover, the 1996 Phase II Study shows four areas that were "surgically excavated" to remove hydrocarbon contaminated soil for remediation by mixing. Three of these four areas are marked in the EIR map, Figure 3.7-1, as part of Area A where remediation has been deemed complete. However, one of the four areas, Surgical Excavation Number 1 on the 1996 map, is part of Area B in the EIR map, where remediation is "currently underway." Thus, as Surgical Excavation Number I in 1996 was not effective at cleaning up the site, why would the other three excavations in Area A be considered effective? (4) In Section 3.7-5, the EIR references reports of a former gas plant, identified by a Chevron employee interviewed for the 1995 Phase I Study. The plant reportedly operated at the corner of First Street and Atlanta Avenue, north of the site. The EIR then makes two statements, (1) "...no documentation exists to support the existence of a gas plant" and, (2) 'If a gas plant did exist on property adjacent to the project site, toxic contaminants associated with gas condensate from a gas plant could remain in the soil." The EIR should not use a lack of documentation from half a century ago as justification for questioning the plant's existence At the same time, the EIR acknowledges that the former Chevron employee who identified the gas plant was also correct in stating that toxic contaminants could remain in the soil. Once again, several questions are raised, (1) Where are the test results, documents or statements to support the above statement?, (2) Is the EIR relying on the Chevron employee's statement for this information?, (3) Wouldn't the Chevron employee's statement regarding the gas plant's existence then be reliable? The EIR again contradicts itself. Section 3.7-5 states, "These contaminants would be localized on the site and would not be expected to have migrated across First Street through the soil to the project site...As such, these contaminants are not expected to exist on the northwestern portion of the site or otherurise affect soils on the property site." While Section 3.7-18 states, "Due to the migratory nature of oil in the soil, the risk remains for oil contamination to exist in soil areas that have not been previously trenched for sampling and investigation." Which of these statements is accurate? If the first statement is true, are there test results to substantiate it? Is there new testing of the northwest part of the site which has not been disclosed? CiAl o(Hunrin wnr Beach —Pacifc Cih =0 The Urban Planning Considth , Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No.02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 21 Or is the EIR relying on the 1996 Phase It testing of the northwest portion and/or the 1999 testing by Mayer, both of which have been contradicted in the EIR itself. THE TEST RESULTS ARE CONTRADICTORY AND UNRELIABLE (1) The EIR states in Section 3.7-9 that 1999 hydrocarbon testing in the southeastern part of the site revealed levels of up to 130,000 mg/kg for shallow soil and 68,000 mg/kg for deep soil. These levels are 15 to 100 times higher than the prior testing conducted in the 1996 Phase II Study by Chevron's consultant, Harding Lawson. As some of the areas tested in 1999 and 1996 overlap, this seems to indicate that the site became more contaminated over time. How is this possible? Or does this mean that the 1996 Phase II Study was inaccurate? Where are the test results and sampling maps to accompany the 1999 testing? These documents have been requested from the city and developer Makar for months and have not been disclosed to the public. (2) Developer Makar, along with Chevron and their consultant Harding Lawson made an exemption request to leave approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soil surrounding a water main in Area C. They wanted to rely on BTEX testing from the 1996 Phase 11 Study, even though no testing in the impacted area was conducted during that period. The original exemption request was recommended for approval by the city's consultant, Geosciences Analytical, whose principal, Fleet Rust was convicted in 2002 of falsifying methane monitoring data to the City. The developer and Chevron withdrew their exemption request shortly after the Pacific City Action Coalition disclosed the above details to the public. On, of Huntingron Beach —PaciTe City _'1 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No.02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 22 CONCLUSIONS The Pacific City Draft Environmental Impact Report's Hazardous Materials section relies heavily on prior studies conducted by developer Makar Properties, Chevron and their consultant(s) Harding Lawson and Harding ESE, and the Robert Mayer Corporation. These studies were sanctioned and approved by the City of Huntington Beach and their consultants. As previously illustrated, the studies have been shown to be misleading, incomplete and contradictory and thus unreliable. One of the consultants involved in assessing the site was even convicted of submitting fraudulent test results for another site. The City of Huntington Beach has improperly sanctioned and distributed much of the misleading data and been negligent in it's role of ensuring compliance with established laws and regulations. The only fair conclusion is that the parties involved — developer Makar Properties, Chevron and their consultants along with the City of Huntington Beach, cannot be relied upon to provide an objective, accurate characterization of the environmental conditions at the Pacific City site. Given the potential community health risks involved as a result of not properly assessing conditions at the site, the only viable alternative is to have testing done by an independent firm, mutually selected by the developer, Chevron, the city and the Pacific City Action Coalition, paid for by the developer and Chevron, who is responsible for the site clean-up. Cilr ofHuntin{ton Beach —Pacific City 22 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 23 ATTACHMENT B ISSUES INVOLVING PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SURROUNDING STREETS AND POTENTIAL WETLANDS These comments address the Pacific City project impacts to Pacific Mobile Home Park and the Draft EIR's failure to analyze the ultimate outcome during and after build-out of Pacific City to Pacific i'vfobile Home Park. This would include the Delaware Street extension, which the EIR seems to indicate would eliminate the mobile home park and the widening of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street. According to kfayor Connie Boardman, the City has been meeting with the owners of Pacific iLlobile Home Park, iLfark Hodgson and brothers as to the impact Pacific City will have on the park and the residents. Any and all known fuure impacts to this mobile home park and the residents must be disclosed. The residents have been told, both directly and indirectly, that the present owners of this park intend to keep said property•as a mobile home park well into the fitture. Residents, acting upon this information, are putting in new homes as well as fixing zip existing ones. The Environmental Impact Report fails to address the project's impact on the park. THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE EIR: TOTAL AND ULTIMATE IMPACT(S) TO PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK: Regarding Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, Delaware Street (extension), and Pacific View Avenue • Precise alignments and/or improvements • Mobile home park entrance/exit • Total number and identification of mobile homes to be displaced • Ingress/egress from Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue into Pacific City and/or Pacific Mobile Home Park • Number of inlets and outlets • Set back requirements on street, restricted flow of traffic • Intended land use if not a mobile home park • Time frame • Known factors by park owners/management company CIA, of Huntin;uon Beach —Pacific On, 23, The Urban Plannin- Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No.02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 24 ULTIMATE EXTENSION OF DELAWARE STREET: Regarding the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and City Circulation Element from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View/Huntington Street • Will eliminate Pacific Mobile Home Park • Time frame THE TAKING (POSSIBLE EMINENT DOMAIN) OF ANY OR ALL OF PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK: • Compensation to residents / landowner • Market value • Time frame THIRTEEN, TEN AND/OR SLY FOOT EASEMENT(S) INTO PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK: • Parallels Huntington Street • City and/or Edison easement • Effects on mobile home park • Time frame PACIFIC VIEW /HUNTINGTON STREET: • Designated for signalized intersection • When and what configuration • Eliminate connect to pacific view/dead end • Time frame THE PRECISE WIDENING/ REALIGNMENT OF HUNTIi iGTON STREET, ATLANTA AVENUE, AND I' STREET AND RELATED INTERSECTIONS: • All projected/ future circulation elements and traffic flow patterns • Configuration for all curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bikeways, on-street parking, underground utilities and other infrastructure needs, curb cuts, bus routes, ingress /egress into development and/or surrounding communities • Needs to be determined for both sides of each street • Time frame THE EIR FALLS TO ADDRESS HOW THE PACIFIC CITY SITE AND/OR OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL BE USED FOR ANY FUTURE PARKING ISSUES: • The Waterfront Hilton/Hvatt not providing adequate parking for guests and/or emplovees • Has no parking areas for tour buses and/or moving vans for convention equipment City o(Huntington Bench —Pacific Citv 24 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 25 • Hotel employees still required to park off-site at peak times, and have been since the early 1990 s, on the Pacific City site itself • Impact to surrounding neighborhoods when Pacific City site is no longer available for overflow Waterfront parking • It is believed Waterfront hotel employees are being charged if they do park within the parking areas that were supposed to be part on the approved on-site employees parking management plan • Some employees parking within the beach public parking lot instead, and before hours to avoid being charged TAKING OF HOUSES / PROPERTY ALONG DEVELOPED SIDE OF ATLANTIC AVENUE: • Possibly through future eminent domain • Any improvements to existing road circulation • Time frame INIPACT ON THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: • With the addition of 3,000 cars per day to the Pacific City site alone, the City of Newport Beach anticipates that at least half these cars will end up in their city • This will cause increased traffic on already congested Pacific Coast Highway and other roads within their city • Concerns about the proposed 19'b Street bridge across the Santa Ana River— what if the bridge isn't built? How will traffic be handled in this case? POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS VEGETATION AND/OR PONDING ON SITE: • Potential wetlands vegetation and ponding identified by Mark Bixby was not adequately addressed in the EIR • Developer Makar Properties was stopped twice in September of 2003 for grading without a permit immediately after Bixby's presentation to the City Planting Commission City of Huntington Beach - Pacific City 25 The Urban Planning Consulting- Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 26 PROPOSED NQTIGATIONS • The widening of Huntington Street, from Pacific View Drive to Atlanta Avenue, for proper traffic flow for north /south circulation (including right- and left-hand turn pockets, center landscaping, bicycle lanes) using the Pacific City developers property. We oppose any encroachments into surrounding neighborhoods including that of Pacific Mobile Home Park. • The widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street to be configured so that no existing mobile homes will be effected v<ithin Pacific Mobile Home Park. • Elimination of the decades-old realigned plans and proposed Delaware Street extension, as currently projected on both the City and County master traffic plans. The extension is intended to connect Delaware Street with Huntington Street at Pacific View Drive, thus eliminating Pacific Mobile Home Park according to the Pacific City Environmental Impact Report (EIR). • Full and complete disclosure from the owners and property management company regarding impacts to Pacific Mobile Home Park. • Reducing the proposed density of 516 residential units, as this will cause major traffic and parking impacts in the region, particularly during the summer months. • Maintaining as many existing view corridors for all residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. • Perform a totally new and updated traffic study using today's actual traffic flow, street congestion, parking issues, etc., which would then be the basis for any future traffic projections because of Pacific City. • Pacific Mobile Home Park, and/or other adjacent properties, not to be used as a solution for future parking and/or other related issues, by Makar Properties, the Robert Mayers Corporation, and/or the City. CiR' of Firutti, ;non Beach —Pacific City 26 The Urban Planning, Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No.02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 27 ATTACHMENT C PACIFIC CITY ACTION COALITION DRAFT EIR CONIINIENTS • The EIR does not adequately address amplified noise from the commercial portion of the development. Significant impact has been experienced in the neighborhoods surrounding the Hyatt as they frequently have outdoor amplified concerts/events that intrude on the generally low level noise of a residential area. • The EIR does not adequately outline "public access" to the bridge over PCH that is proposed. If the measure of"public access" experienced at the Hyatt project is an indicator, this would be deemed unacceptable. Public access and utility should include consideration of useful route, maximum width, clear signage or views indicating access, no limits/obstructions on public access i.e. events/restrictions on common beach access modalities such as bikes/roller blades/wagons. Access should be clear and functional for all these modes. • The EIR does not adequately address light contamination that results from significant use of"up lighting as demonstrated by the Hyatt. Impact on surrounding neighborhoods is significant at night and intolerable during the frequent foggy weather we experience near the beach. • Erosion control was poorly managed at the Hyatt development and the residential project to the North of it despite fines and significant community/public works/water quality board involvement. There needs to be clearly outlined process with active city involvement, oversight and significant negative impacts to the developer should erosion control fall out of substantial compliance. The city public works department was unable to change the gross inconsideration and impact of silted storm drainage into neighboring communities and our wetlands/ocean. • The timeline proposed is unacceptable. If the developer is hindered by finance concerns (as experienced by the Hyatt project) perhaps a more stable, more aptly funded developer should be considered. IF such a timeline is unavoidable, the impacted residents should be afforded EXTRAORDINARY accommodation in minimizing intrusion and impacts (noise blankets, temporary relocation, monitoring of air/noise/storm drain quality). • Alternatives to the proposed density were not adequately explored in the EIR. Current development at the Waterfront residential project is not as dense, yet the EIR states that lower densities would not meet current planning goals. • Pedestrian access in and around the project is not adequately address in the EIR. If this project were to be an asset to the community and notjust to the developers that sell it, pedestrian issues would be a primary consideration. Sidewalks on all borders and throughways to the property, clear rights of way for pedestrian and bicycle/roller blade traffic would create a project open to area residents and facilitating access to commercial, pier, beach and downtown venues by paths other than PCH. The "commercial' aspects of the Hyatt project were oversold to the community Uri- of Huntington Beach —Pacific Citv 27 The Urban Planning Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 28 and remain primarily hotel oriented. Sidewalks on one side of the street and not the other create an uninviting environment for local pedestrian traffic... a major source of revenue in the off-peak seasons. • The balance of commercial to residential space is too far toward residential. If this project and the city are to seek destination status, there needs to be a greater draw than very dense resident traffic/consumption. This city could use a few more active cash registers in the primary tourism areas adjacent to the coast. High quality dining absent the pricing and limitations of a hotel venue are the first opportunities that come to mind. • Parking, while it may be in compliance with code, is inadequate for a "destination" project, and does not consider the downtown area as having been built prior to generation of current parking codes. Parking for residential and commercial uses is inconvenient and inadequate. Multi level garage parking may put money in the pockets of some and "adequately" manage focused concerns, but ample street and single level parking creates the feeling of open space and quality of life that the pier/downtown area is worthy of. It is of interest to note that the Hyatt directs its employees to park in the adjacent communities when holding large events ... presumably because the parking designed is inadequate to accommodate both employees and guests. The downtown area can ill afford this impact. • Increased traffic in the area is inevitable. While traffic studies in the EIR don't suggest a traffic light at the intersection of Atlanta and Huntington, common sense does. As frequent travelers to this intersection confidently state, summer traffic is already a concern, without the proposed development. Without a timed break in traffic, access to downtown areas becomes tenuous and crossing Atlanta via the crosswalk at Delaware to access the local park quite hazardous due to the incline, lines of sight and speed along the wide Atlanta corridor. • Significant unavoidable impact on traffic at PCH and Warner creates a question of air quality impact on the Bolsa Chica. Idling traffic can already be a problem as commuter traffic backs up from Warner south along PCH. There is no consideration of air quality impact due to idled traffic for this avian sanctuary or for the wetland areas south of the development that will experience increasing traffic loads and idle time. • Significant conflicting messages exist regarding traffic concerns as they relate to the county plan. Most proximate is the extension of Delaware to the south. Is this being proposed and used in traffic projections? Are the traffic projections considering the 19'h street bridge over the Santa Ana River? These two issues are contentious and are not reliably prone to inclusion or exclusion when projecting traffic impact. • Impact on local schools should be considered WITH projected impacts of current and planned future development in the downtown area. On, of Huntington Reach —Pac;lic On, _3 The Urban Planning Consultin„ Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 29 • Height or number of stories above curb height should be portrayed. The 4 story limitation presented for the Hyatt was misleading to the public as the project resulted in a final height far above that presented publicly when soil compaction and parking garage additions to height were added. • Traffic impacts to the south including nearest freeway access to the 55 are not addressed in the EIR draft. On, of Huntin-,,ton Beach —Pacific On- 29 The Urban Plannijg Consulting Group Page I of 1 Hess, Scott From: AKornicks@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:10 AM To: hesss@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Re: Pacific City The following is being written since I will be out of town on business on Tuesday, March 23 and unable to attend the Planning Commission Hearing with reference to the approval or denial of Pacific City. I have been a resident of Huntington Beach since February 1979 and currently reside at 407 19th Street and would like to commend the City on its effort to make Huntington Beach a World Class City. In an effort to continue this progress, I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Pacific City project. In my opinion it will go along way it enhancing the image of the City and significantly improve the image that we as a city currently have. In closing, sincere thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to have read this e-mail. Regards, Alan Kornicks 407 19th Street 714-960-5246 rues � �i i Lugar, Robin From: DrGladysDe@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:06 AM To: LUGARR@SURFCITY-hb.org Subject: Pacific City Project Since I wil be in Hawaii on March 23, 2004, 1 will be unable to attend the Public Hearing on the future of the Subject. As a concerned homeowner in Huntington Beach, 1 would like the Planning Commission to be aware that I amsotally in favor of the impending Pacific City Pfioject. This vast 32 acre tract has lain dormant for many years, fenced in by chain link fences and windblown canvas. The proposed project will lead to a visual and physical improvement of the area. Other resort cities have been able to cope with the increased population and traffic offshoots of development. There is no reason why Huntington Beach should be an exception. Pacific City would continue the theme of PCH development, already begun by the Waterfront Hilton, The Hyatt Regency and downtown HB. In my opinion, The Hyatt Regency is not adequately accessible to the HB residents. The difficulty and expense of parking is not conducive to public utilization. Thank you. Dr. Gladys de Barcza i 3/16/2004 ��� 4 w �� Y ��`Sf� V 1 i� S HUN tI WON 0EACH mcE ED "CHAMBER�O,�:. �COMMERCE� March 12, 2004 MAR 'I i 200a Mr. Ron Davis, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Chairman Davis: The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, representing over 800 business members, wishes to go on record in support of Makar Properties application for the development of Pacific City. The Chamber Board of Directors has been receiving periodic updates while the project has been undergoing review, We are pleased with the changes that have been made to date through the constructive comments by the Design Review Board and others. We believe the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning and LCP and includes the required components, e.g. visitor serving, retail, hotel and high density residential. This project will also assist in transitioning Huntington Beach from a daytime to an overnight community. The commercial component, when added to the existing downtown area, will expand the critical mass to enhance shopping and dining experiences in Huntington Beach. The proposed residential component is consistent with the city's goals and will provide a year-round residential base to support downtown businesses. This project will also enhance revenues to the city by expanding the property tax, transient occupancy tax and sales tax base. Pacific City is a well designed integrated planned community that is sensitive to open space and architectural design guidelines. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments and urge your approval of the proposed Pacific City development. /Sir}�cerely, i✓/�l�L'LL Charlie Bunten Chairman .gip e� 1959i Beach EP-ic.,swe;.o :iunarg;on Beach.CA 925�8 (77G)516-61 _ Fax(7;=1 56C. 765- Pacific City Page 1 of 1 GO�O"j Zelefsky, Howard j� t 0-A� 7h�J ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. PS From: Wyman, Kevin C �m 3 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:00 PM To: City Council Public Correspondence Subject: Pacific City Dear Council Members, I just wanted to take a moment to express me overwhelming support for the Pacific City development that will be discussed on March 23; unfortunately, I will not be available to attend that meeting, otherwise I would gladly address you in person. As a Resident of Downtown Huntington Beach I am eagerly awaiting this development and the opportunity and adventure it will offer. This city is in dire need of some new and nice development. My fiance and myself both enjoy an evening of fine food and entertainment and it is a shame that we must patron Newport Beach to spend our money when we crave such things. I realize that many factors play into your decision with respect to this matter, however, I hope you all realize the need for such a project here in town. Sincerely, Kevin C. Wyman 907 Delaware St HB, CA r 3/19/2004 ATTACHMENT 10 EIR NO. 02-01 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT •Analyzes potential environmental impacts from development REPORT NO. 02-01 project �the mixed use project and associated infrastructure • Documents potential impacts in 15 issue Pacific City Project areas • Evaluates three alternatives to the project EIR PROCESS ANALYSIS Jan.2003-NOP circulated for 30 days • EIR concludes: +Potentially significant impacts can be mitigated for 13 —Public scoping meeting held issue areas Oct.-Dec. —Draft EIR circulated for 45 i�. L.R U r A Tart a y r/p�cy Rewu2es Last Ux 6 Rlmmq 2003 days c .W R. EregN3WwralRnaurcn PaQWann6Mwvry Feb.2004—Response to comments Na.�aYaa3 w.nal3 Ru.uaaas completed uwrm 3 spa SrRenn +Unavoidable significant impact pertaining to air quality Mar.2004—Planning Commission (NO,am voc)and transportatiowhatflc(PCwwarnad certified EIR +Other transponationitrafflc impacts can he mitigated ANALYSIS APPEAL . The Robert Mayer Corp: EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA: +Traffic and Parting Analyzed potential impacts +Water Quality +Analyzed alternatives which may lessen/avoid impacts +Projoct Alternatives Condaoa3 lhal Ri aucaa Project Albmallva is pq +Wetlands Errvtranmanlally Supaaor Allmnatlw +Identified mitigation measures to address sgrulicanl +City's responses to the Draft EIR comment letters impacts e Lewis Brisbois Bis aard 8 Smith LLP: +All comments on the EIR have peen responAOA to in g the Final EIR,in public meetings or in the +Oil overlay'C' Administrative record j APPEAL RECOMMENDATION • Responses prepared for the appeal issues •Staff recommends certification of EIR •Trafficdpanang assumptions are based on standard NO. 02-01 because, industry practice and supported by suffnent data Complies with requirements of CEOA •Level of analysis for water quality,wellands and project alternatives is consistent with CEOA Adequately analyzes project impacts •Responses to comments provide a reasoned, v1dentifies project alternatives and mitigation supportable response to issues raised measures to lessen the project's impacts •Oil Overlay'C provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan are permissive if oil drilling is proposed. END OF PRESENTATION RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 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 Attorne ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial I Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FOR RDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Space RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB o a ° MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT RECEIVED St BJECT: RFQI'ESTINC: DATE Econ Dev Auto Dealer Business Improvement District Public Works Franchise Pipeline Agreement with Pacific Terminals, LLC Planning Streamlining Ordinance (Zoning Code Amendment) Will Be POSTPONED Planning 05/19 EIR, Tentative Tract Map, CUP, CDP for Pacific City 101):%V'S DATE May 19, 2004 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: William P. Workman Acting City Administrator May 19, 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 7, 2004 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: 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 02-01/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12/ CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN (PACIFIC CITY). Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellants: Makar Properties, LLC; The Robert Mayer Corporation; Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP Request: EIR: An analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may occur from development of the Pacific City project. TTM: A request to subdivide approximately 31.5 acres into three parcels for purposes of developing a mixed-use project. One of the parcels will be for residential condominium purposes and the other two parcels are for a commercial/office/hotel development. In the residential portion of the project, there will be a 2.0-acre village park easement for public usage as well as a lettered lot for a private access road. CUP/CDP: A request to develop a mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses (191,100 sq. ft. reduced alternative plan), a 400 room, eight-story hotel, spa and health club; a 2.0-acre open space/park easement; 516 condominium units above subterranean parking and associated infrastructure including the extension of Pacific View Avenue. The request also includes outdoor dining, alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, and dancing within the proposed restaurants and hotel development; carts and kiosks within the commercial and hotel development; and valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the below grade parking structures. In addition, the request includes a shared parking analysis which includes a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the mixed-use project (retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment, hotel, and spa uses), and tandem parking spaces. Included in the request is to permit development on a site that has a grade differential greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point (approximately 25' from the lowest point to its highest point); and for development in the Coastal Zone. Lastly, the request includes any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on-going remediation activities, and may include but is not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation. Three Special Permit requests are as follows: 1) to allow commercial buildings to encroach into the required setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Avenue; 2) to allow three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures at a slope of 15% in lieu of maximum 10%; and 3) to permit retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas. A Conceptual Master Plan is included that provides an overall buildout plan of the commercial and residential portions of the site. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (31-acre site bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street). Project Planners: Scott Hess, Planning Manager/ Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Legal s/Cou nc i 1/040607 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the item above is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 filed on April 4, 2002 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing will consist of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment(s) for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the project may have significant environmental effects and, therefore, an environmental impact report was required. Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 was prepared in accordance with CEQA and 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 (Thursday before meeting) June 3, 2004. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 Lcpls/Council/040607 CITY COUNCILlREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: -nv' 'ra�r C � vd� QeCBr�n2OI / t � 1�33g1Lu� c72 Z� wIS�O�� I rta-9✓ P DEPARTMENT: XC,� MEETING DATE: (0 --1 c)q CONTACT: PHONE: N/A YES NO ( ) N ( .) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) Qd ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? ( ) (?4 ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels?(yes) ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? (3 — yes) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ) X4 ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the Resident labels attached? ( ) ( ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date IU 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications t . ALULING LABELS—fanuary 6, 2004 W1096S easel G:Labels\Labels\Public Hearing slagej ssaippd 4DAU3At1 Qp President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O. Box 791 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Betty Jo Woollen 2 WilliamD. Holman it Ednalittlebury 17 Orange County Assoc. of Realtors PLC Gldn Sr Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. 25552 La Paz Road 19 Corporate Plaza Drive 11021 Magnolia Blvd. Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Garden Grove,CA 92642 President 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Amigos De Bolsa Chica New Urban West Society, Inc. 16531 Bolsa Chica Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Ste. 100 P.O. Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Arm:Jane Gothold Sense Beach Communi oc. 4 Pres., H.B. HisL Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies ent C/O Newland House Museum O.C. Ping. &Dev. Services Dept. PO x 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 4048 - S set Beach,CA 90 -0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 President 5 Community Services Dept. 14 Vicky Wilson 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O.C. Public Facilities &Res. Dept PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P. O. Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4848 Julie Vandermost 6 Council 15 Planting Director 20 B[A-OC 1706 O e.ton Bea 92648 Citv of Costa Mesa 17744 Sky Park Circle,#170 H g P. O. Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614 4441 Costa Mesa,GA 92628-1200 Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Director 21 SCAG Seacliff HOA Ciry of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th, 12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 E.T.I. Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director 22 Mar,Bell Seacliff HOA City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood Cit. 19382 Surfdale Lane P.O. Box 1768 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92663-8915 :41 Hendricker 9 Lou Mannone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA Ciry of Westminster 8452 Grace Circle 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 8200 Westminster Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster,CA 92683 091S 10 l dwal as s- o ;ae I � Pacific ty 6-7-0`4 fi wlslaays paa� yloow5-�' NLAILING LABELS—January 6, 2004 W1096S easel G:labels\labels\Public Hearing slagej ssaippV ®AU3A%f DU Planning Director 24 James Jones 31 HB amprons HO 33 City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary Progre c unity Mgmc 211 Eight Sc School District 27 - .u Real, #300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 17200 Pinehurst Lane [is Vie CA 92691 Huntington Beach CA 92647 California Coastal Commission 25 Jon M. Archibald 32 Sally raham 39 Theresa Henry Westminster School District `feado I a South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 516 g Circle 200 Ocemgare, loth Floor Wes aninster CA 92683 tingto Beach, CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4301 California Coastal Commission 23 Patricia Koch 33 Che e Brownie 39 South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disrict dead lad 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor 10251 Yorktown Avenue 16771 sevelt Lane Long Beach, CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 gt Beach, CA 92649 Robert Joscph 26 CSA, Inc. 34 Hearthside Homes 40 Caltrans District 12 Marshall Krupp, President 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 204 Nata Irvine, CA 92614 Irvine,CS 92612-1699 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Director 27 Golde est College 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid Waste Enf. Agy. Attn: Fre 5200 Warner Avenue,Ste. 108 O.C. Health Care Agency 15744 n st St. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 P.O. Box 355 H gton Beach 92647 Sanr Arta,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 23 OC County Harbors, Beach 36 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Huntington Beach Post Office and Pads Dept. Evan Henn,President 6771 Warner Ave. P. O. Box 4048 1812 Port Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Newport Beach,C-A 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Hun tin n Beac 37 Ed De:vleulle,Chairperson 42 Fountain Valley Elem. School Disc Acm: Pat rs-Laude SEHBNA 17210 Oak Street 7777 Ave. #300 9441 Alii Carle Fountain Valley CA 92708 H tington ch CA 92647 - Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Dr. Gary Rutherford,Super. 30 Co -Vi<rive 38 OC Sanitation District 42 HB City Elementary School Disc Carrie 10844 Ellis Avenue 20431 Craimer Lane 6642 ott Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H angto8 David Perry 30 Coun -View es HOA 38 Ed Blackford,President 42 HB City Elementary School Disc G;42 d an AES Huntington Beach, LLC 20451 Cca met Lane 67 e ircle 21730 Newland Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hngton ch CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 i m09I5 jolaleldwalasn Pacific City 6-7-04 w,slaOWZ Daa4 U100W TM C,[,6els\[abets\Public Hering V- 0"Smooth Feed Sheets Use template for 5160 Richard Loy 42 Huntington Beach Girls Softball' 47 AYSO gion 56 47 9062 Kahului Drive Mike Erickson Commissi attic\Llsite Huntington Beach CA 92646 P.O. Box 3943 22041 C a Circie Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3943 Hun gt0, ach,Ca 92646 John Ely 42 AYSO Region 117 47 AYSO eg on 55 4 i 22102 Rockport Lane John Almanza Commis bn uane Hurtado Huntington Beach CA 92646 9468 Cormorant Cr P.O. Bo 52 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Hun gton each, CA 92647 HB Coastal Communities Assoc. 43 Huntington Valley Little League 47 HB Field Hockey' 47 David Guido Renee Aumiller rMandal Padhiar 143 E. Meats Avenue 209 Hartford 17782 Metzler Dr. Orange,CA 92865 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Downtown Business Association 44 AYSO egion 141 47 HB Pop Warner Football-- 47 Mr.Steve Daniels Cotnrrtissio thony DeGiglio Martin Stolze 200 Main Street#106 13976 h' eet P.O. Box 5066 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 W'es ster C 2683 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Downtown Residents Association 45 Fountain Valley Youth Baseball' 47 North 'oc ub 47 11s. Marie St. Germain Al Letua Presideat rge�(itton 505 Alabama 14591 Yucca Circle 18601 wl d Street, 94 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Hun gron Be ,CA 92646 Chairperson 46 H. B.Jr. All-American Football" 47 Robinwo d li ague 47 Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Gregg Nutt Sandy Hu PO Box 693 P.O. Box 2245 16722 go u n Sc, D San Gabriel, CA 91778 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington ach,CA 92649 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 46 Huntington Beach Soccer League 47 Seavie Little e 47 Acjachemen Nation Felipe Zapata Brett ShaNioje 31411 La Matanza Street 18442 Steep Lane,#3 20141 a Lane San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675-2625 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun ^gton each CA 92646 South Coast Soccer Club.. 47 Ocean Vie Little ague 47 Westminste e HOA 43 President Jlartin Bannon Cathy Van D ttm,Pmsident 5200 BI o I Road 8921 Crescent Drive 6881 Ste chase um, ,"rH Wes ster, 92683 Huntington Beacb,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 92648 West Family YMCA' 37 South HB Guts Fast Pitch Softball" 47 Gary Brown 49 Dori An Marie Ensev Coastkeepers 7431 ' ¢:torn Sm I , \,,,�1Xy 21401 Piaetrce Lane 441 Old Newport Blvd,Ste. 103 drigtoa Beach, CA _ 47 V Huntingtoa Beach,CA 9264i Newport Beach GA 92663 /i� AVERY® Address Labels Pacific City 6-7-04 Laser 5960�°� ', Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 Pacific City Jeffrey M. Smith, AICP Timothy Neely SCAG County of Orange Ping & Dev/ Christopher Wright OCTA 818 W. Seventh St., 121" Floor Environmental Svcs. Division in Street Los Angeles CA 90017-3435 P.O. Box 4048 Orange 550 So. Main 9Street 584 Santa Ana CA 92702-4048 James D. Herberg, P.E. Garry Brown Gabriel Elliott O.C. Sanitation District O.C. Coastkeeper Urban Planning Consulting Group P.O. Box 8127 441 Old Newport Blvd., Ste, 103 8 Via De La Mesa Fountain Valley CA 92728-8127 Newport Beach CA 92663 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Charlie & Margie Bunten Paul & Carol Cross HB Chamber of Commerce Tom Danaher 109 Huntington Street & Visitors Convention Bureau 400 Lake Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 380 51" Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Nathan James Paul & Kristin Konovalov Steve Kawashima 211 Elmira Avenue 113 Huntington Street Hotel Organizing Project Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 548 So. Spring St., Ste. 830 Los Angeles CA 90013 Val Konovalov Jim Banks Marie St. German 6862 Evening Hill 505 Alabama St. 505 Alabama St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 LER Ballisteros Jaime Torres Ron Seman 681 HERE 681 Surf City Partners E ella Avenue, Ste. 2100 E ella Avenue, Ste. 6406 Fairwind Circle eim CA 92806 eim CA 92806 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Curt Radetich Joan Kelly Mark & Jackie Faimey Charles Schwab Bon Terra Consulting d Street Hu 207 22 5 Street 151 Kolmes Drive, Ste. E-200 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Nattie Logue HERE 681 Curtis Elliott Robert Jason 5772 Garden Grove Blvd., #113 12301 Lesley Street 7956 Waterfall Circle Westminster CA 92683 Garden Grove CA 92840 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Natalie Strauss John Erskine Mike O'Brien 117 Walnut Avenue, #B Nossaman Guthner Knox& Elliott HERE 681 Huntington Beach CA 92648 18101 Van Karman, Ste. 1800 145 13`h Street Irvine CA 92612 Seal Beach CA 90740 G:tLabels\Pacific City /� 0� AVERYO Address Labels pacific City 6-7-04 LaseN �-f 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 Pacific City Rosario Espinosa Stacy Kim Eulalio Delgado HERE 681 7407 Pinnacle HERE 681 2100 ella Avenue, #195 Huntington Beach CA 92648 58 Stanford Ct. ape eim CA 92806 Irvine CA 92612 Nathan James HERE,ora Castillo Guadelupe Torre HERE, Lot 689 211 Elmira Avenue 2100 E. Avenue 2001 S. Haster, Apt. 39 Huntington Beach 92648 Anaheim CA 92802 An CA 92804 Jason Korengold Daniel De Klerk Pat Davis Makar Properties 7921 Seawall Circle 2124 Main Street, #170 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92660 John A. Carlson Shireen Sachdev Robert Joseph 16995 Edgewater Lane 310 Lake Street, #214 CA Dept of Transportation/Dist. 12 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 3337 Michelson Dr., Ste. 380 Irvine CA 92612-8894 David Curtis David Woelfel Steve Smith, PhD CA Dept of Conservation CRWQCB SCAQMD 5816 Corporate Ave., Ste. 200 3737 Main Street, Ste. 500 21865 E. Copley Drive Cypress CA 90630-4731 Riverside CA 92501-3348 Diamond Bar CA 91765-4182 Dick Harlow Stephen Bone Robert London Moore 211-B Main Street The Robert Mayer Corporation Mills Land &Water Co. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 660 Newport Ctr. Drive #1050 P.O. Box 7108 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92615 Ethen Thacher John Sisker Bob Anderson 4100 MacArthur Blvd. 80 Huntington Street, Space 266 6418 e Anderson ar Cir. P.O. Box 7080 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Wi-abeMPacific City Op AVERYS Address Labels Lase!( Z 5A60TM Pacific City 6-7-04 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 OCTA At Calonico Christopher Wright 9321 Sunridge Dr.Huntington Beach, CA 92646 550 South Main St. Orange, CA 92863 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Lewis Brisbois Biggard & Smith Edward Kerins Fay Mathis LLP PO Box 865 209 Alabama St. Frank Brucculer Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 650 Town Center Dr. #1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Orange County Coastkeeper UPCG Dept. of Toxic Substances Control Garry Brown Greg Holmes 8 Via De La Mesa 441 Old Newport Blvd. #103 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 5796 Corporate Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cypress, CA 90630 SCAG Pacific City Action Coalition Pacific City Action Coalition Jeffrey Smith John Siskco John Sisker 818 W. 71h Street, 12't' Floor 16787 Beach Blvd. #316 80 Huntington St. 9266 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lewis Brisbois Biggard & Smith LLP Mark Bixby Mike Churchin Laura Knox 17451 Hillgate Ln. 7856 Seabreeze Dr. 650 Town Center Dr. 411400 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Huntington Beach Union High School District Paul Cross Califomia Dept. of Conservation Patricia Koch 109 Huntington St. Paul Frost 10251 Yorktown Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5816 Corporate Ave. n200 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Cypress, CA 90630 The Robert Mayer Corporation Orosz Engineering Group, Inc. The Robert Mayer Corporation Shawn Millbem Stephen Orosz Steve Bone 660 Nei.%port Center Dr. #1050 1627 Calzada Ave. 660 Newport Center Dr. #1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Newport Beach County of Orange Steve Bromberg Timothy Neely 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 4048 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 �� AVERY® Address Labels Pacific City 6-7-04 Laser(b960TM : 5-aootff Ee6d3SheetsT"" tUse ternp4ate for51b4fl BOB TRAVER DOUG TRAUB JOI-N DE WITT 7402 COHO DR. 19391 NEW HAVEN LANE 525 18TH ST. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA 92648 DALE DUN\` DANIEL MILLER RICK SHAFER 17302 ALMELO LN. 218 14' ST. 713 ALABAMA AVE. -lB HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNITINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 MARK BIXBY LOIS IVANOFF 17451 HILLG 215 CHICAGO AVE. HUNT ON BEACH, CA 92649-4707 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 �Al(E�tY Address_.ia-eks; pacific City 6-7-04 PACIFIC CITY FILEE204164 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 024 271 05 1000' OWNERS 300' OCCUPANTS FEBRUARY 25 2004 024 134 07 1 024 13408 2 024 134 14 3 Branko Cavic Branko Cavic CHRISTA GEORG 8940 Ei Presidente Ave 8940 El Presidente Ave 421 Lake St#G Fountain Val!ey CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02413415 4 024 134 17 5 024 134 18 6 Robert Mandic Jr. Andrew Tr Orens Richard Orens 1361 Parkside Dr 207 Appletree Ave 407 Lake St Riverside CA 92506 Camarillo CA 93012 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 134 19 7 024 13420 8 024 134 21 9 Thomas & Be,ty A/;i ?from Faye Ogden Marc Posch 20522 Salt Air Cir 1211 Montego St 411 Lake St Huntington Bead-. CA 92646 Arroyo Grande CA 93420 Huntington Beach CA 926d_° 024 134 22 10 024 14401 11 024 144 02 12 Howard Harts Alice Tr Parnakian R-Sert Tr Bolen d 13 Lake St 205 1st St 1818 Pine St Hunlington Beac.'i -A 9284 Huntington Beach CA 9?f.48 Huntington Seach CA 92648 024 144 03 13 024 144 04 14 024 144 10 15 Robert Bolen UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Alice Tr Pamakian 1818 Pine St.--- _t. 6771 Warner Ave 205 1 st St Hu 9t�r' _2 ".° Huntington Beach CA 93E-57 Huntington Beach CA ^'F-° 024 144 11 16 024 144 12 17 024 144 13 18 Leon Tr Dubov Ben Trainer GERGEN HOMES INC 20222 Deervale Ln 26165 Rinconada Dr 211 Main St#B Huntington Beach CA 92646 Carmel Valley CA 93924 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 144 14 19 024 15401 20 024 15402 21 Richard & Cheryl Lynn Marcz Adel Zeidan FARRIS CAROL 8 Chesterfield Rd 301 17th St 4562 Eastbourne Bay Rolling Hills CA 90274 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Oxnard CA 93035 024 154 03 22 024 15404 23 024 154 17 24 MORNING JADE CORPORATION Linda Diane Tr Biggs PIERSIDE PAVILION LLC 11642 Pine St 125 Manhattan Beach Blvd 2 Park Piz#1140 -Los Alamitos CA 90720 ----. -__-_ .. .. . - .Manhattan Beach CA 9.0266 Irvine CA 92614 Pacific City 6-7-04 024 16003 25 024 161 01 26 024 161 06 27 Penny Niccole Alfred Palladino Gary Haas 16861 Coral Cay Ln 106 Olive Ave 302 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02416107 28 024 161 11 29 024 161 12 30 Marian Tr Dart Gerald Tr Walsh Jr. Alice Tr Parnakian 13551 Wheeler PI PO Box 90 205 1st St Tustin CA 92780 Kealakekua HI 96750 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ..ram 024' 1 14 024 161 15 32 024 161 16 33 Gina P adi o— Michael William &Roberta Dian Rusin Gina Palladino 308 2n 304 2nd St 308 2nd St Hu ington Bead CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunting ton'Beac�2648 024 162 01 34 024 16202 35 024 16203 36 CAP PAC LLC Harold Tomkins Harold Tomkins 4100 Macarthur Blvd #200 76580 California Dr 76580 California Dr- Newport Beach CA 92660 Palm Desert CA 92211 Palm Desert'CA 92211 024 16204 37 024 162 05 38 024 162 06 39 t_-iba ?r Galkin Mari; Donley Ve!,-na Tr Goebel i01 Huntington St PO Boy. 3234 2402 N Hesperian St H,:nti:gton Beach CA 92648 Crestlioe CA 92325 Santa Ana CA 32703 024 16207 40 /` 024 162 08 41 r---�" 024 162 09 42 tPary Boy 32 Charlet- C2the, Charles Ca!her ,.`"" PC Bn ; 34! 800 E Wa,dlow Rd #B 800 E Ward�Rdf8 r�! ns^A 92325 LQi:g.Be�it Ci 909t:7 Long 3e;:^!� CA 90807 Wit'.' I 'I 02416213 43 02416216 44 02416217 45 DROP MARK Jovand & <Ihi�Sera Carmel Tr Ling ^O Bar:ARK Jov Portland . cCA 417<2 5401 Mesagro've Ave Dcach c "A A0`^4 024 16219 46 024 16220 47 024 162 21 48 Alden Decatur Mitchell Gloria Tr Redman Kurt & Veronica Tamaru 2919 Gardena Ave 43846 Cedar Ave 206 2nd St Signal Hill CA 90755 Lancaster CA 93534 Huntington Beach CA 92648 0 24 162 AKIAN ALICE NAKIAN TOKES ZOLTAN & D M 2 ` `"1� t49� 02416223 50 / „per 024 16224 51 Jovand & inn D INSunghera PARN 217 Portland e 205 1st St 2405 Kenilworth Ave Hunting eac 92648 Hun ' n Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90039 024 16225 52 024 16226 53 024 16228 54 Ray Tr Hunnicutt TOKES ZOLTAN & D_ Ay�_.- L C Barot 4776 Greene Rd 2405 Kenilworth Ave 319 Seal Beach Blvd - Johnson Valley CA 92285- -- ---- -Los Angeles CA 90039-- Seal Beach CA 90740 Pacific City 6-7-04 (�(/) 024 162 29 55 024 16230 56 024 16301 57 Thomas Moore Harry & Lisa Stewart CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 238 2nd St 236 2nd St PO Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 163 02 58 024 16303 59 024 16308 60 CAPITAL PACIFIC HOLDINGS LLC Ralph Peck T K'S FASTGRILL INC 4100 Macarthur Blvd 9200 8404 Lexington Rd 110 Pack Coast Hwy Newport Beach CA 92660 Downey CA 90241 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 16309 61 024 16312 62 024 16313 63 Ralph Peck Allen Nelson Allen Nelson 8404 Lexin d 8404 Lexington Rd 8404 Lexingtyn•Rd�� Dow A 90241 Downey CA 90241 Downey CA 90241 024 163 1 V t 64 024 163 15 65 024 164 01 66 FIRST NATI L BANK TRUSTEE ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH LL Lola Tr Johnson 102 Ocean a 4100 Macarthur Blvd #200 730 14th St Huntingto each 92648 Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 4,6402 67 024 16403 68 024 164 04 69 James &Veronica Lin Phil lati Donald Perry 323 2nd St 317 2nd St 313 2nd St icncngton Beach CA 92648 Hun;ingtui. Beach CA 92648 Huntingto: B c t CA 92648 02416405 70 024 16407 71 024 164 08 72 \Ni!:icm & Helene Goodman NICCOLE Joseph Tr Maui` 17012 Palmdale St #C 16861 Coial Cay Ln 205 White Home Lt. !c to Eton Beach CA 92647 HuntingtOn 5each CA 92649 Fal!brook CA 92,128 024 16409 73 024 164 10 74 024 164 11 75 REDHEAD ENTS LLC Carmel Tr Ling Alva Tr Dellano 8080 O Donovan Rd 5401 Mesagrove Ave 318 3rd St Cre_4ton CA93432 "" ^490601 Hc.^.5rgto.^. B=aoh CA 92648 02416413 76 02416414 77 02416415 78 ORANGE COAST SPECIALITIES PR ORANGE COAST SPECIALITIES PR ORANGE COAST SPECIALITIES PR 310 3rd St 302 3rd St 314 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02416416 79 02416417 80 02416418 81 ORANGE COAST SPECIALITIES PR BENT BENT -'" 312 3rd St 6742 Shetland Cir 6742 Shetland Cis.. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02416562 82 024 16503 83 024 165 07 84 Charles Cather '��� Kathryn Calvillo Anthony Pearson 800 E Wardlow Rd #B 215 2nd St 217 Olive Ave Long-Beach CA 90807 ----Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 f�j 024 16508 85 024 165 09 86 024 16510 87 Robert Tr Allen Ruben & Sionita Angeles Ramiro & Selene Fernandez 327 Crest Ave 222 3rd St 214 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 9264E Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 165 11 88 02416512 89 02416513 90 Ramiro& Selene Fernandez' Ronald Tr Hsueh Bernard Tr Mason 214 3rd St ��^ 19046 Stonehurst Ln 825 12th St Hunti>gt n-Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02416514 91 02416515 92 02416516 93 �- Samuel Vi Townsend Eric Sandin Bernard Tr Mason, 214 Walnut Ave 216 Walnut Ave 825 12th St/ Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hu' 0n Beach CA 92648 024 165 18 94 024 165 19 95 024 165 20 96 Dewey Davide Robert Reider Jeffrey Hansler 209 2nd St 211 2nd St 213 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 16521 97 024 165 23 98 024 165 25 99 Richard fiery Phi Nguyen Stephen Zaiicek 225 2nd St 8681 Enloe Cir 221 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Garden Grove CA 92844 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 16526 100 024 165 27 101 024 165 28 102 Richard Tr Fryman WURZEL THOMAS Demey Davide 223 2nd St 225 2nd St PO Box 911 ., Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 16529 103 024 165 30 104 024 202 01 105 Demey Davide 1.= William Vogt Dennis Tr Donsker PO Box 911 314 22nd St 321 Huntington St Huntingt6n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 202 02 106 024 202 03 107 024 202 05 108 Joseph Edwards Cassie Hammond CHURCH OF CHRIST HUNT AV 315 Huntington St 313 Huntington St 301 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 L 024 202 09 109 024 202 10 110 024 202 11 111 John William Tr Melson Alan Forsha David Mollica 211 Chicago Ave 1380 N Laurel Ave 302-31 Alabama St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Upland CA 91786 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 202 12 112 024 202 14 113 W2p Edward Pranis Michael Gorman R F Bab 7 114 abayan PO Box 1345 217 Chicago Ave 708 California St Orange CA 92856 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 ( Ll 024 202 16 115 024 202 17 116 024 202 19 117 Robert Abdelnaby Ronald & Patricia B 9232 Christine Dr Raymond Tr Steiner Huntington Beach CA 92646 5714 Rainbow Heighhtsts Rd 1453 Camino De Vela Fallbrook CA 92028 San Marcos CA 92069 024 202 20 118 W 20 024 202 21 119 024 202 23 120 Hugh 3rd Foster John Nulton PO Box 3606 Joan Samsvick 218 Detroit Ave 220 Detroit Ave Huntington Beach CA 92605 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 202 24 121 024 202 25 122 024 202 26 123 Susan Furedi Greg Raupp Samuel Cruz 222 Detroit Ave 309 Huntington St 311 Huntington St Huntington 3each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 203 01 124 024 203 02 125 024 203 03 126 Richard Tr Cerruti CERRUTI Brian &Jean Golledge 21571 Surveyor Cir 21571 Surveyor-Cir'� 209 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92646 Hunti_ngton'Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 203 04 127 024 203 06 128 024 203 07 129 fvtona Hansen Richard Tr Carruti Richard Tr Cerruti 205 Huntington Si 21571 Surveyor-Cir Hentino!,)n Bea^h C".92648 Hunti Surveyoach - Hun�to?t Beach CA 9264o Huntington'Biach CA 92646 024 203 09 130 024 203 12 131 024 203 13 132 Barbarc Tr Mall Shirley Ann Tr Strachan 220 Alabama St #J Ramona Guinan Huntington l?sach f:A S2 17232 Lynn St 9192 Mahalo Dr 648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92646 024 203 14 133 024 203 16 134 024 203 17 135 JACOBS THOMAS & CAROL HECKMAN MELVIN 202 Alabama St Richard Tr Cerruti 303 Alabama St Hnntinninn go,pt, r1a 92648 21571 Surve or Cir-_ - Ca y_.. Hur;iny;;,,, �.,,,,, C„9G8„�, Huntington Beach %.v 92646 024 203 19 136 024 203 20 137 024 203 24 138 Ravii& Bharati Lunagaria Thomas Tr Wickstrom Bruce Fowler 910 S Oak Meadows Way 21571 Surveyor Cir 201 Huntington St Anaheim CA 92808 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 203 25 139 024 203 26 140 024 203 27 141 Ralph Loyd John Chapman Gordon &Carin Mackay 203 Huntington St 3555 Farnam St#1000 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Baltimore Ave Omaha NE 68131 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 203 28 142 024 203 29 143 Paul Gianforlune Richard Pyles 024 204 01 144 221 Baltimore Ave Ismael Tr Santos 219 Baltimore Ave 416 Holly St _IlUntington-Beach.CA_92648 Huntington-Beach-GA-92648 Laguna Beach CA 92651 Pacific City 6-7-04 0�2- 024 204 03 145 024 204 04 146 024 204 08 147 Randall Smith Luba Tr Galkin Jeffrey Tr Fisser 105 Hurtington St A& B 101 Huntington St 212 Baltimore Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 204 12 148 024 204 13 149 024 204 14 150 Janine Walkup BREEDING KEN Janice Tr Nelson 209 Atlanta Ave PO Box 6509 106 Alabama St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92615 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 204 15 151 024 204 16 152 024 204 17 153 De Vane Craig Mary Dolan Thomas Conlon 201 Atlanta Ave 112 Alabama St PO Box 944 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Arcata CA 95518 024 204 18 154 024 204 19 155 024 204 21 156 Julie Kerlin George Lee O'Connor Alonzo Dale Carter - 218 Baltimore Ave 220 Baltimore Ave 216 Baltimore Ave - Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 204 23 157 024 204 24 158 024 204 25 159 Melodee T Ailanjian tvielodee T Ailanjig--- —' FISSER& L 2175 Mendocino Ln 2175 Mendocino" 212 Baltimore Ave Altadena CA 91001 Alladena CA 91001 Huntington peach CA 92648 024 204 26 160 024 204 27 161 024 204 28 162 Raymond Allan Bulterfas John Sic-age Paul Korovzicv 111 Huntington St 115 Huntington St 113 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntingon Beach CA 92648 Hu.-Aington Beach CA 92648 024 204 29 163 024 206 01 164 024 206 02 165 Paul Cross NYLANDER KATHERINE NYLANDER KATHERINE, 109 Huntington St 114 Chicago Ave 114 Chicago Ave'' Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huniington Beach CA 92648 Hunlingtori Beach CA 92648 024 206 04 166 024 206 05 167 024 206 06 168 Donald Tr Goode Donald Tr Good' Steven Tr Lewis 219 Alabama St 219 Alabama.St 15291 Seine Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92604 024 206 13 024 206 14 170 024 206 15 171 CITY OF HUNTtNGTON BEACH SLAVEN DONALD&JILL Priscilla Louise Droher PO Box 19 225 Alabama St 223 Alabama St Huyngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 206 17 172 024 206 20 173 024 206 21 174 Steve Emil Marion Peter Doyle Steven Tr Borren 105 Alabama St 6941 Church Cir PO Box 1345 -Huntington each-C-A-�92648 -HuntingtonA3eachtA 92648 - Huntington Beach CA 92647�,� Pacific City 6-7-04 024 206 22 175 024 206 23 176 024 206 24 177 Daniel Robert Regan Peter Glamuzina MATH IS FAY 107 Alabama St 109 Alabama St 209 Alabama St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 206 25 178 024 206 26 179 024 206 27 180 David Wortham SKOLYAN KENNETH & M R Toma & Chris Tapia 207 Alabama St 121 Alabama St 123 Alabama St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 206 33 181 024 206 34 182 024 206 38 183 ARLINGTON APARTMENTS LLC HECKMAN MELVIN James Burton 13860 Alderwood Ln #78A 303 Alabama St 125 Alabama St Seal Beach CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 206 40 184 024 206 41 185 024 206 42 186 '1 2 D Cher Kater Laurens Vernot Ty Kern 291 Alabama St 301 Alabama St 27201 Puerta Real #220 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Mission Viejo CA 92691 024 206 43 187 024 206 44 188 024 206 45 189 Jason Boledovich Albert Tr Aizenstat AYJIAN TERRY 117 Alabama St 203 Alabama St 201 Alabama St -'-Huntington Beach CA 92648— - ---Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 _ 024 206 46 190 024 206 47 024 207 01 192 Robert Mitchel; AIZENSTAT ALBERT C!T Y OF HUNTINGTON•BE'CH 205 Alabama St 203 Alabama St PO Box 190,_-- _ Huntington Beach CA 92648 HuRWggion Beach CA 926 5 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 225 02 193 024 225 03 194 024 225 05 195 Harold Bowles Jr. Robert &Susan Delmer Michael Sutko 315 California St 305 California St PO Box 1593 Huntington Beach CA 926,i8 Huntington Beach CA cwYo Huntington Beach CA 9264' 024 225 06 196 024 225 07 - 197 024 225 09 198 Arthur Coopman David Abeling Mark Pahed 424 8th St 308 Huntington St 320 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 225 10 199 024 225 11 200 024 225 12 201 Thomas Tr Wickstrom Carolee Snow James Henry Coscia 21571 Surveyor Cir 304 Huntington St 302 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 UP DP1 1 L D 024 225 13 202 024 225 14 203 024 252 01 4 Guy O'Ffill Pamela McRea REDEVEL P AGENCY CITY O 317 California St 319 California St 200 Mai Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunli !on Bea CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 u,�0= "i �. (� uQGAjj D 024 252 02 2b5 024 253 02 2( 024 253 03 207 REDEYE PM NT AGENCY CITY O PLC W� RONT LLC WILLIAM LYON HOMES INC 660 Newpo enter Dr 10 Cor a Plaza Dr 4490 Von Karman Ave Newport eac CA 92660 Newport Be h CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 024 261 01 208 024 261 02 209 024 261 04 210 Harlo LeBard Hado& Lucille Lebard Ruth Tr Larson 308 Califor ' t 308 California St 271 E 42nd St Hun"on Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Bernardino CA 92404 024 261 05 1 024 261 06 212 024 261 07 213 Ruth Tr Larson John Tr Whelan John Tr Whelan 271 E 42nrr-St 1055 El Camino Dr#E 1055 El 9.amino-Dr#E San-Bernardino CA 9240,1 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Costa-Mesa CA 92626 024 261 08 214_,--' 024 261 09 215 024 261 10 216 John Tr Whelan James Tr Skawinski Robert Tr Josenhans Jr. 1055 El Camino Dr#E 262 Brentwood St PO Box 80582 - Costa Mesa CA 92626 Costa Mesa CA 92627 San Marino CA 91118 024 261 11 217 024 261 12 218 024 261 13 219 Frankie Hankins Gary & Ruth Simon Forrest Tr Lewis 120 Huntington St 331 N Colorado PI 41 112 Huntington St - -Huntington Beach CA 92648 --------Long Beach-CA 90814-= - Huntington Beach CA 92613 024 261 14 220 024 261 15 221 024 261 16 222 Ronald & Sally Satterfield Matthew Lamb Craig Tr Wood 110 Huntington St 106 Huntington St 616 20th St Huntington Beach CA 92046 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA P2648 024 261 17 223 024 261 18 224 024 261 19 225 Steven Emil Marion James Brown James Brown 105 Alabama St 311 Atlanta Ave 311 Atlant ve Huntington beacn u,a 92648 Huntington Beacii CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 02E40_ 024 261 20 226/ 024 261 21 227 024 261 22 228 James Brown Bernadette Bodine Stephen &Kimbely Schulz 311 Atlanta Ave__� 116-1lLHuntington St 313 Baltimore Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 261 23 229 024 261 24 230 024 261 27 231 Stephen & Kimbely Schulz Playa Casa CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 313 Baltimor�,Ave' PO Box 19528 PO Box 190E _� Huntington'Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92623 HuntingtorBeach CA 92648 024 261 28 232 024 271 05 233 024 281 02 234 Life ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH LL CITY OF HUNTIN_GTON BEACH 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 4100 Macarft'r Blvd PO Box.190 ' Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Nevdport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 jc� 024 281 10 235 024 281 14 236 024 281 15 237 CITY OF HUNTINGT ACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CO PO Box 190 PO Box 190 �- y� PO Box 285 Huntin each CA 92643 Huntin Beach CA 92648 Houston TX 77001 024 281 16 239 024 281 17 239 024 281 18 240 Huntington Beach n a HUNTINGTON BEACH CO- HUNTINGTON BEACH_CO- 4100 Macart vd #150 PO Box 285 '� PO Box 285 New each CA 92660 Houston TX 77001 Houston TX 777001 024 291 12 241 024 291 16 242 024 291 19 243 SURFSIDE VILLAS PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK LLC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 5150 Overland Ave 80 Huntington St PO Box 190..-^-"_ Culver City CA 90230 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 291 20 2 024 301 01 245 024 301 02 246 CITY OF HUN.DNGTON BEACH David Marcin Mark Alpert PO Box)pO' 20981 Coastview Ln 20975 Coastview Ln - Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 03 247 024 301 04 248 024 301 05 249 Gladys Alice DeBarcza John Obrien III Marcia Bruno 20971 Coastview Ln 20965 Coastview Ln 500 Valido Rd - -Huntington-Beach CA C-2648--- --- --Huntington Beach CA 92648 - Arcadia CA 91007 — - 024 301 06 250 024 301 07 251 024 301 08 252 Dennis Kees Lota Relato Sung Suk Tr Smith 20945 Coastview Ln 20941 Coastview Ln 20935 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach CA S2648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hur.•-�gton Beach CA 92648 024 301 09 253 024 301 10 254 024 301 11 255 Hiro Kiyan Keith Kengla WALACH JAMES 20931 Coastview Ln 20905 Coastview Ln 20901 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264o Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 12 256 024 301 13 257 024 301 14 258 Roy Henderson Ronald Beckstrom Robert Weber PO Box 7254 20891 Coastview Ln 20892 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach CA 92615 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 15 259 024 301 16 260 024 301 17 261 Jonathan Southard Kaye Peters Bruce Schade 20896 Coastview Ln 20902 Coastview Ln 20912 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 18 262 024 301 19 263 024 301 20 264 Irving Newman William Scannell Julie Gould 16312 Mandalay Cir 20926 Coastview Ln 449 Taft Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Glen Ellyn IL 60137 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� 024 301 21 265 024 301 22 266 024 301 23 267 Kelly Tickner Dennis o a CASALE ANDREW& D M 10 20942 Coastview Ln 20946 C view Ln 3339 Cold Plains Or Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunting on Bftrh CA 92648 Hacienda Heights CA 91745 024 301 24 268 024 301 25 269 024 301 26 270 Linda Endo Nancy Ramos Raymond Tr Bambery 20951 Sailmaker Cir 20945 Sailmaker Cir 20941 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 27 271 024 301 28 272 024 301 29 273 Paul Petruna Barry Bellovich Nicola Tr Costantini 20935 Sailmaker Cir 20931 Sailmaker Cir 5222 Dahlia Or Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90041 024 301 30 274 024 301 31 275 024 301 32 276 John Hawker Paul Tr Pfaff Sr. Jesse Cass 20911 Sailmaker Cir 20905 Sailmaker Cir 20901 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 33 277 024 301 34 278 024 301 35 279 Donald Riscol Charles Newman Paul Drozd 20895 Sailmaker Cir 20891 Sailmaker Cir 20892 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA_92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 36 280 024 301 37 281 024 301 38 282 Jill Eckhaus Richard Houlihan Tr Lemasters 20896 Sailmaker Cir 1617 Aspen Creek Rd 20916 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach CA 9264t; Reno NV 89509 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 39 283 024 301 40 284 024 301 41 285 Nam & Miseon Choi Matthew McGrath James Bergman 20922 Sailmaker Cir 20926 Sailmaker Cir 20932 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington 6cach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 42 286 024 301 43 287 024 301 44 288 Robert Alan Fernandez Jodi Jacobson Irina Suvorov 7846 Beachcomber Dr 5333 Buffalo Ave 7836 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Sherman Oaks CA 91401 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 45 289 024 301 46 290 024 301 47 291 Ann Cox William Tr Goodban RAGLAND 7832 Beachcomber Or 3780 Kilroy Airport Way 7816 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Long Beach CA 90806 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 301 48 292 024 301 49 293 024 301 50 294 TORTORICE Gary Stein Matthew&Amy Goodshaw 7806 Beachcomber Or 21838 Castlewood Dr 7796 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Malibu CA 90265 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 024 301 51 295 024 301 52 296 024 301 53 '297 John Yamazaki Masahiko Kito LA CUE A CO UNITY ASSN 930 Crest Ave 7786 Beachcomber Dr PO Box A Pacific Grove CA 93950 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntin n B ch CA 92648 937 150 01 298 937 150 02 299 937 15003 300 Arnold Brender Bryan &Clarette Trebelcock R & Z CROSS 6772 Derby Cir 7821 Sailboat Cir 517 N Taormina Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Anaheim CA 92806 937 15004 301 937 150 05 302 937 150 06 303 Roger& Barbara Kennedy Louis Abbondante Jose Suarez 8601 Crockett Cir 7805 Sailboat Cir#5 4695 Macarthur Ct #1430 Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92660 937 150 07 304 937 150 08 305 937 150 09 306 Elaine Rodi-Sopp Abdallah Aish Gerard Gartland 7752 Sailboat Cir 7756 Sailboat Cir 7762 Sailboat Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715010 307 937 150 11 308 93715012 309 Thomas Nasser Barbara Hehir Mary Tr Bradbury 7766 Sailboat Cir i772 Sailboat Cir 7776 Sailboat Cir#12 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715013 310 93715014 311 93715015 312 John Roberts Darren Samaha KELLY MICHAEL 7785 Sailboat Cir 7762.Sailboat Cir#14 7796 Sailboat Cir huntinglon Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington B^ach CA 92648 W ZL' 93715016 313 93715017 314 93715018 315 Janet Znider David Koenigshofer Ahmed Namoury 7802 Sailboat Cir 7812 Sailboa(Cir 6 N Island Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Rye NY i0580 937 15019 316 937 150 20 317 937 150 21 318 Sharon O'Connor George Lap-Kwan Tr Shea Robert Akers 7822 Sailboat Cir 353 Bellevue Ct 7832 Sailboat Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Altos CA 94024 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 22 319 937 150 23 320 937 150 24 321 Kelly Lund Larry Tr Smith Carlos Recharte 7836 Sailboat Cir 7841 Seabreeze Dr 7835 Seabreeze Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15025 322 937 15026 323 937 15027 324 Frank Mastroly Jr. Jeffrey Morris-Reade MATILLO RALPH & J C 7831 Seabreeze Dr 7825 Seabreeze Dr 34110 Se Iva Rd#323 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dana Point CA 92629 Pacific City 6-7-04 937 150 28 325 937 15029 326 937 150 30 327 Frank Pickett Ronald Tr Grandstaff Edward Dalke 7815 Seabreeze Dr#28 7805 Seabreeze Dr 7801 Seabreeze Dr#30 Huntington Beach CA 92643 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15031 328 937 15032 329 937 15033 330 BAUER Ted Kuniyuki Isadore & Ruth Smith 8811 Cliffside Dr 7791 Seabreeze Dr 7785 Seabreeze Dr#33 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 34 331 937 15035 332 937 150 36 333 S Marion Kindel Robert Paul Tr Sapiro Helen Tr Newton 7781 Seabreeze Dr 7771 Seabreeze Dr 7765 Seabreeze Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 37 334 937 15038 335 937 150 39 336 Herbert Morris Kevin Kennedy Ana Regina Md Failowicz 7761 Seabreeze Dr 7751 Seabreeze Dr 7745 Seabreeze Dr#39 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15040 337 937 150 41 338 937 15042 339 CCHEE NANCY KLIEM RICHARD &ANN Alan Bearden ?741 Seabreeze Dr 7742 Seabiceze Dr 7746 Seabreeze Dr Huol'utgt(m Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 43 340 937 150 44 341 937 15045 342 w )-D cer^ara Vaughan Conklin Michael Tr Ray Franklin Chu 7752 Se=breeze Dr 7756 Seabreeze Dr#44 3717 Hemlock Dr Huntingto:, peach CA 92548 Huntington Beach ^A 92648 San Bernardino CA a24^4 937 150 46 343 937 15047 344 937 15048 345 Carol Valcarcel Leatrice Tr Nash Carmen Perron 7766 Seabreeze Dr 16202 Culpepper Cir 7782 Seabreeze Dr Y.ur,Ecato,-, Peach CA 92648 Fi,nlin9'on Beach CA 92647 Huniingion Beach GA 92648 - 937 150 49 346 937 15050 347 937 15051 348 Martin Wexler Ryan & Ilse Sears Leese Cohen 7786 Seabreeze Dr 7792 Seabreeze Dr 7802 Seabreeze Dr #51 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 52 349 937 150 53 350 93715054 351 Clark& Jennifer Christensen Karen Franz Mdhat Amr 7806 Seabreeze Dr 7816 Seabreeze Dr 1247 Crestview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fullerton CA 92833 937 150 55 352 937 15056 353 937 150 57 354 Robert Tr Ray Daniel Wilson Smith Charles Tr Sm Char 7208 W Oceanfront 7832 Seabreeze Dr Char Shore Newport Beach CA 92663 Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Anchorage AK 99515 Pacific City 6-7-04 937 15058 355 937 15059 356 937 15060 357 Peter John Clarke CHURCHIN MICHAEL Pauline Ward 7842 Seabreeze Dr 7856 Seabreeze Dr 7862 Seabreeze Dr#60 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 61 358 937 150 62 359 937 150 63 360 Lee Pickett RAY MICHAEL Peggy Sommer 7866 Seabreeze Dr 7756 Seabreeze Dr 7876 Seabreeze Dr#63 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 64 361 937 150 65 362 937 15066 363 Roy Edward Tr Farmer NOONAN THOMAS& M A S Lawrence Duran 7882 Seabreeze Dr 127 Catherine Park Dr 17943 Paseo Valle Huntington Beach CA 92648 Glendora CA 91741 Chino Hills CA 91709 937 150 67 364 937 15068 365 937 15069 366 Murray Tr Gordon Jr. Arthur Chan Karlene Larson 7906 Seabreeze Dr 7912 Seabreeze Dr PO Box 2593 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 White City OR 97503 937 150 70 367 937 15071 368 937 15072 369 Ray Tr Emmons Patricia Seymour Dawn Malheny 7922 Seabreeze Dr 7981 Oceangrove Cir 61141 Mukai Ct Huntington Beach CA 92643 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 937 150 73 370 937 150 74 371 937 15075 372 Gerald Pixley Louis Fryer Sscd Stephens 16812 Gothard St 7961 Oceangrove Cir 7955 Oceangrove Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 "uni;ngton Beach CA 92648 937 15076 373 937 15077 374 937 15078 375 Ronald Boyer William Walden Katherine Visceglia 7951 Oceangrove Cir 7941 Seabreeze Dr#77 7935 Seabreeze Dr#78 Huntington Beach CH :7z648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 79 376 937 15080 377 937 150 81 378 Cathy Martin John Robert Artz Thomas Pugh 7931 Seabreeze Dr 979 7925 Seabreeze Dr 7921 Seabreeze Dr#81 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �D 937 150 82 379 937 83 380 937 15084 381 Martin Kasko Diana L eeves HUNNICUTT T 7915 Seabreeze Dr 7905 S eeze Dr 8886 Modoc Cir#1295 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunt' glon ch CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 937 150 85 382 937 15086 383 937 15087 384 Kerry Bowers Kathleen Suter Chades Nichols 7891 Seabreeze Dr 7885 Seabreeze Dr 30084 Point Marina Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Canyon Lake CA 92587 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� 937 15088 385 937 150 89 386 937 150 90 387 E & Patricia Paolinitti HEIN HILTON & M J Marjorie Stempel 7875 Seabreeze Dr 3455 Lathrop Ave 7865 Seabreeze Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Simi Valley CA 93063 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 150 91 388 937 15092 389 937 15093 390 Chris Nunez Richard Hauver Gale Ottley 7852 Moonmist Cir 7856 Moonmist Cir 5782 S 900 E Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Salt Lake City UT 84121 937 150 94 391 937 150 95 392 937 15096 393 FIRST AMERICAN TRUST BANK Colleen Foreman Joseph Sharp 7866 Moonmist Cir 18685A Main St #391 3105 Cedrona Dr NW Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Olympia WA 98502 937 150 97 394 937 15098 395 937 150 99 396 John Tripoli Cynthia Perz George Sutty 7886 Moonmist Cir 7892 Moonmist Cir PO Box 6247 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92615 93715100 397 93715101 398 93715102 399 Mark Wiedder Mary Jo Tr Hodges Thomas Hitzler 7912 Moonmist Cir 7916 Moonmist Cir#101 7901 Stoneridge Or #390 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ple::santon CA 94868 937 151 03 400 93715104 401 93715105 402 Ann Debusschere Sandv Burke Richard Shields PO u--x 4101 7932 lvloonrrist Cir 7942 Moonmist Cir Truckee CA 96160 Huntington oez;3h CA 92648 Huntington Be-,ca 92648 937 151 06 403 93715107 404 937 151 08 405 David Ellison WALTMAN RONALD &CAROL Andrea Pixley 7946 Moonmist Cir 7952 Moonmist Cir 7956 Moorimisl Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hurd;rgtor, Saach CA 92648 937 151 09 406 93715110 407 93715111 408 Karren Cornell Walter& Tine Stewart IRONS 7692 Moonmist 7966 Moonmist Cir#Ell 7985 Moonmist Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 151 12 409 93715113 410 93715114 411 GOLGART SANDY Gary Alred Daniel Tr Schaefer 7981 Moonmist Cir 7975 Moonmist Cir 7971 Moonmist Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715115 412 937 151 16 413 93715117 414 James & Maureen Passananti Jay Leonard Tr Steinberg GONZALES SANDY 7965 Moonmist Cir 268 N Rexford Dr 4340 N Capistrano Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Beverly Hills CA 90210 Dallas TX 75287 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� 937 151 18 415 937 151 19 416 937 151 20 417 John Miller Michael Tr Moshiri Gary Skousen 7941 Moonmist Cir 8802 Dorsett Dr 7925 Moonmist Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715121 418 937 151 22 419 93715123 420 Hazel Ortmann Charles Stoner Jack Napoli 7915 Moonmist Cir 7911 Moonmist Cir 7901 Moonmist Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715124 421 93715125 422 93715126 423 Heather Gross Larry Paschoal Brian Armstrong 7895 Moonmist Cir#124 7891 Moonmist Cir#125 7885 Moonmist Cir#126 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715127 424 93715128 425 93715129 426 David Hermance Karen Robertson S Pamela Higgins 7871 Moonmist Cir 7865 Moonmist Cir 7861 Moonmist Cir#129 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715130 427 93715131 428 93715132 429 EbVING Janis Okerlund Judith Ann Mendenhall 44149 Glendora Dr 7851 Moonmist Cir 7845 Moonmist Cir#132 Fremont �—A 9453; Huntington. Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach Cis 92648 93715133 430 937 151 34 431 93715135 432 Jeffrey SOneider David Tr Einhonr BEACH GIRLS LLC 7866 Southwind Cir 24236 Juanita Dr 900 Granger Farm Way Huntington Beach CA UEi8 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Las Vegas NV 89145 93715136 433 937 151 37 434 93715138 435 Beverly Ann Crane Matthew Carter Bruce Fagen 7882 Southwind Cir 7886 Southwind Cir 7892 Southwind Cir iiWiuiiyiin: peach CP. y=648 Huntingtun Breen CA 92o48 Huntington Secc^ C^ nWA..P 937 151 39 436 93715140 437 93715141 438 Isabella Castro John Carroll Linn Tr Danks 7906 Southwind Cir 7912 Southwind Cir 7916 Southwind Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715142 439 937 151 43 440 93715144 441 Carolyn Okeefe Joan Drevlow Joseph Tr Kacin 7922 Southwind Cir 7926 Southwind Cir 16312 Duchess Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 937 151 45 442 93715146 443 937 151 47 444 James Stilwell Yoko Watson Maxine Tr Kachad 7942 Southwind Cir 6942 Bestel Ave 7952 Southwind Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 Z Z 93715148 445 937 151 49 446 93715150 447 Mary Butts Michelle Gromacki AVERS SHARON 7956 Southwind Cir 7962 Southwind Cir Hunt Southwind Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 151 51 448 93715152 449 93715153 450 KAISER JAMES Stephen & Kalheryn Cruise William Curran 7985 Southwind Cir 7955 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 5858 Fawnridge Ct Huntington Beach CA 92648 Cincinnati OH 45239 93715154 451 �N7,n 937 151 55 452 937 151 56 453 David Guzman MOSELEY LORRAINE Penelope Westman 7971 Southwind Cir 19782 Bowman Ln 7961 Southwind Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715157 454 93715158 455 { 937 151 59 456 DANKS CHERRIE JIMZBBY LLC MEI PROP TIES 7916 Southwind Cir 3929 Ruskin St Downe nford Bridg Huntington Beach CA 92648 Las Vegas NV 89147 Dow C 0240 93715160 457 937 151 61 458 93715162 459 Katherine W'rigfit JINZEBY LLC John Haniplon 7925 Sout�wlnd Cir 3926 Ruskn St 7911 Southwind Cir Hunting?or. 9_sch CA 92648 Las Vegas N\%891,i Huntingion Beach CA 92648 93715163 460 93715164 461 Lorri%^Ialkar 937 151 65 462 Lynn Tr Kahn 7901 Southwind Cir PO Box 853 Marshall 'Ayers Huntirpten Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA z2648 45 Campanilla San Clemente CA 92673 937 151 66 463 93715167 464 93715168 465 Alexander Tr Wenger Daniel Lewis Scodeller Alexander Kolosow 10380 Wilshire Blvd #604 7881 Southwind Cir .(1n AO��PIPC (.L '�00'24 UV^��- �- � 7871 Southwind Cir �. ❑ Geac:�. U—t, 92648 Huntingion teach CA 92b48 937 151 69 466 93715170 467 93715171 468 Jeff& Karla Kuriel WATSON MARLENE Judith Wright 7862 Seawall Cir#169 7866 Seawall Cir#170 7872 Seawall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715172 469 93715173 470 93715174 471 Seawall Ivan e Helene Elliott King & Jenny Lue 7876 Seawall Cir 7882 Seawall Cir 7886 Seawall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715175 472 93715176 473 93715177 474 COLACCHIO Laurie Kay Smith Richard Michael Ester 7902 Seawall Cir 7906 Seawall Cir 1209 Park St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 2 ?j 937 151 78 475 937 151 79 476 93715180 477 Mary Wade Carson Michael & Evelyn Wall Emma Jean Davis Tr Laird 7916 Seawall Cir 7922 Seawall Cir#179 7926 Seawall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715181 478 937 151 82 479 937 151 83 480 Sherry Desmond Sharrie Bouman Scott Garner 19 Pemberly 7942 Seawall Cir 72 Alevera St Irvine CA 92612 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92618 93715184 481 93715185 482 937 151 86 483 Christopher& Linda Tibbets Anne Gallucci Jeri Sheehan 7952 Seawall Cir#184 7956 Seawall Cir 7962 Seawall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715187 484 93715188 485 93715189 486 Binh Dinh Dam Bonita Tr Currier SETI &ASSOCIATES- 9132 Bolsa Ave 1608 Burrukia St 600 Blue Yucca St Westminster CA 92683 Minden NV 89423 Las Vegas NV 89144 93715190 487 937 151 91 488 489 937 151 92 SETI & ASSOCIATES Thomas &Tamara Sirkel Sherry Desmond 600 Blue Yucca St 7961 Seawall Cir 1 o Pemberly Las Vegas NV 89144 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92612 93715193 490 937 151 94 491 93715195 492 Gerald Muszynski David Bruns Lc raiF.e Ennico 21625 E Deep Creek Rd 7931 Seawall Cir 509 Avenida Del Verdor Walnut CA 91789 Huntington Beach CA 92648 San. Clemente CA 92672 93715196 493 93715197 494 93715198 495 Daniel & Maria Deklrerk Anthony&Dorothy Lamorte Paul Lazarre 7921 Seawall Cir PO Box 2911 6892 Spickard Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Anaheim CA 92814 - Huntington Beach CA 92647 937 151 99 496 937 152 00 499 937 152 01 498 Marinus & Helen Dezwart Dennis & Carol Brandt Alan & Lois Kehlet 7895 Seawall Cir 7891 Seawall Cir 18781 Pinto Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa Ana CA 92705 937 15202 499 937 152 03 500 937 152 04 501 Manfred Schultz Donald Tr Marsey Bonnie Ahrens 7881 Seawall Cir 20452 Castle Rock Cir 7865 Seawall Cir#204 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 05 502 937 15206 503 937 152 07 504 Michael Kwan Peter Urquiza Susan Kaseroff 7866 Waterfall Cir 7872 Waterfall Cir 7876 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 2� 937 152 08 505 937 152 09 506 937 152 10 507 Kimberly Mahoney John Husband . Larry & Patrice Reynolds 7882 Waterfall Cir 7886 Waterfall Cir 7892 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715211 508 93715212 509 937 152 13 510 Louis Tr Schumacher Robin Tr Braithwaite Mary Madden 7906 Waterfall Cir 73042 Bel Air Rd 7916 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Palm Desert CA 92260 Huntington Beach CA 92648 93715214 511 93715215 512 W2U 93715216 513 James Zimmerman Harou & Yoko Miyano Daniel Butler 7922 Waterfall Cir 7926 Waterfall Cir 7932 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 17 514 93715218 515 93715219 516 Leatrice Tr Nash Bart & Jacquelyn Landsman Anthony Tr Williams 16202 Culpepper Cir 7946 Waterfall Cir 8951 Canary Ave Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708 937 15220 517 937 152 21 518 937 152 22 519 Robert& Moniserrat-Jason Alan & Ann Norman Robert Zavodnik 7956 Waterfali Cir#220 7962 Waterfall Cir 7966 Waterfall Cir Huntingtcn Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 23 520 937 15224 521 937 152 25 522 Donna Ande;son Jeremy Jaap Mary Larsson 7975 Waterfall Cir 7971 Waterfall Cir 7965 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92643 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 26 523 937 152 27 524 937 15228 525 Joni Fashing Stephen Cruise Samuel Abramson 7961 Watertaii Cir#226 7955 Waterfall Cir 7951 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beaui, CA 62G40 Huntington Beach CA 92=".° 937 152 29 526 937 152 30 529 937 152 31 528 Richard Powell Susan Reed Terrill Schomburg 7935 Waterfall Cir 7931 Waterfall Cir 7925 Waterfall Cir#231 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 32 531 937 152 33 530 937 15234 531 M S Reed Kira Houten-Gurnee John &Karen Johnson 7921 Waterfall Cir 7911 Waterfall Cir#233 7905 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 35 532 937 15236 533 937 152 37 534 Yun Joung Kim Ralph Curatola Gary Steele 7895 Waterfall Cir 7891 Waterfall Cir 7885 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 G 5 937 15238 535 937 15239 536 937 15240 537 AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC James Michael Hughes Wilson Scott Jr. 7881 Waterfall Cir 7875 Waterfall Cir 7871 Waterfall Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15241 538 937 152 42 539 937 15243 540 HAMADA TERUKO & BELLE Robert Belair Robert Nathan 21022 Poolside Ln 21026 Poolside Ln 21032 Poolside Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15244 541 937 15245 542 937 152 46 543 NATIONS PHILLIP & MARY Kris Olson Kris Olson 20136 Poolside Ln 21046 Poolside Ln 16111 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 937 15247 544 937 152 48 545 937 152 49 546 Martha Fuchs Dave Vernon Dennis Kranz 21052 Poolside Ln 21056 Poolside Ln 21062 Poolside Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15250 547 937 15251 548 937 152 52 549 BURNS BRUCE &TERP.I Michael Casillas Roy Grier Jr. 21066 Poolside Ln 21072 Poolside Ln 21082 Poolside Ln #12 Huntington Beach CA 92f-18 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15253 550 937 152 54 551 937 152 55 552 Sheila Thompson Gregory Clark Joseph Dambrosio 21086 Poolside Ln 21092 Poolside Ln 5812 Raphael Dr Huntington Beach CA :2648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 937 152 56 553 937 152 57 554 937 152 58 555 Jane Burke Adam Tr Sutherland Amy Lynn Phelps 21102 Poolside Ln 21106 Poolside Ln 21118 Poolside Ln Huntington Beac` CA 025A3 Huntington Beach CA 9261? Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 59 556 937 152 60 557 937 152 61 558 Alexander Dallal Derek Ness Roe]& Michelle Modina 2712 Oakhurst Ave 6782 Sicily Cir 21132 Poolside Ln Los Angeles CA 90034 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15262 559 937 152 63 560 937 15264 561 Yuji Yamasaki Khursheed & Suzanne Ahmad Vicky Dages 21136 Poolside Ln #22 7826 Bayport Dr 7822 Bayport Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 65 562 937 152 66 563 937 15267 564 James Slear Kevin Dean Michael Dahman 7816 Bayport Dr#25 7812 Bayport Dr 7806 Bayport Dr Huntington-Beach CA 92648 ---Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� 937 15268 567 937 15269 566 937 152 70 567 George Lucas Dale Hata Raymond Gottschalk 7802 Bayport Dr 1404 Todd PI 7805 Seaglen Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Montebello CA 90640 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 71 568 937 152 72 569 937 152 73 570 Allen Ray Tr Carter Martin Dome Diane Christy 1240 W Tee Loop 7815 Seaglen Dr 7821 Seaglen Dr Washington UT 84780 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15274 571 937 152 75 572 937 152 76 573 Jeri Lynn White Dennis Tr Reicks Sharon Buckwell 7825 Seaglen Dr 7832 Seaglen Dr 7826 Seaglen Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15277 574 937 152 78 575 937 152 79 576 David Lasky Edward Bergelt Jr. Betty Seade 7822 Seaglen Dr 7816 Seaglen Dr 7812 Seaglen Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 80 577 937 152 81 578 937 152 82 579 Cassandra Bevers RUSSELL Edward Matillo 7806 Seagler. Or 7796 Seaglen Dr 7792 Seaglen Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 152 83 580 W 2 p 937 152 84 581 937 152 85 582 Sharc. Craig Donald Dey Mark& Terri Leuenberger 544 NW View Ridge Way 7782 Seaglen Dr#44 7776 Seaglen Dr Camas WA 98607 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 15 �6,, C O 583 937 192 32 584 937 192 33 585 Jeffrey N der Hatfield CITY OF HUNT NG.TON BEACH Robert Tr Koury 7772 Sea ^ Dr 2000 Main St 200 Main St#206 Hunlir n Ro -h r:n 02g4a Huntington Bee^h CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA c?aaa 939 500 01 586 939 500 02 58i 7 939 500 03 588 Life Life Life 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific'Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific-Coast Hwy Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 93950004 589 939 500 05 590 939 500 06 591 Life Life Life 2309 Pacific Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy Herm each CA 90254 Hermosa-Beach CA 90254 Hermosa'Beach CA 90254 939 500 07 592-� 939 500 08 593.,,,,. 939 500 09 594 Life /J Life - Life 2309 f9cific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific-C6- sa t Hwy _ Hermosa-Beach_CA 9025A Hermosa_BeachCA_90254 _. Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Pacific City 6-7-04 Z 7 939 500 10 595 939 500 11 596 939 00 12 597 Life I .r�r" Anne Bellino Life \ ,.= ' 2309 Pacific C ast'Hwy 19856 Deep Harbor Dr 2309 P cific Coa t Hwy Herm9,a�8eace CA 90254 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Herm a Beach A 90254 939 500 13 598 9 500 14 ' 599 �< 39 500 15 60, Life Life Life 2309 Pacific C' ast Hwy 2309 Pacific C ast Hwy 2309 Pacific Co st Hwy He�osa'Beac CA 90254 Hermosa Bea CA 90254 Hermosa Bea A 90254 939 500 16 601 r 939 500 17 `602 939 500 18 603 Life Life Life 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pack oast Hwy 2309'Pacific:Co. t Hwy Hermosa Beact CA 90254 Hermosa Be h CA 90254 H rmosa Beach A 90254 939 500 19 �04 r 939 500 20 605 J 939 500 21 -.606 Life r Life r Life 2309 Pacific'Caast Hwy 2309 Pacific oast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coa t Hwy Hermosa Beacti CA 90254 Hermosa Be ch CA 90254 Hermosa Beach A 50254 ."l- 939 500 22 607 - 939 500 23 , 1608 939 500 24 609 Life `f Life Life 2309 PaciCic Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy i lermosa Be2clh CA 90254 Hermosa BE ac:i CA 3 54 Hermosa Beach A 90254 939 500 25 610-. 939 500 26 ,%'611 939 500 27 612 Life I Life / Life 2309 Pacifi.'Iz)ast Hwy 2309Paekill oast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coz,st Hwy Hermosa oaAi JA 90254 Hermosa :ch 9"254 Hermosa Beach A 9025 939 500 28 613� 939 500 29 614 939 500 30 615 Life Life Life 2309 Pacific fast Hwy 2309 Pack Coast Hwy 2309 PacTc Co st Hwy "ermcs"a 3elach CA 90254 r'erm-;G'a -ac` C".90254 HFrmnca Beach CA 90264 93950031 616- 939 500 3 617 939 500 33 618 ..r Life �� Life Life 2309 Pacificl Coast Hwy 2309 Paci c'Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific C ast Hwy Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Hermosa each CA 90254 Hermosa Beacf CA 90254 1 93950034 619 --- 939 500 3 620-- 939 500 36 621 Life Life !-��`F Life 2309 Pacific Coast H 2309_Paci is Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy Harm HermosaCA 254 Hermosa each CA 90254 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 I 93950037 622 939 500 38 623- 939 500 39 624 Life Life Life 2309 Pacifi Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy --Hermosa- each-@A-902i54 Hermosa-Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Pacific City 6-7-04 2 939 500 40 625 939 500 41 626 939 500 42 627 Life Life Lifea, 2309 2309 Pacific C- as Hermosa ch CA 90254' Hermosa Bea h CA 90254 Hermosa Beak CA 902 939 500 43 8 - 939 500 44 629,,.- 939 500 45 630- Life Life Life 2309 Pacific.0o st Hwy 2309 Pacific oast Hwy 2309 Pack Goo st Hwy HermosaSeach CA 90254 Hermosa Bea h CA 90254 Hermosa B ach CA 90254 939 500 46 631 r- 939 500 47 632 93� 0 48 633 Life / Life Lif 2309 Pacific Co st Hwy 2309 Pack ast Hwy 2 09 Pack Co t Hwy Hermosa'Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Bea h CA 90254 Hermosa Beach A 90254 y i 939 500 49 634 9 50050 635 - 939 500 51 636 LifeLife Life 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 acfic Cast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coas Hwy Hermosa Beacf1 CA 90254 Hermo Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beach C 90254 939 500 52 637 939 500 53 638 - ' 939 500 54 639_ Life Life Life 2309 Pacific C ast Hwy 2303 Pacific,C t H 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Herrnesa Beac 1 0254 Fiermosk Bc=c C 90254 939 500 55 640-' 939 500 56 641. 939 500 57 642 Life Life Life "d 9 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Paci Cast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy Tier�iosa Beach CA 90254 tiermr/ eac i CA 90254 Hermosa Be@& C k 90254 m � _ 939 500 58 n.643 93,950059 ,644 939 500 60 645 Life I,rfe Life " 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pack C ast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy Hermosa Beach CA 90254 ricunu_a Bea CA 90254 u--rmcE2 ueach CA 90254 939 500 61 646 939 500 62 647--" \\939 500 63 648-_ .- Life Life Life 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 2309 Pacific C ast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coas Hwy Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beac CA 90254 Hermosa Beach C 90254 939 500 64 649 939 500 65 650 939 500'66 651_- .. Life Life Life 2309 Pacific Coast H 2309 Pacific ast Hwy 2309 Pac fi6,Coa t Hwy Hermosa Beal h C 0254 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beach A 90254 939 500 67 652 939 500 68 ._65 Life Life Life 23 cifrc Coast H acific C ast Hwy 2309 Pacific Coast H —M&Mbsa 13e 54 i'e,rtosa Beaoh4QA480254 ----------- _ Hermosa Beach CA 90254 - Pacific City 6-7-04 ZGl 939 500 70 655 939 500 71 656 939 500 72 657 Life Life � Life 2309 Pacific st Hwy 2309 Pacif st�Hwy 2309 Pacific-CoassHwy Hermo each CA 90254 He a Beach CA 90254 4 orm sa Beach CA 90254 939 500 73 65� 939 500 74 659 939 500 75 660 Life / Life Life 2309 Pacifi�Coast Hwy 2309 Pac �og Hwy 2309 P�acfic oast Hwy Hermosa-Beach CA 90254 Hem sa-Beach CA 90254 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 939 500 761 939 502 36 662 939 502 37 663 Life James Huey Donald Paul Mayer 2309 Po€rc Coast Hwy 430 Lake St#101 430 Lake St #102 Heandsa Beach CA 90254 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 38 664 939 502 39 665 939 502 40 666 Roberta Yescas William Allen Rankin Mark Appleyard 430 Lake St#103 430 Lake St#104 430 Lake St#105 - Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 41 667 939 502 42 668 939 502 43 669 Lisa Stitt Joseph Patrick Caughey SLINGSBY ROBERT& LINDA 430 Lake St#106 430 Lake St#107 2187 Kiwi Cir Huntington Beach :;A 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Corona CA 92879 939 502 44 670 939 502 45 671 939 502 46 672 Mark & Penny Hauser John & Brenda Hopton Jr. Gregory McCaughey 430 Lake St#201 430 Lake St#202 430 Lake St#203 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 47 673 939 502 48 674 W2� 939 502 49 675 Leopold Ferrante Charles Cashmere Martin Boyd 1036 Fortune Way 430 Lake St#205 430 Lake St#206 Los Angeles UA auu42 Huntington Beach OA 92043 Huntington Beach CA 22548 939 502 50 676 939 502 51 677 939 502 52 678 Gary Scapellati Jimmy Tr Yanez William Wesley Bonilla 430 Lake St#207 7581 Hazard Ave#C 430 Lake St#301 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 53 679 939 502 54 680 939 502 55 681 Joyce Kuo BRUNELLI LITTERAL 430 Lake St #302 5782 Shasta Cir 430 Lake St#304 Huntington Beach CA 92648 La Palma CA 90623 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 56 682 939 502 57 683 939 502 58 684 Edward Eisman Peggy Smookler Corby Michael Bacco 430 Lake St#305 PO Box 4943 420 Lake St#102 --FiTntingIUnl 8-each-rA-92848 Scottsdaie-AZ-85261 -- - Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 939 502 59 685 939 502 60 686 939 502 61 687 Daryl Buck Shawn Rozdal Ryan Hopkins 420 Lake St#103 420 Lake St#104 420 Lake St#105 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 62 688 939 502 63 689 939 502 64 690 Wilbur &Tsai Roadhouse Joseph Nabor Jon Dickinson 420 Lake St#160 420 Lake St#107 420 Lake St#201 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 65 691 939 502 66 692 939 502 67 693 Thomas & Joan Cash Carrie Williams Frank Dispalalo 420 Lake St#202 420 Lake St#203 512 Pierside Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 68 694 939 502 69 695 939 502 70 696 Kishore Kamik Albert Gasparian Raymond Ganem 420 Lake St#205 420 Lake St#206 4482 Barranca Pkwy #192 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92604 939 502 71 697 939 502 72 698 939 502 73 699 Micha:! Corrao Laura Yvonne Ecker Laurie Gaw 420 Lake St#301 420 Lake St#302 420 Lake S!#303 Beach CA 92648 Huntingteq Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 74 700 939 502 75 701 939 502 76 702 Mark Web;ar James Paulus Arlene Barrera 420 Lake St#304 420 Lake St#305 360 E 229th St !untinn.ton teach CA 92648 Huntington Sean CA 92648 Carson CA 90745 939 502 77 703 939 502 78 704 939 502 79 705 Peggy Gallagher Harold Montoya Andrew Hardy 410 Lake St#102 9702 Melinda Cir 410 Lake St#104 Beach CA 92648 Hiln!inglorn Reach CA 92646 Huntincton Beach CA 92648 939 502 80 706 939 502 81 707 939 502 82 708 Glenn &Virginia Leveque Peter Kelley II Donald Stonebraker 410 Lake St #105 410 Lake St#106 410 Lake St#107 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 83 709 939 502 84 710 939 502 85 711 RIOS CARLOS Terry Krukoff Thomas Kotiranla 410 Lake St 410 Lake St#202 410 Lake St#203 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 86 712 939 502 87 713 939 502 88 714 Amy Hansen David & Diane Yrisard Marcia Rosenberg 410 Lake St#204 410 Lake St#205 410 Lake St #206 FJunt'pgtpp$egr17 CA 9?64A HLnGngtonB.each CA 9264.�____.____ Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 2j� 939 502 89 715 939 502 90 716 939 502 91 717 Frederick Clark Jr. Kevin & Moriah Sanford John Shanks 410 Lake St#207 410 Lake St#301 1237 Alabama St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 92 718 939 502 93 719 939 502 94 720 John McMillan Matthew Barr Nickolas&Vasilka Markoff 410 Lake St#303 430 Lake St#104 410 Lake St#305 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 95 721 939 502 96 722 939 502 97 723 Robert This VANTILBORG Scott Groskreutz 400 Lake St#101 400 Lake St#102 400 Lake St#103 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 98 724 939 502 99 725 939 503 00 726 Nidal Ibrahim Mark Cooper Michael Curtis 400 Lake St#104 400 Lake St#105 400 Lake St#106 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 01 727 939 503 02 728 939 503 03 729 Kevin &Annette Costello Jon & Helen Bernadette Miller Bruce llbert Wareh 416 Lake St#107 400 Lake St#108 400 Lake St#109 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hur,"r.gtc;; Beach CA 92648 939 503 04 730 939 503 05 731 939 503 06 732 Gene Norvell Snanon Christiansen Carolyn Mariano 1808 Park St 400 Lake St #201 4G0 Lake S!#202 :untington Eeach CA 92648 Huntic0lon Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 07 733 939 503 08 734 939 503 09 735 Toshiya Katsuyama Richard Koch Barbara McCall 400 Lake St#203 400 Lake St#204 1163 Aviemore Ter Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ccsta Mesa CA 92627 939 503 10 736 939 503 11 737 939 503 12 738 Philip Carlton Brown Gina Lee Mago Cris & Janet Abad 17530 Page Ct 400 Lake St#207 9372 Portsmouth Dr Yorba Linda CA 92886 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 939 503 13 739 939 503 14 740 939 503 15 741 Rita Garcia Robert Bruch Joan Marie Hill 400 Lake St#209 400 Lake St#210 16731 Oleander Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708 939 503 16 742 939 503 17 743 939 503 18 744 Raymond Ari Schmidler Ronald Irvin Gary & Rhonda Walker 400 Lake St#302 400 Lake St#303 400 Lake St #304 --Ffi n1tngtonr'Reach-CA-92648 Huntington Beach-CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 Z, 939 503 19 745 939 503 20 746 939 503 21 747 Richard Lisi Jr. Stephen Ganem Christopher Vail 60 Half Moon Trl 400 Lake St#306 400 Lake St#307 Ladera Ranch CA 92694 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 22 748 939 503 23 749 939 503 24 750 Christopher Garberg William Roadhouse Dustin Kuhn 320 Lake St#101 320 Lake St#102 320 Lake St#103 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 25 751 939 503 26 752 939 503 27 753 George Jeffrey Schwartz Gary & Connie Wittman Anthony Liberto 320 Lake St 9104 1720 Pacific Coast Hwy#1 320 Lake St#106 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 28 754 939 503 29 755 939 503 30 756 Robert Nulton Arlen Pantel Patrick Patterson 320 Lake St#107 PO Box 687 320 Lake St#109 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 31 757 939 503 32 758 939 503 33 759 Ross Reyes Donn Tr Brooks James Smith 320 Lake St#110 560 Hidden Ridge Ct 1194 N Ridgeline Rd Huntington Beach CA 92648 Encinitas CA 92024 Qmnge CA 92869 939 503 34 760 939 503 35 761 939 503 36 762 Williamj & Linda Engstrom LOOB BEVERLY Gary& Linda Peterson 20841 Shell Harbor Cir 320 Lake St#204 6342 Vatcher Dr Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunt:,gton Beach CA 92647 939 503 37 763 939 503 38 764 939 503 39 765 CRUISE MARY David Crockett Eugene Lim Jr. 320 Lake St#206 320 Lake St#207 320 Lake St#208 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 9264E Huntington Beach CA 92648 1,Pt::; t t=C 939 503 40 766 939 503 41 767 939 503 42 768 Philip Barth George Stooke KOGA 320 Lake St#209 320 Lake St#210 2845 To a Rd #330 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 We a Villa C, 91361 939 503 43 769 939 503 44 770 939 503 45 771 Todd Stitt Beatrice Sasano Dan Scott 320 Lake St#302 320 Lake St#303 320 Lake St#304 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 46 772 939 503 47 773 W Z 939 503 48 774 Allen Craig Jason Macdonald Irene Sjo 320 Lake St#305 320 Lake St#306 320 Lake St#307 �S�AfBtf�ii2ii�ir.��ytpp,$e.�GG,GA,9264� Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hut [rtrrc�rcr� Beau+ CA 92O° Pacific City 6-7-04 2j3 939 503 49 775 939 503 50 776 939 503 51 777 Diana Gillard Michael Pontrelli Joseph Rice 106 Telfair PI 242 Colton St 310 Lake St#102 Athens GA 30606 Newport Beach CA 92663 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 52 778 939 503 53 779 939 503 54 780 Alia Tabbah G Richard Gilliam DAVIS 310 Lake St#310 310 Lake St#104 310 Lake St#105 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 55 781 939 503 56 782 939 503 57 783 Frank Tr Radmacher John Cunningham Jessica Tr Pizano-Cruz 9542 Featherhill Dr 310 Lake St#107 610 Grant St Villa Park CA 92861 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Bettendorf IA 52722 939 503 58 784 939 503 59 785 939 503 60 786 Ernest Tr Mayer Max Wood Joseph Shults 13970 Morrison St 310 Lake St#202 310 Lake St#203 Sherman Oaks CA 91423 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 L`QDATED 93950361 787 939 503 62 788 939 03 63 789 Marie Quinn ltindi Berke Jean t ' 310 Lake St#204 310 Lake St#205 310 Lake ' Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hantingto , 6escP CA 92648 Hu ' ton Beach ,, 92648 v\nO 939 503 64 790 939 503 65 791 939 503 66 792 Evelyn Romca:co Brian Liberto John &Sandra Peterson 310 Lake Cl 9207 310 Lake St#208 1846 Main St Huntington C,3ach CA 92648 Huntington Beach.CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 67 793 939 503 68 794 939 503 69 795 Ellen Faith Kruger Weston Chandler Edmund & Marcela Lorence 310 Lake St#302 310 Lake St#3G3 510 22nd St Lmaingtor, Beach CA 92648 , .,:7.8ny.a, 3ea�h CA 92648 Hiinlinntnn Beach CA 92648 939 503 70 796 939 503 71 797 939 503 72 798 Daniel Hsu Raquel Tr Strange David &Adriana Perry 310 Lake St#305 310 Lake St #306 310 Lake St#109 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 73 799 939 503 74 800 939 503 75 801 Howard Gollay Paul Letourneau Gabriel Ad White 6372 Royal Grove Dr 310 Lake St#111 310 Lake St #112 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 76 802 939 503 77 803 939 503 78 804 Harry & Johanna Roe Tetsuya Fukami Jacob Kringen 207 Via Orvieto 2045 Phalarope Ct 310 Lake St#115 Huntington Beach CA 92648 tl!eoc!R ?(aA!Cti i cizrzC 3 Gd�TA M A gZ(ozCo Pacific City 6-7-04 3 �" 939 503 79 805 63950380 806 939 503 81 807 Michael Mulrie Nenad &Janet Tamburin Dale & Ana Collisson 310 Lake St#116 310 Lake St #209 310 Lake St#210 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 62 808 939 503 83 809 939 503 84 810 Mark Rosen Conrad & Tia Gilbert Jacko Luong 114 Avenida Baja 310 Lake St #212 310 Lake St#213 San Clemente CA 92672 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 85 811 939 503 86 812 939 503 87 813 Shireen Sachdev Rustin Guild Nick Jay Bogroff 310 Lake St 9214 310 Lake St #215 310 Lake St#216 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 88 814 939 503 89 815 939 503 90 816 Douglas Bumett Mary Kay Shanahan Dean & Marilyn Fetter 310 Lake St #307 310 Lake St#308 310 Lake St#309 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 91 817 939 503 92 818 939 503 93 819 Phillip Cacianti Marvin Leroy Marlin Sandie Martin 310 Lake St#310 310 Lake St#311 310 Lake St#312 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92G40 939 503 94 820 939 505 10 821 939 505 11 822 Tapio & Seija Leino Marilyn Monlero Gordon Hain 310 Lake St 4313 200 Pacific Coast Hwy t lot 537 Newport Center Dr#5 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 926;� Newport Beach CA 92660 y. 939 505 12 823 )2;1 939 505 13 824 939 505 14 825 Michael & Pi Zu Tsai Louis Nemeth Curtis Heffernan 1878 Calle La Paz PO Box 6113 200 Pacific Coast Hwy�705 Rowland Heights CA 91748 Huntington. reach Ce.92615 Huntingtc,i Cccc` C^. 939 505 15 826 939 505 16 827 939 505 17 828 Wolfgang Haubold Rudy Sanchez Francisco& Norma Fabrregas 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #100 1036 La Cresta PI 200 Pack Coast Hwy #1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fullerton CA 92835 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 18 829 939 50519 830 W 2p 9X831 John Crews Guy Dominguez R 13653 Beach St 200 Pack Coast Hwy#110 5309 Cerritos CA 90703 Huntington Beach CA 92648 33 939 505 21 832 939 505 22 833 939 505 23 834 Gorgen & Barbara Youssefian BARTLETT Michael& Robin Johnson 2530 Union Ave 607 7th St 806 S Thoroughbred St �63/ Huntington$eacLLA-92648— Alta Loma CA 91701 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� 939 505 24 835 939 505 25 836 939 505 26 837 U Ernest& Kathryn Hwang Joyce Duffield William & illiam rrftith Sr. 5450 Peacock Ln 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#11 b 806 S Sa n Riverside CA 92505 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ana CA 9 7 939 505 27 838 939 505 28 839 939 505 29 840 William Roadhouse Sasha Victorine Briana Miller 200 Pacific Coast Hwy1 fig 200 Pack Coast Hwy#1 19 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#1 ZO Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 30 841 939 505 31 842 939 505 32 843 W 2D Mariano Cruz Kenneth &Julie Borja Amalia Tr Salazar 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#1 lb 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#1{9 M7- 835 San Marino Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Montebello CA 90640 939am o 844 Vidal el 845 Car50 3�$46 William Copeland Vidal Espeleta Carlos sra 2024 9th St 2746 N Vista Heights Ave 901E ek Rd La Verne CA 91750 Orange CA 92867 Co ' a CA 9172 939 505 36 &47 939 505 37 848 939 505 38 849 Francisco Albizu Paul Byrne III Khanh Tran 200 Pacific Coast HwyJ-/2-7 5571 Ocean Terrace Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy4ly� Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 39 850 939 505 40 851 939 505 41 852 John Pairish William Roadhouse Christopher Corder PO Brax 77100 301 Main S;,1112 200 Pack Coast Hvey.E132- Corona CA 92877 Huntington Bea0 CA 92648 HunEnglon Bea&, CA Q2648 939 505 42 853 939 505 43 854 939 50,144 55 Joanne Bohnke Randolph Payne Ei Shin 13681 San Juan Ct 6201 Morningside Dr 200 Pa ' Hwy #1 36 CNno CA 91710 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i lun.i y.cn 3esc : A 92648 939 505 45 856 939 505 46 857 939 505 47 858 Steven Russell Chidester Gina C Yu Michael Womack 9932 Saint Marys Cir 200 Pacific Coast Hwy.&138 7205 Sherwood Dr Santa Ana CA 92705 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 48 859 9395 49 860 939 505 50 861 Robert & Suzanne Stookey Kenji Koi i BARTLETT 20611 Pleasant Ridge Dr 350 S R oa St#127 607 7th St Fort Wayne IN 46819 Los eles 90071 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 51 862 939 505 52 863 939 505 53 864 BARTLETT HOLTZCLAW Shu Mei Tsai 607 7th 200 Pack Coast Hwy#250 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#l45 +1unt -CA92648 Huntington-Beach h( A92648_ Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 3� 939 505 54 865 939 505 55 866 939 505 56 867 Mary Tracy Michael Cleary III Richard Tr Theil Jr. 200 Pack Coast Hwy #146 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 1147 200 Pacific Coast Hwy-d/'f8 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 57 868 W 2Q 939 505 58 869 939 505 59 870 Michael Colacarro Jr. Todd Rynearson Douglas Gaboya III 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#1 Ll 11 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 4/50 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #2 0lb Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 60 871 939 505 61 872 939 505 62 873 Jack Fryer Jessi Ross Tr Amspoker 200 Pacific Coasi Hwy 2a$ 200 P oast Hwy #207 36449 Tierra Subida Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington BE CA 92648 Palmdale CA 93551 939 505 63 874 939 505 64 875 939 505 65 876 Ting-Li Chen Daniel & Nataliya Finnerty Darin Remsing 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#216 964 Hemingway Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 42 IF Huntington Beach CA 92648 Corona CA 92880 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 vv 20 505 66 877 939 505 67 878 939 505 68 879 Emma Niznik Eric Yao Manouc Tr Simsian 3,13 South Ave 52 PO Box 17196 927 Crescent Dr Los Angeles CA 90042 Irvine CA 92623 Monrovia CA 91016 939 505 69 880 939 505 70 881 939 505 71 882 Takis'stotpermiss Alfonso Ragus Llacuna Adel Albadawi 12050 uff Ava Penthouse 703(32a N 0etx-hu,s f 2408 Santiago Doww,by CA 241 Beverly Hilis CA 90210 La Verne CA 91750 W20 939 505 72 883 939 505 73 884 939 505 74 885 Mario Ricciardi ALTE O LTD Theodore Frankiewicz 200 Pacific Coast Hvy#239 411 �t m^s4r &*Ib4' 16727 Cobbler Crossing Di Huntington Beach CA 92648 Osaka Sugar Lana i y.77478 Gh vo —Ku Jap �'! 939 505 75 886 939 505 76 887 939 505 77 688 Michael Johnson SABRY Richard& ada n Miller 200 Pacific Coast Hwy z6v 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 9300 200 Pacifi ast Hwy#307 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hu rifingfon Be h CA 92648 939 505 78 889 93950579 K858 890 939 505 80 891 James Lim ROSENENTS LLLP Chet& Karla Cox 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #30Z 7537 N Vacas 2232 Chatsworth Ct Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tucson Henderson NV 89074 1," \ . . . 939 505 Nj 892 939 505 82 893 939 505 83 894 John & Pa 'ci eefner David & Debie Degrazio Kelly Ditmore 200 Pacific ast Hwy #30*7 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#307 200 Pacific Coast Hwy.0430$ --littntlntJ e 'CA'92648 —t ianfington-Beach-CA92648— Huntington Beach CA 92648 — Pacific City 6-7-04 �j7 939 505 84 ` 895 939 505 85 896 939 505 86 897 Maurice and Khanh Nguyen Laura Stout 200 P 1 Coast Hwy#3[1 1997 Mcdaniel Ave 200 Pacific Coast Hwy4f&*3 Hunti gton each CA 92648 San Jose CA 95126 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 505 87 898 939 505 8 899 939 505 89 900 Edward & Linda Hanh Gary Hair an Loretta Lee Tr Of The Biederma Hamil 2904 E Echo Hill Way 200 Pac oast Hwy#3 1 rj 9308 El Valle Ave Orange CA 92867 Huntin on ach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708 939 505 90 901 939 505 91 902 939 505 92 903 SCHAUER GIL Edmund Evangelista Jeffrey Holmes 1000 Pacific Coast Hwy#8 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#3 1,7 1700 Samar Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Costa Mesa CA 92626 939 505 93 904 '0 2,17939 505 94 905 939 505 95 906 Michael Barsom Gail Pickart Eblasam Khaled 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#322 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#3 L3 21311 Lochlea Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 939 505 96 907 939 505 97 908 939 505 96 909 Irwin Ting Wayne Rylski Robin Tr i ite 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#3Z5 730 13th St 200 Pac' ast Hwy 3t� Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Be ch CA 92648 939 50 9 910 939 506 00 911 939 506 01 912 SHIN Aton ADRdro AKtanchD 200 P Sue Moast Hw200 Poast Hwy#3Z9 200 P Hwy#3 2Z 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 133�(Huntineach CA 92648 Hunti CA 92648 iunlinglon beach CA 92648 939 506 02 913 939 506 03 914 939 506 04 915 Randolph Payne Ernest Feld Quan &Trang Duong :3201 Morningside Dr 1957 Malcolm Ave 4962 Rultner Cl Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90025 San Jose CA 95111 �V2D 939 506 05 916 939 506 06 917 939 506 07 918 OKACHI SHOJI CO LTD Jack Parks Cathleen Tr Greinke 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #3 35 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 103 1 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#3q7- Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 506 8 919 939 506 09 920 939 506 10 921 William B rs Peggie Cherie Pearson David Skidmore 433 Be ill Dr 200 Pack Coast Hwy#3kS 200 Pack Coast Hwy #3�{b Coppell TX 7 019 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 506 11 922 939 506 12 923 939 506 13 924 Allison Richman BRYANT Paul 8 Letha Strain 200 Pacific Coast Hwy {7 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#3H8 5029 Pedley Rd Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Riverside CA 92509 Pacific City 6-7-04 939 506 14 925 939 506 15 926 W 939 506 16 927 Wilbur Roadhouse Maurice Gerard DROESSLER 1115 Broken Hills Or 8311 Snowbird Or 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #40 y Henderson NV 89015 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 506 17 928 939 506 18 929 939 506 19 930 Joseph Sanders ALTE CO Louis Chavez 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 944 Jgpb 1267 W Kildare St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Osaka . — Lancaster CA 93534 939 506 20 931 939 506 21 932 939 506 22 933 Gene lansiti Jean Tr Perrin Kyle Leeroy Byron 200 Pacific Coast HwyAgl 3 200 Pacific Coast Hwy A Y15 200 Pacific Coast Hwy A4/0, Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i'1..- - _ 0 939 506 23 934 939 506 4 935 939 506 25 936 Hien Duc Tran Robin Ada Bianca Tr Hohverda 200 Pack Coast Hwy ,$ki8 200 Pa ' ast Hwy 94 7,0 200 Pacific Coast Hwy +0 yZZ Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 506 26 937 939 506 27 938 939 506 28 939 Thjnias & Carol McCann Thomas & Carol McCann---" SIEF MARY 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#4Zq 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #4Z6/ 1200 Imperial Or Hun'„ngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Glendale CA 91207 O 939 506 29 940 W?. 939 506 30 941 939 506 31 942 Perri Putrasahan Adel Zeidan Leslie Pinchuk 11860 Cambridge Rd 200 Pacific Coast Hwy #44A, 11425 Dona Evita Or Loma Linda CA a235^ Huntington Beach CA 92646 Studio City CA 91604 939 506 943 939 506 33 944 939 506 34 945 Robert 8 2 u Lan Joy Miyaoka David Abu 200 Pa c' oast Hwy#497 16461 Redlands Ln 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#M 9 nauii5 0or, 2 ._ ch CA 92648 Huntington, Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 506 35 946 939 506 36 947 939 506 37 948 Janet Taylor Theresa McKinnon Janet Delaney 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#M17 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#M 29 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#M Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 506 38 949 939 506 39 950 939 502 41 669 Gary Baker Craig Rowen Lisa Stitt 2110 Treeridge Cir 200 Pacific Coast Hwy#M 5a 1525 Havasu PI Brea CA 92821 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Placentia CA 92870 Pacific City 6-7-04 „1096s jasel slaqel ssaippy ®A213AV 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #1 80 HUNTINGTON ST #10 80 HUNTINGTON ST #101 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#102 80 HUNTINGTON ST#103 80 HUNTINGTON ST#104 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#105 80 HUNTINGTON ST #106 80 HUNTINGTON ST#107 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #108 80 HUNTINGTON ST#109 80 HUNTINGTON ST #11 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#110 80 HUNTINGTON ST#111 80 HUNTINGTON ST #112 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #113 80 HUNTINGTON ST #114 80 HUNTINGTON ST#115 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#116 80 HUNT]NGTON ST #117 80 HUNTINGTON ST#118 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#119 80 HUNTINGTON ST #12. 80 HUNTINGTON ST #120 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #121 80 HUNTINGTON ST #122 80 HUNTINGTON ST #123 RESIDENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON EACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #151 80 HUNTINGTON ST #152 80 HUNTINGTON ST#153 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 fo p091s jot aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 W,slaays paal 410ows WL096s easel slagel ssaippy ®AU3AV 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #154 80 HUNTINGTON ST #155 80 HUNTINGTON ST #156 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#157 80 HUNTINGTON ST #158 80 HUNTINGTON ST #159 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #160 80 HUNTINGTON ST#161 80 HUNTINGTON ST #162 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #163 80 HUNTINGTON ST#164 80 HUNTINGTON ST #165 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #166 80 HUNTINGTON ST#167 80 HUNTINGTON ST #168 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#169 80 HUNTINGTON ST#170 80 HUNTINGTON ST #171 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #2 80 HUNTINGTON ST #201 80 HUNTINGTON ST #202 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST 9203 80 HUNTINGTON ST #204 80 HUNTINGTON ST #205 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #206 80 HUNTINGTON ST#207 80 HUNTINGTON ST #208 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #209 80 HUNTINGTON ST #210 80 HUNTINGTON ST #211 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 p09is jo}aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 W,slaa4S paaA 410ow5 L41 W1096S easel slagel ssaappy ®A213Atf 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#212 80 HUNTINGTON ST #213 80 HUNTINGTON ST #214 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #215 80 HUNTINGTON ST#216 80 HUNTINGTON ST #217 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #218 80 HUNTINGTON ST 9219 80 HUNTINGTONSY#220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTING-TOlq-IBEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT �� ��^'�"� RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #221 80 HUNTING�O # 80 HUNTINGTON ST #251 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUN�TiNGTN BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #252 80 HUNTINGTON ST #253 80 HUNTINGTON ST #254 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #255 80 HUNTINGTON ST #256 80 HUNTINGTON ST #257 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT _ - 80 HUNTINGTON ST #258 80 HUNTINGTON ST #259 80 HUNTINGf6N'ST #259 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648_ HUNTCNGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#260 80 HUNTINGTON ST #261 80 HUNTINGTON ST #262 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #263 80 HUNTINGTON ST#264 80 HUNTINGTON ST #265 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #266 80 HUNTINGTON ST #267 80 HUNTINGTON ST#268 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 @091S ioi aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 Wlslaa4S Paaj 410ow�2— W10965 easel slagel ssojppV ®A?J3AV Q� 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#269 80 HUNTINGTON ST#3 80 HUNTINGTON ST #301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST 9302 80 HUNTINGTON ST#303 80 HUNTINGTON ST #304 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #305 80 HUNTINGTON ST#306 80 HUNTINGTON ST #307 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #308 80 HUNTINGTON ST#309 80 HUNTINGTON ST #310 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #311 80 HUNTINGTON ST#312 80 HUNTINGTON ST#313 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT �! 80 HUNTINGTON ST #314 80 HUNTINGTON ST #315 80 HUNG OPFP, I— N ST #316 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HI�IVTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNT[NGTON ST#317 80 HUNTINGTON ST#351 80 HUNTINGTON ST#352 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #353 80 HUNTINGTON ST#354 80 HUNTINGTON ST #355 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #356 80 HUNTINGTON ST#357 80 HUNTINGTON ST #358 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #359 80 HUNTINGTON ST #360 80 HUNTINGTON ST #361 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 p09L5 iol aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 Wislaays paaJ 41OOws 2 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#362 80 HUNTINGTON ST #363 80 HUNTINGTON ST #364 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #365 80 HUNTINGTON ST #366 80 HUNTINGTON ST #367 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 — 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT �N 80 HUNTINGTON ST#368 80 HUJI1N� ON ST#369 80 HUNTINGTON ST #370 �N HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUfdfGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT ��� RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON-ST#371 80 HUNTINGTON ST#372 80 HUNTINGTON ST #4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#401 80 HUNTINGTON ST 9402 80 HUNTINGTON ST#403 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#404 80 HUNTINGTON ST#405 80 HUNTINGTON ST #406 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #407 80 HUNTINGTON ST #408 80 HUNTINGTON ST #409 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #410 80 HUNTINGTON ST #411 80 HUNTINGTON ST #412 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #413 80 HUNTINGTON ST #414 80 HUNTINGTON ST #415 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 IRESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT P0 HUNTINGTON ST 4416 80 HUNTINGTON ST #417 80 HUNTINGTON ST #418 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 �0 AVERY® Address Labels pacific City 6-7-04 Laser 5960TM� I N10965 lase3 slage3 ssaippy eAUBA V p� 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST#419 80 HUNTINGTON ST #420 RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON STHUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #422 80 HUNTIN!G ON ST D RESIDENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUt S-NGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON EAC80 HUNTINGTON STH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT 91 16 RESIDENT r RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTQN SF#425 DENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#425 80 HUNTINGTON ST #426 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNMK GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTO��LLSST-#427 80 HUNTINGTON ST #428 RESIDENT _ HUNK TUJN EACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON80 EA BEACH 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #430 80 HUNTINGTON ST #431 80 HUNTINGTON ST RESIDENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT __ _�-- - 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #451 80 HU�ITLNGfO SN T #452 RESIDENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEAC80 HUNTINGTON ST H CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON-SF'#54 80 HUNTINGTON ST #455 RESIDENT �---- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 80 ST #456 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEG ACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #457 80 HUNTINGTON _ RESIDENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUN-T.INGTOIVBEACH C5A 92648 HUNTINGTON BEAC80 HUNTINGTON STH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGT_gN-S•T-#460- 80 HUNTINGTON ST#461 RESIDENT _ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTO B80 EACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #463 RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNT NGTON BEACH CA 92648 ,I MOM JBl aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 W,slaa45 paaJ 410OW S 1�, WL0965 easel slagel ssajppV eAU3AW Is 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT 024 291 16 —�-- RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTI GTGK S T#466 80 HUNTINGTON ST#467 HU GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 80 NTTN'dHUNT ON BEACH ES CA fjl�N7`INGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #469 RESID80 ENT RESIDENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Gx 80 HUNTINGTON ST#5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #501 80 HUNTINGTON ST #502 80 HUNTINGTON ST #503 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #504 80 HUNTINGTON ST #505 80 HUNTINGTON ST #506 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #507 80 HUNTINGTON ST #508 80 HUNTINGTON ST #509 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #510 80 HUNTINGTON ST #511 80 HUNTINGTON ST #512 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #513 80 HUNTINGTON ST#514 80 HUNTINGTON ST #515 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #516 80 HUNTINGTON ST#517 80 HUNTINGTON ST #518 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #519 80 HUNTINGTON ST #520 80 HUNTINGTON ST #521 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80.HUNTINGTON ST #522 80 HUNTINGTON ST #6 80 HUNTINGTON ST #600 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ©0915 io1 aleldwal astl Pacific City 6-7-04 W.slaays Poal 410ows ''��✓ W10965 iasel slagel ssajppV ®AL3AH 12 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #601 RESIDENT 2 80 HUNTINGTON ST #603 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST 9604 80 HUNTINGTON ST #605 80 HUNTINGTON ST #606 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #607 80 HUNTINGTON ST#608 80 HUNTINGTON ST #609 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #610 80 HUNTINGTON ST#611 80 HUNTINGTON ST#612 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #613 80 HUNTINGTON ST #614 80 HUNTINGTON ST#615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#616 80 HUNTINGTON ST#617 80 HUNTINGTON ST#618 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #619 80 HUNTINGTON ST#620 80 HUNTINGTON ST #621 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #622 80 HUNTINGTON ST#623 80 HUNTINGTON ST #624 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #625 80 HUNTINGTON ST #626 80 HUNTINGTON ST #627 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #628 80 HUNTINGTON ST #629 80 HUNTINGTON ST #630 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 '�0091S iol aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 Wislaa4S paaj 430ows W10965 jasel slagel ssaippv ®AU3AV 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #631 80 HUNTINGTON ST #632 80 HUNTINGTON ST #633 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#634 80 HUNTINGTON ST #635 80 HUNTINGTON ST #636 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #637 80 HUNTINGTON ST#638 80 HUNTINGTON ST #639 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#640 80 HUNTINGTON ST 9641 80 HUNTINGTON ST#642 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #643 80 HUNTINGTON ST#644 80 HUNTINGTON ST #645 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#646 80 HUNTINGTON ST#647 80 HUNTINGTON ST #648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #649 80 HUNTINGTON ST#650 80 HUNTINGTON ST #7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST#700 80 HUNTINGTON ST#701 80 HUNTINGTON ST #702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #703 80 HUNTINGTON ST #704 80 HUNTINGTON ST #705 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #706 80 HUNTINGTON ST #707 80 HUNTINGTON ST #708 - UNTINGTCN 30E.4CH CA 926--12 'UNTING-CN BEAC, A 92648 '-lt2M71NG7lCN 3E.�.Cr CA 92E'8 @091S ioj aleldwal as0 Pacific City 6-7-04 Wls1884S paaJ 4100wsgK' 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #709 80 HUNTINGTON ST #710 80 HUNTINGTON ST #711 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #712 80 HUE ON ST #713 80 HUNTINGTON ST #714 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 INGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTLW>76I-g-T-�715 80 HUNTINGTON ST#716 80 HUNTINGTON ST 717 HUNTWGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #718 80 HUNT�1GTp STh7- #71g g0 HUNT�NGYONST #720 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 RESIDENT RESIDENT 024 291 16 80 HUNTINGTON ST #721 RESIDENT ,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 H729 UNTINGTON N ST#9 48 024 291 16 RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON ST #9 HUDNTI�16TON BEACH CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� 024 161 06 024 161 12 024 161 15 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 304 2nd ST 318 2ND ST 302 2ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 024 162 024 16202 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 209 1ST 116 PAC. COAST HWY 231-3 1ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 02 024 16202 024 16202 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 231-4 1ST 231-5 1ST 231-6 1ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 02 024 162 04 024 162 21 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 231-7 1ST OCCUPANT 239 1ST 208 2ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 22 024 16222 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 024 162 22 230-2 2ND 230 2ND-3 2ND 23OCCUPANT230-4 2ND HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264? HUNT!NlGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 22 024 16222 024 16222 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 230-5 2ND 230-6 2ND 25072ND HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTiNCTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 22 024 16222 024 16222 OCCUPANT N OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 230-8 2ND 230-9 2ND 230-10 2ND HUNTINGTON BEACH Ca 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926^.8 HUNT!NGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16224 024 16224 024 16224 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 201-2 1 ST 201-3 1ST 2014 1ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16224 024 16224 024 16224 OCCUPANT P OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCANT 201-5 1ST 201-6 1 ST 201-7 1ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 24 024 162 30 024 163 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 201-8 1ST 234 2ND 117 WALNUT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 5�D 024 16309 024 16309 024 16309 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 114-2 PAC COAST HWY 114-3 PAC.COAST HWY 114-4 PAC.COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 163 09 024 16309 024 204 01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 114-6 PAC.COAST HWY 114-7 PAC.COAST HWY 117 HUNTINGTON ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 204 03 024 204 03 024 204 08 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 105-B HUNTINGTON ST 105-C HUNTINGTON ST 204 BALTIMORE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 204 23 024 204 23 024 204 23 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 221-2 ATLANTA 221-3 ATLANTA 221-4 ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 204 23 024 204 23 024 204 23 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 221-5 ATLANTA 221-6 ATLANTA 221-7 ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 32G4;; HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92642 HUNTINGTON BEACH -A 92648 024 204 23 024 204 24 024 204 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 221-8 ATLANTA 211-13 ATLANTA 211-C ATLANTA HUNTINGTON FEACH CA 9%6,aH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92U8 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 204 24 024 204 24 024 204 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 211-D ATLANT% 213-A ATLANTA 213-B ATLANTA HUNTINGT^"t ocnru CA o'�a4a HUNTINGTON BEACH CA92- HUNTINGTON BEACH r.A C9f.1R 024 204 24 024 204 24 024 206 17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 213-C ATLANTA 213-D ATLANTA 105-B ALABAMA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #1 401 ATLANTA AVE #2 401 ATLANTA AVE #3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #4 401 ATLANTA AVE #5 401 ATLANTA AVE #6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #7 401 ATLANTA AVE #8 401 ATLANTA AVE #9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #10 401 ATLANTA AVE #11 401 ATLANTA AVE#12 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #13 401 ATLANTA AVE #-1 401 ATLANTA AVE #15 HUNTINGTON 6EACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON' BEACH Cv 92648 HUNTINGTON; BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT, 401 ATLANT,,Ax,E #16 401 ATLANTA AVE #17 401 ATLANTA AVE #18 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9_648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 A.TLANTA=,VE 1i19 401 ATLANTA AVE 420 401 ATLANTA AVE #21 oE:+.Cii CA 92648 HUNTiwvTOiv Bc CH CA 92648 HUNTINGT0::4 EzEnCn CA. 926tia 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #22 401 ATLANTA AVE #23 401 ATLANTA AVE #24 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #25 401 ATLANTA AVE #26 401 ATLANTA AVE #27 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #28 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 �2 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #29 401 ATLANTA AVE #30 401 ATLANTA AVE #31 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #32 401 ATLANTA AVE #33 401 ATLANTA AVE #34 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #35 401 ATLANTA AVE #36 401 ATLANTA AVE #37 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #38 401 ATLANTA AVE #39 401 ATLANTA AVE#40 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #41 401 ATLANTA AVE #42 401 ATLANTA AVE #43 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #44 401 ATLANTA AVE #45 401 ATLANTA AVE #46 HUNTING1 CN BEACH CA 92648 HUNTiNGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA '2648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANITA AVE #47 401 ATLANTA AVE #48 401 ATLANTA AVE #49 i-UNTiNG T ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTiNGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTING T 0i-; BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #50 401 ATLANTA AVE #51 401 ATLANTA AVE #52 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 401 ATLANTA AVE #53 401 ATLANTA AVE #54 401 ATLANTA AVE #55 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 �3 024 206 06 024 206 20 024 261 12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 211 Alabama St 111 Alabama St 114 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 261 16 024 261 17 024 261 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 104 Huntington St 102 Huntington St 116 12 Huntington St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 261 24 939 502 43 939 502 51 Occupant Occupant Occupant 401 Atlanta Ave 430 Lake St #108 430 Lake St #208 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 54 939 502 57 939 502 60 Occupant Occupant Occupant 430 Lake St #303 420 Lake St 1/0 f 420 Lake St 4104 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 62 939 502 67 93950270 Occupant Occupant Occupant 420 Lake St A /Ob 42C Lake St .4ZOy 420 Lake St #207 Huntington Beach CA 92648 . Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 502 76 939 502 78 939 502 83 r—upcnt Occupani Oc;::pant 410 Lake Std/o 1 410 Loke St AL/03 410 Lake S' 4201 Hur,;fngton Beach CA 92648 Huniingtci Beach CA 92648 Huntington Be;;ch CA 92648 939 502 91 939 502 93 939 503 04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 410 Lake Stal 302 410 Lake St#304 400 Lake St #110 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 tun:ing:on Beach CA 92648 939 503 09 939 503 10 939 503 12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 400 Lake St#205 400 Lake St#206 400 Lake St #208 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 15 939 503 19 939 503 26 Occupant Occupant Occupant 400 Lake St #301 400 Lake St #305 320 Lake St #105 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 29 939 503 32 939 503 33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 320 Lake St #108 320 Lake St 4 20/ 320 Lake St .42,o2, Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 5q 024 161 11 024 161 12 024 162 02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 320 2nd St 316 2nd St 231 1st St-` / Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 16203 024 162 16 024 162 17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 231 1st St #1i 222 2nd St. 220 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 162 21 024 162 22 024 162 23 Occupant Occupant Occupant 206 2nd St 230 2nd St 205 1st St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 162 24 024 162 26 024 162 28 Occupant Occupant Occupant 201 1st Stjt 234 2nd St 240 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 163 02 024 163 08 024 163 09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 121 Walnut Ave 110 Pacific Coast Hwy 114 Pacific Coast Hwy 4l Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 16-3 12 024 163 13 024 163 14 Occupant Occupant Occupant 114 2nd Si 112 2nd St 102 Pacific Coast Hw^✓ Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92348 024 163 15 024 204 03 024 204 04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 120 Pacific Coast Hwy 105 Huntington St A 101 Huntington St untington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 204 08 024 204 12 024 204 17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 206 Baltimore Ave 209 Atlanta Ave 202 Baltimore Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 204 19 024 204 23 024 204 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 220 Baltimore Ave 221 Atlanta Ave4f 211 Atlanta Ave.44 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 206 01 024 206 02 024 206 05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 114 Chicago Ave 227 Alabama St 215 Alabama St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 �S 939 503 34 939 503 36 939 503 42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 320 Lake StA'lQ3 320 Lake St .0 320 Lake S430/ Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach A 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 44 939 503 45 939 503 49 Occupant Occupant Occupant 320 Lake St 4303 320 Lake St.43ey 320 Lake St #308 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 50 939 503 52 939 503 55 Occupant Occupant p Occupant 310 Lake St.//o1 310 LakeSt */03 310 Lake St4/0(0 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 57 939 503 58 939 503 63 Occupant Occupant Occupant 310 Lake St#108 310 Lake St.-42D/ 310 Lake S4266 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 66 939 503 69 939 503 73 Occupant Occupant Occupant 310 Lake St 443o 1 310 Lake St #304 310 Lake St #110 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 503 76 939 503 77 939 503 82 Occupant Occupant Occupant 310 Lake St #113 '10 Lake St #114 310 Lake St #211 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pacific City 6-7-04 �� Smooth Feed SheetsTM (A��p L S Use template for 51600 939 506 05 939 503 57 939 506 32 Koji Okachi Jessica Pizano-Cruz Robert Lan 713-2402 Miyukiyama 2225 parkway Dr. 16346 Brookstone Cir. Tenpaku-ku, Nagoya Bettendorf, IA 52722-3007 La Mirada, CA 90638-6530 Japan 939 503 26 024 202 11 024 163 14 William Griffith Jr. David Mollica First National Bank 202 W. Lincoln#M 6331 Newbury Dr. Pease Marital Trustp.0. Box 846 Orange, CA 92865-1068 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6535 Ames, IA 50010.0846 939 506 08 939 506 24 939 505 20 William Byers Robin Adair Ray Ewing Trust 300 E. Round Grove Rd, Unit 1522 3321 Admiralty Dr. 200 Pacific Coast Hwy, #I 1 l Lewisville, TX 75067-8393 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2802 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5124 939 505 77 939 505 98 939 505 44/99 Richard Miller Robin Braithwaite ALTE, Co. Minami Senba 7956 S. Painter Ave. 73042 Bel Air Rd. C 4-1I-20 1-20 Osaka Whittier, CA 90602-2413 Palm Desert, CA 92260-6060 Japan 937 152 15 939 503 42 939 505 88 Haruo Miyano Leonid Kogan Eric Rogers 19302 Sailwind Ln. 2815 Townsgate Rd, #330 200 Pacific Coast Hwy, 9315 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-2646 Westlake Village, CA 91361-3098 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5192 937 152 86 939 505 49 939 505 79 Thomas Lindquist Rodney Albright Rosena Invest LLP 7772 Seaglen Dr. 200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 141 200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 303 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5426 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5185 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5190 937 151 59 024 301 22 024 202 14 Meier Properties Dennis Spoolstra Brett Marchi 9705 Downey Sanford Bridge Rd. 3615 Goldenhill Rd. 2 Strawberry Lane Downey, CA 90140 Paso Robles, CA 93446-6380 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-2007 024 162 16/22 939 505 81 939 505 35 Delhi Winn David Berokoff Carlos Simsian 222 2n' St. 200 Pacific Coast Highway#306 927 W. Crescent Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5123 Monrovia, CA 91016 939 506 00 024 206 42 937 150 17 Richard Adray Ty Kern David Koenigshofer 3641 Susana St. 119 Alabama St. 428 15'h St. Las Vegas,NV 89121 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 505 19 939-505-12 939-505-29 Guy Dominguez Michael & Pizu Tsai Perri Putrasahan 200 Pacific Coast Highway 9408 17546 Edgewood Ln. 937 Creek View Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Yorba Linda,CA 92886-1950 Redlands, CA 92373-6974 A� AVERY® Address Labels Pacific City 6-7-04 Laser 596 S7 - Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937-150-45 939-502-48 939-505-69 Franklin Chu Charles Cashmere Takis Stathoulis 1942 Sycamore Hill Dr. 1600 Hope St. PO Box 1578 Riverside, CA 92506-4669 San Marcos, CA 92078-1030 Whittier, CA 90609-1578 937-150-17 024-161-14 939-503-65 David Koenigshofer Gina Palladino Brian Liberto 605 Eastowne Dr. 114 Villa Point Dr. 320 Lake St. #106 Chapel Hill,NC 27514-2211 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6245 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5617 939-506-15 939-505-66 939-503-47 Maurice Gerard Emma Niznik Jason Macdonald 200 Pacific Coast Highway 9402 415 Griffin Dr. 245 7 a Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 9264 8-5 1 9 5 Grants Pass, OR 97527-9619 Venice, CA 90291-2786 Rosario Espinosa Guadelupe Torres Jaime Torres HERE 681 HERE 681 HERE 681 13252 Garden Grove Blvd. 4200 13252 Garden Grove Blvd. 9200 13252 Garden Grove Blvd. 4200 Garden Grove, CA 92843 Garden Grove, CA 92843 Garden Grove, CA 92843 Mario Ballisteros 024 161 14 937 151 54 HERE 681 Michael Collins David Guzman & Karen Stein-Cueva 13252 Garden Grove Blvd. 9200 369 San Miguel Dr. #285 7971 Southwind Cir. Garden Grove, CA 92843 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 150 83 939 506 00 939 505 88 Diana Reeves Michael Metko Daniel & Patricia Fernandez 2200 S. Fort Apache Rd. 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. 4332 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. 4315 Las Vegas,NV 89117 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 506 24 939 505 79 939 505 84 Thomas Connollv Herbert &Teri Magruder Michael Muscarella 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. 9420 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. 4303 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. #311 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 506 08 939 505 35 024 202 11 Richard Rosenberg Rozemarie Sweet Kathleen Schaefer 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. 9343 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. #126 302-310 Alabama St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St. 9434 80 Huntington St. 4436 80 Huntington St.9438 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St. #440 80 Huntington St. #441 80 Huntington St. 9471 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 n0 AVERY® Address Labels pacific City 6-7-04 Laser 596 �i Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 024 291 16 024 291 16 024 204 03 Resident Resident Occupant 80 Huntington St. #8 80 Huntington St. #9 105 Huntington St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 204 01 024 162 17 024 261 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 119 Huntington St. 208 Second St. 116 Huntington St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 252 02 05 939 503 63 024 253 02 06 Redevelopment A-ency City of HB Jean Perrin PLC Waterfront LLC Waterfront Hotel c/o Robert player Corp. 200 Pacific Coast Hwy. 9415 19 Corporate Plaza Dr. Attn: Larry Klein Schmidt Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 660 Newport Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660-6401 024 252 01 M f, 204 024 301 53 297 Redevelopment Agency Cityof HB Larry Knox La Cuesta by the Sea 2000 Main St. 650 Town Center Dr. #1400 Tritz Property Mgmt. _ Huntington Beach, CA 92648-8121 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 7400 Center Ave. #205 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 West Co. Family YMCA* 47 7451 Warner Avenue, Ste. I Huntington Beach, CA 92647 7 A� AVERYe Address Labels pacific City 6-7-04 Laser 596U SUSAN W CASE, INC. OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE (949) 494-6105 • FAX(949) 494-7418 FL CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LIST THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITTHHINtOOl7 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ` CLCw`�'j� 04 1 THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATES SOLUTIONS, A DATA SOURCE UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES. THIS INFORMATION IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. P-ETURN OF SOME PROPERTY ADDRESSES THAT ARE DEEMED UNDELIVERABLE BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE IS A POSSIBILITY. SUSAN W. CASE, INC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF SAID LABELS. ACCEPTANCE OF THE PACKAGE ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. _&t 11 1 ______ ______________ SUSAN W. CASE, INC. U f� (s - r5 "mj -fir s/quo y atEart o NOTICE! IS MIRPRe. MM that Y CMm.bfir'.1200I at !00 re in De Gag Country 2000 Mope Street Huntington Beath. Ire city -<J w Ig1e, punv lin Me IOlovn{ybu,nC and aumng hems I APPEAE OF THE PUNNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF INVMONMENtAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 02 01/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16224/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02 20 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO 02-pa/ COASTAL OEVELOPMINT PERMIT NO. 02 12/ COMCf P- PROOF OF PUBLICATION (DAL MASTER PLAN (PACIFIC CIIn. Appl¢JnU urnwrlr I)an,. Mdrnlon Albnta Huntington "rain lU tlnen ih,uh. 4100MJckM.r Blvd A. PW N.wp«t Beam. CA 97000 Appellants Meru Prpperb.t. ILC The Ruba1 Mae., STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 'unit inn `..A. anon Br oft 5mtth IaP tryuast EMr A. t. that of the ., I"A r^o«nentll ithe Pa that may wcur b: A e relit men# of 1M ad,vo. Cite ter tl"at 7TM: A SS. Pro. P to ' bar Me apPro umauly 315 ace es MM uvee pnu6 for purposes of arrels se • he fRy County of Orange ) • pllill 0^, of the barrels wig tee M two Pala# ate are Imum pwpsas and INe ptlMr two putint are for • Jummvaurch of theeevmopmeo In Ire residential pw lnn ul the I am a Citizen of the United States and a Malec' 'he '• ' as well lhak oral Hit I., . Iw Public ton / as . IenReal bl Ie a p 0 ei access role l con COP:A 1 at* resident of the County aforesaid; I am to.1deWos •.nt uae Pro e,tcomnlvrCp#reap oNaa,roburam cWtw•f me min lemment0fpR over the age of eighteen years, and not a ;1m100 IT ITr,wuabl sytern da Ae lath.alth `,A party to or interested in the below 20 •v, open {P.c./Parr eas.mei Sly coedommnm ones .loon. w6lannur. pthA entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of •{•ter •ill rnhwAvoten mclse tw e.tens,01 Przrhit Vwr Aeethe The h[Z, W the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a �:b"wit:)�:nt�a i .it oid;tc,..a nneMl within tM proposed restaurant{and hotel newspa er of general circulation, printed der•ippm.nl. parts and 6nss. within the commeru I .M h denbpn "t and! ..hit and pu lished in the City of Huntington melt•. powill OW 6gel.{ atterdiit booth.. Md/« Colo*=at Eeet wr the the ra lcw y.a. Beach, County of Orange, State of :th;h: MM shwas ; California, and that attached Notice is a twithe:.RR.MM" .&I""R""a" towl ultural. � .L bgt aR ofMe.« ).AM. true and complete copy as was printed • dam PeMRR"Y'1{��M RM qM:E in "Wright"gold RMRE r e a1M OW hu R/RRe and published in the Huntington Beach ifennflat yeah Mesa vtr (3) #ad km an rw 10 too high pant (a�mg�25.thil the and Fountain Valley issues of said lowest point to its Iwml w/�e11Y� MA Mr'i drnbpmnnl in Die Coe" aMw. LMNy, VA newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: �le,'t includes live .to '°'R.R" "R ^cow*mb Inlru,for ire site to emAdk ton PRRdeRrMY the Mnr Me Om going al luni Me y exN , egg m,y include but rs not I density,y, anNi ilOW Threeterrit uy alocercent are AeraMgMPYPR, :. .1 w c Permit re0wsts are n roal : 11 b to ,Ili. commercialM*CU ong F t to .opal! ARM the pardic ew A .(bag Pod¢Coat lMIN61' May 27 , 2004 area- into View reside, i welow tlwee bneMPy rtmp{ into ire residential" below yad. parOMR str«twas tl o abpe ul lie Im.r rMtum POs.and 3) to et etal r ...I r- FtvaM Polio walls in the ec percicr ,r valbthi thus A c—posew Ma: - Pieds a aAt Previous .. .....l1 ued,ut pas e the Criminal and rnnuilNl t«tnn of DY I declare, under penalty of perjury, that Local, 21002 Pasiln C,,.M Holyl (d1. acre site houM•d by Pa bra tirw Coasl Hay. Frsl' the foregoing is true and correct. Street. Atlanta Ar'^"' and Huntington Street) Protect Planners Scott Neu Phrnni a, M•natr/ Mary Beth Broeren,Priverpal Prennp NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the item .blow is located in 1Na"on AtsealaON Iwndmtwn of the Coastal tune and incluaas Coastal OerolopmME Executed on May 27 2004 Permit. No 02 12 fired M Atud 4 2002 M A i-rT a0on with the above equesl Th. C..Al at Costa Mesa, California. 0...l pine.(Pointer hearing will aortusf of a staff rep« .Public be--,.City Covell l dlsausston are aatbn NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that AIM MdsAI enawenmentill asseslove l(s) for the Wore den was processed are completed in .ccorderrc, with the California FnrwMmenbl Quality Act It was dasermrned that IN Protest m., nave VV,,v,AM enruonm•ntal .#facts and thnelore en ennronment•I Impact report wat '.4tined Enrll-cur( d Impact Rep«( Me 0201 was -1 theO rn ,aa.1 th:e withegi n B ,h is on NN a1 the Ctly of ail St ids Apo 1 PI•nmq Oep.riment 70W Yon SDFL, Jrrd is aridabM Signature f« public utwonett«r M° comrMnt by contact" yr the Planning OteMM, orby tareyhoning (216) `36.5211 ON FRE A of MOe��eRRReeR _ ""toot"86011,caskmMCeMorRM saw ow oige°1MR by EM pe66t A copy of the staff rRMM w M .eAtlAble Io letwesMd pertrn ,1 Ire CNy, CMrg's Office on(Th.redA,before tMg)3urw 3, 2001. Mt TNT CRtsTED PERSONS are bwlwd to ."al old wring are ..Mess Opmmns or ..bind evidence for or against the Appbulmn As uulhned above If r.. ah lf,h,. the Cris Cuunuls air. rn (null. You m„ be Irmrfeel to rarsrn, till, thus, uL Marlry'd..,Nmd Y1 Mu M1Kf y or V u• .rittaa cwraap.ndanae Mllvrod to tM City .t,or error lo, tM oip h*W.., N tkara are a., tutller puntrom pWaw Cd tea 140M.8 Daparlleent at 536 6771 and rNv W tM spore itanu. Unact Your. l"On Cii wuc~l to IM City Clark. City CLr►"of a..& 4 Now Snee Nuntirtita( �aaap, -5227YHNC (71d'ch Inde7 Iu6haneJ Nunlm6lun� a<k lndagndanl MaY'i 7C(u 06/-576 untington Beach rf the City Clerk ). Box 190 i Beach. CA 92648Irr DR ` t4m pV5S U/VOO Vl,(/ IIN6TpyB j Q 939 06 00 '"°'"• 1( (�tJ Richar Adray 9y ' LLas Su a t. Las Vegas V 89121 �►--^- t1w,)aG NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING �aa =-•�.L��� 1f:1,,,.1,i,li,:,I.:II.:l,l1„:::,114,i„il,::i:l,�ll..,:,l,ll -iuntisng 6ea hrkfj of the City Clerk '.O. Box 190 rn Beach, CA 92648 4 \ ~ ` 939 502 62 686 Wilbur & Tsai Roadhouse 420 Lake St#160 �l►TINGTpy Huntington Beach CA 92648 y ROAb42o 212 RN. TO 1N 42 4 RET RN. TO SENDER. t ,.pqr` P�II,oE!�Q NO FORW ppD T yoy Fp Rg[q�}' c �j7-. RETURN TO pUNTr LEGAL-NOTICE - %� - �4�1G,.64 II,i,:,11,1:1,,,::::,1:,1,(i,,,::llll:l,l,l::,,:l:lll::,,,1„ -kway, City Clerk ntington Beach , t the City Clerk Box 190 -- Beach, CA92648 ,,, 024 206 42 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk zs r •'r P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "J j IN6jpp 939 503 75 801 j Gabriel Ad White ,�� -:_ '• `r9�, 310 Lake St #112 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �ppNrr �a NOTI f PUBLIC H€ARjN D 92649—G13G ILL1IIIIIIHI till Mill IIII,,,II III,I,IIL,1J,i IlnnIIIII City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 150 83 uN11N6Tp Diana Reeves ot`2� wA. 9B 2200 S. Fort Apache Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89117 RETURN G` r Tnccelnco IEN,LEG At-IN 0 E -p�UB IC F EABING: GORRiO 13FOGIEWay, Ghly Glerl C City of Huntington Beach c1h *:7 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �'-vr)� Lovj 024 16309 OCCUPANT ING 114)fIPAC.COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NTI R LEGAL NOTI� P& � � !i VN 11F GeHm e i3fookway, Gity Glerlt City of Huntington Beach _42 Office of the City Clerk - P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 204 03 OCCUPANT 105-C HUNTINGTON ST �pNTINGTpy HUNTINGTON BEACH CA r2348 R: Ti� IN I ILEGAL,NOTICE -P PEARI%,4 City of Huntington Beach office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1�1 024 204 01 OCCUPANT 117 HUNTINGTON ST ,�pN1INGTpy HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 � � y T ' Fi �pUNTY �P LEGAL NOTICE - t�II��$4�lJ�r(� ARIN(r� CSl4'4'Ii `�5204 ' 3260. _I 63 Ililuulililliiilnlliililliiilinlillnlili�inllll�nliilil -�-- City of Huntington Beach ►✓ r -- TIP Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box ,90 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a 024 202 if INGTpy Kathleen Schaefer iE ,.��...,, B� 3 02-3 10 Alabama St. _- _ 9y Huntington Beach, CA 92648 T"EGAL NOTICE - PUSf,1gRING,, , 'r' 326'R �`t 30 2QPA;Q Q�QckwayQ*C4w* City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 %C%�% ���.f :(".C' _ jil; 505 66 877 �uNTING ft E m rr,a N iz,a k 3A3 South Ave 52 I nc Annplpm CA 90042 7Z NIZN343 CPOOL423040 1103 04 06/04/04 FORWARD 'rIME EXP RTN TO SEND NIZNIK 415 GRIPIPIN RD GRANTS PASS OR 97527-I9619 It its, NTI LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING Z�. UWW o 1 9 o 5 o o 4 2 111 111.11 I'll.1'.11"MI" Ill.11.11.11 1.I'll 1,,1.11,11 J r City of Huntington Beach ---------- Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ❑ vr' '!' Mo el, Lett No Address Unclahneo 1111 u h,a a d Cl Att(nnpted-NDt Kn0VVn n NO such Street 0 rJO Such Number El Rotl:(! NO—Date oI EJ c;,;;.,o!-,ajs. 's- n 1Z106 P:jd *�ro ING --�54-t-S 830 Irk T1 LEGAL NOTICE --PU4JQ.UEARING Connie•Brockway7G#y-Gierk vl I /.-ion City of Huntington Beach •n \ a�.. ,•... , 'Office of the City Clerk n i _ %•� `^� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 203 03 126 �,NNtINGTp� Briar, 8 Jean Golledge 41,, 49 F9 209 Huntington St ---- s Huntington Beach CA 926AQ GOLL209 926461010 1N 06 061OL104 RETURN TO SENDER 9 Z t, J NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE �I aETURI, �`� ;--� RETURN TO SENDERr� ' JI , cp. T1 IL t_ I E io LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC H f nc o :R�tr�— — C-�;:�;r�j}� Fi'� n�� ILI„��I,I,II„�LJI�,III,�,�� IIIJ ,II,�,I�I,�IL „J�II •------_ JET) City of Huntington Beach �� ^ qb ;•� c Office the City Clerk PAM& .. . P.00. Box 190 �, �.. . : ,.:1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �\_•i -lY 6 � 17 73 t�NNTIN6Tpy A 9 648 ftsmpted UnbloMlll 2 No Such Number ❑ insufficient Addis" ❑ 9, Forwarding Order E1)ired El Vacant �pppNT I ILL Route No Deter LEGAL NOTI�. - P�� G ^ Carri-.r Int �•_ ,B fit I,,,,I,I1 it,I III,[IIJ,1I,I,I..I.„RIn�A�r$f 4, Iy,( ' „ !NlTINC;TnN B I,H CA City of Huntington Beach / ( -�� � ", ��' ..• '- ' i Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 EtUq Huntington Beach, CA 92648 l seNoe V 4tO N NNUMBER J TEMPTED "70T KN U ECEASEA D O INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS r REFUSED 4 NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED REFUSED UNAI LE TO FORIVARD POUT(- ,NUMBER � Il•I I Ttd�� I I y,�NTINGTpy 33950532 843 Y171) .'.,`Bee 4malia Tr Salazar y 335 San Marino Ave _ Montebello CA 90640 -a .. 9' S Q �puNT1 ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUB I F ARIN e�z*1a »ri �C II.I,..,I,I,fI.,.I„Il„I,fI.,„,1111,1„Il,,,l,f„Il,,,,$fill City of Huntington Beach If / 6 /✓ O\ Office of the City Clerk P.O. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 N` IN6Tpy 925 Wilbur / Wilburur Roadhouse 1115 Broken Hills Dr C, _ y ROADi_S u90152005 1303 11 06/07/04 =i— FURWIRD rTML EX.' .t'I'N TO SEND 10 ROADHOUSE Z' 7660 RIVER MIST CT LAS VEGAS NV 6911 3-6609 `pUMTY �'P` LEGAL NOTICE RETURN TO SENDER PUB�I EABWG ��+711 �� = =�=n5�ia "T City of Huntington Beach IA Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 L RETURN TO SENDER-ADDITIO NAL POST r) NEW INTERNATIONAL RATE _OZ 9-J9 �U.) 44/99 ,��NTINGTpy ALTE, Co. 4-11-20 Minami Senba Chuo-ku, Osaka Japan �ppu NTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Gemmie Sfeekv�. ' City of Huntington Beach vh Office of the City Clerk P.O. Bo 0 19 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 V, 6Y 024291 16 ,�pNTINGTpy RESIDENT 80 HUNTINGTON4,§T #461 HUNTINGTON BEA M 92�4 �pu1VTY cp LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Sz 6 C6 IN 56 -_-3IAMAMP California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 908024302 In a letter to me dated October 4, 2004,your staff refuses to circulate a petition dated August 24, 2004,to individual Coastal Commissioners for decision concerning their jurisdiction Instead, I was given an administrative denial of the petition by a staff analyst, one Meg Vaughn The Coastal Commission is falsely informed by its staff and by the city of Huntington Beach concerning the proximity to the ocean of a billion dollar development called Pacific City. The gist of my petition was to factually demonstrate that the Pacific City project is within 300 feet of the water and sand of the Pacific Ocean and that the Coastal Commission has appellate jurisdiction over the pmicxt I submitted an extremely accurate track map of the former Pacific Electric Railway, which 1 acquired from the official records of the Union Pacific Railway,the successor in interest of the Pacific Electric As you know, virtually all of the beach front along Huntington Beach was acquired from the latter railroad At considerable personal expense, I submitted 16 desk-sized copy of the track map for the consideration of each of the 15 CCC Commissioners The track map is derived from photographs and is used to confirm title to the land, among other things. It is accurate to the nth degree, and shows the entire Pacific City site It also shows the high water line of the ocean to be within 200 feet of the Pacific City site The chart even gives the deed number of the property now held by the city At first, I assumed that the city and CCC staff simply foisted a mutual mistake of fact upon the Commissioners and that both would have sufficient respect for the CCC to confess error as to a material breach of CCC appellate jurisdiction Unfortunately. I now believe CCC staff and the city are acting recklessly in derogation of CCC jurisdiction As staled in my August 24,2004 submission, I request a decision by the Commissioners and not a stafTanalyst, and that an appeal of Local Coastal Development Permit No.02-12(Pacific City)be heard by the CCC Commissioners for the reason the Commissioner have been deceived by its staff and by the cnv of a material jurisdictional fact Paul S Cross 109 Huntington Street Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 CC All Commissioners, City of Huntington Beach, and Makallon .Atlanta Huntington Beach California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, IOty Floor Long Beach, CA 9080L-4302 Herewith is an original and 15 copies of a petition for a finding that Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 is void for the reason that it was issued as a result of a material mutual mistake of fact by California Coastal Commission Staff and the City of Huntington Beach concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. It is requested that the instant petition be decided by the Commission on the written record by the notation voting of each Commissioner. Respectfully submitted, by Paul S. Cross, 109 Huntington Street,Huntington Beach, CA 92649 California Coastal Commission August 24, 2004 South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, I Oi Floor Long Beach, CA 90801-4302 Petition For Revocation of California Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 which was issued under a material mistake ofjurisdictional fact. At a July hearing concerning the subject permit, it was incorrectly represented to the California Coastal Commission by CCC staff and by the city of Huntington Beach that the property(Pacific City)covered by the Development Permit is entirely in excess of 300 feet from the ocean sands,thereby depriving the California Coastal Commission of appellate jurisdiction over the matter. Reliance was placed upon advisory maps said to be located at the offices of the CCC in San Francisco, but upon request these maps have not been produced and are not shown to exist as official records of the CCC. More importantly, the maps admittedly only are advisory in nature and are belied by written and oral testimony submitted at the July hearing of an actual measurement showing the distance to be less than 300 feet, thereby establishing CCC jurisdiction over the Development Permit. That evidence was fortified the next day during the CCC public comments session that by extremely accurate global positioning readings, the distance again is less than 300 feet. Absolutely confirming this is an official tract map obtained from the law department of the Union Pacific R.R. The map is an official record of the Union Pacific R.R.(the UP purchased the SP which in turn purchased Pacific Electric which traversed the site in question), showing that the Pacific City property which directly abuts Pacific Coast Highway is within 300 feet of the ocean sands. The Union Pacific document is extremely detailed and is an official record once utilized for exacting track measurements and still utilized for deed and title purposes. It depicts in scale feet, all that is needed to establish your clear and convincing jurisdiction in this proceeding. Indisputably, the Pacific City tract is well within your appellate jurisdiction. It is hornbook administrative law that a mutual mistake of material fact directly related to jurisdiction renders void"ab initio" the administrative action(here the granting of the Developmental Permit without a CCC appellate hearing on the merits), and not merely voidable, as might be the case for a lesser mistake. The CCC operates under a remedial statute and exceptions to your jurisdiction are to be narrowly construed. You are duty bound to uphold your rightful jurisdiction. Parenthetically, no work is being conducted at the Pacific City site at this time. Some grading and soil mixing was done but has been halted for reasons not known to me. It is worth repeating again the UP map is accurate to the nth degree and was in fact produced by aerial survey. Do the right thing. Asset your jurisdiction. Vacate the erroneously issued and void permit, and hear the various still pending appeals filed with you against the action of the city of Huntington Beach purporting to approve a final Development Permit for Pacific Cityj 1 q By Paul S. Cross, 109 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 As a biographical note, 1 worked for the Federal government in the field of administrative law for 40-years as an attorney, an administrative law judge and as a chief administrative law judge. Most of my experience is in transportation administrative law, but at various times I presided at administrative law proceedings before of a total 18 different Federal agencies. I believe that I qualify as a general expert in administrative law and in railway matters, although 1 am not admitted to practice law in the state of California. Cc City of Huntington Beach Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10`s Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 On August 24, 2004, by priority mail, I submitted a petition dated August 24, 2004, for revocation of California Coastal Permit No. 02-12 for the reason that it was issued upon a material mistake of Coastal Commission jurisdiction, and consequently was void. The original of the petition was filed together with 15 copies, for the consideration of each Coastal Commission Commissioner. As well, the City of Huntington Beach and Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, were served with copies of the petition. Please advise me of the status of the petition. Parenthetically, some soil mixing(cleaning) is underway at the situs(known as Pacific City)of the coastal permit, but upon information and belief soil processing thereat will continue for at least a year's time. For your convenience t am enclosing a copy of the August 24 petition, sans an official map of the situs of Pacific City. The map is very large and is expensive to reproduce. I trust that you have not misplaced my August 24 submission, which included a total of 16 maps for the consideration of the Commission. By Paul S. Cross, 109 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CC City of Huntington Beach Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC Y STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY Arnold Schwarcenegger. Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate.Suite 1000 -. Long Beach.CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 October 4, 2004 Paul S. Cross 109 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Revocation Request for City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 (Pacific City) Dear Mr. Cross: On August 25, 2004, your revocation request for the above referenced local coastal development permit was received in this office. At the Coastal Commission hearing of July 15, 2004, Dispute Resolution No. 5-04-249 EDD was heard by the Commission. Dispute Resolution No. 5-04-249-EDD addressed the question of whether the City's approval of local coastal development permit No. 02-12 was appealable to the Coastal Commission. At that hearing the Commission determined that the City's approval of local coastal development permit No. 02-12 was not an action appealable to the Coastal Commission. Thus, the local government's action on the permit was final. Therefore, there is no Coastal Commission issued permit for which a revocation request can be accepted. The revocation provisions of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 13104 through 13108) govern proceedings for revocation of permits issued by the Commission. The purpose of the Commission's permit revocation process is to allow the Commission to address instances of alleged inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information that has been intentionally provided to the Commission by an applicant during the processing of its coastal development permit application, or lack of compliance with the public notification requirements of the Coastal Act. Since the Commission did not issue a permit for this project, there is no basis for revocation under those sections. Therefore, your revocation request for local coastal development permit 02-12 cannot be processed. If you have any questions regarding this matter call me at (562) 590-5071. Sincerelyl/,} Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst Cc: Teresa Henry, California Coastal Commission Assistant District Deputy Director Karl Schwing, Supervisor, Regulation & Planning Alex Helperin, California Coastal Commission Staff Counsel Scott Hess, Huntington Beach, Community Development Department HNB PcfCty RevRgstResp Itr 10.4 my ko � N an rA � N 1 tj O N r SPN iq 9 is 20 1 1 � 11 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNLYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CE.NFER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.850.1030 1 WEesITE: www,lbbslaw.com FRA.'VK C.BRUCCUL¢Ri April 2,2004 'nLE No. DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 Z6658-11 E-MAu.:brucculeri(41bbslaw.com City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Appeal of Huntington Beach City Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (PACIFIC CITY) EIR Approval Date: March 23, 2004. Dear Counsel: As you are well aware, this firm represents the interests of South Coast Angus,LLC("South Coast"). We write to formally appeal the Huntington Beach City Planning Commission's March 23, 2004 decision to approve the Environmental Impact Report No.02-01 (PACIFIC CITY). Enclosed herewith is our check in the amount of$2,335.00 to cover the required fee for appeal of the City Planning Commission's decision. We also enclose herewith and incorporate herein our previous written submissions dated December 3, 2003 and March 23, 2004 addressing the proposed Pacific City EIR No. 02-01. A. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNING HUNTINGTON BEACH CODES AND SPECIFICALLY THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,AD ADOPTED JUNE 1995 AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 6, 2002 The "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan (adopted June 1995 and amended February 6,2002)(hereinafter"Downtown Specific Plan"or"DTSP")makes plain the City of Huntington Beach's binding decision and promise to "provide for orderly development and improvement within the Downtown Specific Plan." As to the purpose of the DTSP, the preamble language found in Section 4.0.01 too makes clear the overall importance of the DTSP in governing future development and expansion in the area encompassed by the DTSP. At Section 4.0.01 the DTSP provides in relevant pan, LDS AIGE.LES SAN FRANClSCO SM U6lA COSTA MESA SA\BERHARDNO SACXkME.NTO NE%YORK LAS VECAS 213,250.19M 415.362,2590 619 233 1 D06 714 545 9200 909.387 1 130 916.56C5400 212 232 1300 702 893.3393 4822-3317-6932.1 ] ; 0 m ( p ) 4 \ } \ 3 � ` / } ; 7 § 2 > » - G � y � o \ \ ) §7 G , . n , � © n Cl con q \ / \ con / k \ n e \ 'JD A > LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD R SMITH I-I.P April 2, 2004 Page 2 The plat is established to guide the development of the area which is characterized by its unique location, geographic features, land uses and ownership patterns, and should not be regulated by zonning district standards applicable throughout the city. This specific plan will replace the existing zoning with policies, development standards and descry)tive maps specifically designed for the downtown area. The specific plat provides for- creativity at the individual project level, and at the same time ensures that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive Conlin till ity In Section 4.0.02, the DTSP mandates that the property described therein must be subject to "the policies and development standards" set forth in the Plan. Again, Section 4.0.02 states in relevant part, The property described herein is included in the Downtown Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development standards set forth in this article. (Emphasis added). B. THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, INCLUDING OIL OVERLAY"C" APPLY TO"ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHINTHE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" As set forth in the General Provisions of the DTSP found in Section 4.2, the provisions of the DTSP are made applicable, without reservation, to "all developments within the Downtown Specific Plan,"which would, of course, necessarily include the Pacific City Project here proposed. Moreover,at Section 4.2,the DTSP also makes clear that"all developments"must also comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance and Municipal Codes. As the City admits in its Responseto Comment Letter LBBS(December3,2003)(hereinafter "Response"), "[t]he Oil Overlay consolidation project was implemented in order to address environmental effects of dispersed oil recovery operations." As the City is well aware, Section 15.50.010 ofthe Huntington Beach Municipal Code lists eight objectives, which must be taken into account when considering development within the City which might impact or promote any of the listed objectives. The objectives, fairly summarized in the City's Response, are as follows: (1)to consolidate oil operations onto specified locations; (2) to obtain the abandonment and replacement of outdated and hazardous wells and tanks; (3) to eliminate or substantially lessen environmental effects with mitigation; (4) to offset unavoidable impacts with overriding implements in other areas; (5) to minimize visual impacts; (6) to protect the public from damage and nuisance associated with operation of oil recovery facilities; (7) to maintain consistency with the General Plan; and (8) to provide a higher level of safety for the public. 4822-3317-6832.1 LEwIS BRIS13O1S BISGAARD R SMITH LLP April 2, 2004 Page 3 South Coast avers that against the backdrop of the narrowly directed provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and its Oil Overlays (including the operative Oil Overlay `C"), the objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 compels that the Pacific City E1R (and CUP) provide for an overall strategy to achieve the purposes set forth both in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 and Oil Overlay"C." Indeed, it is plain from the language found in Oil Overlay "C"that it was drafted with an eye toward using the land situated thereunder as a means of achieving some or all of the important objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010,or at least that "any proposed development"of the land provide for a harmonious relationship between the need to preserve future oil production on the site and the desire for further urban residential and/or commercial development. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: A. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. B. The plan shall include at least one(1)oil island of not less than two(2) acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay"C." Indeed, in its preamble verbiage, Section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") explains that the regulations concerning the overlay are intended to "facilitate continued oil recovery and providelsl for future oil production needs." (Emphasis added). There is simply no reasonable construction of this language which supports the City's conclusion that the Pacific City Development as presently proffered, provides for future oil production needs on the property, let alone addresses the very real prospect that at least a small portion of this property was intended to be set aside to achieve the City's objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.10. Presently, there remain numerous small pockets of oil production in and around the Huntington Beach Townlot area. South Coast believes that the City's stated objective in enacting both Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 and the three oil overlays(including Oil Overlay"C") was to phase out many of these wells situated so closely to Huntington Beach homes, shops and restaurants in favor of fewer consolidated modern underground oil production facilities, which are more energy efficient, environment friendly and safer to the public at large. See, e.g. Oil Overlay "B"(Section 4.14.2) South Coast submits that the language found in all of the oil overlays(Sections 4.14.01,4.14.2 and 4.14.3)and especially in Oil Overlay"C"indicate that it was the City's mandated decision and plan to ensure that the land under Oil Overlay"C,"because of its relatively large size, unique characterand proximityto other existing wells,be utilized to achieve the important objectives found in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010. 4822-3317-6832.1 LFWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP April 2, 2004 Page 4 By approving a Pacific City EIR that does not address the important objectives found in Section 15.50.010 (or the mandate of Oil Overlay "C") the City Planning Commission effectively ignores and then sweeps asunder for all time those important objectives; for once the Pacific City project is completed, there will be no other Oil Overlay, or available land to which existing oil production facilities might be consolidated and modernized. Moreover, access to the significant remaining oil resources underlaying the proposed project site will be forever lost, as there simply is no other available land or drilling site from which those reserves might be viably accessed via slant drilling or otherwise. The City's theoretical "band aid"suggestion that "slant drilling is possible" is flatly misleading and fails to account for the fact that with the development of the land over Oil OverlayC,there is no otherplace in Huntington Beach from which economically viable slant drilling might proceed. Perhaps most important, with the development of all of the land occupied by Oil Overlay"C" and the phase out of other drilling into the subsurface formation in Oil Overlays "A" and "B," dangerous pressures will be allowed to build up and could well lead to an emergency and needless tragedy of the kind we have already seen in Fairfax, Beverly Hills, and Newport Beach. Clearly, some provision needs to be made to address the objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.10, failing which, the proposed Pacific City Project, EIR and CUP, will be in direct contravention of the laws that the City itself passed for the health, welfare and safety of its constituents. C. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FROM LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, DECEMBER 3. 2003 Essentially, the City's Response suggests that the rather unambiguous language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan supports an intent to"permit, but not require, oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay"C." Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the Oil Overlay relate only to Oil Development projects[". . .preparation of conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable only when a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-serving reading of the clear terms of 4.14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that its terms apply to any development on the land. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there 4822-3317-6832J LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH LLF April 2, 2004 Page 5 simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. In addition,that the"Regulations"section of Oil Overlay"C"demonstrates that the drafters envisioned a Project containing residences, and that the any Project Plan would both "minimize the visual impacts on the residences"while still allowing"safe access to the oil sites." In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the City Counsel to overturn the City Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the EIR at this time and ask that the Counsel direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties, including the City Planning Office to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. South Coast believes that there are viable solutions to this problem that do not necessarily require the complete reconfiguration of the Pacific City Project as proposed and which further all of the concerned parties interests in seeing the Pacific City Project proceed while doing justice to the legitimate objectives and requirements already found in the City Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. Very ruly yours, rucc> eri EWIS BRSBO IoSf BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FCB/jlc Enclosure 4822-3317-6832.i . LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, CO�j;� MESAq CA 92426 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.950.1030 1 WEES6E-" www.lbbslaw.com FRANK BRUCCULERI March 23, 2004 DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 E-MAIL:brucculai@Ibbslaw.com VIA MESSENGER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Re: Public Comments Re Environmental Impact Report No. 02-0 1/Tentative Tract Map No. 16338/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 With Special Perrttit No 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12/Conceptual Master Plan(Pacific City) Planning Commission Meeting Dated March 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m Dear Ms. Broeren: As you know from our previous correspondence, we represent the interests of South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") with regard to opposition to approval of the referenced project and Environmental Impact Report. We write to provide our further comments and opposition to the referenced application of Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Hatcher. Please see attached hereto our previous correspondence dated December 3, 2003, the content of which we incorporate herein as though fully set forth. A. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FROM LENVIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, DECEMBER 3, 2003 By way of general comment, the City's Response to the issues and arguments raised by LBBS's correspondence dated December 3, 2003, is flatly intellectually dishonest. Essentially, the Application suggests that the rather unambiguous Language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan("DTSP") supports an intent to "pertnit, but not require, oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay"C." Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the Los ANOBIBS SAN FRANgseD SAN Dom COSTA MBSA SAN B&MARDINO SACRAMSNTO New YORK LAS VEOAS 213.250.1800 415.362.2580 619.233.1006 714.545.9200 909.387A 130 916.564.5400 212.232.1300 702.366.9212 4829.300&1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH LLP March 23, 2004 Page 2 Oil Overlay relate only to Oil Development projects [". . .preparation of a conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable only when a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-serving reading of the clear terms of 4, 14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: 1. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. 2. The plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay "C." No other fair reading of the section can be rationally countenanced by these terms. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. In addition, that the preamble language in Oil Overlay"C" differs demonstrably from that contained in the other Oil Overlay's "A" and "B," demonstrates that the terms contained in Oil Overlay"C" were designed to facilitate and make provision for the town's FUTURE OIL PRODUCTION NEEDS. Indeed, the introductory language to 4.14.03, makes plain, by comparison to that found in the other oil overlays, that the property covered by Oil Overlay"C" is largely undeveloped requiring a plan to protect the future oil drilling and production needs in the area. 4829-3008-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH LLr March 23, 2004 Page 3 In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the Commission to not approve the Plan at this time, but postpone its approval pending resolution of this issue. It would be helpful if the Commission would direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. Very truly yours, Frank Brucculeri of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FCB 4829-3008-1536.1 , r LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 I FAX: 714.850A030 I WEDSITE: www.lbbslaw.com FRANK BRCCCULERI December 3, 2003 DIRECT DIAL:714.668,5512 E-MAIL:brucculeri@Ibbslaw.com .r VIA MESSENGER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street _. Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Re: Public Comments Re Pacific City DRAFT Environment Impact Report Dear Ms. Broeren: We have been retained by South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") to lodge formal public comment with the City of Huntington Beach ("the City') in response to the City's invitation to provide public comments regarding the Pacific City Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). You may recall that we attended the November 13, 2003 public meeting, scheduled by the Planning Commission for the City of Huntington Beach, and we placed, on the audio-taped record, public comments regarding the draft EIR, specifically referencing deficiencies in section 3.5 [Energy and Mineral Resources] of the draft EIR and the incorporated appendices referenced therein. This serves to further memorialize and delineate the comments we made at the November 13 meeting, and now does so formally on behalf of South Coast. A. FUNDAMENTAL DEFICIF,NCIELN THE DRAFT' EIR 1. Summary of Inadequacies of Section 3.5 of the EIR [Energy and Mineral Resources) In direct contradiction of the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws, the EIR proposes to eliminate direct access to Oil Overlay C at the proposed Pacific City development site. The zoning laws of the City and the City's Municipal Code established the mineral rights of the City and private mineral owners to the minerals found at the region in the City, designated as Oil Los Ammss SAN MAMCM0 SAN Deco COSTA MESA SAN BERNARDwo SACRAMENTO New YOM W V90l4 213.250.1800 415.362.2590 619,233.1006 714.545.9200 909.387.1130 916.564.5400 212.232.1300 702.366.9212 4829-3009-1536.1 t LEWIS 13RiSBOIS BISGAARD&SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 2 Overlay C. The proposed Pacific City development, through the draft EIR, seeks to repeal the agreements reached between the City, the State of California and the California Coastal Commission and the statutory mandate of section 4. 14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, specifically the consolidation of the City's oil fields and authorized direct access points in the City to the Huntington Beach oil field. The proposed alternative to direct oil production access at Oil Overlay C, by the EIR, is slant drilling at another region—not identified in the EIR-- in the City. The slant drilling, as proposed by the EIR, effectively and absolutely bars direct access to Oil Overlay C, as intended by the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws. Indeed, glaringly absent from the EIR is any discussion of how the proposed slant drilling preserves the legislative intent of, and complies wwith section 4. 14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and how the proposed slant drilling is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to the existing laws of the City by providing direct access to Oil Overlay C. Without any detailed, of authoritative analysis, the EIR proposes slant drilling at an unidentified location in the City in an apparent effort to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and in an apparent attempt to mitigate the potential specter of claims that slant drilling constitutes an unlawful taking of the mineral rights of private mineral owners. More disturbing is that the proposed slant drilling belies established black letter law, that the mineral estate owner is the dominant estate or tenement, and the surface estate owner is the subservient estate or tenement. The EIR refers to an alleged "consultation" between the City's fire department the City's petro-consultant, Mel Wright, concerning the feasibility of slant drilling "near" the project site, however, no discussion of the factors and concerns allegedly considered by Mr. Wright, to support his purported opinion that slant drilling was a feasible alternative to extracting mineral resources directly on top of Oil Overlay C, is found in section 3.5 of the EIR or any of the appendices to the EIR. Surpi isingly, the opinions and conclusions of the City's petro- consultant, Niel Wright, were not memorialized so as to provide credible support for the d l'PfoaG38iu'd iciri.ii5�'e'�� S.1Tii Yil hl�. 2. General Comments At the November 13 meeting, the agents for EIP presented the public with three questions, as follows: 1 . Did the EIR capture the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? 2. Did the EIR address those impact(s) 4329-3003-1536.1 V 1 I,Ewis BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH rrr December 3, 2003 Page 3 3. Did the EIR provide adequate mitigating alternatives to address the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? First, the scope of the public inquiry presented by the agents for EIP did not adequately address all phases of the impact on the nuneral and energy rights of Huntington Beach mineral owners as the public inquiry EIP was limited to two phases of the project, (1) during construction, and (2) post construction. As such, the scope of EIP's public inquiry did not take into account the impact(s) on the City, its residents, and its resident business owners before construction commences, and the impact(s) on Oil Overlay C. As designed and currently proposed to the City, the Pacific City project completely covers Oil Overlay C, and does not provide direct access for oil production from Oil Overlay C. The EIR suggest that oil production may be accessed by slant drilling, but fails to provide any meaningful analysis in support thereof. Second, the EIR does not sufficiently state, in any detail, an analysis outlining the proposed mitigating alternatives to the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the energy and mineral resources available to resident mineral owners and the City, including but not limited to, the potential wrongful taking of the Oil Overlay rights established by Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and Nvhy the proposed mitigating alternatives do not violate the City's zoning laws. In still), while EIR recognized the purpose, and public policy of the City supporting the establishment of Oil Overlay C at page 3-15-4 of the EIR, it is resoundingly silent as to how the rights of resident mineral owners will be preserved, as currently proposed. 2. Conformity With The Chapter 15.50 Of The City's Municipal Code And Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.03 It is unclear from the EIR that the City and/or the developer of the Pacific City project 'ilTicnU CG151 i w`it'ii'�l'ie i2r'i 5:ywf iitc-�'Si 'S {Vi'dli @i ni vZic;3 ,ecifical;' i 5.50iv 10. f Y" P Y' F N Y Section 15.50.010 Ciiy,along-with the.iruentsurd agree,rulatcsftine State of California and the California Coastal Commission, to consolidate the oil operations in and around the City and off the shores of the City. The EIR does not provide any analysis as to how the City and/or the developer intend to comply with § 15.50.010 of the Municipal Code, or if it does not comply, how the violation should be mitigated. a. Was it the intent of the Cite, through the passage of Chapter 15.50, to consolidate the oil production/ operations throughout the city by reducing access to the Huntington Beach oil field by establishing three (3) primary access points at Oil Overlay A, Oil Overlay B and Oil Overlay C? 4829-3003-1536.1 • � l LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD K SMITH t-t-F December 3. 2003 Page 4 The EIR fails to explain, in any detail, how the proposed mitigating alternative of"slant drilling" at site separate and apart front the location of Oil Overlay C conforms with section 4. 14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Nlunicipal Code. b. Does the City intend to enforce section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and thereby preserve the rightful access of resident mineral owners to Oil Overlay C? c. If so, then does the City intend to require the developer of Pacific City to set aside at least 2 acres at the Pacific City site pursuant to the requirements of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan? Impact ENI-3 of the EIR, at page 3.5-10, shows that as cun-ently proposed, the Pacific City plan does not propose or allow for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property as required by section 4, 14.03. Section 4.14.03 specifically requires, "[t]he [conceptual site] plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than tivo (2) acres in size for new oil well drilling and oil production. Such island(s) shall he incouporated into the overall developanent plan so that noise, odor and visual impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil site(s) is provided. Findings that at least one such island so designed is incorporated into the plans shall be made by the Planning Contntission before approving any development project." The EIR does not address how the proposed Pacific City project provides for a two (2) acre oil island over Oil Overlay C, and as statutorily mandated by section 4.14.03. d. Was it the intent of the City, through the passage of section 4.14.03 of the D'oliniblin'Slrccine'i'an,1u'y'n't ;i7 �'e'�airCerrentan ti'ireci'acuYss iu"i9uc mine-rat; in the_Huntington'Beach oil field by designating.Oi1'Ove-clay C? e. Prior to, or at the time of the City's decision to approve the location of Oil Overlay C, did the City consider the geological and engineering intpact(s) on the residents of the City and the City by establishing a region of the Huntington Beach oil field, such as Oil Overlay C'. If so, what were the Potential intpact(s) considered by the City? Appendix A of the EIR, at page 22, recognizes the potential significant impact(s) and value of the mineral resources that are located in the region of the City designated as Oil Overlay 4829-3003-1530.1 1 i LENIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMiTH t.t-P December 3, 2003 Page 5 C. The test of section 3.5 of the EIR, however, obliquely references Appendix A, but then fails connect its application to the discussion set forth in the EIR. f. Was public safety a factor in the City decision-making analysis when it considered creating direct access to the Huntington Beach oil field at the regional location designated as Oil Overlay C? g. if the City approves the Pacific City plan as currently proposed, is it the intent of the City to preserve the designated Oil Overlay regions, specifically Oil Overlay C, as established by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? And, how will it comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific flan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code'? h. If the City intends to approve the Pacific City plan, including EIP's Proposal of slant drilling at an unknown site in the City, then how does the City intend to comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? As currently proposed in the EIR, there is no detailed analysis as to how the Pacific City Project intends to preserve the legislative intent of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code City insofar as it relates to the preservation of the Oil Overlay C, or how it intends to preserve the historical agreements between the City, the State of California, and the California Coastal Commission relating to Oil Overlay C, as embodied by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. B. MISLEADING AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE EIR 1. Misrepresentations of Purported Statements by Mott Wright 'I'hat Other Sites Are Available The EiR indicates Mel Wright, referred to in the EIR as the City's Consultant, that there are off site locations that one can drill from to reach the minerals under the Pacific City property, so that, in Pacific City's opinion, thought wrongly implying it is Mr. Wright's opinion, it is no longer necessary to reserve such natural resource production site as called for in Natural Resource Overlay C and previously approved by the State Land Commission, Coastal Conurussion, and the City. ` 4929-3003-1536.1 l LER'IS BRISBois BISGF.ARD fi SMITH 1.1.1' December 3, 2003 Page 6 a. However, in our discussions with Mr. Wright, he indicated that he never spoke to the Pacific City representatives, and the last work he remembers performing as a consultant for the City of Huntington Beach, in the early 1990s, was surveying for possible drilling locations in the Huntington Beach Onshore Area, without regard to any "01" zoning (oil production and new drilling, such as the approved overlays here). lk'Ir. Wright never indicated there were any other "01" zoning, and instead has infornned us that there are no other possible "01" locations in the area. b. Even moving across the zoning street to an existing "0" only site (existing production), would require obtaining approval from various state agencies, to approve any further drilling from the existing site, plus the unit operator of the majority of units mineral rights. C. The nearest other alternative site is more than a mile and half away, many thousands of feet away, while the minerals in the area are as shallow as 500 feet. This world require not just directional drilling, but almost pure lateral drilling. The costs of drilling such a well are not economically reasonable or feasible. d. Since the 1920s, there have been regulations on where and when to drill, ending with residual locations, agreed to by all responsible agencies in the State of California and the City, including the "01" zoned Resource Overlay here in question. -Thus, contrary to the "opinion" of Pacific Cities, as stated in the EIR, the Resource Overlay in question here is the ONLY economically feasible drilling site in the area that is currently so approved by the responsible state agencies. ..,__...-- - a .r .r, .. __ . .. 'i. 'tn rerctn cScAt ai "I,S'i13'd% fsilhu-vfi'd 'a�n'uta�rau n�l'rvauYl nlan:, IG :Ina'lyrEu Is Purportedly fusignificant The EIR wrongly suggests there are no significant amounts of methane in the area to be remediated. This is incorrect. a. The closest existing active oil well has reported build up pressure caused by natural gas, on the casing side of the well, that exceeds 1000 Ibs per square inch, within several hours of the well being shut in, indicating very significant natural gas pressures remain in the reservoir. 4329.3003-1 536.1 � f Uwis BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH t.rP December 3, 2003 Page 7 b. The decades of oil production has created pressure voids, and in those pressure voids, natural gas escapes solution and fills those pressure voids, building up significant pressures as more and more gas escapes from its natural solutions in liquids such as water, due to the low pressure. Local conditions then allow these pockets of natural gas to easily migrate to the surface, and once there, they become potentially explosive— such as the occasional explosions and fires in the Los Angeles Farmers Market area. d. This potentially dangerous problem is remediated by injecting liquids such as water into the gas pockets voids. The more dense liquid forces the natural gas in the pockets back into suspension within the liquid, as the liquid fills those pockets. This injection rentediation requires an active drill site, such as the "01" zoned site in question here. The loss of the site will mean the loss of any feasible, meaningful opportunity to remediate this potentially significant problem for the residents of the City. 3. Implicit Misrepresentation that Existing Mineral Owners Will Not Be Denied Access to Very Substantial, Multi-Million Dollar Mineral Reserves The GIR implicitly represents to the existing mineral owners that they will be able to capture their very valuable (multi-million dollar) mineral rights. Those mineral owners include not only voting tax payers within the City but even the City itself (which could, e.g., help fund schools as done in Beverly Hills). a. As discussed above, there are no other zoned, approved, feasible, economical drill sites in the area, zoned as "01". i). -itiic `aiStr'i1Sc Y.'a4ii7-m�\CSOVI'CCJ Overlay concept was designed as a conrprrnrise:m4ween mineral owrser's a:nt' the surface owners. Mineral owners nornudiv own the "dominant tenement", which would otherwise control over the rights of all the surface owners. Thus the creation of the Overlays was intended as a compromise, to allow substantial surface development, while reserving sufficient surface area for use by the dominant tenement mineral owner's to drill for and produce the minerals. Thus, loss of this sole remaining site is would mean City will have denied the existing mineral owners their constitutional right to property, without providing just compensation. 4S29-3003-1536.1 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH UP December 3, 2003 Page 8 In conclusion, we are happy to meet with the City or anyone else concerned to discuss in more detail these and other relevant points related to this development. V ruly ours, Zri .Drank BI"UCCLLIe of LEIVIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP L\4K 4829-3008-1536.1 O y O m N00 N F7 N o i Z i E S o � H R N O o � O m P b N O W y V H c a a z L.13 w Q Ul n Ln m W � ru H cA k� J F � a � H ..� x x F _• U 4 u'i �] r- rm . . d F a coa8 U — W W m ad a S 2 O oy � y x J cr F amw 8 O c� aw� O ¢ 09 F p ^' ' ya 0 0ux cc$ y FC Ooka = f ' F o - O N a 0 U N C z O _ O U Z O O x m 3 ° x F cn FO LU O m LL Cl) D �O E Oc� Fw LU 3 0 a0 lea 4 t8" PM 11 3 W Ctrq of IRIM INC F.O.am SE33500 �+"m�nraw OEACK CALs6MOMsr MU.71 cTO�HACH �y}P �_OVA L.FRE�OBI1101 DATE t1►t{ eF '--llJg1 `- ISSUING DEPT. do-CAL-` TELE• RECENEO FROM LOtAAA 2&6C O(M�S ` j-q%4njA ADDRESS �C S O 7yc- } QI C k cl1b 14 FOR AOOQO. ykc T _/ ��(] AMOUNTRECOM CASH IPi� C.T. 33S dU PREPARED Bw RECENEO BY IF OBJECT.50000 TNRU 90000.FINANCE APPROVAL DATE Busuim Unit I Obim Sub-Accwnt An nt Asp �-' u Aoo . y�-k 1s - - - - - n . cSU TOTAL$ 33 S No. 107 :; 780 CUSTWER COP a 7 T , t O i V U p y ���a O •� O CJ � Nx f y C oL 8 g M N P ICI W < S � O V1 � � � U z m :J � � S 3 v o .a o U THE ROBEKT MAYER CORPORATION &A April 1, 2004 BY HAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council Planning Commission Certification of EIR 02-01 (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Brockway: On March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (the "EIR") for the Pacific City project in Huntington Beach (the "proposed Project"). The Robert Mayer Corporation hereby requests that such certification of the EIR be appealed to the City Council. We believe that the EIR is deficient in a number of respects, including, but not limited to the following: (1) The EIR does not accurately identify and quantify the traffic and parking impacts arising from the proposed Project; (2) it fails to properly identify impacts and mitigation measures relating to the water quality of runoff from the proposed Project onto the public beach; (3) it fails to adequately consider viable alternatives to the proposed Project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"); (4) it misleads the public by noting the possible existence of wetlands on the site while neglecting to accurately assess such fact, and instead incorrectly states that if such wetlands do exist, they can be mitigated offsite, which under law they cannot; and (5) it fails to adequately address the written comments submitted by this company and others including other public agencies by providing inadequate, dismissive and often inaccurate responses to such comments. By way of specific examples, such deficiencies and failings include, but are not limited to, the following: With respect to traffic and narking imriacts: - The EIR improperly assumes significant reductions in total traffic generation that otherwise would be reported for a project of this magnitude based on the combination of 660 Newport Center Drive . Suite 1050. Newptrt &ach,CA 92660 NO. &rx 8680 . Newtxnt Bench,CA 92658-8680 tel 949.759.8091 . fax 949.720.1017 � � k � • , � ) ■ � $ k ) A 2 e 7 = e § A4 m 16 < / 2 \ } 2 u t \ \ \\ = A ) & E ■ a 7 \ 3 o � City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 2 of 7 unsupportable "internal capture rate" and "mode-shift" assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant. Even the City's own independent review b-v an outside traffic consultant identified those assumptions as lacking any empirical data or citation of a professional source to support them and called for more data to assure that such assumptions were reasonable, yet none has been provided. Further, the California Department of Transportation, acting in its capacity as a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA also questioned these assumptions noting that they were "too high", and in rebuttal to the E/R's response to their continent asked that "the consultant provide local collected data to substantiate both the internal capture rates and the mode shift rates used in this study". Still, no data has been provided itn response to this request. As a result, the EIR seriously underreports the potential traffic generation arising from the project by approximately 25%-30%. - The consultant that prepared the above-referenced traffic report for the City that questioned the assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant was listed in the EIR as a preparer of documents for the EIR. Therefore, that skeptical traffic report was in fact a part of the total EIR documentation. Nonetheless, that report was not included in the documents released to the public or the Planning Commission, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. As a result, a legally sufficient public disclosure of all relevant information was not made in this EIR. - When assessing the cumulative impact of other foreseeable developments around the proposed Project, the EIR fails to account for the fact that the 3"u hotel site at The Waterfront project will be developed. This 3" hotel site, a mere 500 feet from the proposed Project, is approved by the City for development of up to a 300 room hotel. pursuant to an existing Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement and approved Commercial Master Site Plan. Those agreements provide for time frames of development consistent with the time frame of study within the I-IR. It is standard methodology when preparing traffic studies to include all known approved or likely projects in the analysis of cumulative impacts, even when there is a possibility that the project may not be completed precisely within the time frame of study. Worse still, the EIR's response to our written objection to this incorrect assumption is dismissive, indicating that the preparer took no effort to understand the terms of these agreements or to inquire of the current planning efforts underway by this company. Moreover, it prejudicially fails to consider the reasonable and appropriate assumption that this company will perform under the terms of its agreements, as it has in developing the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa. The certification of this EIR by the City based on this overtly incorrect assumption. while at the same time being a party to the above-referenced agreements, is wholly unjustifiable and could be construed as an inexcusable attempt to repudiate them. Such action is inconsistent with the doctrine of good faith and fair dealings implicit in those agreements. The calculations for parking contained in the EIR greatly underestimate the true needs of the project by employing numerous computational tricks, including reliance on the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 3 of 7 previously referenced unsupportable traffic generation assumptions to further reduce baseline assumptions of parking needs; employing other unsupported assumptions in joint-use calculations; making misleading comparisons to City parking codes that serve to mask the true extent of the parking reduction proposed; relying on adjacent beach parking rather than adequate onsite parking as required under City code; relying on the unfounded assumption that an immense number of customers (some 3,000 per weekday) will park in the downtown area and walk '/z mile to the proposed Project rather than considering this project as a primary destination:. failing to consider whether there will in fact be excess parking in the downtown area sufficient to allow for the aforementioned assumption; and by failing to consider the actual parking rates experienced by the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort per a written survey previously submitted to the City. Reliance on any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions is questionable, but reliance on the multiplicative effect of all these assumptions without verifiable, empirical evidence to support each of' them is wholly unreasonable, improper and renders the EIR deceptive and inadequate. Pacific View Avenue is classified on the Orange County Master Plan of Highways and the City's General Plan as a primary arterial with a design standard of four lanes with a center divider. The EIR fails to adequate]), address the impacts resulting from the sub- standard proposed design of Pacific View that reduces the number of' lanes from four to two, and then worse still places angled parking on the south side that would significantly inhibit the free flow of traffic. This condition is exacerbated by a concentration of entries to both the residential and commercial phases of the project at only two intersections in very close proximity to each other. The entire design is virtually the opposite of that design required by the City and built by this company between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street, even though the total occupied square footage of The Waterfront and the proposed Project are equivalent. Instead of properly considering the potential impacts of this deficient design, the EIR assumes that at some unknown time in the future Pacific View Avenue would be rebuilt to the proper, ultimate configuration. I-fowcvcr. no objective criteria are described in the EIR or elsewhere that would clarify under what conditions the roadway would be widened; nor does it consider the practical realities of the changes to the proposed Project (from setbacks to loss of public parking in the coastal zone) that would occur from such a future change. In truth, the EIR has chosen to analyze a project that is different than the proposed Project, resulting in a misleading conclusion about the real impacts of the proposed Project. With respect to water qualitv impacts of runoff from the proposed Project onto the Citv beach: - The EIR fails to adequately consider the potential for bacterial contamination on the beach even though the proposed Project plans to alter the drainage patterns of the site such that a large majority of the site's runoff will be redirected to the beach, when previously it was not. - The EIR fails to adequately identify and require appropriate mitigation measures to deal with the potential for bacterial contamination. In response to this company s written comments, and our submission of expert analysis of the issue, the City revised certain City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 4 of 7 language in the EIR to indicate that dry season flows from the proposed Project might in the future be diverted from the beach to the Orange County Sanitation District (as is the case now for the whole of the site), but only "at the City s election". The revision in language to indicate the possibility of' diversion of the dry season flows is implicit recognition that a significant environmental risk exists (even though such risk is otherwise improperly trivialized in much of the balance of the responses). However. even given that the EIR did at last recognize the environmental risk by suggesting that the diversion would be the solution, it failed to properly identify such diversion as being the mitigation measure that in fact it is. And worse, the EIR then failed to implement that mitigation measure with certainty, as required by CEQA, choosing instead to leave the action to be "at the City's election". Such language is inappropriate and lawfully inadequate. With respect to the consideration of Lroieet alternatives, as required under CEQA: - The EIR only considers only one reduced-intensity project alternative in detail, that being the "Reduced Project Alternative" wherein the commercial use square footage was reduced from approximately 240,000 sq. feet to 190,000 square feet, but all other phases of the proposed Project remained unchanged. This 50,000 sq. ft. reduction represents only an 8% reduction in the occupied area of the commercial portion of the development. and a mere 3% of the total occupied area of the proposed Project as a whole. It must be noted that the area eliminated consisted of the least desirable 3rd floor retail and office space with little viability in any event, and restaurant use was actually increased by 10,000 sq. ft. Although resulting in a decrease in impacts, this trivial reduction in total project intensity hardly deserves the status of being the only alternative to be studied in detail in the EIR. - The EIR fails to meaningfully consider a range of other alternatives, such as a reduction in the number of residential units or in the size of the hotel proposed. Such options are dismissed without serious study for two dubious reasons, as follows: o The option would not lessen certain impacts to a less-than-significant level, even though it may significantly reduce certain environmental impacts. However, restricting consideration to only those options that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level is a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study. Under the rationale used in the EIR. if a proposed project had no significant environmental impacts, then no alternatives would be studied (since only alternatives that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level are supposedly worthy of consideration). However, in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, the Supreme Court held that even if all the project's significant impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures, an EIR must still discuss project alternatives. Therefore, the rationale used in the EIR is not consistent with applicable law and the alternatives analysis is flawed. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of'Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 5 of 7 o The option would not meet the City's or applicant's objectives. A long list of broad objectives is declared that again creates a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study since they may not meet one of the many objectives. For instance, one of the objectives listed is to "provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre..." However, this objective effectively rules out the consideration of any alternative short of a maximum density build out of the residential portion of this project. It is instructive to contrast this manufactured standard with the revised plan of The Waterfront project approved by the City wherein one entire hotel and an entire 75,000 square foot retail plaza was eliminated, and the residential density was cut to 1/4'h of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan allowed density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Such a reduction was determined by both the applicant and the City to be a fully viable alternative and is successfully underway today. Yet at the proposed Project, such a reduction in intensity has been deemed to be out of the question and not worthy of serious consideration in the E1R. With respect to the possible identification of wetlands on the proposed Protect site: - The EIR notes the possibility that wetlands exist on the site. Individuals have submitted letters and photographs lending credence to this possibility. The EIR further outlines the more liberal criteria used by the California Coastal Commission for consideration of potential wetlands located in the coastal zone, which is the applicable standard for the site pursuant to the Local Coastal Plan. However, the EIR errs in only evaluating the potential wetlands based on the more restrictive (but inapplicable) criteria used by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Gamc. No evaluation was made under the applicable guidelines of the California Coastal Commission and Local Coastal Plan, nor were the areas of concern mapped or reviewed by a qualified biologist for these purposes. - The California Coastal Commission provided written commentary to the above point, but in its haste to certify the EIR on March 23`d, 2004, the Planning Commission did not consider the Commission's request that the EIR be modified to include an evaluation of the potential wetlands under the applicable criteria. This omission occurs even though the project applications were not approved at that meeting (and as the date of this appeal have still not been approved) and therefore adequate time exists to make such corrections to the EIR without unduly delaying consideration of the project approvals. - Not only does the EIR fail to adequately evaluate the potential wetlands at the site under applicable criteria, it erroneously concludes that if wetlands do exist at the site, their existence can be determined at a later date and they can be destroyed and the impact mitigated by some undisclosed offsite mitigation. This approach is flawed for three reasons: City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 6 of 7 o Reasonable information has been presented, and is also referenced in the FIR, that a potential for a significant environmental impact exists by way of the destruction of wetlands. The EIR should properly evaluate this potential, and should not defer evaluation to a later, unspecified date. Under the flawed approach taken by the EIR, any suspected significant impact, be it traffic, cultural resources, air quality, etc. need not be properly evaluated in the EIR, but instead could be left to later study. o The EIR is flawed by assuming that a generalized mitigation measure, such as an unspecified offsite wetland restoration activity, may be applied in the future. The purpose of the EIR is to properly identify the impact, and to adopt a specific mitigation measure with a factual and analytical basis. No analysis is presented to determine whether the proposed unspecified offsite mitigation activity would in fact mitigate for the impact, if the impact exists. o Existing law does not allow for the destruction of wetlands in the coastal zone with offsite mitigation in this instance. The EIR errs by considering this alternative to be viable, when in fact it is not. I1'wetlands do exist at the property. the proposed Project will have to be redesigned to preserve those wetlands, but the EIR fails to even recognize this possibility. Further, in the EIR's response to comments, it repeats this error by defending the potential for offsite mitigation by inaccurately summarizing the applicable case law. The FIR incorrectly asserts that the prohibition against development on wetlands in the coastal zone is limited only to environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHAs"), when in fact, in addition to rulings on ESHAs, Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior C'ourr (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 493 ruled that development of wetlands (not specifically ESHAs) is controlled by Public Resources Code section 30233(a) which limits such development to only certain port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial uses. With respect to the responses to comments: - In response to this company's comment that the EIR's traffic calculations indicate that 3,000 customers per weekday, and 330 people in the evening peak hour, are anticipated to park in the downtown area and walk '/z mile to the proposed Project, which is a wholly incredible assumption likely to render the downtown area virtually vacant of visitors, the EIR response to the comment states that such calculation is correct, but "equates to five people per minute and six people per minute, respectively" as if that is a sufficient justification and explanation for the assumption. Simply converting the statistics from people per day or hour to people per minute is not an adequate response. - The EIR included an additional "Topical Responses" section that in reference to the suspect assumptions of mode shift and internal capture spends a good deal of' words rationalizing the developer's traffic consultant's conclusions; but nowhere does provide the empirical evidence requested by the City s own reviewing traffic consultant or the California Department of Transportation. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 7 of 7 - The EIR's Topical Responses attempt to further explain issues with respect to Water Quality, Traffic and Parking; however, they present a wholly one-sided perspective defending the inadequate analysis in the EIR, rather than properly disclosing the differences of opinions between experts on the issues. Where differences in expert opinions exist, such as between the developer's traffic consultant and the City's review consultant, the EIR should summarize and explain the main points of disagreement. Instead, the EIR only obliquely mentions that "public commentators have identified disagreement with the conclusions" without faithfully disclosing to the reader the nature of those disagreements, particularly those disagreements between experts involved in the preparation of the EIR. In conclusion, we do not believe that EIR No. 02-01 meets the standards of accuracy and fairness that the City of Huntington Beach should expect and demand for a project of the intensity of the proposed Project. We ask that after a duly noticed public hearing wherein ourselves and others be given adequate time in advance to submit further written comments and to provide oral testimony without cursory time limits, that the City Council act to deny the certification of EIR No. 02-01. THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION Shawn K. Millbem Senior Vice President, Development \ _ § � } \ \ i $ } z \ � - \ u \ ) ) u 2 g 7 k \� / 4 \ / I \ \ � _ rLn z § t) \ / ue / f � 2f \ ƒ \ o } j § 22t / co�(k0 / % w c § - ) $ c ) Ln . a ) cuLi . _ 9 ƒ / 2 z D % Egg \ / j E o� o / Q0 0 ul / \ z \ E \ z§\ ) b $ j ` E§}G q < LU m 2 < $ a©k\ 0 r CD- a, H a. G o Q ^ °c°o U •- g bs O E U O u m a z z z < c v u c O U C U z a F o C _ C a4cu u ; U o 1 x > rz m LL �n 'r yLy 7 Ln O y 8 =W N 5 n O v V Naomi ou Q oo a) c � �, z C.Q M o Q C O ^ 00 rU r� C7 r aGi U ry in X z > c, Lo v ^' Ln � T U Jr - d � z . U = 7 0 q 000 a cko ` rn ec Ucx H W LU v ¢ y U Lu �o Qo U w tf a n� �m LU a s 2 m O Ql'o ° NC T a O Z ^ J i I I +yy cix:tinytor: each 20�70 Min Street 'rlur6,te4tor, Beach, CA92648 7I 4t-539-55'19 4/'1f2rjr.:1:20:57 F=V Your ashi_r:vas Aron 220000i!64692 T4 City Treasurer Appea's 9,187.57 .Appears 1,'I o7.5Q Toka 2,K q,00 Check $1,i 97.5Q i l t?.5C' Check .1 CF:a :1e so.(b] i^a'ik'(.nJI Please visit us or: the rich ' vnn.v.su^ci;�-hb.oro THE ROBERT MAYER {. . CORPORATION (ady i,ni Il May 14, 2004 BY RAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Special Permit 02-04, Coastal Development Permit 02-12, CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and related entitlements (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Brockway: On May 5, 2004, the Planning Commission approved the above listed entitlements (the "approvals") for the Pacific City project in Huntington Beach (the "proposed Project"). The Robert Mayer Corporation hereby requests that such approvals be appealed to the City Council. We believe that the approvals were granted without an adequate disclosure of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project for reasons expressed in our appeal letter dated April 1, 2004 regarding Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (the "EIR"). A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. As stated in that prior appeal letter, we maintain that the EIR is deficient in a number of respects, including, but not limited to the following: (1) The EIR does not accurately identify and quantify the traffic and parking impacts arising from the proposed Project; (2) it fails to properly identify impacts and mitigation measures relating to the water quality of runoff from the proposed Project onto the public beach; (3) it fails to adequately consider viable alternatives to the proposed Project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); (4) it misleads the public by noting the possible existence of wetlands on the site while neglecting to accurately assess such fact, and instead incorrectly states that if such wetlands do exist, their destruction can be mitigated offsite, which under law cannot be done; and (5) it fails to adequately address the 660 Newport Center Drive . Suite 1050 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 P0. BON S6S0 . Newport Beach, CA 92658-8680 tel 949.759.S091 . tax 949.720.1017 $ 2 /tv ) ® § § � \ � ( \ < / \ § > / \ q ( � ) n e . ( � / _ J }` � tv \ / 4 } § � z { � ol� ] " � ` � c . 2 - � ✓ . City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Project Approvals Page 2 of 9 written comments submitted by this company and others including other public agencies by providing inadequate, dismissive and often inaccurate responses to such comments. Other grounds for appeal beyond the inadequacy of the environmental documentation include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposed Project does not build out Pacific View Avenue to its required width pursuant to the Orange County Master Plan of Highways and the City's General Plan which shows the street as a primary arterial with a design standard of four lanes with a center divider. We have previously explained that the EIR fails to adequately address the impacts resulting from the sub-standard proposed design. We have also expressed our strenuous objection to this design, noting the combined difficulty of angled parking on the south side that would significantly inhibit the free flow of traffic together with the concentration of entries to both the residential and commercial phases of the proposed Project at only two intersections in very close proximity to each other. The Planning Commission has approved the proposed design while requiring that the developer bond for the revision of Pacific View Avenue to the required full width for a period of 10 years or until a General Plan Amendment is approved to eliminate the requirement, whichever first occurs. This is an improper action for several reasons, including, but not limited to the following: o The condition does not provide that the City shall require the developer to make the revision to the street width if troublesome traffic conditions are experienced (and no criteria for such a determination are provided). o The condition does not provide that the City shall require the developer to make the revision to the street width if the General Plan Amendment is not completed. At the end of the 10 year period, the bond can lapse and nothing occur. o The condition is nothing more than a pretext for approving a design that is inconsistent with the General Plan, which is made obvious by its very language that anticipates a future Amendment to the General Plan. It is no different than approving the development of a commercial building in a residential zone by conditioning the developer to post a bond to cover the cost of converting the commercial building to residential use in the future if the zoning is not later changed. The posting of a bond is not a legally adequate solution to allowing development that is inconsistent with the General Plan. o Approving the proposed Project in this way where a future General Plan Amendment is anticipated to later allow what is being approved today is to intentionally piecemeal the proposed Project into two separate actions. contrary to the requirements of CEQA. Statements within the EIR as well as other documentation submitted to the City indicate a reasonable potential that wetlands exist on the site. We have previously explained that the EIR is inadequate in its analysis of this issue. The California Coastal Commission City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Project Approvals Page 3 of 9 has additionally noted this inadequacy in letters dated March 18, 2004 and April 13, 2004 which are attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. As noted in the appeal of the certification of the EIR, conditioning a project to study a potential impact at a later date, and to later develop unspecified mitigation measures to such impact, is in general a flawed approach inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Planning Commission recognized the flaw in the EIR, but certified it anyway and later adopted a condition of approval requiring a later wetland delineation to be performed. However, that condition of approval is flawed in four important respects: o The Planning Commission's condition of approval does not clearly state that the required wetland delineation be performed using the applicable definition of wetlands per the Local Coastal Plan and as used by the California Coastal Commission. This was a crucial flaw in the existing EIR documentation, and although it may have been the intention of the Planning Commission to rectify that flaw, the condition of approval is not specific in its wording on the issue. Further, given the location within the coastal zone, and the potential that the project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission as a result of the existence of wetlands or other reasons as referenced in the attached letters, it would be most proper that such delineation be performed by the Commission's staff biologist. o The Planning Commission's condition of approval specifically incorporates language attempting to permit the infilling and destruction of the potential wetland areas and vegetation prior to the delineation of such areas for the existence of wetlands. Such action is entirely inconsistent with the Coastal Act, the approved Local Coastal Plan, CEQA and other applicable law dealing with the protection of wetlands and sensitive habitats. The condition of approval attempts to give reason for such activity by referencing a prior Coastal Development Permit 900-09 for soil remediation activities. However, the prior Coastal Development Permit does not allow destruction of wetlands if they now exist. Not only would such an act by the developer be illegal on its face. the City's action in incorporating permission for such illegal acts in the project approval is also improper and illegal. o The Planning Commission's condition of approval specifically states that if wetlands are identified, that numerous further permits (including a Coastal Development Permit from the City) would be required. Approving the proposed Project in this way where future discretionary permits from the City are anticipated is to intentionally piecemeal the proposed Project into two separate actions, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. There is nothing preventing the City from performing the proper wetland delineation now as a part of the EIR process and then acting on all the required discretionary permits as may be required. This is particularly important given potential changes to the proposed Project that might occur from wetland impacts, as discussed below. (In fact, from the time that this company filed its appeal to the certification of the EIR on April City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Project Approvals Page 4 of 9 1, 2004 until the time that the City Council will actually consider such appeal, more than adequate time has elapsed for such a delineation to have already been performed.) o The Planning Commission's condition of approval does admit that current laws and regulations will require that if wetlands exist, no net loss of wetlands will be allowed to occur. As noted in the appeal to the certification of the EIR, the EIR incorrectly stated that mitigation for such loss might be provided offsite. Such offsite mitigation in the coastal zone is specifically illegal under Balsa C'hica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 493. Therefore, the preservation of wetlands onsite, including the provision of appropriate buffer zones, may have a profound impact on the design of the proposed Project. As a result, the act of deferring the wetland delineation to a later date has the very real potential of changing the project design in such a way that the project analyzed in the EIR is significantly different than the resulting project. The Planning Commission has adopted additional conditions of approval with regard to the handling of storm water discharge from the proposed Project onto the City beach. While we appreciate the difficulty of this issue, we also do not believe that the matter is sufficiently mitigated to a level of non-significance. It is important to realize that the drainage patterns for the site are proposed to be radically changed such that a great percentage of the property's drainage will be directed onto the City's beach, when previously this was not the case. With the new conditions of approval dry-weather flows from the project are now required to be diverted to the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station; however, such is not the case for the majority of the project with respect to first-flush and storm flows which continue to flow directly to the City beach. The EIR asserts that no standards for bacterial contamination exist that may be applicable. We believe that is incorrect since the proposed Project is proposing to change its flows and construct storm water pipe improvements so that the project's drainage can be directed onto the City beach. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan ("Basin Plan") was amended in 1997 to incorporate the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California ("Ocean Plan") which does contain bacterial standards for the waters at the shoreline, which therefore include the discharges of the proposed Project at the shoreline. Therefore, these standards should be fully applicable to the discharges of the proposed Project. As currently approved, the proposed Project does not comply with the Basin Plan. In the appeal to the certification of the EIR, we have discussed in great detail the inadequate parking that is proposed. However, we wish to amplify our objection to the fact that the proposed Project in significant part relies on existing beach parking to satisfy the Project's parking needs. The EIR often uses the phrase "parking demand interaction with the beach" as justification for the reduction in on-site parking, and the shared parking analysis uses this "interaction" as a basis to reduce parking. Regardless of the catchphrase used, it is obvious on its face that the proposed Project is relying in City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Project Approvals Page 5 of 9 significant part on existing beach parking rather than fully satisfying the parking requirements for the proposed Project onsite. If it were not the case, such phrase would not be used repeatedly in the project documentation. However, relying on beach parking is inconsistent with provisions of the Coastal Act. The proper solution to avoiding this glaring inconsistency is to revise the proposed Project so that it does not rely on beach parking in lieu of providing adequate onsite parking. Lastly, the proposed project does not comply with the Downtown Specific Plan in several respects, including but not limited to, the following: o The Downtown Specific Plan makes it clear that "Development in this district is not intended to compete with the Downtown commercial core..." (Downtown Specific Plan Section 3.2.3). However, the proposed Project bases its traffic and parking calculations on the premise that a substantial portion of its customers will be existing customers of the downtown commercial core who will park in the downtown area, rather than the at the proposed Project. This is the very definition of competition with the downtown core business, and no amount of explanation can escape that fact. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. The proper solution to avoiding this glaring inconsistency is to revise the proposed Project so that it does not rely on Downtown parking in lieu of providing adequate onsite parking, or to amend the Downtown Specific Plan. Unless one of these alternatives occurs, the City cannot make the finding that the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. o The Downtown Specific Plan also states, "The commercial uses in this District would be of a more seasonal variety..." (Downtown Specific Plan Section 3.2.3). However, nothing in the description of the proposed Project indicates any consideration of this criterion, and in fact the proposed Project generally describes uses including restaurants, offices, and a grocery store that again are uses that are directly competitive to the Downtown commercial core merchants. o As mentioned previously, the proposed Project bases its traffic and parking calculations on the premise that a substantial portion of its customers (3,000 people each day and 330 in the peak PM hour) will be existing customers of the downtown commercial core who will park in the downtown area, rather than at the proposed Project. The parking analysis makes repeated references and justification of reduced parking based on the Downtown Parking Master Plan as contained in the Downtown Specific Plan. However, the proposed Project is outside of the boundary of the Downtown Parking Nfaster Plan. Nonetheless, the proposed Project intends to rely on the pool of parking created by the Downtown Parking Master Plan to support its otherwise inadequate onsite parking. Again, the proper solution to avoiding this glaring inconsistency is to revise the proposed Project so that it does not rely on off-premise parking created City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Project Approvals Page 6 of 9 under the Downtown Parking Master Plan in lieu of providing adequate onsite parking. o The inconsistency of acting as if the proposed Project is located within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area (when in fact it is not) is made even more glaring when comparing statements within the EIR to statements within the Downtown Specific Plan regarding customers parking in the downtown area and walking to the proposed Project. The EIR states that, " It is reasonable to assume that customers would walk '/2 mile [to the proposed Project]..." (EIR "Topical Response to Traffic Generation, page 3-176). However, the Downtown Specific Plan states, "Studies have shown that in order to receive optimum utilization by shoppers, a parking facility should be within 300 to 400 feet of the commercial use which it serves." (Downtown specific Plan, Section 3.3? (1989)) Therefore, the proposed reliance on parking within the core Downtown area is inconsistent with the standards expressed in the Downtown Specific Plan for distances between parking and commercial uses. o Additionally, it should be noted that no analysis of the adequacy of the Downtown parking supply pursuant to the Downtown Parking Master Plan was undertaken to determine the effect of the reliance of the proposed Project on the finite parking supply. The issue is potentially of increasing importance since the City Council has recently directed the City staff to prepare plans for the closure of Main Street to vehicular traffic, thereby eliminating an additional 50+ parking spaces from the Downtown area. In conclusion, we do not believe that the approvals issued by the Planning Commission are proper for the reasons discussed above. We ask that after a duly noticed public hearing wherein ourselves and others be given adequate time in advance to submit further written comments and to provide oral testimony without cursory time limits, that the Citv Council act to deny the project approvals. THE ROOBBERT MAYER CORPORATION Shawn K. M`illbern Senior Vice President, Development att: Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" EXHIBIT "A" TO APPEAL LETTER DATED MAY 14, 2004 Appeal of Certification of EIR dated April I, 2004 THE l\k-J T MAYEI� CORPORATION April 1, 2004 BY BAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council Planning Commission Certification of EIR 02-01 (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Brockway: On March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (the "EIR") for the Pacific City project in Huntington Beach (the "proposed Project"). The Robert Mayer Corporation hereby requests that such certification of the EIR be appealed to the City Council. We believe that the EIR is deficient in a number of respects, including, but not limited to the following: (1) The EIR does not accurately identify and quantify the traffic and parking impacts arising from the proposed Project; (2) it fails to properly identify impacts and mitigation measures relating to the water quality of runoff from the proposed Project onto the public beach; (3) it fails to adequately consider viable alternatives to the proposed Project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); (4) it misleads the public by noting the possible existence of wetlands on the site while neglecting to accurately assess such fact, and instead incorrectly states that if such wetlands do exist, they can be mitigated offsite, which under law they cannot; and (5) it fails to adequately address the written comments submitted by this company and others including other public agencies by providing inadequate, dismissive and often inaccurate responses to such comments. By way of specific examples, such deficiencies and failings include, but are not limited to, the following: With respect to traffic and parking impacts: - The EIR improperly assumes significant reductions in total traffic generation that otherwise would be reported for a project of this magnitude based on the combination of 660 Newport Center Drive . Suite 1050 . i!e«port Beach, CA 92660 PO. Box 8630 . Newport Beach, CA 92658-8680 tel 949.759.8091 . fax 949.720,1017 City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 2 of 7 unsupportable "internal capture rate" and "mode-shift" assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant. Even the City's own independent review by all outside traffic consultant identified those assumptions as lacking any empirical data or citation of a professional source to support them and called for more data to assure that such assumptions were reasonable, yet none has been provided. Further, the California Department of Transportation, acting in its capacity as a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA also questioned these assumptions noting that they were "too high", and in rebuttal to the EIR's response to their comment asked that "the consultant provide local collected data to substantiate both the internal capture rates and Ilse mode shift rates used in this study". Still, no data has been provided in response to this request. As a result, the EIR seriously underreports the potential traffic generation arising from the project by approximately 25%-30%. - The consultant that prepared the above-referenced traffic report for the City that questioned the assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant was listed in the EIR as a preparer of documents for the EIR. Therefore, that skeptical traffic report was in fact a part of the total EIR documentation. Nonetheless, that report was not included in the documents released to the public or the Planning Commission, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. As a result, a legally sufficient public disclosure of all relevant information was not made in this EIR. - When assessing the cumulative impact of other foreseeable developments around the proposed Project, the EIR fails to account for die fact that tire .3id hotel site at The Waterfront project will be developed. This 3'd hotel site, a mere 500 feet from the proposed Project, is approved by the City for development of up to a 300 room hotel, pursuant to an existing Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement and approved Commercial Master Site Plan. Those agreements provide for time frames of development consistent with the time frame of study within the EIR. It is standard methodology when preparing traffic studies to include all known approved or likely projects in the analysis of cumulative impacts, even when there is a possibility that the project may not be completed precisely within the time frame of study. Worse still, the EIR's response to our written objection to this incorrect assumption is dismissive, indicating that the preparer took no effort to understand the terms of these agreements or to inquire of the current planning efforts underway by this company. Moreover, it prejudicially fails to consider the reasonable and appropriate assumption that this company will perform under the terms of its agreements, as it has in developing the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa. The certification of this EIR by the City based on this overtly incorrect assumption, while at the same time being a party to the above-referenced agreements, is wholly unjustifiable and could be construed as an inexcusable attempt to repudiate them. Such action is inconsistent with the doctrine of good faith and fair dealings implicit in those agreements. - The calculations for parking contained in the EIR greatly underestimate the true needs of the project by employing numerous computational tricks, including reliance on the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 3 of 7 previously referenced unsupportable traffic generation assumptions to further reduce baseline assumptions of parking needs; employing other unsupported assumptions in joint-use calculations; making misleading comparisons to City parking codes that serve to mask the true extent of the parking reduction proposed; relying on adjacent beach parking rather than adequate onsite parking as required under Citv code; relying on the unfounded assumption that an immense number of customers (some 3,000 per weekday) will park in the downtown area and walk % mile to the proposed Project rather than considering this project as a primary destination; failing to consider whether there will in fact be excess parking in the downtown area sufficient to allow for the aforementioned assumption; and by failing to consider the actual parking rates experienced by the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort per a written survey previously submitted to the City. Reliance on any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions is questionable, but reliance on the multiplicative effect of all these assumptions without verifiable, empirical evidence to support each of them is wholly unreasonable, improper and renders the EIR deceptive and inadequate. Pacific View Avenue is classified on the Orange County Master Plan of Highways and the City's General Plan as a primary arterial with a design standard of four lanes with a center divider. The EIR fails to adequately address the impacts resulting from the sub- standard proposed design of Pacific View that reduces the number of lanes from four to two, and then worse still places angled parking on the south side that would significantly inhibit the free flow of traffic. This condition is exacerbated by a concentration of entries to both the residential and commercial phases of the project at only two intersections in very close proximity to each other. The entire design is virtually the opposite of that design required by the City and built by this company between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street, even though the total occupied square footage of The Waterfront and the proposed Project are equivalent. Instead of properly considering the potential impacts of this deficient design, the EIR assumes that at some unknown time in the future Pacific View Avenue would be rebuilt to the proper, ultimate configuration. However, no objective criteria are described in the EIR or elsewhere that would clarify under what conditions the roadway would be widened; nor does it consider the practical realities of the changes to the proposed Project (from setbacks to loss of public parking in the coastal zone) that would occur from such a future change. In truth, the EIR has chosen to analyze a project that is different than the proposed Project, resulting in a misleading conclusion about the real impacts of the proposed Project. With respect to water quality impacts of runoff from the proposed Project onto the City beach: - The EIR fails to adequately consider the potential for bacterial contamination on the beach even though the proposed Project plans to alter the drainage patterns of the site such that a large majority of the site's runoff will be redirected to the beach, when previously it was not. - The EIR fails to adequately identify and require appropriate mitigation measures to deal with the potential for bacterial contamination. In response to this company's written comments, and our submission of expert analysis of the issue, the City revised certain City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 4 of 7 language in the EIR to indicate that dry season flows from the proposed Project might in the future be diverted from the beach to the Orange County Sanitation District (as is the case now for the whole of the site), but only "at the City's election". The revision in language to indicate the possibility of diversion of the dry season flows is implicit recognition that a significant environmental risk exists (even though such risk is otherwise improperly trivialized in much of the balance of the responses). However, even given that the EIR did at last recognize the environmental risk by suggesting that the diversion would be the solution, it failed to properly identify such diversion as being the mitigation measure that in fact it is. And worse, the EIR then failed to implement that mitigation measure with certainty, as required by CEQA, choosing instead to leave the action to be "at the City's election". Such language is inappropriate and lawfully inadequate. With respect to the consideration of project alternatives as required under CEQA: The EIR only considers only one reduced-intensity project alternative in detail, that being the "Reduced Project Alternative" wherein the commercial use square footage was reduced from approximately 240,000 sq. feet to 190,000 square feet, but all other phases of the proposed Project remained unchanged. This 50,000 sq. ft. reduction represents only an 8% reduction in the occupied area of the commercial portion of the development, and a mere 3% of the total occupied area of the proposed Project as a whole. It must be noted that the area eliminated consisted of the least desirable 3rd floor retail and office space with little viability in any event, and restaurant use was actually increased by 10,000 sq. ft. Although resulting in a decrease in impacts, this trivial reduction in total project intensity hardly deserves the status of being the only alternative to be studied in detail in the EIR. The EIR fails to meaningfully consider a range of other alternatives, such as a reduction in the number of residential units or in the size of the hotel proposed. Such options are dismissed without serious study for two dubious reasons, as follows: o The option would not lessen certain impacts to a less-than-significant level, even though it may significantly reduce certain environmental impacts. However, restricting consideration to only those options that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level is a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study. Under the rationale used in the EIR, if a proposed project had no significant environmental impacts, then no alternatives would be studied (since only alternatives that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level are supposedly worthy of consideration). However, in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, the Supreme Court held that even if all the project's significant impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures, an EIR must still discuss project alternatives. Therefore, the rationale used in the EIR is not consistent with applicable law and the alternatives analysis is flawed. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 5 of 7 o The option would not meet the City's or applicant's objectives. A long list of broad objectives is declared that again creates a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study since they may not meet one of the many objectives. For instance, one of the objectives listed is to "provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre..." However, this objective effectively rules out the consideration of any alternative short of a maximum density build out of the residential portion of this project. It is instructive to contrast this manufactured standard with the revised plan of The Waterfront project approved by the City wherein one entire hotel and an entire 75,000 square foot retail plaza was eliminated, and the residential density was cut to 1/0 of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan allowed density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Such a reduction was determined by both the applicant and the City to be a fully viable alternative and is successfully underway today. Yet at the proposed Project, such a reduction in intensity has been deemed to be out of the question and not worthy of serious consideration in the EIR. . With respect to the possible identification of wetlands on the proposed Project site: - The EIR notes the possibility that wetlands exist on the site. Individuals have submitted letters and photographs lending credence to this possibility. The EIR further outlines the more liberal criteria used by the California Coastal Commission for consideration of potential wetlands located in the coastal zone, which is the applicable standard for the site pursuant to the Local Coastal Plan. However, the EIR errs in only evaluating the potential wetlands based on the more restrictive (but inapplicable) criteria used by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. No evaluation was made under the applicable guidelines of the California Coastal Commission and Local Coastal Plan, nor were the areas of concern mapped or reviewed by a qualified biologist for these purposes. - The California Coastal Commission provided written commentary to the above point, but in its haste to certify the EIR on March 23`d, 2004, the Planning Commission did not consider the Commission's request that the EIR be modified to include an evaluation of the potential wetlands under the applicable criteria. This omission occurs even though the project applications were not approved at that meeting (and as the date of this appeal have still not been approved) and therefore adequate time exists to make such corrections to the EIR without unduly delaying consideration of the project approvals. - Not only does the EIR fail to adequately evaluate the potential wetlands at the site under applicable criteria, it erroneously concludes that if wetlands do exist at the site, their existence can be determined at a later date and they can be destroyed and the impact mitigated by some undisclosed offsite mitigation. This approach is flawed for three reasons: City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 6 of 7 o Reasonable information has been presented, and is also referenced in the EIR, that a potential for a significant environmental impact exists by way of the destruction of wetlands. The EIR should properly evaluate this potential, and should not defer evaluation to a later, unspecified date. Under the flawed approach taken by the EIR, any suspected significant impact, be it traffic, cultural resources, air quality, etc. need not be properly evaluated in the EIR, but instead could be left to later study. o The EIR is flawed by assuming that a generalized mitigation measure, such as an unspecified offsite wetland restoration activity, may be applied in the future. The purpose of the EIR is to properly identify the impact, and to adopt a specific mitigation measure with a factual and analytical basis. No analysis is presented to determine whether the proposed unspecified offsite mitigation activity would in fact mitigate for the impact, if the impact exists. o Existing law does not allow for the destruction of wetlands in the coastal zone with offsite mitigation in this instance. The EIR errs by considering this alternative to be viable, when in fact it is not. If wetlands do exist at the property, the proposed Project will have to be redesigned to preserve those wetlands, but the EIR fails to even recognize this possibility. Further, in the EIR's response to comments, it repeats this error by defending the potential for offsite mitigation by inaccurately summarizing the applicable case law. The EIR incorrectly asserts that the prohibition against development on wetlands in the coastal zone is limited only to environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHAs"), when in fact, in addition to rulings on ESHAs, Balsa Chiea Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 493 ruled that development of wetlands (not specifically ESHAs) is controlled by Public Resources Code section 30233(a) which limits such development to only certain port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial uses. With respect to the responses to comments: - In response to this company's comment that the EIR's traffic calculations indicate that 3,000 customers per weekday, and 330 people in the evening peak hour, are anticipated to park in the downtown area and walk ''/2 mile to the proposed Project, which is a wholly incredible assumption likely to render the downtown area virtually vacant of visitors, the EIR response to the comment states that such calculation is correct, but "equates to five people per minute and six people per minute, respectively" as if that is a sufficient justification and explanation for the assumption. Simply converting the statistics from people per day or hour to people per minute is not an adequate response. - The EIR included an additional "Topical Responses" section that in reference to the suspect assumptions of mode shift and internal capture spends a good deal of words rationalizing the developer's traffic consultant's conclusions; but nowhere does provide the empirical evidence requested by the City's own reviewing traffic consultant or the California Department of Transportation. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 7 of 7 - The EIR's Topical Responses attempt to further explain issues with respect to Water Quality, Traffic and Parking; however, they present a wholly one-sided perspective defending the inadequate analysis in the EIR, rather than properly disclosing the differences of opinions between experts on the issues. Where differences in expert opinions exist, such as between the developer's traffic consultant and the City's review consultant, the EIR should summarize and explain the main points of disagreement. Instead, the EIR only obliquely mentions that "public commentators have identified disagreement with the conclusions" without faithfully disclosing to the reader the nature of those disagreements, particularly those disagreements between experts involved in the preparation of the EIR. In conclusion, we do not believe that EIR No. 02-01 meets the standards of accuracy and fairness that the City of Huntington Beach should expect and demand for a project of the intensity of the proposed Project. We ask that after a duly noticed public hearing wherein ourselves and others be given adequate time in advance to submit further written comments and to provide oral testimony without cursory time limits, that the City Council act to deny the certification of EIR No. 02-01. THEERROOBBERT MAYER/CORPORATION Shawn K. Millbem Senior Vice President, Development EXHIBIT "B" TO APPEAL LETTER DATED MAY 14, 2004 Letter from California Coastal Commission dated March 18, 2004 ARNOLD SCHwA,R2ENEGGER. Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office ^' ' 200')ceengate. Suite 1000 L eaai,CA 90802.4302 � � t •�l(j March 18, 2004 Mary Beth Broeren Princioal Planner City Of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)—SCH # 2003011024 Pacific City, Huntington Beach, Orange County Dear Ms. Broeren: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pacific City project. We understand that the comment period has passed, but appreciate the opportunity to submit comments prior to City Council action. The project under consideration involves 10.6 net acres of mixed use visitor-serving commercial development, 17.2 net acres of residential village and 3.7 new acres of right-of-way improvements on a vacant site. The comments provided below convey project concerns and questions which Coastal Commission staff believes should be addressed in any final action the City takes on the project. Wetlands Section 3.3.2 of the DEIR discusses the regulatory framework for protecting biological resources and provides the various criteria used for identifying and delineating wetlands. The DEIR outlines the criteria used by the USACOE, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). As stated in the report, "the CDFG wetland definition and classification system is the delineation methodology generally followed by the CCC." However, in the evaluation provided on pages 3.3-20 through 3.3-22, the analysis applies only the Corps and CDFG criteria when evaluating the presence of wetlands at the subject site. Please note that the definition that should be used in determining whether wetlands exist on-site should be the LCP definition, which is found in the LUP Glossary (IV-C-154), in Section 216.04 F of the IP, and also in Section 4.0.04 of the DSP. The LCP definition of wetland is: Wetland. Lands within the Coastal Zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow wafer and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow wafer. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; or 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; or 3. The substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. The DEIR states that there are areas within the site where sparse areas of hydrophytic vegetation were temporarily established after the creation of remediation pits. In order to determine the character and function of these areas, additional information should be made available for consideration. The location and extent of these areas should be mapped. In addition, the City fi .- �-'Nola.-L:a^.1�- `r-c-. DEIR Comments—Pacific City Page 2 of 5 should fully evaluate the potential that the site historically contained wetlands and whether there is the possibility that these are re-emercent wetlands. The LUP policies require that adverse in, to ESHAs and wetland areas be minimized (section C 7.1) and that new develoornent contiguous to wetlands or ESHA include buffer zones (section C 7.1.4). Furthermore, Section C 6.1.20 of the LUP limits diking, dredging, and filling of wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Section 30233 and 30607.1 of the Coastal Act. The DEIR indicates that the remediation pits will be backfilled as part of the project. Please note that any City approval authorizing filling of wetlands for a use that is not specifically outlined in C 6.1.20 of the certified LCP would be oroblematic. If any wetland area is discovered on site, the preferred alternative is to avoid any adverse impacts. Additionally, if wetlands are determined to exist on site, the project will be considered appealable. Sensitive Plants The LCP defines Environmentally Sensitive Habitat as °any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat area rare or especially valuable and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." Mitigation Measure BIO-1 indicates that special status plant or habitat surveys will be conducted prior to construction if substantial growth of native vegetation or sensitive habitats has occurred on the project site. If special status species are determined to be present, the DEIR states, "appropriate measures may include avoidance of the populations, relocation, or purchase of offsite populations for inclusion to nearby open space areas." Certain sensitive plants known to occur at the subject site may qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat. The LCP requires protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat from any significant disruption of habitat values and that only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas. The LCP also requires development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas be sited and desioned to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas. As such, a comprehensive survey of sensitive plant species should be completed prior to the approval of a final design for the proposed project. If an Environmentally Sensitive Area is identified on site, the project may have to be redesigned if it is necessary in order to avoid significant impacts. Project redesign should occur prior to the fling of the coastal development permit application. Parkin Regarding public access to the coast the certified LUP states: Provide coastal resource access opportunities for the public where feasible and in accordance with the California Coastal Act requirements. Parking is an integrally related component of public access. Regarding parking the certified LUP states: Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. And: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. DEIR Comments—Pacific City Page 3 of 5 As discussed in Section 3.14 of the DEIR, the parking demand for the project was calculated using a shared parking criteria. The shared parking analysis allows for a reduction in City parking code requirements. The total parking demand for the visitor-serving component of the project is calculated to be 1,535 spaces at peak demand times. The total parking supply is estimated to be 1,543 spaces. As stated in the report, "a theoretical parking surplus of eight spaces is forecasted at peak demand times." This calculation appears to leave a significantly small margin of error. The City should evaluate how a potential parking shortage at the subject site would be addressed . The project description states that motorists entering from the easterly access from Pacific View can either "drop off their vehicles to be valet parked, or access the subterranean garage." It is unclear whether hotel patrons would have the choice to valet park or self park. A valet parking system may discourage some members of the public from parking at that location. As such, the hotel and commercial should have a self park component. The DEIR states that existing parallel parking along the north sida of PCH will be eliminated under the project and replaced "on-site." To the extent feasible, any parking impacted along PCH as a result of the project (e.g. due to road widening) should be replaced along PCH in approximately the same location. Where such in-kind replacement isn't feasible, these parking spaces should be relocated to a site which is clearly visible to the public traveling along PCH, such as in a surface lot with appropriate signage. The replacement parking should be managed as a separate parking resource, apart from the parking supply for the commercial development. We note that some on-street parking will be provided on a temporary/interim basis. However, those spaces would eventually be removed.. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the residential village will be gated to public vehicular traffic. As such, the streets within the residential village will not be available for use as a public parking resource. To off-set potential adverse impacts resulting from gating the residential development, the City should consider providing permanent on-street parking along the publicly accessible streets within the development area. Visual Impacts Regarding visual resources, the LUP contains the following policies: Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs and significant public views. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The DEIR addresses public views in the area, particularly from the beach and pier and along Pacific Coast Highway. It is unclear from the project description and photo simulations whether the proposed S-story hotel building would be sited on an elevated pad or at current grade level. In order to minimize the visual mass of the development, the City should consider limiting the pad elevation at or near street level. In addition, the commercial and hotel structure(s) should be articulated to reduce the apparent mass and scale of the development from public van:aee points. Lower profile, less massive development would be preferred. Soecial Permits The DEIR indicates that "special permits" will be required to allow building encroachment into setback areas along PCH and Pacific View Avenue and to allow the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of ten percent. The report states that special permits are required to allow "flexibility regarding design issues in order to promote a better project." It is unclear if any DEIR Comments—Pacific City Page =of 5 special permits are to be considered for building heights. The City should evaluate vLnether the allowance of such special permits is consistent with the certified LCP or would trigger the need for an LCP amendment. To ensure consistency with the currently certified LCP, the City s final approval of the project should limit the extent of special permits to be considered as part of this project. Parkland and Lower-cost Uses Issue No. 23 in the certified LUP says "...the City should promote and provide visitor serving and recreational facilities for a variety of market preferences and market ranges. Preference should be given to development providing public recreation opportunities. Lower cost facilities should be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." The DER states that the proposed project would contain privately owned, publicly accessible recreational areas on the site. The largest recreational area is the privately owned Village Green' contained within the residential area. Other smaller green space areas and pedestrian walkways and 'paseos' are associated with the residential development and commercial component. The DER acknowledges that since these areas aren't proposed to be dedicated as public parkland to the City, the proposal would not be consistent with City parkland dedication requirements, without the payment of an in-lieu fee. Commission staff encourage the City to pursue on-site provision of public parklands, rather than acceptance of an in-lieu fee. If the on-site provision of public parklands is deemed infeasible, we encourage the City and developer to identify off-site areas within the coastal zone suitable for use as public parkland and the acquisition and dedication of that land for public park purposes as part of the project, rather than use of an in-lieu fee. If an in-lieu fee is deemed to be the only feasible alternative, and acceptance of an in-lieu fee can be found consistent with the certified LCP, the in- lieu fees should be designated for use within the coastal zone. Also, other than pedestrian thoroughfares and private green spaces that are closely affiliated with the residential and commercial components of the project, the development appears to contain few components that could be classified as 'lower-cost'. We encourage the City and developer to provide a lower-cost component (e.g. lower-cost overnight accommodations) as part of the project. Archaeoloev/Paleontology The DER describes the presence of two archaecicaical sites and eight paleontological resources sites, and one of the archaeological sites has been determined to be a unique site for the purposes of CEQA. Please note that avoidance of impacts to these resources is preferred. The last resort should be recovery. Pedestrian Bridae The DER states, "although not currently proposed as part of the project, a grade separated pedestrian overcrossing could be constructed in the future, which would be located midway between Huntington Street and First Street to provide a connection from the beach to public areas near the hospitality uses in District No. 7." Please note that the pedestrian overcrossing will be appealable, as the seaward side landing will be located between the sea and the first public road. Develooment Phasing The Construction Schedule indicates that hotel construction will not commence until the second phase of residential development. The City should ensure through the permitting process that construction and opening of the public amenities and visitor serving uses are prioritized over what is considered "lower priority" residential development. Water Quality The City's LCP contains policies (e.g. C 6.1.6) requiring that new development employ the use of non-structural and structural Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize the volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, prior to runoff discharge into stormwater conveyance systems, receiving waters or other sensitive areas. The DER indicates the development will include post-construction water quality treatment measures consisting primarily of storm water filters to manage water quality impacts caused by the proposed development. The proposed DE1R Comments—Pacific City Page 5 of 5 measures must be sized and designed to mitigate water quality impacts generated by the development. In addition to use of storm water filters, Commission staff would encourage implementation of a treatment system that integrates one or more structural best management practices. Using a treatment train approach would include use of filter systems, such as that proposed, which remove cross pollutants, before flowing into a biological filter such as constructed wetlands, wet ponds or crass swales. These BMP trains can be very effective at achieving good water quality and are generally considered superior at removing pollutants such as oils, nutrients, and some pesticides than use of any single approach. Appeals Area As noted above, if the subject site contains wetlands, the coastal development permit processed by the City would be appealable to the Commission. Other aspects of the project may also meet the criteria in Section 30603(a) of the Coastal Act regarding appealable development. We recommend additional discussions on this topic in order to determine whether the project is appealable. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Pacific City project. We apologize for the delay in providing comments and hope that the City can appreciate and accept that we are prioritizing this effort, but are subject to substantial workload constraints and limited staff resources at this time. We look forward to reviewing the final environmental document. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (562) 590-5071. Sincerely. a l Sch g I/ Supervisor, Regulation & nning Orange County Area cc: State Clearinghouse, File H*Ietter lCEOAIEIMPaci(c CBy-HA.doc EXHIBIT "C" TO APPEAL LETTER DATED MAY 14, 2004 Letter from California Coastal Commission dated April 13, 2004 /.0 C' ,IIVf11,l1� vnir.urt ni ,r , CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Scud,C"11 Aran WICt 200 occon gam,S W tt 1000 I.ong ench.CA 9002-0302 (562)500-5071 April 13, 2004 Scott Hesse Department of Community Development 7 ~ r, 2000 Main Street ZUQy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Pacific City Appealability Dear Mr. Hess; This letter is intended to clarify the Coastal Commission staff position on whether the local action on a coastal development permit for the project known as Pacific City is appealable to the Coastal Commission. In reviewing new and/or more specific information available to staff, the proposal appears to contain development appealable to the Coastal Commission. For example, pursuant to a wetland delineation based on the Coastal Commission wetland standards, if wetlands are found to exist on the subject site, the project would be appealable to the Coastal Commission. The definition of "wetland" is found in the appendices of the certified Land Use Plan, Section 216.04 F of the City's certified Implementation Plan, and also in Section 4.0.04 of the Downtown Specific Plan. Section 30603(a)(2) of the Coastal Act states that developments approved by local governments that are "within 100 feet of any wetland" are appealable to the Coastal Commission. If wetlands are found to exist on site, an approval of development within 100 feet of those wetlands would be appealable. Please forward any wetland delineation made using the definition of wetland in the certified LCP so that our staff can assist in the evaluation of the appealability of the project based-on this factor. In addition, pursuant to Section 30503(a)(5) of the Coastal Act, approval of a local coastal development permit for "any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major energy facility" is appealable to the Coastal Commission. The project includes widening of Pacific Coast Highway, which may constitute a "major public works" project if it meets the definition of a "major public works" project as defined in Section 13012 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Section 13012(a)of the CCR states: (a) "Major public works" and Major energy facilities" mean facilities that cost more than one hundred thousand dollars (S100,000) with an automatic annual increase in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, except for those governed by the provisions of Public Resources Code Sections 30610, 30610.5, 30611 or 30624. [Note: The exemptions identified in the PRC Sections above are not applicable in this- case.] Apr—t3-2004 03:Z2om From—Uli torn 13 Ullt t�' Pacific City Appealability Page 2 Given the scope of development contemplated,the hiighwa idnand thus the project ing aspect of the proposed project likely qualifies as a "major p project, would be appealable for this reason. Please advise if you believe the cost of the development wouldn't exceed the threshold for it to qualify as a "major public works' project. In addition, development"between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea" is appealable to the Coastal Commission. According to Section 13577(i) of the CCR: 'When based on a road designated pursuant to this section, the precise boundary of the permit and appeal jurisdiction shall be located along the inland right-of-way of such road." Thus, approval of a coastal development permit for development, such as roadway widening within the road right-of-way, Is appealable to the Commission. Furthermore, if the widening of the roadway necessitates thehe transfer divis f private for this conveyapublic entnce maybe ity (such as the City or Caltrans), the approval appealable to the Coastal Commission. An approval of the Pacific City project which meets the requirements noted above would be appealable. Accordingly,any public notices pertaining to the coastal development permit application for the project should reflect the appealable nature of the development. Also, please note that all aspects of the project, including off site project related development such as drain pipes or infiltration bubblers on the beach, must be described and evaluated as part of the project review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the above number with any questions regarding this matter. Sin cerely,^ Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst HNs PcicW it,s.i 3.o4 my OPERATING ACCOUNT WATERFRONT RESORTS, INC. Check Number: 2371 Amt Invoiced Amt Paid Invoice# C/P C/P Number Invoice Description 1, 167 . 50 1, 167 . 50 APPL PERMT O APPEAL PACIFIC CITY PERMT 1, 1G7 . 50 1, 167 . 50 Paid to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Date: 05/11/2004 WATERFRONT RESORTS, INC. Check Number: 2371 660 NEWPORT CENTER DR., 11050 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8680 Comerica Bank-California 1949) 759-8091 Headquarters office 10900 Wilshire Blvd. 90375211211 Los Angeles,CA 90024 Date: 05/11/2004 Amount: $1,167.50 One Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents Pay to the order of: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORI E SIG TU E 11.00237L118 1: L2111375221: L89... L025115511 East West Operating Acct PCH BEACH RESORT, LLC Check Number: 1114 Amount Invoiced Amount Paid X G/L Number Invoice N C/P C/P N 1, 167 . 50 1, 167 . 50 N 7100 APPL PERMT O 1 , 167 . 50 1, 167 . 50 Paid to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Date: 05/11/2004 PCH BEACH RESORT, LLC Check Number: 1114 660 Newport Center Drive Suite 81050 East West Bank Newport Beach, CA 92660 West tos Angeles office (949) 759-8091 19M Avenue of the Stars 90-426511222 tos Angeles,CA 90067 Date: 05/11/2004 Amount: $1,167.50 One Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents Pay to the order of: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P. O. BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 A RIZ IG ATURE 110001i1411' 1: 1 2 2 2t, 265 21: 803253' 11' "f. �. e i r M A K A R t0aa r�aY -� P a uu May 7, 2004 VIA MESSENGER City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Liz Ehring, Assistant City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal to Huntington Beach City Council of May 5 2004 Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Tract Mao No. 16338/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20/Special Permit No 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12/C once ptual Master Plan and Related Findings of Fact and CEQA Statement of Overddinq Considerations (Pocific City) Dear Ms. Ehring: Makollon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, 4900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ("Mokor") hereby requests that the May 5, 2004 Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20/Special Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12/Conceptual Master Plan and Related Findings of Fact and CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations for the above-referenced Pacific City project, be appealed to the Huntington Beach City Council. The purpose of this appeal is to assure that the City Council has the opportunity to review the land use entitlement actions, including various Planning Commission-directed conditions of approval, and to provide for the Council's concurrent review of such approvals with the previously filed appeals of the March 23, 2004 certification of EIR No. 02- 01. Makar would also request that this appeal of the referenced May 5, 2004 Planning Commission land use approvals be scheduled together with the appeal of the Pacific City EIR No. 02-01, at a noticed public hearing of the June 7, 2004 Huntington, Beach City Council meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, i�chael Ga net 9 Makar Properties, LLC Office Hospitality Golf Land Development Industrial Residentio Mekar Properies, LLC P. 949.255.110, 4100 MecArhur Blvd., Sure 200 f. 949.255.1 12 Newport Beoch, CA 92660 w",rN m0k0r.0ro.0e M:eS.co, . . \ � 0 5 J ON \} / ^ EL f . / 2 / e � E \ k m a 46 o 0 O o 0 O a m r LO < m o N a N a N O p O O O C' p o a "a o m > n rn N m M H O C c m mMYN LD 00 0 o a oyc --- -N� Ln Z C LoIr X N rn x i .:•r..U. co J F U ry o U o O o � Oj o Z J-1 41 = fn C N t6 w V � O H s-t N p 41 41 co O a c IC o m S C (n LD 4 m F+ 7 G ru o +" m U X C O ry F c o O J m 3 O E G O1 o c e om Y N L H + T O 41 + 11 O C u n U ip o g m + —i O 7 Q c v vl Z + U cli X Q �. o 0 o m_ \ N (- T @ O o u U \ (ram O o V O o W R' w m ^< ~O oa ry F T n N �m0 d o LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714-545.9200 1 FAx: 714.850. 1030 1 WEBSITE: www.lbbslaw.com 0 c_ FRANK C.BRUCCULERI April 2, 2004 -`FILE sb. .- DIRECT DIAL:714.668.5512 3665E)I-. E-MAIL:bmcculeri@lbbslaw.com I - J 1 v City of Huntington Beach - Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street — Huntington Beach, California 92648 n Re: Appeal of Huntington Beach City Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (PACIFIC CITY) EIR Approval Date: March 23, 2004. Dear Counsel: As you are well aware,this firm represents the interests of South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast"). We write to formally appeal the Huntington Beach City Planning Commission's March 23, 2004 decision to approve the Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (PACIFIC CITY). Enclosed herewith is our check in the amount of$2,335.00 to cover the required fee for appeal of the City Planning Commission's decision. We also enclose herewith and incorporate herein our previous written submissions dated December 3, 2003 and March 23, 2004 addressing the proposed Pacific City EIR No. 02-01. A. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GEOLOGY AND INIINERAL RESOURCES IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNING HUNTINGTON BEACH CODES AND SPECIFICALLY THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,AD ADOPTED JUNE 1995 AND Ai\IENDED FEBRUARY 6, 2002 The "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan (adopted June 1995 and amended February 6,2002)(hereinafter"Downtown Specific Plan"or"DTSP")makes plain the City of Huntington Beach's binding decision and promise to "provide for orderly development and improvement within the Downtown Specific Plan." As to the purpose of the DTSP, the preamble language found in Section 4.0.01 too makes clear the overall importance of the DTSP in governing future development and expansion in the area encompassed by the DTSP. At Section 4.0.01 the DTSP provides in relevant part, LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCIBco SAN DIEGO COSTA NIESA SAN BERNARDINO SACRAMENTO NEW YORA LAS VEGAS 213.250.1300 415.362.2580 619.233A006 714.545.9200 909.387.1130 916.564.5400 212,232.1300 702.893.3383 4822-3317-6332.1 § \ 22 0 4 , / 2 0 * UM \\ } rr, � ) � ® � ( / $ 2 ; § ) L n / � j I � � � LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP April 2, 2004 Page 2 The plan is established to guide the development of the area which is characterized by its unique location, geographic features, land uses and ownership patterns, and should riot be regulated by zoning district standards applicable throughout the city. This specific plan will replace the existing zoning with policies, development standards and descriptive neaps specifically designed for the downtown area. The specific plan provides for creativity at the individual project level, and at the sane time ensures that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive community. In Section 4.0.02, the DTSP mandates that the property described therein must be subject to "the policies and development standards" set forth in the Plan. Again, Section 4.0.02 states in relevant part, The property described herein is included in the Downtown Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development standards set forth in this article. (Emphasis added). B. THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, INCLUDING OIL' OVERLAY"C" APPLY TO"ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" As set forth in the General Provisions of the DTSP found in Section 4.2, the provisions of the DTSP are made applicable, without reservation, to "all developments within the Downtown Specific Plan,"which would, of course, necessarily include the Pacific City Project here proposed. Moreover,at Section 4.2,the DTSP also makes clear that"all developments"must also comply with "all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance and Municipal Codes. As the City admits in its Response to Comment Letter LBBS(December 3,2003)(hereinafter "Response"), "[t]he Oil Overlay consolidation project was implemented in order to address environmental effects of dispersed oil recovery operations." As the City is well aware, Section 15.50.010 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code lists eight objectives,which must be taken into account when considering development within the City which might impact or promote any of the listed objectives. The objectives, fairly summarized in the City's Response, are as follows: (1)to consolidate oil operations onto specified locations; (2)to obtain the abandonment and replacement of outdated and hazardous wells and tanks; (3) to eliminate or substantially lessen environmental effects with mitigation; (4) to offset unavoidable impacts with overriding implements in other areas; (5) to minimize visual impacts; (6) to protect the public from damage and nuisance associated with operation of oil recovery facilities; (7) to maintain consistency with the General Plan; and (8) to provide a higher level of safety for the public. 4822-3317-6832.1 LEwIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH ALP April 2, 2004 Page 3 South Coast avers that against the backdrop of the narrowly directed provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and its Oil Overlays (including the operative Oil Overlay "C"), the objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 compels that the Pacific City EfR (and CUP) provide for an overall strategy to achieve the purposes set forth both in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 and Oil Overlay"C." Indeed, it is plain from the language found in Oil Overlay "C"that it was drafted with an eye toward using the land situated thereunder as a means of achieving some or all of the important objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010,or at least that "any proposed development"of the land provide for a harmonious relationship between the need to preserve future oil production on the site and the desire for further urban residential and/or commercial development. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: A. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. B. The plan shall include at least one(1)oil island of not less than two (2)acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay"C." Indeed, in its preamble verbiage, Section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") explains that the regulations concerning the overlay are intended to "facilitate continued oil recovery and providels] for future oil production needs." (Emphasis added). There is simply no reasonable construction of this language which supports the City's conclusion that the Pacific City Development as presently proffered, provides for future oil production needs on the property, let alone addresses the very real prospect that at least a small portion of this property was intended to be set aside to achieve the City's objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.10. Presently, there remain numerous small pockets of oil production in and around the Huntington Beach Townlot area. South Coast believes that the City's stated objective in enacting both Municipal Code Section 15.50.010 and the three oil overlays(including Oil Overlay"C")was to phase out many of these wells situated so closely to Huntington Beach homes, shops and restaurants in favor of fewer consolidated modem underground oil production facilities, which are more energy efficient, environment friendly and safer to the public at large. See, e.g. Oil Overlay "B"(Section 4.14.2) South Coast submits that the language found in all of the oil overlays(Sections 4.14.01,4.14.2 and 4.14.3)and especially in Oil Overlay"C"indicate that it was the City's mandated decision and plan to ensure that the land under Oil Overlay"C,"because of its relatively large size, unique character and proximity to other existing wells,be utilized to achieve the important objectives found in Municipal Code Section 15.50.010. 4822-3317-6832.1 LEwIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH u.P April 2, 2004 Page 4 By approving a Pacific City EIR that does not address the important objectives found in Section 15.50.010 (or the mandate of Oil Overlay"C") the City Planning Commission effectively ignores and then sweeps asunder for all time those important objectives; for once the Pacific City project is completed, there will be no other Oil Overlay, or available land to which existing oil production facilities might be consolidated and modernized. Moreover, access to the significant remaining oil resources underlaying the proposed project site will be forever lost, as there simply is no other available land or drilling site from which those reserves might be viably accessed via slant drilling or otherwise. The City's theoretical "band aid"suggestion that "slant drilling is possible" is flatly misleading and fails to account for the fact that with the development of the land over Oil OverlayC,there is no otherplace in Huntington Beach fromwhich economically viable slantdrilling might proceed. Perhaps most important, with the development of all of the land occupied by Oil Overlay"C" and the phase out of other drilling into the subsurface formation in Oil Overlays "A" and "B,"dangerous pressures will be allowed to build up and could well lead to an emergency and needless tragedy of the kind we have already seen in Fairfax, Beverly Hills, and Newport Beach. Clearly, some provision needs to be made to address the objectives set forth in Municipal Code Section 15.50.10, failing which, the proposed Pacific City Project, EIR and CUP, will be in direct contravention of the laws that the City itself passed for the health, welfare and safety of its' constituents. C. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FROM LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP DECEMBER 3, 2003 Essentially, the City's Response suggests that the rather unambiguous language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan supports an intent to"permit,but not require,oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay"C."Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the Oil Overlay relate only to Oil Development projects [". . .preparation of a conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable onlywhen aproject proposes drilling orotheroil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-serving reading of the clear terms of 4.14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language,Section 4.14.03 mandates that its terms apply to any development on the land. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there 4822.3317-6832.1 LEWIS BRISI30IS BISGAARD&SMITH LLP April 2, 2004 Page 5 simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. In addition, that the"Regulations"section of Oil Overlay"C"demonstrates that the drafters envisioned a Project containing residences, and that the any Project Plan would both "minimize the visual impacts on the residences"while still allowing"safe access to the oil sites." In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the City Counsel to overturn the City Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the EIR at this time and ask that the Counsel direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties, including the City Planning Office to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. South Coast believes that there are viable solutions to this problem that do not necessarily require the complete reconfiguration of the Pacific City Project as proposed and which further all of the concerned parties interests in seeing the Pacific City Project proceed while doingjustice to the legitimate objectives and requirements already found in the City Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan. Very ruly yours, F Zucc " of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FCB/jlc Enclosure 4822-3317.6832.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP., ATTORNEYS AT LAw •, I-, f;, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA.) CA 924 -6 LLN n PHONE: 714.545.9200 I FAX: 714.850.1030 I wEBSITIE: wwW.lbbslau'.com FRANK BRUCCULERI March 23, 2004 DIRECT DIAL: 714.668.5512 E-IVWL:brucculeri@lbbslaw.com = VIA MESSENGER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street lJ -� Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Re: Public Comments Re Environmental Impact Report No. 02-0]/Tentative Tract Map No. 16338/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 With Special Permit No 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12/Conceptual Master Plan (Pacific City) Planning Commission Meeting Dated March 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m Dear Ms. Broeren: As you know from Our previous correspondence, we represent the interests of South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") with regard to opposition to approval of the referenced project and Environmental Impact Report. We write to provide our further comments and opposition to the referenced application of Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Hatcher. Please see attached hereto our previous correspondence dated December 3, 2003, the content of which we incorporate herein as though fully set forth. A. SOUTH COAST'S REPLY TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENT LETTER FROM LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP DE EMBER 3 2003 By way of general comment, the City's Response to the issues and arguments raised by LBBS's correspondence dated December 3, 2003, is flatly intellectually dishonest. Essentially, the Application suggests that the rather unambiguous language contained in Oil Overlay C and the stated "Intent and Purpose" of the Downtown Specific Plan ("DTSP") supports an intent to "permit, but not require, oil drilling operations on areas within the City that are designated as Oil Overlay"C." Further, the Application suggests that the requirements of the LOs ANGEL ES SAN FRANCL4co SAN Dam COSCA MESA SAN BERNARDLNO SACRA WTO NEw YoRK Iws VEOAs 213.250.1800 415.362.2580 619.233.1006 714.545.9200 909-387.1130 916.564.5400 212.232.1300 702.366.9212 4829.3008-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD& SMITH LLP March 23, 2004 Page 2 Oil Overlay relate only to Oil Development projects [". . .preparation of a conceptual site plan that includes at least one oil island of not less than two acres in size would need to be provided for new oil well drilling and oil production is applicable only when a project proposes drilling or other oil production activities."] not to residential and commercial projects like that proposed. This self-seeing reading of the clear terms of 4.14.03 is legally unsupportable and blatantly ignores the plain intent and meaning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the plain language of section 4.14.03 (Oil Overlay "C") of the Downtown Specific Plan. By its clear and unequivocal language, Section 4.14.03 mandates that: 1. A conceptual site plan for the entire overlay area must be submitted prior to permitting any project development or subdivision of land within the overlay. 2. The plan shall include at least one (1) oil island of not less than two (2) acres in size for new well drilling and oil production. There is no limitation in this clear language, nor in that contained in section 4.0.01, limiting the scope of the requirement that land be set aside for oil drilling and production with respect to "any project development" covered by the Oil Overlay "C." No other fair reading of the section can be rationally countenanced by these terms. Indeed, the Application's suggestion that these requirements only apply to proposed oil related projects in inherently non-sensical. If that were so, then the purposed of the terms contained in section 4.14.03 would be to tell an oil developer that it had to create at least one well of at least two acres. If an oil development were involved, there simply would be no need to direct an oil development company to set aside a well and acreage to support it. The Applicant's suggestion in patently ridiculous. In addition, that the preamble language in Oil Overlay "C" differs demonstrably from that contained in the other Oil Overlay's "A" and "B," demonstrates that the terms contained in Oil Overlay "C" were designed to facilitate and make provision for the town's FUTURE OIL PRODUCTION NEEDS. Indeed, the introductory language to 4.14.03, makes plain, by comparison to that found in the other oil overlays, that the property covered by Oil Overlay"C" is largely undeveloped requiring a plan to protect the future oil drilling and production needs in the area. 4829-3008-1536.1 L.EwIs BRISBOIs BISGAARD& SMITH up March 23, 2004 Page 3 In conclusion, we would respectfully urge the Commission to not approve the Plan at this time, but postpone its approval pending resolution of this issue. It would be helpful if the Commission would direct the Applicant to meet with the interested parties to arrive at a joint resolution and compromise. Very truly yours, Frank Brucculeri of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH U.P FCB 4829-3008-1536.1 r LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 Tow\' CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHONE: 714.545.9200 1 FAX: 714.850.1030 1 NVEBSITE: ww\N .Ibbslaw.coln FRANK BRUCCULERI December 3, 2003 DIRECT DIAL: 714.668.5512 E-MAIL:brucculeri@lbbslaw.com o VIA 19ESSENGER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren w Re: Public Comments Re Pacific City DRAFT Environment Impact Report Dear Nis. Broeren: We have been retained by South Coast Angus, LLC ("South Coast") to lodge formal public comment with the City of Huntington Beach ("the City') in response to the City's invitation to provide public comments regarding the Pacific City Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). You may recall that we attended the November 13, 2003 public meeting, scheduled by the Planning Conunission for the City of Huntington Beach, and we placed, on the audio-taped record, public comments regarding the draft EIR, specifically referencing deficiencies in section 3.5 [Energy and Mineral Resources] of the draft EIR and the incorporated appendices referenced therein. This serves to further memorialize and delineate the comments we made at the November 13 meeting, and now does so formally on behalf of South Coast. AL. FUNDAMENTAL DEFICIFN:CIE.S JN THE DRAFT EIR 1. Smnn3ary of Inadequacies of Section 3.5 of the EIR ]Energy and Mineral Resources] In direct contradiction of the City's Municipal Cade and zonine laws, the EIR proposes to eliminate direct access to Oil Overlay C at the proposed Pacific City development site. The zoning laws of the City and the City's Municipal Code established the mineral rights of the City and private mineral owners to the minerals found at the region in the City, designated as Oil Los kNG7 LES SA::FAA+:QSco SA.v DIEGO COSTA (ESA SAN BERNARDM SACiL�'.MNFTO NEW YORK LLS VEGAS 213.250.1800 415.362.25SO 619233.1006 714,545.9200 909,387.1130 916.564.5400 212.232.1300 702.366.9212 4329-3003-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD B SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 2 Overlay C. The proposed Pacific City development, through the draft EIR, seeks to repeal the agreements reached between the City, the State of California and the California Coastal Coni nission and the statutory mandate of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, specifically the consolidation of the City's oil fields and authorized direct access points in the City to the Huntington Beach oil field. The proposed alternative to direct oil production access at Oil Overlay C, by the EIR, is slant drilling at another region—not identified in the EIR-- in the City. The slant drilling, as proposed by the EIR, effectively and absolutely bars direct access to Oil Overlay C, as intended by the City's Municipal Code and zoning laws. Indeed, glaringly absent from the EIR is any discussion of how the proposed slant drilling preserves the legislative intent of, and complies with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and how the proposed slant drilling is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to the existing laws of the City by providing direct access to Oil Overlay C. Without any detailed: or authoritative analysis, the EIR proposes slant drilling at an unidentified location in the City in an apparent effort to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and in an apparent attempt to mitigate the potential specter of claims that slant drilling constitutes : an unlawful taking of the mineral rights of private mineral owners. More disturbing is that the proposed slant drilling belies established black letter law, that the mineral estate owner is the dominant estate or tenement, and the surface estate owner is the subservient estate or tenement. The EIR refers to an alleged "consultation" between the City's fire department the City's petro-consultant, Nlel Wright, concerning the feasibility of slant drilling "near" the project site, however, no discussion of the factors and concems allegedly considered by Mr. Wright, to support his purported opinion that slant drilling was a feasible alternative to extracting mineral resources directly on top of Oil Overlay C, is found in section 3.5 of the EIR or any of the appendices to the EIR. Surprisingly, the opinions and conclusions of the City's petro- consultant, Mel Wright, were not memorialized so as to provide credible support for the 'pfopG3cu'alieriiaifi'e of Silxti dl'i]N g. 2. General Comments At the November 13 meeting, the agents for EIP presented the public with three questions, as follows: 1. Did the EIR capture the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? 2. Did the EIR address those impact(s) 4329.3003-1536.1 LER'IS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH u.P December 3, 2003 Page 3 3. Did the EIR provide adequate mitigating alternatives to address the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the City? First, the scope of the public inquiry presented by the agents for EIP did not adequately address all phases of the impact on the mineral and energy rights of Huntington Beach mineral owners as the public inquiry EIP was limited to two phases of the project, (1) during construction, and (2) post construction. As such, the scope of EIP's public inquiry did not take into account the impact(s) on the City; its residents, and its resident business owners before construction commences, and the impact(s) on Oil Overlay C. As designed and currently proposed to the City, the Pacific City project completely covers Oil Overlay C, and does not provide direct access for oil production from Oil Overlay C. The EIR suggest that oil production may be accessed by slant drilling, but fails to provide any meaningful analysis in support thereof. Second, the EIR does not sufficiently state, in any detail, an analysis outlining the proposed mitigating alternatives to the impact(s) of the Pacific City project on the energy and mineral resources available to resident mineral owners and the City, including but not limited to, the potential wrongful taking of the Oil Overlay rights established by Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and why the proposed mitigating alternatives do not violate the City's zoning laws. In Sum, while EIR recognized the purpose, and public policy of the City supporting the establishment of Oil Overlay C at page 3-15-4 of the EIR, it is resoundingly silent as to how the rights of resident mineral owners will be preserved, as currently proposed. 2. Conformity With The Chapter 15.50 Of The City's Municipal Code And Downtown Specific Plan, Section 4.14.03 It is unclear from the EIR that the City and/or the developer of the Pacific City project _..: .:.,:._al Con_ ._.. l.. 11 c c .n n 'ii't�i2lRi�ty CUlil�iiy�'w lfti��,"'fipccr'i5:`r'J"u 'iicc`c.Y'j'SI5'i'dlixi,ipnrvutsc;�ayCU� 3va iy. _�:�.owl•v. Section 15.50.010 esiabli kd.the.int nt43fthe Ciiy, along with theintent:md ague it of the State of California and the California Coastal Commission, to consolidate the oil operations in and around the City and of the shores of the City. The EIR does not provide any analysis as to how the City and/or the developer intend to comply with § 15.50.010 of the Municipal Code, or if it does not comply, how the violation should be mitigated. a. Was it the intent of the City, through the passage of Chapter 15.50, to consolidate the oil production/ operations throughout the city by reducing access to the Huntington Beach oil field by establishing three (3) primary access points at Oil Overlay A, Oil Overlay B and Oil Overlay C? 3329-3003-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOis BISG.4ARD&SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 4 The EIR fails to explain, in any detail, how the proposed mitigating alternative of"slant drilling" at site separate and apart from the location of Oil Overlay C conforms with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. b. Does the City intend to enforce section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code, and thereby preserve the rightful access of resident mineral owners to Oil Overlay C? c. If so, then does the City intend to require the developer of Pacific City to set aside at least 2 acres at the Pacific City site pursuant to the requirements of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan? Impact EM-3 of the EIR, at page 3.5-10, shows that as currently proposed, the Pacific City plan does not propose or allow for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property as required by section 4.14.03. Section 4.14.03 specifically requires, "[t]he [conceptual site] plan shall include at least are (1) oil island of not less -than hvo (2) acres in size for new oil well drilling and oil production. Such island(s) shall be incorporated into the overall development plan so that noise, odor and visual impacts on the residences are minimized, and safe access to the oil site(s) is provided. Findings that at least one such island so designed is incorporated into the plans shall be made by the Planning Commission before approving any development project." The EIR does not address how the proposed Pacific City project provides for a two (2) acre oil island over Oil Overlay C, and as statutorily mandated by section 4.14.03. d. Was it the intent of the City, through the passage of section 4.14.03 of the '17tllitriUiv71`olrcChiC'i lull,•iu'�Yl'taci�e-subiuranvan Yl:.ireei'aL'l'e5�"i O'i)a1C mineral;: in the Huntington Beach oii field by designating OB (3verlay C? e. Prior to, or at the time of the City's decision to approve the location of Oil Overlay C, did the City consider the geological and engineering impact(s) on the residents of the City and the City by establishing a region of the Huntington Beach oil field, such as Oil Overlay C? If so, what were the potential impact(s) considered by the City? Appendix A of the EIR, at page 22, recognizes the potential significant impact(s) and value of the mineral resources that are located in the region of the City designated as Oil Overlay 4820-3008-1536.1 LEWiS BRISB0I3 BISG.AARD & SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 5 C. The text of section 3.5 of the EIR, however, obliquely references Appendix A, but then fails connect its application to the discussion set forth in the EIR. f. Was public safety a factor in the City decision-making analysis when it considered creating direct access to the Huntington Beach oil field at the regional location designated as Oil Overlay C? g. If the City approves the Pacific City plan as currently proposed, is it the intent of the City to preserve the designated Oil Overlay regions, specifically Oil Overlay C, as established by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? And, how will it comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's illunicipal Code? h. If the City intends to approve the Pacific City plan, including EFP's proposal of slant drilling at an unknown site in the City, then how does the City intend to comply with section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code? As currently proposed in the EIR, there is no detailed analysis as to how the Pacific City project intends to preserve the legislative intent of section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code City insofar as it relates to the preservation of the Oil Overlay C, or how it intends to preserve the historical agreements between the City, the State of California, and the California Coastal Commission relating to Oil Overlay C, as embodied by section 4.14.03 of the Downtown Specific Plan and Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code. B. MISLEADING AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE EIR 1. Misrepresentations'of Purported Statements by Mel Wright That Other Sites Are Available The EIR indicates Mel Wright, referred to in the EIR as the City's Consultant, that there are off site locations that one can drill from to reach the minerals under the Pacific City property, so that, in Pacific City's opinion, thought wrongly implying it is Mr. Wright's opinion, it is no longer necessary to reserve such natural resource production site as called for in Natural Resource Overlay C and pre5�iously approved by the State Land Commission, Coastal Commission, and the City. 4S29-3009-1536.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISG.4LAAD & SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 6 a. fio vever, in our discussions with Mr. Wright, he indicated that he never spoke to the Pacific City representatives, and the last work he remembers performing as a consultant for the City of Huntington Beach, in the early 1990s, was surveying for possible drilling locations in the Huntington Beach Onshore Area, without regard to any "O1" zoning (oil production and new drilling, such as the approved overlays here). D1r. Wright never indicated there were any other "Ol" zoning, and instead has informed us that there are no other possible "01" locations in the area. b. Even moving across the zoning street to an existing "0" only site (existing production), would require obtaining approval from various state agencies, to approve any further drilling from the existing site, plus the unit operator of the majority of units mineral rights. C. The nearest other alternative site is more than a mile and half away, many thousands of feet away, while the minerals in the area are as shallow as 500 feet. This would require not just directional drilling, but almost pure lateral drilling. The costs of drilling such a well are not economically reasonable or feasible. d. Since the 1920s, there have been regulations on where and when to drill, ending with residual locations, agreed to by all responsible agencies in the State of California and the City, including the "O1" zoned Resource Overlay here in question. Thus, contrary to the "opinion" of Pacific Cities, as stated in the EIR, the Resource Overlay in question here is the ONLY economically feasible drilling site in the area that is cunently so approved by the responsible state agencies. — ' '-- "i ":rrryr<tncac5taait�i�S'ih`Si'fi7lru-vTi'3f`JFiucrgry uri�'i'v'mvl'Pa�'vuo IL', c hr Ca 1s Purportedly €'nsignificant The El R wrongly suggests there are no significant amounts of methane in the area to be remediated. This is incorrect. a. The closest existing active oil well has reported build up pressure caused by natural gas, on the casing side of the well, that exceeds 1000 lbs per square inch, within several hours of the well being shut in, indicating very significant natural gas pressures remain in the reservoir. 48293003-1536.1 LEWis BmBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP December 3, 2003 Page 7 b. The decades of oil production has created pressure voids, and in those pressure voids, natural gas escapes solution and fills those pressure voids, building up significant pressures as more and more gas escapes from its natural solutions in liquids such as water, due to the low pressure. Local conditions then allow these pockets of natural gas to easily migrate to the surface, and once there, they become potentially explosive — such as the occasional explosions and fires in the Los Angeles Farmers Market area. d. This potentially dangerous problem is reniediated by injecting liquids such as water into the gas pockets voids. The more dense liquid forces the natural gas in the pockets back into suspension within the liquid, as the liquid fills those pockets. This injection remediation requires an active drill site, such as the "0 V zoned site in question here. The loss of the site will mean the loss of any feasible, meaningful opportunity to remediate this potentially significant problem for the residents of the City. 3. Implicit Misrepresentation that Existing Mineral Owners Will Not Be Denied.- Access to Very Substantial, Multi-Million Dollar Mineral Reserves The EIR implicitly represents to the existing mineral owners that they will be able to capture their very valuable (multi-million dollar) mineral rights. Those mineral owners include not only voting tax payers within the City but even the City itself (which could, e.g., help fund schools as done in Beverly Hills). a. As discussed above, there are no other zoned, approved, feasible, economical drill sites in the area, zoned as "01". 'U. 11 lYIC N'dYY'il•IIl' C$OLT`CGJ Overlay concept was designed as a comprumriaeIbetween mineral ownea's;LM the surface owners. Mineral owners normally own the "dominant tenement", which would otherwise control over the rights of all the surface owners. Thus the creation of the Overlays was intended as a compromise, to allow substantial surface development, while reserving sufficient surface area for use by the dominant tenement mineral owner's to drill for and produce the minerals. Thus, loss of this sole remaining site is would mean City will have denied the existing mineral owners their constitutional right to property, without providing just compensation. 4879.3003.1$36.1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD R SMITH LAP December 3, 2003 Page 8 In conclusion, we are happy to meet with the City or anyone else concerned to discuss in more detail these and other relevant points related to this development. V • ruly ours, rank Brucculen of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 8 SIMITI-II LLP LMK 4S29-3008-1536.1 TIIS OIRCR MS A TRUE BBOINECF.^MATRRIIAgR AIRI VISIBLR FIBERS DISCERNIBLE PRIM I10T11 SIOP.S LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP cane aBwkCBflomlB NO 2,8 2 6 4 ATTORNEYS Los Mlpdn Don ,l 1 COSTA MESA OFFICE 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 1000 COSTA MESA,CA 92626 ' 90a7u (714)545-9200 APRIL 2 , 2004 1211 PAY TO THE ORDEROF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CLERK y 2335 . 00 TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE AND 00/100-------------- DOLLARS 1 , IS S SISO MITH LLP DRAFT VOID 120 DAYS FRAM DATE ISSUED 11002826'q 1: 1211375221: 189146255611• THE I_l r `Fi. ROBERT MAYEI� ';�' '''r' , E7 ;C" CA CORPORATION 1004 APR - I p 3: 4 1 April 1, 2004 BY HAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council Planning Commission Certification of EIR 02-01 (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Brockway: On March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (the "EIR") for the Pacific City project in Huntington Beach (the "proposed Project"). The Robert Mayer Corporation hereby requests that such certification of the EIR be appealed to the City Council. We believe that the EIR is deficient in a number of respects, including, but not limited to the following: (1) The EIR does not accurately identify and quantify the traffic and parking impacts arising from the proposed Project; (2) it fails to properly identify impacts and mitigation measures relating to the water quality of runoff from the proposed Project onto the public beach; (3) it fails to adequately consider viable alternatives to the proposed Project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); (4) it misleads the public by noting the possible existence of wetlands on the site while neglecting to accurately assess such fact, and instead incorrectly states that if such wetlands do exist, they can be mitigated offsite, which under law they cannot; and (5) it fails to adequately address the written comments submitted by this company and others including other public agencies by providing inadequate, dismissive and often inaccurate responses to such comments. By way of specific examples, such deficiencies and failings include, but are not limited to, the following: With respect to traffic and parking impacts: - The EIR improperly assumes significant reductions in total traffic generation that otherwise would be reported for a project of this magnitude based on the combination of 660 Newport Center Drive . Suite 1050 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 PO. Box 8680 . Newport Beach, CA 92658-8680 tel 949.759.8091 . fax 949.720.1017 [ \ ■ § mod j � . ) § .• #� / f2 6p \ § # ( \ . o $ \ - » / 8 R uw { � City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 2 of 7 unsupportable "internal capture rate" and "mode-shift" assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant. Even the City's own independent review by an outside traffic consultant identified those assumptions as lacking any empirical data or citation of a professional source to support them and called for more data to assure that such assumptions were reasonable, yet none has been provided. Further, the California Department of Transportation, acting in its capacity as a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA also questioned these assumptions noting that they were "too high", and in rebuttal to the EIR's response to their comment asked that "the consultant provide local collected data to substantiate both the internal capture rates and the mode shift rates used in this study". Still, no data has been provided in response to this request. As a result, the EIR seriously underreports the potential traffic generation arising from the project by approximately 25%-30%. - The consultant that prepared the above-referenced traffic report for the City that questioned the assumptions made by the developer's traffic consultant was listed in the EIR as a preparer of documents for the EIR. Therefore, that skeptical traffic report was in fact a part of the total EIR documentation. Nonetheless, that report was not included in the documents released to the public or the Planning Commission, contrary to the requirements of CEQA. As a result, a legally sufficient public disclosure of all relevant information was not made in this EIR. - When assessing the cumulative impact of other foreseeable developments around the proposed Project, the EIR fails to account for the fact that the 3rd hotel site at The : Waterfront project will be developed. This 3`d hotel site, a mere 500 feet from the proposed Project, is approved by the City for development of up to a 300 room hotel, pursuant to an existing Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement and approved Commercial Master Site Plan. Those agreements provide for time frames of development consistent with the time frame of study within the EIR. It is standard methodology when preparing traffic studies to include all known approved or likely projects in the analysis of cumulative impacts, even when there is a possibility that the project may not be completed precisely within the time frame of study. Worse still, the EIR's response to our written objection to this incorrect assumption is dismissive, indicating that the preparer took no effort to understand the terms of these agreements or to inquire of the current planning efforts underway by this company. Moreover, it prejudicially fails to consider the reasonable and appropriate assumption that this company will perform under the terms of its agreements, as it has in developing the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa. The certification of this EIR by the City based on this overtly incorrect assumption, while at the same time being a party to the above-referenced agreements, is wholly unjustifiable and could be construed as an inexcusable attempt to repudiate them. Such action is inconsistent with the doctrine of good faith and fair dealings implicit in those agreements. - The calculations for parking contained in the EIR greatly underestimate the true needs of the project by employing numerous computational tricks, including reliance on the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of FIR No. 02-01 Page 3 of 7 previously referenced unsupportable traffic generation assumptions to further reduce baseline assumptions of parking needs; employing other unsupported assumptions in joint-use calculations; making misleading comparisons to City parking codes that serve to mask the true extent of the parking reduction proposed; relying on adjacent beach parking rather than adequate onsite parking as required under City code; relying on the unfounded assumption that an immense number of customers (some 3,000 per weekday) will park in the downtown area and walk % mile to the proposed Project rather than considering this project as a primary destination; failing to consider whether there will in fact be excess parking in the downtown area sufficient to allow for the aforementioned assumption; and by failing to consider the actual parking rates experienced by the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort per a written survey previously submitted to the City. Reliance on any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions is questionable, but reliance on the multiplicative effect of all these assumptions without verifiable, empirical evidence to support each of them is wholly unreasonable, improper and renders the FIR deceptive and inadequate. Pacific View Avenue is classified on the Orange County Master Plan of Highways and the City's General Plan as a primary arterial with a design standard of four lanes with a center divider. The FIR fails to adequately address the impacts resulting from the sub- standard proposed design of Pacific View that reduces the number of lanes from four to two, and then worse still places angled parking on the south side that would significantly inhibit the free flow of traffic. This condition is exacerbated by a concentration of entries to both the residential and commercial phases of the project at only two intersections in very close proximity to each other. The entire design is virtually the opposite of that design required by the City and built by this company between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street, even though the total occupied square footage of The Waterfront and the proposed Project are equivalent. Instead of properly considering the potential impacts of this deficient design, the FIR assumes that at some unknown time in the future Pacific View Avenue would be rebuilt to the proper, ultimate configuration. However, no objective criteria are described in the FIR or elsewhere that would clarify under what conditions the roadway would be widened; nor does it consider the practical realities of the changes to the proposed Project (from setbacks to loss of public parking in the coastal zone) that would occur from such a future change. In truth, the FIR has chosen to analyze a project that is different than the proposed Project, resulting in a misleading conclusion about the real impacts of the proposed Project. With respect to water qualitv impacts of runoff from the proposed Project onto the Citv beach: The FIR fails to adequately consider the potential for bacterial contamination on the beach even though the proposed Project plans to alter the drainage patterns of the site such that a large majority of the site's runoff will be redirected to the beach, when previously it was not. The FIR fails to adequately identify and require appropriate mitigation measures to deal with the potential for bacterial contamination. In response to this company's written comments, and our submission of expert analysis of the issue, the City revised certain City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 4 of 7 language in the EIR to indicate that dry season flows from the proposed Project might in the future be diverted from the beach to the Orange County Sanitation District (as is the case now for the whole of the site), but only "at the City's election". The revision in language to indicate the possibility of diversion of the dry season flows is implicit recognition that a significant environmental risk exists (even though such risk is otherwise improperly trivialized in much of the balance of the responses). However, even given that the EIR did at last recognize the environmental risk by suggesting that the diversion would be the solution, it failed to properly identify such diversion as being the mitigation measure that in fact it is. And worse, the EIR then failed to implement that mitigation measure with certainty, as required by CEQA, choosing instead to leave the action to be "at the City's election". Such language is inappropriate and lawfully inadequate. With respect to the consideration of proiect alternatives, as required under CEQA: - The EIR only considers only one reduced-intensity project alternative in detail, that being the "Reduced Project Alternative" wherein the commercial use square footage was reduced from approximately 240,000 sq. feet to 190,000 square feet, but all other phases of the proposed Project remained unchanged. This 50,000 sq. ft. reduction represents only an 8% reduction in the occupied area of the commercial portion of the development, and a mere 3% of the total occupied area of the proposed Project as a whole. It must be noted that the area eliminated consisted of the least desirable 3rd floor retail and office space with little viability in any event, and restaurant use was actually increased by 10,000 sq. ft. Although resulting in a decrease in impacts, this trivial reduction in total project intensity hardly deserves the status of being the only alternative to be studied in detail in the EIR. - The EIR fails to meaningfully consider a range of other alternatives, such as a reduction in the number of residential units or in the size of the hotel proposed. Such options are dismissed without serious study for two dubious reasons, as follows: o The option would not lessen certain impacts to a less-than-significant level, even though it may significantly reduce certain environmental impacts. However, restricting consideration to only those options that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level is a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study. Under the rationale used in the EIR, if a proposed project had no significant environmental impacts, then no alternatives would be studied (since only alternatives that reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level are supposedly worthy of consideration). However, in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, the Supreme Court held that even if all the project's significant impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures, an EIR must still discuss project alternatives. Therefore, the rationale used in the EIR is not consistent with applicable law and the alternatives analysis is flawed. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 5 of 7 o The option would not meet the City's or applicant's objectives. A long list of broad objectives is declared that again creates a contrived limitation that artificially finds pragmatic alternatives to be unworthy of serious study since they may not meet one of the many objectives. For instance, one of the objectives listed is to "provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre..." However, this objective effectively rules out the consideration of any alternative short of a maximum density build out of the residential portion of this project. It is instructive to contrast this manufactured standard with the revised plan of The Waterfront project approved by the City wherein one entire hotel and an entire 75,000 square foot retail plaza was eliminated, and the residential density was cut to 1/4h of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan allowed density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Such a reduction was determined by both the applicant and the City to be a fully viable alternative and is successfully underway today. Yet at the proposed Project, such a reduction in intensity has been deemed to be out of the question and not worthy of serious consideration in the EIR. With respect to the possible identification of wetlands on the proposed Project site: - The EIR notes the possibility that wetlands exist on the site. Individuals have submitted letters and photographs lending credence to this possibility. The EIR further outlines the more liberal criteria used by the California Coastal Commission for consideration of potential wetlands located in the coastal zone, which is the applicable standard for the site pursuant to the Local Coastal Plan. However, the EIR errs in only evaluating the potential wetlands based on the more restrictive (but inapplicable) criteria used by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. No evaluation was made under the applicable guidelines of the California Coastal Commission and Local Coastal Plan, nor were the areas of concern mapped or reviewed by a qualified biologist for these purposes. - The California Coastal Commission provided written commentary to the above point, but in its haste to certify the EIR on March 23rd, 2004, the Planning Commission did not consider the Commission's request that the EIR be modified to include an evaluation of the potential wetlands under the applicable criteria. This omission occurs even though the project applications were not approved at that meeting (and as the date of this appeal have still not been approved) and therefore adequate time exists to make such corrections to the EIR without unduly delaying consideration of the project approvals. - Not only does the EIR fail to adequately evaluate the potential wetlands at the site under applicable criteria, it erroneously concludes that if wetlands do exist at the site, their existence can be determined at a later date and they can be destroyed and the impact mitigated by some undisclosed offsite mitigation. This approach is flawed for three reasons: City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 6 of 7 o Reasonable information has been presented, and is also referenced in the EIR, that a potential for a significant environmental impact exists by way of the destruction of wetlands. The EIR should properly evaluate this potential, and should not defer evaluation to a later, unspecified date. Under the flawed approach taken by the EIR, any suspected significant impact, be it traffic, cultural resources, air quality, etc. need not be properly evaluated in the EIR, but instead could be left to later study. o The EIR is flawed by assuming that a generalized mitigation measure, such as an unspecified offsite wetland restoration activity, may be applied in the future. The purpose of the EIR is to properly identify the impact, and to adopt a specific mitigation measure with a factual and analytical basis. No analysis is presented to determine whether the proposed unspecified offsite mitigation activity would in fact mitigate for the impact, if the impact exists. o Existing law does not allow for the destruction of wetlands in the coastal zone with offsite mitigation in this instance. The EIR errs by considering this alternative to be viable, when in fact it is not. If wetlands do exist at the property, the proposed Project will have to be redesigned to preserve those wetlands, but the EIR fails to even recognize this possibility. Further, in the EIR's response to comments, it repeats this error by defending the potential for offsite mitigation by inaccurately summarizing the applicable case law. The EIR incorrectly asserts that the prohibition against development on wetlands in the coastal zone is limited. only to environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHAs"), when in fact, in addition to rulings on ESHAs, Bolsa Chiea Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 493 ruled that development of wetlands (not specifically ESHAs) is controlled by Public Resources Code section 30233(a) which limits such development to only certain port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial uses. With respect to the responses to comments: - In response to this company's comment that the EIR's traffic calculations indicate that 3,000 customers per weekday, and 330 people in the evening peak hour, are anticipated to park in the downtown area and walk % mile to the proposed Project, which is a wholly incredible assumption likely to render the downtown area virtually vacant of visitors, the EIR response to the comment states that such calculation is correct, but "equates to five people per minute and six people per minute, respectively" as if that is a sufficient justification and explanation for the assumption. Simply converting the statistics from people per day or hour to people per minute is not an adequate response. - The EIR included an additional "Topical Responses" section that in reference to the suspect assumptions of mode shift and internal capture spends a good deal of words rationalizing the developer's traffic consultant's conclusions; but nowhere does provide the empirical evidence requested by the City's own reviewing traffic consultant or the California Department of Transportation. City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach Appeal of Certification of EIR No. 02-01 Page 7 of 7 - The EIR's Topical Responses attempt to further explain issues with respect to Water Quality, Traffic and Parking; however, they present a wholly one-sided perspective defending the inadequate analysis in the EIR, rather than properly disclosing the differences of opinions between experts on the issues. Where differences in expert opinions exist, such as between the developer's traffic consultant and the City's review consultant, the EIR should summarize and explain the main points of disagreement. Instead, the EIR only obliquely mentions that "public commentators have identified disagreement with the conclusions" without faithfully disclosing to the reader the nature of those disagreements, particularly those disagreements between experts involved in the preparation of the EIR. In conclusion, we do not believe that EIR No. 02-01 meets the standards of accuracy and fairness that the City of Huntington Beach should expect and demand for a project of the intensity of the proposed Project. We ask that after a duly noticed public hearing wherein ourselves and others be given adequate time in advance to submit further written comments and to provide oral testimony without cursory time limits, that the City Council act to deny the certification of EIR No. 02-01. THEERRO�BERT MAYER CORPORATION Shawn K. Millbem Senior Vice President, Development o H O 'D VN M L1 ry m fH < CHz ° s z o a w Y z x E v O U Q U /_J u z O A o C ry N C a x O N U O Ln Ln 0 2 0 O 8 y w < Ln C u v z � ) mom a 0o u0 U mod„ a4 w r U O C. Q C v mco ua <` p a m - o 2 rr •_• u VF1 61 V a ry o . � Ln n, > U > rn oLn o x O r r a V v .a LD x x o Soto r rm W. ti w NSW Q o F-, Ln Z > �F¢ y U O ZzU `o LL E ODU LLMWM F ' o W Omo u x QZa^ O 3wwL G (oZo) - \ � / e ±} / o ) $ \ / § z \ \ j \ \ % j \ / > \ ) \ z A 2 m \/\ 7 j r j 2f !ƒ / / § ƒ Ln x = > 2 m °Ln cu ) \ 3 » r . . \ / \ a / Z § - c z u \ a c 20 R .% ° / 0 o2% To Ln ƒ j \ 2 2 § O& LU u )- LLI \ ��a�) c ■�t& g / U§\ r- a§227 i Citty� of Fiw,tinyton Beach 2 00 Mai. Street Hun','gtor, Beach, CA 92942 714-'~i:6�.915 41120044:20:57 P.Y. Your cashier was Aron B200001I04092 T4 City Treasurer 4ppee.'s 4ppezgs 31,167.50 Tot- $2,335.00 Checc $I,I67.50 1167.50 C heck $1,167.5-0 1909 Char,yN T hank YdJ! please vie@ us on the�reb