Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACIFIC CITY PROJECT (3 OF 6) 6/18/04 Notice of Final Action , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18, 2004 California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10'h Floor Long Beach, CA 90801-4302 RE: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12 WITHIN A NON-APPEALABLE AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE (Pacific City Mixed Use Project— 21002 Pacific Coast Highway) Applicant: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellants: Makar Properties, LLC, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660; and, The Robert Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive, Ste 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92658. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 Request: To permit subdivision and development of a mixed- use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses (191,100 sq. ft.); a 400 room, eight-story hotel with spa and health club; 516 condominium units above subterranean parking; a 2.0-acre open space/park and public easement corridor; Pacific View Ave. extension; and associated infrastructure on a 31-acre site. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway bounded by First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street). Coastal Zone Status: Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. The City's Post-LCP Certification Commission Jurisdiction Map adopted May 24, 1985 indicates that the project site is not appealable to the Coastal Commission, and Coastal Commission Staff confirmed this in July 2003 based upon their written communication with the Coastal Commission's Mapping Division in their San Francisco Office. Environmental Status: 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, and certified by the City Council on June 7, 2004. 1: ollomp/appeal/coastal wmm/cdp 00-15.doc 1 (Telephone: 714-536.5227) Action: On June 7, 2004, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council conditionally approved Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 with Findings and Conditions of Approval as well as Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, and Conceptual Master Plan (Attachment No. 1). Sincerely, qj an L. Flynn ity Clerk JF: pe Enclosure: Amended Findings & Conditions of Approval cc: The Robert Mayer Corporation - Appellant Makar Properties, LLC. —Appellant Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC - Applicant Penny Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner gJfolio plappeal/coastal comnVcdp 00-15.doc 2 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PACIFIC CITY PROJECT (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 02-20/ SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 02-12/ MASTER PLAN -- PACIFIC CITY MIXED USE PROJECT) (June 14, 2004) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 to subdivide approximately 27.8 acres (31.5 gac) into three parcels (a 17.2 acre parcel for residential condominium purposes; a 6.47 acre parcel for retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment development; and a 4.12 acre parcel for a hotel development); dedicate a 2.03 acre casement for a Village Green Park/open space, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian corridor casement with public access; and dedicate Pacific View Avenue per the Precise Plan of Street Alignment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designations on the subject site. The commercial portion of the site is designated CV-177-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street), and the residential portion of the site is RE-30- sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 u/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street). The subdivision will provide for a mixed-use project consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan, and will provide for necessary public improvements around the site. In addition, the applicant will pay the full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 27.8-acre project site provides the necessary area for a mixed-usc development (191,100 sq. ft. mixed-use project with retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses, a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking, and 516 multiple-family residential condominium units above two levels of subterranean parking) consistent with the intensity and density of the Downtown Specific Plan— District 7A (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and 8A (High Density Residential) with a Coastal Zone overlay, the General Plan designations, and with the implementation of mitigation measures. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project, subject to a finding being made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The tentative map provides all the necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.1 dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, and easements with public access through the development and to a Village Green park/open space easement to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL. - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20• 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 to construct a 191,100 sq. ft. mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,542 spaces; construct 516 condominium units within a mix of two, three, and four story buildings above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,291 spaces; permit alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, dancing, 10,550 sq. ft. of outdoor dining; carts and kiosks in conjunction with the mixed commercial and hotel development; permit a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the mixed use project (1,542 spaces in lieu of min. 1,776 spaces) and for tandem parking spaces; permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the subterranean parking garage; pernmit any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on-going remediation activities, which may include but are not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation; permit associated infrastructure improvements including the extension of Pacific View Avenue; permit development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point; improve a 2.03 acre Village Green Park easement; and Master Plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the project area. The project also is designed with buildings that terraces with the grade, especially along Huntington Street. 3. The conditional use permit for 1,542 parking spaces in lieu of the 1,776 spaces required per Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the 7_SO for the Reduced Project Alternative Plan (191,100 sq. ft.) is substantiated by the Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan dated October 15, 2003. This analysis is based on the proposed use of the buildings which will not generate additional parking demand than the proposed 1,542 spaces. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.2 In addition, a Transportation Demand Management Plan which exceeds the minimum required by Section 230.36 of the ZSO will be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The proposed request will comply with the provisions of time base district and other applicable provisions in the Downtown Specific Plan and Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street) for the commercial portion of the site, and RH-30-sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 a/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4I (Atlanta-First Street) for the residential portion of the site. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viabilit% and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policv LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Polici, LU2.1.77 Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policv LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.3 Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. Policy LU 4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act. Goal LU 7• Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2: Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule, as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU8. Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policv LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the appropriate principles. Polici,LU 9.3.1: Permit the development of master-planned residential projects that incorporate a mix of housing types, neighborhood-serving commercial services, schools, parks, open space, and other elements in areas designated for residential on the Land Use Map. Policv LU 9.3.2: Require the design of new residential subdivisions to consider the following: a. Establish a street configuration involving the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of"blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. b. Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. c. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi-family housing within single-family areas to preserve open space. d. Establish a common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. e. Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. f. Establish a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other elements that link all community areas and provide linkages to land uses in adjacent areas. g. Orient housing units to neighborhood and collector streets. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.4 h. Site and design of units and incorporate elements, such as porches, that emphasize front yards as an activity area and `outdoor living room," by locating garages in the rear or side yards. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. j. Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. k. Include alleys or other means to minimize the dominance of garages along the street frontage. 1. Include setbacks and other design elements that buffer residential units from the impacts of abutting existing commercial and/or industrial development. Policy LU 9.3.3: Require that nonresidential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. The mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight-story hotel proposed for the site represents development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement new and existing retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high-quality visual image and character. It is in conformance with the City's Design Guidelines. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends approval of the design concept. The project provides for adequate access along all public streets, and required parking pursuant to a parking analysis in a two-level subterranean parking structure. The proposed multiple family residential buildings are well articulated and have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. Ground floor units along the perimeter of the residential site are oriented towards the street. The design of the residential subdivision includes four district neighborhoods emphasizing a cluster of buildings around a 2.03-acre village green park with recreational areas and a 20-foot wide pedestrian corridor. Connecting the village green park to Pacific View Avenue is a 65-foot entry corridor that is accessible to either crosswalk on Pacific View Avenue providing access to the retail promenade. With subterranean parking, there are no garages to dominate the street scene and front yard/patios become activity areas. In addition, there will be a landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb around the perimeter of the site. The residential project is separate from commercial activities by Pacific View Avenue. There will be surplus parking for the project; a total of 1,542 commercial parking spaces and 1,291 residential parking spaces are proposed. The number of residential parking spaces is based on Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO, and the number of commercial/hotel parking spaces is based on a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. The Analysis concluded the peak demand for the Reduced Retail Commercial Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.5 1 Alternative Plan would be 1,372; thus, there will be 170 surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel development. There will be public improvements made in conjunction with the project to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. In addition, the developer will be paying required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with all affected school districts. B. Coastal Element Goal C l: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policv C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Policv C 1.1.7: Encourage cluster development in areas designated for residential use within the Coastal Zone. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policv C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-l. 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. Policv C 2.2.3: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments. Policv C 2.4.1: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.6 Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Objective C 4.l: Provide opportunities within the Coastal Zone for open space as a visual and aesthetic resource. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced commercial retail project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. C. Economic Develonment Element Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor- serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Objective ED 2.6: Expand and enhance the existing visitor-serving uses. Policy ED 2.6.1: Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Policy ED 2.6.2: Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City, thereby creating identifiable visitor-oriented centers. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. Obiective ED 3.1. Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policy ED 3.1.1: Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses. Policy ED 3.2.1: Create commercial-recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Conditions of Approval 04-06-1 d Attachment 1.7 Policv ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retail/office/residential) structures on the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Policv ED 3.2.3: Attract visitor-serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor-supporting retail uses. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses, and a 400 room, eight-story hotel development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base and further diversify the range of overnight accommodations. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. D. Housing Element Policy H 3.1.1: 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. The residential portion of the project is designed for 516 residential units in four different neighborhoods. There will be 15 varied floor plans in a townhome and stacked Flat design. The floor plan sizes range from an average of 850 sq. ft. to 2,450 sq. ft, with one, two, and three bedrooms. Also, 15% of the total project units will be affordable for low to moderate- income families. These units will be on-site and off-site. E. 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. Policy 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 applicant will be constructing Pacific View Avenue, improvements to Atlanta Ave., Huntington Street, First Street, and PCH, and a bus turnout on PCH. 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 I" 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. F. Recreation and Community Services Element Goal 5: Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. The residential portion of the project is required to provide 4.81 acres of open space area based on 25% of the total residential floor area. The proposal is for 9.28 acres of common Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.8 and private open space which represents 53.8% of the site. Some of this common area will be accessible by the public including a 2.03 acre Village Green park/opcn space easement, 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20 fool wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH. In addition, the applicant will be paying the full (100%) City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. G. Subarea Schedule Subarea 4C PCFI/First Street (Conmrercial/Hotel Component): • Permitted Uses: Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, entertainment, and other commercial uses. • Density/Intensity: Maximum 3.0 FAR; maximum height of eight stories • 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. The mixed-use project consists of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses (live entertainment and dancing) and a 400 room, eight-story hotel. The commercial buildings are two to three stories clustered along a crescent shaped pedestrian walkway with a series of gathering areas and plazas for public activity and views to the ocean. A unified, high-quality visual image and character is created by the unique building designs and architecture. There is a 20-foot wide pedestrian walkway through the commercial project from PCH to Pacific View Avenue and then it continues through the residential area connecting Pacific View Avenue to Atlanta Avenue. Along the PCH frontage is a meandering walkway with defined entries at First Street and Huntington Street. Subarea 41 Atlanta-First Street (Residential Component): • Permitted Uses: Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and open spaces. • Density/Intensity: Maximum height of four stories; Maximum 30 units per net acre. • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific plan or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions' (Policies 9.3.1 — 9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two to four stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. There are 516 multiple family residential units proposed at a maximum density of 30 units per net acre in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan. The units are in two to four story, well articulated buildings with enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.9 residential development is consistent with the policies of 9.3.1 to 9.3.3 as noted under the Land Use Element of this section. Incorporated into the project is a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH, which will be open to the public. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 is for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum building setback along Pacific Coast Highway (30 ft. in lieu of min. 50 ft.) and along Pacific View Avenue (15 ft. in lieu of min. 20 It); b. Exceed the maximum slope percentage for three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures (15% in lieu of maximum 10%); and c. Exceed the maximum height for retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas (3.5 ft. to 6 ft. in lieu of maximum 3.5 It.). These Special Permits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project is a blend of the reduced building setbacks along PCH north of the site and the greater setbacks of the hotels along PCH to the south of the site. The placement and design of structures along PCH and Pacific View Avenue with reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, results in a better project because it facilitates and encourages pedestrian activity and conveys a visual link to PCH and Pacific View Avenue. The reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept' of the DTSP. The hotel would not result in better land use planning so therefore it is conditioned to be redesigned to have a minimum 50 ft. setback from the PCH right of way consistent with the DTSP and the Waterfront Hilton development to the south of the subject site. The increased ramp slope is an acceptable standard for driveways without parking on either side. The increased ramp slope allows for a more efficient use of land and more usable open space area resulting in a better project. There will be private patio walls, retaining walls, and landscaped planters along Pacific View Ave., First Street, Atlanta Ave., and Huntington Street separating the ground floor private patios with the public sidewalks around the perimeter of the residential project site that will exceed the max. 42 inches required by up to two ft. six inches (2' 6"). This special permit is necessary due to the grade differences between the ground floor patios and adjacent public sidewalk grades, and that there is an EIR mitigation measure that requires walls and barriers around patio areas and open space areas be shielded by at least a five ft., six in. (5' 6") high block wall or Plexiglas sheets to minimize exterior noise levels to these areas. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.10 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The project does include the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas that relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project has varied setbacks along PCH that is similar to the existing developments to the north and south. The reduced setbacks allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept' of the DTSP. The incorporation of the special permits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown area. 5. The granting of Special Permits is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies as noted under the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced retail commercial project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. The proposed special permits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Coastal development Permit No. 02-12, Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final E1R No. 02-01 will comply with State and Federal Law. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 for the development project conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, Conditions of Approval04-06-14 Attachment I.11 as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20- foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project does not conflict with any public recreation policies and it will add opportunities for access by improving the perimeter sidewalks and creating lookouts that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan as referenced in the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 and associated engineering exhibits received and dated February 13, 2004 for the subdivision of 34 gross acres into three lots, one of which is for condominium purposes, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Identify gross and net acreages for each lot in the summary table. b. Fully dimension the Village Green park area, and identify it as open to the public. c. Identify Lot No. 1 as a lot for residential condominium purposes. d. Meandering public sidewalks shall be provided along the perimeter of the project in lieu of the straight public sidewalks. (CC) e. Traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Ave. to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere shall be considered and subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. (CC) 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Tract Map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final tract map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Community Services Department, Public Works Department, and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map map. 1) The CC&Rs shall include language to address the right of the public to use the 2.03 acre Village Green park easement, pocket park, minimum 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and 20 foot wide pedestrian easement, and further that the right to meander off of the easements, and to walk over, traverse, and otherwise use, for recreational purposes, the areas identified as pedestrian public circulation areas depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, and the right for City to erect signs on the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas designating such property as being open for public use and access. 2) Grantor may not make any improvements to the easements or the pedestrian public circulation areas (including, without limitation, the installation of entry gates, signs prohibiting or restricting entry, or other improvements), or take any action (excluding normal maintenance), that would affect, in any manner, the right of the public to the unimpeded use of the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may give or withhold in Grantee's sole and absolute discretion. The CC&Rs shall include language that requires the Master Association to maintain the 2.03 acre park easement open space, and public access corridors as identified in the Final Tract Map and approved Improvement Plans. 3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantor shall have the right to install privacy gates to prevent public access to the portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 which are not identified as pedestrian public circulation areas as depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.13 4) The CC&Rs shall include the formation of a Master Association that shall govern, oversee, coordinate, and control all individual Homeowner's Associations and all Business Associations that include all areas of the proposed development for the primary purpose of coordinating and control of uniform maintenance, liability, repair of all common areas, public walkway easements and "A" Street. The Master Association shall also be solely responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the required landscaped medians in First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue, the decorative pavement within public streets adjacent to the project, and those items specified in the Maintenance License Agreement between the Master Association and the City. 5) The CC&Rs shall address the maintenance of all awnings and rails for the commercial and residential portions of the project. They shall also define allowable uses and structures in the 20-foot pedestrian corridor for the commercial portion of the project; fences and other permanent and temporary barriers shall be prohibited. Exclusive use by any business, carts, kiosks, and tables are not permitted. Benches, potted plants and similar amenities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Departments of Planning and Public Works. 6) The CC&Rs shall refer to the Special Utility Easement Agreement. (PW) 7) The CC&Rs shall refer to the Maintenance License Agreement. b. A draft Affordable Housing Agreement Plan received and dated Dec. 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved plan. It shall be modified as necessary to reflect the requirements below and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the Tract Map. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site, or combination of on-site and off-site. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: 1) Minimum 15 percent (78 units) of the total units shall be affordable to families of very low-income (less than 50% of Orange County median), low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median), and moderate-income level (less than 100% of Orange County median) for a period of sixty years. Section 1 Requirements of the Plan is acceptable with the clarification that it shall be for a period of 60 years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units, on-site and off-site. 3) Off-site affordable units (new or rehabilitated) shall be proportionate in size and bedroom mix to the proposed one, two and three bedroom condominium units, and under the full control of the applicant. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.14 4) The affordable units shall be constructed and/or acquired prior to or concurrent with the market rate units. The affordable units must be entitled, approved, and building permits obtained (and/or restrictive covenant recorded) concurrent with the following development phasing: PHASE RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE (Exhibit D-007) UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS Ila 68 10 11I 125 20 IV 203 30 Va 120 18 As an example, concurrent with issuing permits for any of the 68 units in phase Ila, at least 10 affordable units must be identified, entitled, approved, and building permits obtained, and/or covenant recorded. All affordable units must be made available for occupancy prior to issuance of building permits for the last phase of development unless such units are included as part of that phase; or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion of the affordable units for the respective phase. 5) A minimum of 50% of the required number of affordable housing units shall be on- site and the remaining number of units can be on-site or off-site. An option to the minimum 50% on-site is that the applicant may elect to build these units off-site, provided that the number of units is increased on a 2:1 basis and located within a redevelopment area. (PC) 6) If units are located off-site, the applicant shall consider sites located throughout the City and provide documentation thereof to the Planning Department. (PC) 7) Modify the Off-Site Units section of the Draft Affordable Housing Plan as follows: (PC) • Section 2.A. (second bullet)—delete last sentence referencing Oak View area. • Section 2.B. —delete last sentence referencing the Center Avenue area. • Add Section 4. — Applicant shall notify affected school districts of all projects intended to satisfy the off-site affordable housing requirements so that the school district(s) may identify cumulative impacts. Projects will be required to mitigate impacts to affected schools districts consistent with State law. 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. Dedicate a minimum 2.03 acres easement for Village Green park purposes to the City of Huntington Beach. The minimum 2.03 acres shall be inclusive of the public park entry corridor between the park and Pacific View Ave. The loop road may be private and include vehicle gates; it shall remain accessible to the public for pedestrian access. The Village Green park entry corridor shall be a minimum of 65 feet in width at its narrowest point and shall be a public easement dedicated on the Final Tract Map. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.15 b. An agreement shall be executed between the City and applicant prior to Final Tract Map approval that binds the Master Association and individual Associations in perpetuity for the conditions stated herein and that the Village Green Park will always be for public use and not changed to be for private use. c. The developer shall provide a Maintenance License Agreement to be a part of the Master Association agreement for maintenance of the medians, landscaping in the medians and adjacent to the project for Pacific View Avenue, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street and "A" Street if public. The agreement shall state that the Master Association shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, and fees imposed by County, City, and the Orange County Sanitation District for pumping, inspection, or other related fees for the dry weather Flow diversion and First Flush Water Runoff Treatment Control System approved by the City. Furthermore, the Agreement shall address the Master Association's responsibility for the maintenance of the 2.03-acre park casement, all enhanced paving adjacent to public streets, "A" Street, pedestrian easements, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, Edison-owned street lighting and street furniture located behind public street curbs within the project site. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, the regular maintenance and cleaning of all angled parking areas (i.e., markings, street sweeping) along Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street, etc. The Master Association shall be solely responsible for paying the cost of maintenance, inspections, cleanup, operation, monitoring, replacement planting, and equipment replacement of all improvements required for this project. (PW) d. The sewer and portions of the storm drain systems located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. e. A bond shall be posted for the potential conversion of Pacific View Avenue to a 4-lane divided roadway as dictated by the General Plan. The bond shall be maintained until such time that the roadway conversion improvements are completed and accepted by the City, or a General Plan Amendment is approved to eliminate the requirement of the conversion, or 10 years from the date of tract acceptance, whichever occurs first. The amount of the bond shall be determined by a preliminary design of full-width street improvements for Pacific View Avenue (in conformance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment) and cost estimate prepared by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. (PW) f. The two intersections of"A" Street and Pacific View shall be designed as enhanced intersections per the approved conceptual plan and shall be depicted on the Street Improvement Plans. (PW) g. Agreements with appropriate school districts intending to mitigate the impact on school facilities shall be executed. The Planning Department shall be provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final tract map. h. A Letter of No Further Action (or Letter of Closure) shall be obtained from the Fire Department regarding the soil remediation of the entire site prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, or issuance of any grading permits, whichever occurs first. (FD) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.16 4. The water system for the entire project shall be a public system; except, any portion of the fire service water system that is not public shall be maintained by the HOA in accordance with the language to be provided by the Fire Department for the CC&Rs. (FD) 5. Prior to commencing soil remediation or grading operations, the name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number and the City's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800- CUCSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) G. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. (PW) a. At least 30 days prior to grading, a notice shall be mailed to all property owners, residents and businesses located within 500 feet of the project site notifying them that the rodent population on site will be disturbed during grading and construction and may create a temporary nuisance to the neighboring area. This notice may be included in the notice of commencement of grading operations as required above. 7. A third party consultant, approved by the City, shall be responsible for monitoring on-site activities during the grading and construction phases of the project and shall serve as an agent for the City. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with this third party monitoring as determined by the City. 8. A third party remediation consultant will be retained by the City from the Fire Department's approved list of qualified consultants, for the purpose of providing review, recommendations and oversight of future remediation, sampling and closure reports. The consultant's scope shall include review of all documentation of work performed to (late, review of any new reports and data, and field and laboratory oversight. The consultant shall work at the direction of the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs submitted by the third party consultant. Conditions or Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.17 9. During the project construction phase, the applicant shall publish an informational newsletter annually and distribute to property owners, residents and businesses within a 1,000-foot radius of the project. (PC) 10. Final on-site grades and elevations on the grading plan may vary by no more than two (2) feet from the on-site grades and elevations, except adjacent to the perimeter of the site which shall vary by no more than one (1) foot from the street grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map with the approval of the Planning Department. 11. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map, 100% of the City Park Land In-Lieu Fees for the residential portion of the project shall be paid. (CC) 12. The Departments of Planning, Public Works, Fire, Building & Safety, and Community Services are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. -file Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the Final Tract Map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. The conceptual site plan, floor plans, and elevations for the reduced project alternative plan received and dated December 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout, with the following modifications: a. The retaining wall/fence combinations along PCH shall not exceed 42" in height. b. The below grade parking structures for the residential and commercial developments shall be redesigned to address the detailed comments identified in the Parking Plan Review by International Parking Design, Inc. dated January 14, 2004. Drive aisles for parking spaces shall be minimum 26 feet in width. Signage shall be provided for residential guest parking areas and guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked and accessible. Identify electric vehicle charging station parking spaces. The redesigned parking structures shall comply with the new 2005 Title 24 regulations (and any subsequent revisions, and shall include "variable volume exhaust fans with COz sensors" subject to review by the Departments of Planning, Building & Safety, Fire, and Public Works. c. Revise Exhibit D-006 as follows: provide minimum 25' setback from the property lines at the intersection of PCH and First St. for carts and kiosks; provide continuous eight foot wide sidewalk along the PCH frontage without any encroachment of carts and kiosks; provide minimum 20 foot wide entryway(without any carts/kiosks) to the project from the PCH/First St. intersection; and the minimum 20 foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be consistent with the tract map without any encroachment of carts and kiosks. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment L I S d. The outdoor deck/dining areas for the hotel restaurant along PCH between the Porte Cochere and Huntington Street shall have a minimum setback of 25' from PCH. e. The hotel at the podium level shall be setback 50' from the PCH right-of-way and the hotel tower (above the podium level) shall have an upper story setback of minimum ten feet from the podium level consistent with the General Plan, Subarea Schedule. f. Maintain minimum 107 free and clear (without obstruction) pedestrian path along Pacific View Ave. from First Street to the Porte Cochere entryway for the hotel. g. Identify three areas for bike rack installation on the site plan subject to the review of the Planning Department; one shall be in the residential portion of the site. The number of bike racks shall be comparable to City of Irvine's standards.(CC) 2. The project shall comply with the Mitigation Measures of the Pacific City Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 02-01). 3. The project shall be developed in accord with the Phasing Diagram (Exhibit D-007). Phase Ila (Residential) and Ilb (Commercial Parking Structure) shall be developed concurrently. Building permits for Phase III (Residential) and other residential phases shall not be issued until Phase IIb and He are completed, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion. 4. If any environmentally sensitive habitat is found on the site it will be protected from significant disruption, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas. (CC) 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works a project WQMP that: 1) Addresses site design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, and creating reduced or"zero discharge" areas 2) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs 3) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs to treat all dry weather flows and the first flush of a storm event (the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour, 851h percentile storm event) 4) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 5) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for longterm operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment I.19 7) Describes the following management of dry weather, first (lush & storm (low discharges: • Dry Weather Flows: The system shall be designed to divert all Pacific City dry weather flows into a structural filtration facility for treatment. Drainage areas A., B and the First Street watershed shall then be routed to the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station (ASWPS) for discharge into Orange County Sanitation District's system • First Flush: The drainage system shall be desired to treat the first flush (the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85t percentile storm event) with a structural filtration system. Following treatment, first flush flows from drainage Area B shall then be discharged into the First Street storm drain; first flush flows from Area A will then be routed to the ASWPS for discharge into the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. • Storms Flows: Storm flows above the first flush from Area B will be discharged untreated into the First Street stonn drain. Storm flows from Area A will be routed untreated to the ASWPS for discharge into the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. b. The applicant, at their expense, shall develop concept and design plans and costs estimated for a regional urban runoff treatment solution for the First Street watershed storm flows. Upon review and approval by the City, the applicant shall post a minimum 8-year bond for the equivalent of 1/7 of the capital construction cost into an Urban Runoff Treatment Trust Fund for the First Street watershed stone flows. Additionally, the applicant shall include in the Pacific City master CC&Rs that the project shall pay for 1/7 of the on-going annual operation and maintenance cost for this First Street regional treatment system. Upon implementation of this system the Pacific City Homeowners Association will be relieved of the obligation to maintain their on-site treatment system. (PC) 6. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the following conditions shall be complied with: a. A Pedestrian Accessibility Plan for the entire project site, depicting on-site and off-site improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building & Safety and Public Works Departments and by a third party consultant. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the consultant's review. (B & PW) b. At no additional cost to the developer, the City reserves the right to increase the water main pipe sizes necessary to support the proposed development, for the benefit of the City. For example, the City will require that the 12-inch water pipeline in Huntington Street, as required by the approved hydraulic analysis, be increased to an I8-inch pipeline. The City will pay the incremental difference in materials cost between a I2- inch and an 18-inch pipeline. (PW) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.20 c. The Village Green park area, pocket park, and entry corridor shall be designed and a detailed park improvement plan shall include typical neighborhood amenities including but not limited to tot lot play equipment, open turf play area and picnic tables and benches. All amenities must confomt to current Consumer Product Safety Guidelines with certain amenities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The entry corridor to the park (from Pacific View Ave.) and all other corridors must incorporate an architectural feature that properly identifies the area as public space. The plan shall identify play equipment, architectural features, plant material, ground cover, sidewalks, lighting, etc. and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Commission, Community Services Director, and Public Works Director prior to installation. (CS/PW) d. The median in Atlanta Avenue shall be designed to provide a solid landscaped median barrier through the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Alabama Street, unless otherwise modified as determined by the Public Works Department and/or the Public Works Commission. e. The project WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council. (CC) f. The landscape plans shall incorporate native and/or drought-resistant plants consistent with what is permitted by the City of Huntington Beach Design Guidelines and Downtown Specific Plan. 7. During grading activities, the following shall be adhered to: a. The project developer(s) shall require contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available in the Southern California area and cost effective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (PC) b. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil onto or off the project site are to be covered. (PC) 8. The following conditions shall be completed prior to final building permit inspection, or occupancy, of the first residential unit: a. All existing Washingtonia robusta located along Pacific Coast Highway within the existing Caltrans right-of-way shall be relocated or replaced with an equivalent total trunk height either within the project, or relocated off-site as approved by the City Landscape Architect. (PW) b. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 22 percent of the cost of the installation of a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway at the Warner Avenue intersection. The County of Orange and Caltrans will be responsible to complete this improvement. The costs will be based on estimates prepared by the County of Orange for completion of the project or through a separate preliminary design and cost estimate prepared by the applicant to specifically address the requirements of this condition. (PW) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.21 c. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 26 percent of the cost of' the installation of a second westbound right turn lane at the intersection on Seapoint Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement by providing funds for the balance of the cost of the improvement. The applicant shall prepare plans and obtain appropriate permits for the installation, including obtaining encroachment permits from Caltrans, as needed. Final determination of fair share contribution shall be based on the actual design and construction of the improvement. The City shall complete the improvement as a capital project. (PW) d. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue unless an altemative intersection design including traffic calming measures, which achieves the same objective as Mitigation Measure TR-3, is reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Public Works Commission. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 57% of commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to the applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) e. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue unless modified to include traffic calming measures such as a roundabout as reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Public Works Commission. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 59% of the commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) f. The Village Green park, pocket park, and corridor shall be improved prior to the occupancy of the first residential unit (other than the model homes). (PW) g. The applicant shall be responsible for 59% of the costs to improve street and sidewalk conditions on the south side of Atlanta Avenue within the existing right-of-way, between Huntington and Delaware Streets to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety conditions. (PC) 9. Submit detailed plans of the following for final review and approval by the Design Review Board: a. Elevations, colors and materials of the hotel. b. Final colors and materials of the commercial and residential buildings. C. Public Art Concept Plan. d. Landscape and hardscape plans on private and public property. C. Planned Sign Program. f. Furniture and utilities throughout the project 10. At least 500 parking spaces shall be available for self-parking (not valet) in the commercial parking structure. 11. Employee parking shall be on-site and any parking fees for employees shall not exceed the annual parking pass fee for beach parking. (CC) Conditions of Approval 04-06-I J Attachment 1.22 12. Parking meters shall be provided at all on-street public parking locations within or fronting the project frontage. Meters shall be installed according to City requirements and standards and shall meet the specifications of the City. The City will be responsible for the collection of revenue and maintenance of all parking meters. A plan depicting the location and design of the parking meter layout shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Services and Public Works Departments. 13. Hours of construction and related activity shall be limited to between the following hours: (PC) Construction: Mon.-Fri. 7AM — 6PM; Clean Up/Securing Area 6PM-8PM Construction/ Clean-Up: Sat. 7AM — 5PM Pile Driving: Mon.-Fri. 8AM —6PM Truck Hauling: Mon.-Fri. 8AtM-5PM; early delivery trucks must park on-site (not on street) with engine not idling between 7AM-8AM 13. An employee entrance and parking plan during construction shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The entrance and parking is to be located in an area that minimizes impacts to surrounding residents. 14. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 15. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. 'The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—PACIFIC CITY MASTER PLAN: 1. The Pacific City Master Plan received and dated July 10, 2003 shall be the approved conceptual plan or as modified herein. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.23 1 i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18, 2004 Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION — PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Dear Sirs: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 7, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing Part 1 of 2 to Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) The Robert Mayer Corporation and (2.) Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Pacific City Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 02-01; AND Public Hearing Part 2 of 2 — To Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) Makar Properties, LLC and (2.) The Robert Mayer Corporation of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and Conceptual Master Plan - Pacific City. Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the conditions to: 1) require meandering sidewalks along the perimeter of the project; 2) review the City of Irvine's bike rack requirement and specify the number of bike spaces for Pacific City; 3) review traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Avenue; 4) require that 100% of the park land in-lieu fee be paid by the applicant for the project; 5) environmentally sensitive habitat be protected from any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas; 6) water quality plan be submitted to Council for review and approval; 7) employee parking be onsite and any parking fees for employees not exceed annual parking pass fee at the beach parking lot. (Telephone: 714.536-5227) The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The June 7, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 7, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 12-18 cc: Penny Culbreth-Graft,City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner California Coastal Commission—200 Oceangate, W Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 Pacific City Coalition— 16787 Beach Blvd.#316, Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Appellant—The Robert Mayer Corporation—660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellant—Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP—650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Appellant—Makar Properties, LLC—4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action, my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on June 18, 2004, 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Makar Properties, LLC 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 a. [X] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. [ J BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to No. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2004, at Huntington Beach, California. h, L De® ty Ci Jerk g/follow p/appeal/!!proof of service lettedl.doc ;, CITY OF F-IUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18, 2004 Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP 650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION — PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Dear Sirs: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 7, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing Part f of 2 to Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) The Robert Mayer Corporation and (2.) Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Pacific City Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 02-01; AND Public Hearing Part 2 of 2 — To Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) Makar Properties, LLC and (2.) The Robert Mayer Corporation of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and Conceptual Master Plan - Pacific City. Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the conditions to: 1) require meandering sidewalks along the perimeter of the project; 2) review the City of Irvine's bike rack requirement and specify the number of bike spaces for Pacific City; 3) review traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Avenue; 4) require that 100% of the park land in-lieu fee be paid by the applicant for the project; 5) environmentally sensitive habitat be protected from any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas; 6) water quality plan be submitted to Council for review and approval; 7) employee parking be onsite and any parking fees for employees not exceed annual parking pass fee at the beach parking lot. (Telephone: 714-536-5227) The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The June 7, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 7, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 12-18 cc: Penny Culbreth-Graft,City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner California Coastal Commission—200 Oceangate, W Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 Pacific City Coalition— 16787 Beach Blvd.#316, Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Appellant—The Robert Mayer Corporation—660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellant—Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP—650 Town Center Dr.,Ste. 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Appellant— Makar Properties, LLC—4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action, my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on June 18, 2004, 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP 650 Town Center Dr_, Ste. 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 a. [X] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach. California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United Stales mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. ( ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to No I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2004, at Huntington Beach, California. Deput ity rk g nollo p/appeal/!!proof of service leded!.doc 1 J, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH it 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18, 2004 Pacific City Coalition 16787 Beach Blvd., #316 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION — PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Dear Sirs: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 7, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing Part 1 of 2 to Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) The Robert Mayer Corporation and (2.) Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Pacific City Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 02-01; AND Public Hearing Part 2 of 2 — To Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) Makar Properties, LLC and (2.) The Robert Mayer Corporation of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and Conceptual Master Plan - Pacific City. Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the conditions to: 1) require meandering sidewalks along the perimeter of the project; 2) review the City of Irvine's bike rack requirement and specify the number of bike spaces for Pacific City; 3) review traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Avenue; 4) require that 100% of the park land in-lieu fee be paid by the applicant for the project; 5) environmentally sensitive habitat be protected from any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas; 6) water quality plan be submitted to Council for review and approval; 7) employee parking be onsite and any parking fees for employees not exceed annual parking pass fee at the beach parking lot. (Telephone: 7 14.536-5227) The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The June 7, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 7, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 12-18 cc: Penny Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Califomia Coastal Commission—200 Oceangate, 10M Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 Pacific City Coalition— 16787 Beach Blvd.#316, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Appellant—The Robert Mayer Corporation—660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellant—Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP—650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Appellant—Makar Properties, LLC—4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on June 18, 2004 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Pacific City Coalition 16787 Beach Blvd., #316 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 a. [ X ] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach. California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to No. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2004, at Huntington Beach, California. e ty Ci lerk g Rollow prappeali!'proof of service letter!!.doc ;, CITY OF I"IUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18, 2004 The Robert Mayer Corporation 660 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION — PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Dear Sirs: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 7, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing Part 1 of 2 to Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) The Robert Mayer Corporation and (2.) Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Pacific City Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 02-01; AND Public Hearing Part 2 of 2 — To Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) Makar Properties, LLC and (2.) The Robert Mayer Corporation of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and Conceptual Master Plan - Pacific City. Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the conditions to: 1) require meandering sidewalks along the perimeter of the project; 2) review the City of Irvine's bike rack requirement and specify the number of bike spaces for Pacific City; 3) review traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Avenue; 4) require that 100% of the park land in-lieu fee be paid by the applicant for the project; 5) environmentally sensitive habitat be protected from any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas; 6) water quality plan be submitted to Council for review and approval; 7) employee parking be onsite and any parking fees for employees not exceed annual parking pass fee at the beach parking lot. (Telephone: 714-536.5227) The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The June 7, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 7, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 12-18 cc: Penny Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner California Coastal Commission—200 Oceangate, 10 Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 Pacific City Coalition— 16787 Beach Blvd. #316, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Appellant—The Robert Mayer Corporation—660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellant—Lewis Brisbois. Bisgaard, Smith, LLP—650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 1400.Costa Mesa. CA 92626 Appellant—Makar Properties, LLC—4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste, 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on June 18, 2004, 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: The Robert Mayer Corporation 660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 a. [X] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to No. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2004, at Huntington Beach, California. ep y City ertc g/fol1owup1appea1P1proof of semc letteN!.doc jJ le CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH t; 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 18, 2004 California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 101h Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION — PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Dear Sirs: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 7, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing Part 1 of 2 to Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) The Robert Mayer Corporation and (2.) Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Pacific City Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 02-01; AND Public Hearing Part 2 of 2 — To Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) Makar Properties, LLC and (2.) The Robert Mayer Corporation of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02.20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and Conceptual Master Plan - Pacific City. Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher. Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the conditions to: 1) require meandering sidewalks along the perimeter of the project; 2) review the City of Irvine's bike rack requirement and specify the number of bike spaces for Pacific City; 3) review traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Avenue; 4) require that 100% of the park land in-lieu fee be paid by the applicant for the project; 5) environmentally sensitive habitat be protected from any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas; 6) water quality plan be submitted to Council for review and approval; 7) employee parking be onsite and any parking fees for employees not exceed annual parking pass fee at the beach parking lot. (Telephone: 714-536-5227) The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The June 7, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 7, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 12-18 cc: Penny Culbrelh-Graft,City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner California Coastal Commission—200 Oceangate, 100 Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 Pacific City Coalition— 16787 Beach Blvd. #316, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Appellant—The Robert Mayer Corporation—660 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellant— Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP—650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Appellant— Makar Properties, LLC—4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on June 18 2004, 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 1C Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 a. [ ] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California. addressed to the address shown above. c [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. ( X ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named: Scott Hess, Planning Department. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to no. INSERT FAX NUMBER. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2004, at Huntington Beach, California. epjAy Cit) Jerk ILI g:/follo plappeaU!Iproof of semoe letterl!.doc CA Codes (ccp:I OS4-1097) Page 6 of 9 Board and invoke arbitration proceedings pursuant to a State Bargaining Unit 11 collective bargaining agreement. 094 .6 . a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094 . 5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final . If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision, in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing, the date, time, and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the Aecision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party seeking the writ . Subdivision (a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time, following deposit in the mail of the decision or findings, within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision (b) , the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094 .5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one- (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094 .5, suspending, demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance . (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e) , the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee http://«-ww.ica.info.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycodc?section=ccp&group=0 1 00 1-02000&file=l... 6/16/2004 CA Codes (ccp:1084-1097) Page 7 of 9 who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit, license, or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, or whose application for a permit, license, or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless t:ne conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a shorter statute of limitations, in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. 1094 . 8 . (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, an action or proceeding to review the issuance, revocation, suspension, or denial of a permit or other entitlement for expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution shall be conducted in accordance with subdivision (d) . (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) The terms "permit" and "entitlement" are used interchangeably. (2) The term "permit applicant" means both an applicant for a permit and a permitholder. (3) The term "public agency" means a city, county, city and county, a joint powers authority or similar public entity formed oursuant to Section 65850.4 of the Government Code, or any other public entity authorized by law to issue permits for expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (c) A public agency may, if it so chooses, designate the permits or entitlements to which this section applies by adopting an ordinance or resolution which contains a specific listing or other description of the permits or entitlements issued by the public agency which are eligible for expedited judicial review pursuant to this section because the permits regulate expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (d) The procedure set forth in this subdivision, when applicable, shall supersede anything to the contrary set forth in this chapter. (1) Within five court days after receipt of written notification =rpm a permit applicant that the permit applicant will seek judicial review of a public agency' s action on the permit, the public agency shall prepare, certify, and make available the administrative record to the permit applicant. (2) Either the public agency or the permit applicant may bring an action in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section. I`_ the permit applicant brings the action, the action shall be in the form of a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085 or 1094 . 5, as appropriate . (3) The party bringing the action pursuant to this section shall file and serve the petition on the respondent no later than 21 calendar days following the public agency's final decision on the permit . The title page of the petition shall contain the following language in 18-point type: "ATTENTION: THIS MATTER IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY AND SUBJECT TO --E EXPEDITED HEARING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN SECTION 1094 . 8 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. " (4) The clerk of the court shall set a hearing for review of the petition no later than 25 calendar days from the date the petition is http:/hv%%w.Ieginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displa\lcode9section=ccp&group=01001-02000&file=l... 6/16/2004 CA Codes (ccp:1084-1097) Page S of 9 filed. Moving, opposition, and reply pavers shall be filed as provided in the California Rules of Court . The petitioner shall lodge the administrative record with the court no later than 10 calendar days in advance of the hearing date. (5) Following the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall render its decision in an expeditious manner consistent with constitutional requirements in view of the particular facts and circumstances . In no event shall the dec''-sion be rendered later than 20 calendar days after the matter is sub-mated or 50 calendar days after the date the petition is filed pursuant to paragraph (4) , whichever is earlier. (e) If the presiding judge of the court in which the action is filed determines that, as a result of either the press of other court business or other factors, the court will be unable to meet any one or more of the deadlines provided within this section, the presiding judge shall request the temporary assignment of a judicial officer to hear the petition and render a decision •.:'_thin the time limits contained herein, pursuant to Section 68543 .8 of the Government Code. Given the short time period involved, the request shall be entitled to priority. (f) In any action challenging the issuance, revocation, suspension, or denial of a permit or entitlement, the parties to the action shall be permitted to jointly wai-:e the time limits provided for herein. 1095 . If judgment be given for the applicant, the applicant may recover the damages which the applicant has sustained, as found by the jury, or as may be determined by the court or referee, upon a reference to be ordered, together with tests; and a peremptory mandate must also be awarded without delay. Damages and costs may be enforced in the manner provided for money judgments generally. In all cases where the respondent is an officer of a public entity, all damages and costs, or either, which may '--e recovered or awarded, shall be recovered and awarded against t:-e public entity represented by the officer, and not against the officer so appearing in the proceeding, and are a proper claim against the public entity for which the officer appeared and shall be --aid as other claims against the public entity are paid; but in all such cases, the court shall first determine that the officer appeared and made defense in the proceeding in good faith. For the purpose of this section, "public entity" includes the state, a county, city, district or other public agency or public corporation. For the purpose of this section, "officer" includes officer, agent or employee. 1096 . The writ must be served in the sa-e manner as a summons in a civil action, except when otherwise expressly directed by order of the Court . Service upon a majority of t-e members of any Board or body, is service upon the Board or body, whether at the time of the service the Board or body was in session: or not . (1097 . ) Section Ten Hundred and Ninety-seven. When a peremptory mandate has been issued and directed to any inferior tribunal, corporation, Board, or person, if it apt=ar to the Court that any member of such tribunal, corporation, or Board, or such person upon whom the writ has been personally serves, has, without just excuse, http://wxv%v.Iegi n fo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/d isplaycode?section=ccpLC grottp=O 1001-02000&,file=1... 6/16/2004 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PACIFIC CITY PROJECT (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20/ SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12/ AiASTER PLAN -- PACIFIC CITY MIXED USE PROJECT) (June 14, 2004) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE NIAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 to subdivide approximately 27.8 acres (31.5 gac) into three parcels (a 17.2 acre parcel for residential condominium purposes, a 6.47 acre parcel for retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment development; and a 4.12 acre parcel for a hotel development); dedicate a 2.03 acre easement for a Village Green Park/open space, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian corridor easement with public access; and dedicate Pacific View Avenue per the Precise Plan of Street Alignment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designations on the subject site. The commercial portion of the site is designated CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street), and the residential portion of the site is RH-30- sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 u/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street). The subdivision will provide for a mixed-use project consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan, and will provide for necessary public improvements around the site. In addition, the applicant will pay the full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 27.8-acre project site provides the necessary area for a mixed-use development (191,100 sq. ft. mixed-use project with retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses, a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking, and 516 multiple-family residential condominium units above two levels of subterranean parking) consistent with the intensity and density of the Downtown Specific Plan— District 7A (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and SA (High Density Residential) with a Coastal Zone overlay, the General Plan designations, and with the implementation of mitigation measures. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project, subject to a finding being made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The tentative map provides all the necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.1 dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, and easements with public access through the ' development and to a Village Green park/open space easement to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 to construct a 191,100 sq. ft. mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,542 spaces; construct 516 condominium units within a mix of two, three, and four story buildings above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,291 spaces; permit alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, dancing, 10,550 sq. ft. of outdoor dining; carts and kiosks in conjunction with the mixed commercial and hotel development; permit a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the mixed use project (1,542 spaces in lieu of min. 1,776 spaces) and for tandem parking spaces; permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the subterranean parking garage; permit any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on-going remediation activities, which may include but are not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation; permit associated infrastructure improvements including the extension of Pacific View Avenue; permit development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point; improve a 2.03 acre Village Green Park easement; and Master Plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the project area. The project also is designed with buildings that terraces with the grade, especially along Huntington Street. 3. The conditional use permit for 1,542 parking spaces in lieu of the 1,776 spaces required per Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO for the Reduced Project Alternative Plan (191,100 sq. ft.) is substantiated by the Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan dated October 15, 2003. This analysis is based on the proposed use of the buildings which will not generate additional parking demand than the proposed 1,542 spaces. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.2 In addition, a Transportation Demand Management Plan which exceeds the minimum ' required by Section 230.36 of the ZSO will be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The proposed request will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in the Downtown Specific Plan and Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street) for the commercial portion of the site, and RH-30-sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 u/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street) for the residential portion of the site. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policy LU 2.1.7 Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Poficv LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policy LU4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.3 Policy LU 4.1.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. Policy LU4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.2: Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule, as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1-1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the appropriate principles. Policy LU 9.3.1: Permit the development of master-planned residential projects that incorporate a mix of housing types, neighborhood-serving commercial services, schools, parks, open space, and other elements in areas designated for residential on the Land Use Map. Policv LU 9.3.2: Require the design of new residential subdivisions to consider the following: a. Establish a street configuration involving the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of"blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. b. Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. c. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi-family housing within single-family areas to preserve open space. d. Establish a common "gathering"or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. e. Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. f. Establish a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other elements that link all community areas and provide linkages to land uses in adjacent areas. g. Orient housing units to neighborhood and collector streets. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.4 h. Site and design of units and incorporate elements, such as porches, that emphasize front yards as an activity area and "outdoor living room," by locating garages in the rear or side yards. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. j. Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. k. Include alleys or other means to minimize the dominance of garages along the street frontage. 1. Include setbacks and other design elements that buffer residential units from the impacts of abutting existing commercial and/or industrial development. Policy LU 9.3.3: Require that nonresidential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. The mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight-story hotel proposed for the site represents development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement new and existing retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high-quality visual image and character. It is in conformance with the City's Design Guidelines. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends approval of the design concept. The project provides for adequate access along all public streets, and required parking pursuant to a parking analysis in a two-level subterranean parking structure. The proposed multiple family residential buildings are well articulated and have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. Ground floor units along the perimeter of the residential site are oriented towards the street. The design of the residential subdivision includes four district neighborhoods emphasizing a cluster of buildings around a 2.03-acre village green park with recreational areas and a 20-foot wide pedestrian corridor. Connecting the village green park to Pacific View Avenue is a 65-foot entry corridor that is accessible to either crosswalk on Pacific View Avenue providing access to the retail promenade. With subterranean parking, there are no garages to dominate the street scene and front yard/patios become activity areas. In addition, there will be a landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb around the perimeter of the site. The residential project is separate from commercial activities by Pacific View Avenue. There will be surplus parking for the project; a total of 1,542 commercial parking spaces and 1,291 residential parking spaces are proposed. The number of residential parking spaces is based on Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO, and the number of commercialihotel parking spaces is based on a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. The Analysis concluded the peak demand for the Reduced Retail Commercial Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.5 Alternative Plan would be 1,372; thus, there will be 170 surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel development. There will be public improvements made in conjunction with the project to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. In addition, the developer will be paying required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with all affected school districts. B. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources- Policy C /.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Policy C 1.L7: Encourage cluster development in areas designated for residential use within the Coastal Zone. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-l. 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. Policv C 2.2.3: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments. Policv C 2.4.1: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.6 Objective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policv C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Obiective C 4.1: Provide opportunities within the Coastal Zone for open space as a visual and aesthetic resource. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced commercial retail project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. C. Economic Development Element Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor- serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Objective ED 2.6: Expand and enhance the existing visitor-serving uses. Policy ED 2.6.1: Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Policv ED 2.6.2: Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City, thereby creating identifiable visitor-oriented centers. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. Objective ED 3.1: Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policy ED 3.1.1. Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses- Policy ED 3.2.1: Create commercial-recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.7 Policy ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retaiUoffice/residential) structures on the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Policy ED 3.2.3: Attract visitor-serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor-supporting retail uses. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses, and a 400 room, eight-story hotel development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base and further diversify the range of overnight accommodations. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. D. Housing Element Policy H 3.1.1: 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. The residential portion of the project is designed for 516 residential units in four different neighborhoods. There will be 15 varied floor plans in a townhome and stacked flat design. The floor plan sizes range from an average of 850 sq. ft. to 2,450 sq. ft. with one, two, and three bedrooms. Also, 15% of the total project units will be affordable for low to moderate- income families. These units will be on-site and off-site. E. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 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 applicant will be constructing Pacific View Avenue, improvements to Atlanta Ave., Huntington Street, First Street, and PCH, and a bus turnout on PCH. 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. F. Recreation and Community Services Element Goal S: Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. The residential portion of the project is required to provide 4.81 acres of open space area based on 25% of the total residential floor area. The proposal is for 9.28 acres of common Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.8 and private open space which represents 53.8% of the site. Some of this common area will ' be accessible by the public including a 2.03 acre Village Green park/open space easement, 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH. In addition, the applicant will be paying the full (100%) City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. G. Subarea Schedule Subarea 4C PCH/First Street (Commercial/Hotel Component): • Permitted Uses: Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, entertainment, and other commercial uses. • Density/Intensity: Maximum 3.0 FAR; maximum height of eight stories • 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. The mixed-use project consists of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses (live entertainment and dancing) and a 400 room, eight-story hotel. The commercial buildings are two to three stories clustered along a crescent shaped pedestrian walkway with a series of gathering areas and plazas for public activity and views to the ocean. A unified, high-quality visual image and character is created by the unique building designs and architecture. There is a 20-foot wide pedestrian walkway through the commercial project from PCH to Pacific View Avenue and then it continues through the residential area connecting Pacific View Avenue to Atlanta Avenue. Along the PCH frontage is a meandering walkway with defined entries at First Street and Huntington Street. Subarea 41 Atlanta-First Street (Residential Component): • Permitted Uses: Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and open spaces. • Density/Intensity: Maximum height of four stories; Maximum 30 units per net acre. • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific plan or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions" (Policies 9.3.1 — 9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two to four stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. There are 516 multiple family residential units proposed at a maximum density of 30 units per net acre in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan. The units are in two to four story, well articulated buildings with enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.9 residential development is consistent with the policies of 9.3.1 to 9.3.3 as noted under the Land Use Element of this section. Incorporated into the project is a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement condor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH, which will be open to the public. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 is for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum building setback along Pacific Coast Highway (30 ft. in lieu of min. 50 ft.) and along Pacific View Avenue (15 ft. in lieu of min. 20 ft.); b. Exceed the maximum slope percentage for three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures (15% in lieu of maximum 10%); and C. Exceed the maximum height for retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas (3.5 ft. to 6 ft. in lieu of maximum 3.5 ft.). These Special Permits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project is a blend of the reduced building setbacks along PCH north of the site and the greater setbacks of the hotels along PCH to the south of the site. The placement and design of structures along PCH and Pacific View Avenue with reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, results in a better project because it facilitates and encourages pedestrian activity and conveys a visual link to PCH and Pacific View Avenue. The reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. The hotel would not result in better land use planning so therefore it is conditioned to be redesigned to have a minimum 50 ft. setback from the PCH right of way consistent with the DTSP and the Waterfront Hilton development to the south of the subject site. The increased ramp slope is an acceptable standard for driveways without parking on either side. The increased ramp slope allows for a more efficient use of land and more usable open space area resulting in a better project. There will be private patio walls, retaining walls, and landscaped planters along Pacific View Ave., First Street, Atlanta Ave., and Huntington Street separating the ground floor private patios with the public sidewalks around the perimeter of the residential project site that will exceed the max. 42 inches required by up to two ft. six inches (2' 6"). This special permit is necessary due to the grade differences between the ground floor patios and adjacent public sidewalk grades, and that there is an EIR mitigation measure that requires walls and barriers around patio areas and open space areas be shielded by at least a five ft., six in. (5' 6") high block wall or Plexiglas sheets to minimize exterior noise levels to these areas. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment I.10 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The project does include the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas that relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project has varied setbacks along PCH that is similar to the existing developments to the north and south. The reduced setbacks allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. The incorporation of the special permits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown area. 5. The granting of Special Permits is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the Califomia Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies as noted under the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced retail commercial project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. The proposed special permits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Coastal development Permit No. 02-12, Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final EIR No. 02-01 will comply with State and Federal Law. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 for the development project conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.11 as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing ' infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20- foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a mattner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project does not conflict with any public recreation policies and it will add opportunities for access by improving the perimeter sidewalks and creating lookouts that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan as referenced in the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 and associated engineering exhibits received and dated February 13, 2004 for the subdivision of 34 gross acres into three lots, one of which is for condominium purposes, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Identify gross and net acreages for each lot in the summary table. b. Fully dimension the Village Green park area, and identify it as open to the public. c. Identify Lot No. 1 as a lot for residential condominium purposes. d. Meandering public sidewalks shall be provided along the perimeter of the project in lieu of the straight public sidewalks. (CC) e. Traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Ave. to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere shall be considered and subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. (CC) 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Tract Map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final tract map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Community Services Department, Public Works Department, and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map map. 1) The CC&Rs shall include language to address the right of the public to use the 2.03 acre Village Green park easement, pocket park, minimum 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and 20 foot wide pedestrian easement, and further that the right to meander off of the casements, and to walk over, traverse, and otherwise use, for recreational purposes, the areas identified as pedestrian public circulation areas depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, and the right for City to erect signs on the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas designating such property as being open for public use and access. 2) Grantor may not make any improvements to the easements or the pedestrian public circulation areas (including, without limitation, the installation of entry gates, signs prohibiting or restricting entry, or other improvements), or take any action (excluding normal maintenance), that would affect, in any manner, the right of the public to the unimpeded use of the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may give or withhold in Grantee's sole and absolute discretion. The CC&Rs shall include language that requires the Master Association to maintain the 2.03 acre park easement open space, and public access corridors as identified in the Final Tract Map and approved Improvement Plans. 3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantor shall have the right to install privacy gates to prevent public access to the portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 which are not identified as pedestrian public circulation areas as depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Conditions or Approval 0;-06-14 Attachment 1.13 4) The CC&Rs shall include the formation of a Master Association that shall govern, oversee, coordinate, and control all individual Homeowner's Associations and all Business Associations that include all areas of the proposed development for the primary purpose of coordinating and control of uniform maintenance, liability, repair of all common areas, public walkway easements and "A" Street. The Master Association shall also be solely responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the required landscaped medians in First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue, the decorative pavement within public streets adjacent to the project, and those items specified in the Maintenance License Agreement between the Master Association and the City. 5) The CC&Rs shall address the maintenance of all awnings and rails for the commercial and residential portions of the project. They shall also define allowable uses and structures in the 20-foot pedestrian corridor for the commercial portion of the project; fences and other permanent and temporary barriers shall be prohibited. Exclusive use by any business, carts, kiosks, and tables are not permitted. Benches, potted plants and similar amenities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Departments of Planning and Public Works. 6) The CC&Rs shall refer to the Special Utility Easement Agreement. (PW) 7) The CC&Rs shall refer to the Maintenance License Agreement. b. A draft Affordable Housing Agreement Plan received and dated Dec. 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved plan. It shall be modified as necessary to reflect the requirements below and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the Tract Map. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site, or combination of on-site and off-site. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: I) Minimum 15 percent (78 units) of the total units shall be affordable to families of very low-income (less than 50% of Orange County median), low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median), and moderate-income level (less than 100% of Orange County median) for a period of sixty years. Section I Requirements of the Plan is acceptable with the clarification that it shall be for a period of 60 years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units, on-site and off-site. 3) Off-site affordable units (new or rehabilitated) shall be proportionate in size and bedroom mix to the proposed one, two and three bedroom condominium units, and under the full control of the applicant. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.14 4) The affordable units shall be constructed and/or acquired prior to or concurrent with ' the market rate units. The affordable units must be entitled, approved, and building permits obtained (and/or restrictive covenant recorded) concurrent with the following development phasing: PHASE RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE (Exhibit D-007) UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS IIa 68 10 III 125 20 IV 203 30 Va 120 18 As an example, concurrent with issuing permits for any of the 68 units in phase IIa, at least 10 affordable units must be identified, entitled, approved, and building permits obtained, and/or covenant recorded. All affordable units must be made available for occupancy prior to issuance of building permits for the last phase of development unless such units are included as part of that phase; or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion of the affordable units for the respective phase. 5) A minimum of 50% of the required number of affordable housing units shall be on- site and the remaining number of units can be on-site or off-site. An option to the minimum 50% on-site is that the applicant may elect to build these units off-site, provided that the number of units is increased on a 2:1 basis and located within a redevelopment area. (PC) 6) If units are located off-site, the applicant shall consider sites located throughout the City and provide documentation thereof to the Planning Department. (PC) 7) Modify the Off-Site Units section of the Drafl Affordable Housing Plan as follows: (PC) • Section 2.A. (second bullet) —delete last sentence referencing Oak View area. • Section 2.B. — delete last sentence referencing the Center Avenue area. • Add Section 4. —Applicant shall notify affected school districts of all projects intended to satisfy the off-site affordable housing requirements so that the school district(s) may identify cumulative impacts. Projects will be required to mitigate impacts to affected schools districts consistent with State law. 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PNV) a. Dedicate a minimum 2.03 acres easement for Village Green park purposes to the City of Huntington Beach. The minimum 2.03 acres shall be inclusive of the public park entry corridor between the park and Pacific View Ave. The loop road may be private and include vehicle gates; it shall remain accessible to the public for pedestrian access. The Village Green park entry corridor shall be a minimum of 65 feet in width at its narrowest point and shall be a public easement dedicated on the Final Tract Map. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.15 b. An agreement shall be executed between the City and applicant prior to Final Tract Map approval that binds the Master Association and individual Associations in perpetuity for the conditions stated herein and that the Village Green Park will always be for public use and not changed to be for private use. c. The developer shall provide a Maintenance License Agreement to be a part of the Master Association agreement for maintenance of the medians, landscaping in the medians and adjacent to the project for Pacific View Avenue, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street and "A" Street if public. The agreement shall state that the Master Association shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, and fees imposed by County, City, and the Orange County Sanitation District for pumping, inspection, or other related fees for the dry weather flow diversion and First Flush Water Runoff Treatment Control System approved by the City. Furthermore, the Agreement shall address the Master Association's responsibility for the maintenance of the 2.03-acre park easement, all enhanced paving adjacent to public streets, "A" Street, pedestrian easements, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, Edison-owned street lighting and street furniture located behind public street curbs within the project site. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, the regular maintenance and cleaning of all angled parking areas (i.e., markings, street sweeping) along Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street, etc. The Master Association shall be solely responsible for paying the cost of maintenance, inspections, cleanup, operation, monitoring, replacement planting, and equipment replacement of all improvements required for this project. (PW) d. The sewer and portions of the storm drain systems located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. e. A bond shall be posted for the potential conversion of Pacific View Avenue to a 4-lane divided roadway as dictated by the General Plan. The bond shall be maintained until such time that the roadway conversion improvements are completed and accepted by the City, or a General Plan Amendment is approved to eliminate the requirement of the conversion, or 10 years from the date of tract acceptance, whichever occurs first. The amount of the bond shall be determined by a preliminary design of full-width street improvements for Pacific View Avenue (in conformance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment) and cost estimate prepared by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. (PW) f. The two intersections of"A" Street and Pacific View shall be designed as enhanced intersections per the approved conceptual plan and shall be depicted on the Street Improvement Plans. (PW) g. Agreements with appropriate school districts intending to mitigate the impact on school facilities shall be executed. The Planning Department shall be provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final tract map. h. A Letter of No Further Action (or Letter of Closure) shall be obtained from the Fire Department regarding the soil remediation of the entire site prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, or issuance of any grading permits, whichever occurs first. (FD) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.16 4. The water system for the entire project shall be a public system; except, any portion of the ' fire service water system that is not public shall be maintained by the HOA in accordance with the language to be provided by the Fire Department for the CC&Rs. (FD) 5. Prior to commencing soil remediation or grading operations, the name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number and the City's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800- CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) 6. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. (PW) a. At least 30 days prior to grading, a notice shall be mailed to all property owners, residents and businesses located within 500 feet of the project site notifying them that the rodent population on site will be disturbed during grading and construction and may create a temporary nuisance to the neighboring area. This notice may be included in the notice of commencement of grading operations as required above. 7. A third party consultant, approved by the City, shall be responsible for monitoring on-site activities during the grading and construction phases of the project and shall serve as an agent for the City. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with this third party monitoring as determined by the City. 8. A third party remediation consultant will be retained by the City from the Fire Department's approved list of qualified consultants, for the purpose of providing review, recommendations and oversight of future remediation, sampling and closure reports. The consultant's scope shall include review of all documentation of work performed to date, review of any new reports and data, and field and laboratory oversight. The consultant shall work at the direction of the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs submitted by the third party consultant. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.17 9. During the project construction phase, the applicant shall publish an informational newsletter annually and distribute to property owners, residents and businesses within a 1,000-foot radius of the project. (PC) 10. Final on-site grades and elevations on the grading plan may vary by no more than two (2) feet from the on-site grades and elevations, except adjacent to the perimeter of the site which shall vary by no more than one (1) foot from the street grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map with the approval of the Planning Department. 11. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map, 100% of the City Park Land In-Lieu Fees for the residential portion of the project shall be paid. (CC) 12. The Departments of Planning, Public Works, Fire, Building & Safety, and Community Services are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the Final Tract Map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. The conceptual site plan, floor plans, and elevations for the reduced project alternative plan received and dated December 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout, with the following modifications: a. The retaining wall/fence combinations along PCH shall not exceed 42" in height. b. The below grade parking structures for the residential and commercial developments shall be redesigned to address the detailed comments identified in the Parking Plan Review by International Parking Design, Inc. dated January 14, 2004. Drive aisles for parking spaces shall be minimum 26 feet in width. Signage shall be provided for residential guest parking areas and guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked and accessible. Identify electric vehicle charging station parking spaces. The redesigned parking structures shall comply with the new 2005 Title 24 regulations (and any subsequent revisions, and shall include "variable volume exhaust fans with COZ sensors" subject to review by the Departments of Planning, Building & Safety, Fire, and Public Works. c. Revise Exhibit D-006 as follows: provide minimum 25' setback from the property lines at the intersection of PCH and First St. for carts and kiosks; provide continuous eight foot wide sidewalk along the PCH frontage without any encroachment of carts and kiosks; provide minimum 20 foot wide entryway(without any carts/kiosks) to the project from the PCH/First St. intersection; and the minimum 20 foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be consistent with the tract map without any encroachment of carts and kiosks. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment Lis d. The outdoor deck/dining areas for the hotel restaurant along PCH between the Porte Cochere and Huntington Street shall have a minimum setback of 25' from PCH. e. The hotel at the podium level shall be setback 50' from the PCH right-of-way and the hotel tower (above the podium level) shall have an upper story setback of minimum ten feet from the podium level consistent with the General Plan, Subarea Schedule. f Maintain minimum 10' free and clear(without obstruction) pedestrian path along Pacific View Ave. from First Street to the Porte Cochere entryway for the hotel. g. Identify three areas for bike rack installation on the site plan subject to the review of the Planning Department; one shall be in the residential portion of the site. The number of bike racks shall be comparable to City of Irvine's standards.(CC) 2. The project shall comply with the Mitigation Measures of the Pacific City Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 02-01). 3. The project shall be developed in accord with the Phasing Diagram (Exhibit D-007). Phase Ila (Residential) and Ilb (Commercial Parking Structure) shall be developed concurrently. Building permits for Phase III (Residential) and other residential phases shall not be issued until Phase IIb and He are completed, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion. 4. If any environmentally sensitive habitat is found on the site it will be protected from significant disruption, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas. (CC) 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works a project WQMP that: 1) Addresses site design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, and creating reduced or"zero discharge" areas 2) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs 3) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs to treat all dry weather flows and the first flush of a storm event (the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour, 851h percentile storm event) 4) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 5) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.19 7) Describes the following management of dry weather, first flush & storm flow ' discharges: • Dry Weather Flows: The system shall be designed to divert all Pacific City dry weather flows into a structural filtration facility for treatment. Drainage areas A., B and the First Street watershed shall then be routed to the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station (ASWPS) for discharge into Orange County Sanitation District's system • First Flush: The drainage system shall be designed to treat the first flush (the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour, SSt percentile storm event) with a structural filtration system. Following treatment, first flush flows from drainage Area B shall then be discharged into the First Street storm drain; first flush flows from Area A will then be routed to the ASWPS for discharge into the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. • Storms Flows: Storm flows above the first flush from Area B will be discharged untreated into the First Street storm drain. Storm flows from Area A will be routed untreated to the ASWPS for discharge into the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. b. The applicant, at their expense, shall develop concept and design plans and costs estimated for a regional urban runoff treatment solution for the First Street watershed storm flows. Upon review and approval by the City, the applicant shall post a minimum 8-year bond for the equivalent of 1/7 of the capital construction cost into an Urban Runoff Treatment Trust Fund for the First Street watershed storm flows. Additionally, the applicant shall include in the Pacific City master CC&Rs that the project shall pay for 1/7 of the on-going annual operation and maintenance cost for this First Street regional treatment system. Upon implementation of this system the Pacific City Homeowners Association will be relieved of the obligation to maintain their on-site treatment system. (PC) 6. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the following conditions shall be complied with: a. A Pedestrian Accessibility Plan for the entire project site, depicting on-site and off-site improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building & Safety and Public Works Departments and by a third party consultant. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the consultant's review. (B & PTV) b. At no additional cost to the developer, the City reserves the right to increase the water main pipe sizes necessary to support the proposed development, for the benefit of the City. For example, the City will require that the 12-inch water pipeline in Huntington Street, as required by the approved hydraulic analysis, be increased to an 18-inch pipeline. The City will pay the incremental difference in materials cost between a 12- inch and an 18-inch pipeline. (PW) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.20 c. The Village Green park area, pocket park, and entry corridor shall be designed and a detailed park improvement plan shall include typical neighborhood amenities including but not limited to tot lot play equipment, open turf play area and picnic tables and benches. All amenities must conform to current Consumer Product Safety Guidelines with certain amenities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The entry corridor to the park (from Pacific View Ave.) and all other corridors must incorporate an architectural feature that properly identifies the area as public space. The plan shall identify play equipment, architectural features, plant material, ground cover, sidewalks, lighting, etc. and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Commission, Community Services Director, and Public Works Director prior to installation. (CS/PNV) d. The median in Atlanta Avenue shall be designed to provide a solid landscaped median barrier through the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Alabama Street, unless otherwise modified as determined by the Public Works Department and/or the Public Works Commission. e. The project WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council. (CC) f. The landscape plans shall incorporate native and/or drought-resistant plants consistent with what is permitted by the City of Huntington Beach Design Guidelines and Downtown Specific Plan. 7. During grading activities, the following shall be adhered to: a. The project developer(s) shall require contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available in the Southern California area and cost effective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (PC) b. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil onto or off the project site are to be covered. (PC) 8. The following conditions shall be completed prior to final building permit inspection, or occupancy, of the first residential unit: a. All existing Washingtonia robusta located along Pacific Coast Highway within the existing Caltrans right-of-way shall be relocated or replaced with an equivalent total trunk height either within the project, or relocated off-site as approved by the City Landscape Architect. (PW) b. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 22 percent of the cost of the installation of a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway at the Warner Avenue intersection. The County of Orange and Caltrans will be responsible to complete this improvement. The costs will be based on estimates prepared by the County of Orange for completion of the project or through a separate preliminary design and cost estimate prepared by the applicant to specifically address the requirements of this condition. (PW) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.21 c. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 26 percent of the cost of the installation of a second westbound right turn lane at the intersection on Seapoint Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement by providing funds for the balance of the cost of the improvement. The applicant shall prepare plans and obtain appropriate permits for the installation, including obtaining encroachment permits from Caltrans, as needed. Final determination of fair share contribution shall be based on the actual design and construction of the improvement. The City shall complete the improvement as a capital project. (PW) d. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue unless an alternative intersection design including traffic calming measures, which achieves the same objective as Mitigation Measure TR-3, is reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Public Works Commission. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 57% of commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to the applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) e. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue unless modified to include traffic calming measures such as a roundabout as reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Public Works Commission. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 59% of the commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) f. The Village Green park, pocket park, and corridor shall be improved prior to the occupancy of the first residential unit (other than the model homes). (PW) g. The applicant shall be responsible for 59% of the costs to improve street and sidewalk conditions on the south side of Atlanta Avenue within the existing right-of-way, between Huntington and Delaware Streets to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety conditions. (PC) 9. Submit detailed plans of the following for final review and approval by the Design Review Board: a. Elevations, colors and materials of the hotel. b. Final colors and materials of the commercial and residential buildings. C. Public Art Concept Plan. d. Landscape and hardscape plans on private and public property. e. Planned Sign Program. f. Furniture and utilities throughout the project 10. At least 500 parking spaces shall be available for self-parking (not valet) in the commercial parking structure. 11. Employee parking shall be on-site and any parking fees for employees shall not exceed the annual parking pass fee for beach parking. (CC) Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.22 12. Parking meters shall be provided at all on-street public parking locations within or fronting ' the project frontage. Meters shall be installed according to City requirements and standards and shall meet the specifications of the City. The City will be responsible for the collection of revenue and maintenance of all parking meters. A plan depicting the location and design of the parking meter layout shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Services and Public Works Departments. 13. Hours of construction and related activity shall be limited to between the following hours: (PC) Construction: Mon.-Fri. 7AM— 6PM; Clean Up/Securing Area 6PM-8PM Construction/ Clean-Up: Sat. 7AM —5PM Pile Driving: Mon.-Fri. 8AM —6PM Truck Hauling: Mon.-Fri. 8AM-5PM; early delivery trucks must park on-site (not on street) with engine not idling between 7AM-8AM 13. An employee entrance and parking plan during construction shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The entrance and parking is to be located in an area that minimizes impacts to surrounding residents. 14. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 15. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—PACIFIC CITY MASTER PLAN: 1. The Pacific City Master Plan received and dated July 10, 2003 shall be the approved conceptual plan or as modified herein. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Conditions of Approval 04-06-14 Attachment 1.23 (12) June 7, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 12 Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. After the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3655 - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Modifying the Basis and Method of Levying the Assessment Within the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Business Improvement District." Economic Development Director David Biggs presented the PowerPoint presentation. Ordinance 3655 Approved for introduction 6-0-1 (Houchen out of the room) Agenda Items D-4a and D-4b are inter-related and will be presented as part of one public hearing, which is to remain open until all inter-related matters are heard: D-4a. (City Council) Public Hearing Part 1 of 2 to Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) The Robert Mayer Corporation and (2.) Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP on behalf of South Coast Angus, LLC of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Pacific City Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 02-01 (See Agenda Item D- 4b. for Appeals of(TTM) Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, (CUP) Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, (CDP) Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 Conceptual Master Plan and Related Findings of Fact and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statement - Located at 21002 Pacific Coast Highway — Applicant/ Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, (Ethen Thacher)- Adopt Resolution No. 2004-37 (420.60) Communication from the Planning Director on the first part of the two-part Public hearing to consider the following planning and zoning items: Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellants: The Robert Mayer Corporation and Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP on the EIR; Makar Properties, LLC and The Robert Mayer Corporation on the TTM No. 16338, CUP No. 02-20, SP No., 02-04, CDP No. 02-12 and the CMP. Request: Environmental Impact Report: An analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may occur from development of the Pacific City project. Tentative Tract Map: 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. Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit: 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 (13) June 7, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 13 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), 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 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. 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. Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone: This agenda item 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. 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 (14) June 7, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 14 please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input,close public hearing **PowerPoint presentation titled Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 Pacific City Project is included in the agenda packet. "Communication submitted by Paul Cross dated May 27, 2004 titled Statement on the Record by Paul Cross to the City Council of Huntington Beach on the Subject of the Planning Commission Approval of the Pacific City Development Project in opposition to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). "Three Communications submitted by Mark D. Bixby dated May 31, 2004, April 26, 2004 and March 21, 2004 titled Pacific City in opposition to the EIR. "Communication submitted by Ronald H. Satterfield dated June 2, 2004 titled Pacific City Project in opposition to the EIR. "Communication submitted by Edward Kerins, President Huntington Beach Tomorrow dated June 1, 2004 titled Pacific City CUP and Conceptual Master Plan in support of the EIR with recommendations. "14 Communications in support of the Pacific City Project. Recommended Action: Motion to: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 by approving Resolution No. 2004-37 — "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003011024) for the Pacific City Project." D-4b. sty Council) Public Hearing Part 2 of 2 —To Consider Appeals Filed by (1.) Makar Properties, LLC and (2.) The Robert Mayer Corporation of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 16338, (CUP) Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02- 04, (CDP) Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, Conceptual Master Plan and Related Findings of Fact and CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations - Pacific City — Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher (420.60) Communication from the Planning Director on the second part of the two-part Public hearing to consider the following planning and zoning items: Applicant/Property Owner: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appellants: The Robert Mayer Corporation and Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, Smith, LLP on the EIR; Makar Properties, LLC and The Robert Mayer Corporation on the TTM No. 16338, CUP No. 02-20, SP No., 02-04, CDP No. 02-12 and the CMP. (Continued on the Next Page) (15) June 7, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15 Request: Environmental Impact Report: An analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may occur from development of the Pacific City project. Tentative Tract Map: 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. Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit: 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 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 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 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). 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 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. 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 (Continued on the Next Page) (16) June 7, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 16 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. Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone: This agenda item 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. 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. 1, Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input, close public hearing Recommended Action: Motion to: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: 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 and Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. 1). and B. Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2). Planning Director Howard Zelefsky orally presented the historical background of the project. Director Zelefsky spoke relative to a March 17, 2004 meeting which he stated was the cause of misunderstanding between the City and Pacific City Coalition representatives. Planning Manager Scott Hess presented wall diagrams of the Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Special Permits, Site Plans, Floor Plans and Elevations. Principal Planner Mary Beth Broeren reported on the EIR which was certified by the Planning Commission and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ms. Broeren addressed the appeals filed and announced Ms. Marianne Tanzer and Ms. Terri Vitar, representatives from the City's consulting firm, EIP Associates, are available for questions. (17) June 7, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 17 Appellant Steve Bone of the Robert Mayer Corporation spoke and distributed Late Communication regarding what he states as a parking deficiency of 260 spaces. Rock Miller, consultant with Robert Mayer Corporation, spoke regarding traffic issues and distributed two Late Communications. Michael Gagnet, on behalf of Makar Properties and consultant for applicant, Paul Wilkinson, spoke regarding shared parking. Councilmember Cook inquired relative to mode studies. Councilmember Cook referred to Page D-4a.5 of the agenda item. Public Works Director Beardsley introduced Transportation Manager Bob Stachelski to report regarding mode shift and distributed Late Communication. Motion made to deny appeal filed by Robert Brisebois, et al Approved 7-0 Motion to certify EIR #02-01 (Pacific City) Approved 7-0 The Council then proceeded to discuss the Tentative Tract Map, CUP, Special Permits, CDP and Conceptual Master Plan. Motion to require meandering sidewalks along the perimeter of the project and for the Planning Department to review the City of Irvine's bike rack requirement and specify the number of bike spaces for Pacific City. Approved 7-0 Motion for staff to review traffic calming alternatives to control traffic and decrease speed along Pacific View Avenue to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere and for alternatives to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Approved 5-2 (Green, Sullivan- No) Councilmember Boardman then discussed her memo and made motions referencing the conditions. Motion to add condition requiring that 100% of the park land in-lieu fee be paid by the applicant for the project. Approved 7-0 Motion to condition project to require applicant to build 39 units on site, 100% that will be low income level of affordability. Failed 2-5(Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Houchen - No) Motion to add the following condition: "The California Coastal Commission in a letter to staff has expressed concern about re-emergent wetlands on the site. The sites where re-emergent wetlands might be found are around and in the pits that have been dug during the soil remediation (18) June 7, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 18 process. The condition of approval recommended by staff allows the filing on the pits prior to the new wetlands delineation. This condition alters that to: The wetland delineation on the site will occur before the remediation pits are filled, and that the criteria used to define wetland be the ones used in the LCP which are '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 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." Substitute motion to eliminate the need for the aforementioned condition. Approved 4-3 (Hardy, Boardman, Cook- No) Motion to add the following condition: "in the common areas of the development drought tolerant plants will be used". Failed 3-4 (Sullivan, Coerper, Green, Houchen - No) Motion to add the following condition: "According to the California Coastal Commission, the LCP for this area requires environmentally sensitive habitat be protected from any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas. This condition requires that if any environmentally sensitive habitat is found on the site it will be protected from significant disruption, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed in those areas. 'California Coastal Commission letter of March 18, 2004 page D-4a.182 of agenda packet." Approved 7-0 Motion that Orange County Coastkeeper recommendation that the water quality plan be submitted to Council for review and approval. Approved 5-2 (Green, Houchen - No) Motion that employee parking be onsite and any parking fees for employees not exceed annual parking pass fee at the beach parking lot. Approved 7-0 End of Amended Motions to amend the Conditions of Approval. Motion to approve Tentative Tract Map #16338, CUP#02-20, Special Permit#02-04, Coastal Development Permit#02-12, Conceptual Master Plan with findings and amended Conditions of Approval; and approve CEQA Statement of Finds and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations per the RCA. Approved 6-1 (Hardy- No) 2z-L1,r l< t/ /1nJn1/J6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 Council/Agency Meeting Held: - Deferred/Continued to: }fit Ap rove ❑ on itionally Approved ❑ Denied Cit erk ignat Council Meeting Date: June 7, 2004 Department ID Number: PL 04-07 SE GU Fdti' rt/�/s? S Vc - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, City Adminis�trat71,- PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-201 SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12/ CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN (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 Makar Properties and an appeal by The Robert Mayer Corporation of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and Conceptual Master Plan. These applications represent a request by Makar Properties to develop 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 approved the reduced retail commercial alternative plan (191 ,100 sq. ft.) and staff is recommending the City Council also approve the reduced alternative plan because: it is consistent with the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP); adequate parking will be provided for the mixed use project; several public street improvements and traffic signals will be constructed; 53.8% of the residential project area (9.28 acres) will be open space; a 2.03 acre Village Green Park and 20 ft, wide pedestrian corridor easement will be public; full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees will be paid; 15% affordable housing will be included; the project is compatible with adjacent medium and medium-high density residential uses, and the Environmental Impact Report adequately r_ PL04-07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 6111200412:22 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 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: 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 and Conditions Of Approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2)." Planning Commission Action on May 5, 2004: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO 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 AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, LIVENGOOD, RAY, SCANDURA, SHOMAKER, THOMAS NOES: DINGWALL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO APPROVE CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, LIVENGOOD, RAY, SCANDURA, SHOMAKER, THOMAS NOES: DINGWALL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED PL04-07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 6/1/2004 12:22 PM Z REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): A. "Deny 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 for Denial (The Robert Mayer Corporation's Request)." B. "Continue 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, and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway (between 1s` and Huntington Streets, south of Atlanta Ave.) Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 represents a request to subdivide approximately 27.8 acres (31.5 gross acres) into three parcels for purposes of developing a mixed-use project. One of the parcels (17.2 acres) will be for residential condominium purposes and the other two parcels (4.12 acres and 6.47 acres) are for a commercial/office/hotel development (March 23, 2004 Planning Commission Report - Attachment No. 3.1 — 3.9). The proposed residential density is 30 units per net acre. The residential parcel will include a 2.03-acre Village Park/open space easement dedicated for public usage as well as a lettered lot for a private access road. Pacific View Ave. will be dedicated as part of the Tract Map. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 represent a request to develop a mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses (191,100 sq. ft. reduced alternative plan approved by the Planning Commission), a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking with 1 ,542 spaces, 516 condominium units within a mix of two, three, and four story buildings above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,291 spaces, a 2.03 acre Village Green Park easement, and associated infrastructure including the extension of Pacific View Avenue. 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. PL04-07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 6/112004 12:22 PM 3 I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 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 collection of fees within the below grade parking structures. Valet parking is provided at Pacific City, but not required; visitors can self park at Pacific City and the prices for parking will be comparable to other parking rates in the Downtown. A shared parking analysis to establish the number of parking spaces required for the mixed-use project (retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment, hotel, and spa uses) with tandem parking spaces is requested. The reduced retail commercial project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.) includes 1,542 spaces (104 tandem spaces) as required and approved by the Planning Commission. 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. Special Permit No. 02-04 is requested to allow commercial buildings with outdoor dining and the hotel to encroach into the required setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway (minimum 30 feet in lieu of 50 feet) and Pacific View Avenue (minimum 15 in lieu of 20 feet); to permit three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures at a slope of 15% in lieu of maximum 10%); and to permit retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas that exceed the maximum allowed 42 inches in height (March 23, 2003 PC Report - Attachment Nos. 2.11 — 2.12). These Special Permits were suggested by staff because they result in a better design for the project. Conceptual Master Plan is included that provides an overall buildout plan of the commercial and residential portions of the site. A draft Affordable Housing Plan has been prepared (March 23, 2004 Planning Commission Report - Attachment No. 11) and indicates that an equivalent of 15% of the total units will be affordable for families of low and moderate incomes for a period of 60 years. The Planning Commission approved the plan with modifications (Attachment 1 , Condition 2.b of the Tentative Tract Map — pgs 1.14 — 1.15). Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 is being processed concurrently with these entitlements and is addressed under a separate staff report. It was certified by the Planning Commission and subsequently appealed. It is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 prior to action on these entitlements. Based on the EIR analysis, following approval of these entitlements, a CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a series of public hearings on March 23, April 13, April 27, and May 5, 2004 relative to these zoning entitlements. Concerns raised about the project PL04-07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 6/1/2004 12:22 PM 9 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 were related to traffic, soil remediation, wetlands, water quality, the nearby mobile home park, street and sidewalk improvements to Atlanta Ave. and Huntington St., parking, construction impacts, and oil access. On May 5, 2004, the Planning Commission discussed several issues before taking straw votes on the suggested conditions of approval. The Planning Commission voted to 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 and modified conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). C. APPEAL: On May 7, 2004, Makar Properties, LLC appealed the Planning Commission's approval of TTM No. 16338, CUP No. 02-20, SP No. 02-04, CDP No. 02-12, and the CMP (Attachment No. 5). The applicant's purpose for the appeal was to assure that the City Council has the opportunity to review the zoning entitlements concurrent with the previously appealed EIR. On May 14, 2004, The Robert Mayer Corporation (RMC) appealed the Planning Commission's approval of TTM No. 16338, CUP No. 02-20, SP No. 02-04, CDP No. 02-12, and the CMP (Attachment No. 6). The appeal letter states that the zoning entitlements were approved without adequate disclosure of the environmental impacts as listed in their April 1 , 2004 appeal letter which lists five specific issues. traffic and parking, water quality, project alternatives, wetlands and the City's responses to the Draft EIR comment letters. The appeal letter is concerned about inadequate conditions of approval addressing Pacific View Ave., wetlands, storm water discharge, parking, and the project's non-compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Pacific City site is the last major vacant parcel in the downtown area to be developed. The proposed project is fulfilling the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan by proposing a mix of visitor-serving commercial uses to complement the downtown commercial core. The Retail Promenade serves as a link between the Downtown area and the Waterfront Hotel complex. Located along the southern portion of the property is the proposed eight-story hotel, which is compatible with the 12-story Waterfront Hilton hotel. A wide spectrum of visitor opportunities resulting from this project adds to the destination resort image the City has created. North of the commercial promenade are 516 residential units proposed in a mix of two, three and four story buildings designed per requirements of the DTSP to be compatible with surrounding residential development. The Pacific City mixed-use development proposal has been studied with regards to development issues over the last three years. During this time, several issues have been identified and addressed through the design review process, community meetings, an extensive analysis in the project EIR, and the Planning Commission public hearings. The Planning Commission Staff Report from March 23, 2004 (Attachment No. 3) provides a PL04-071TM-CUP Pac City Appeal 6/112004 12:22 PM 5 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 detailed review of the request (pgs 6-11) and an analysis of the project in the following areas: 1 . Conformance with six elements of the General Plan (pgs 12-14); 2. Compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan (pg 14 as well as Attachment 7 of the PC Report); 3. Urban Design Guidelines conformance (pg 15); 4. Land Use Compatibility, Open Space/Public Access, Grade Differential, and Architecture (pgs 18-19); 5. Shared Parking, Subterranean Parking Structures, and Tandem Spaces (pgs 19-21); 6. Valet Service, Parking Entrance Gates, Attendant Booths, and Collection Of Fees (pgs 21-22); 7. Park and Parkland Requirements (pg 22); 8. Alcoholic Beverage Sales, Live Entertainment, Dancing, Outdoor Dining, and Kiosks (pg 22); 9. Affordable Housing (pg 22); 10. Special Permits (pgs 23-24); and 11. Soil Remediation (pg 24-25). The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at four separate meetings and by the Subdivision Committee twice, and their recommendations and changes have been incorporated into the project. The Economic Development Department supports the project because it will further implement the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Sub-Area by: providing additional visitor-serving commercial opportunities in the downtown; providing additional overnight lodging accommodations; providing additional dining opportunities for both visitors and residents of the community at large; enhancing local revenues through the generation of sales tax, property tax increment and transient occupancy taxes that will benefit the community at large; and providing affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area. In 1997 the City Council adopted Broad Criteria and Objectives (Attachment No. 7) for the 31-acre site. They included three categories: Financial, Development, and Environmental. Based upon the proposed development and the analysis in the Planning Commission report dated March 23, 2004, the project is consistent with these criteria. The issues raised in RMC's appeal letter have either been addressed through the EIR process before the Planning Commission, or are included in the companion RCA relative to the appeal of the EIR. Below is further discussion pertinent to the RMC's issues related to the development entitlements. Environmental Impacts EIR No. 02-01 identified the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pacific City project, alternatives which minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation PL04.07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 611/2004 12:22 PM CD REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 measures. In the companion City Council Report there is a detailed discussion of the five specific issues raised by RMC: traffic and parking, water quality, project alternatives, wetlands, and the City's responses to the Draft EIR comment letters. Staff and the Planning Commission believe the EIR adequately disclosed the environmental impacts of the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the EIR and certified it as adequate. Following approval of the zoning entitlements, the Planning Commission approved the CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pacific View Avenue Pacific View Avenue is proposed as a two-way road with angled parking on the commercial side and parallel parking adjacent to the residential area within a 90 ft. right of way area (ultimate ROW). Because the full-width street is being dedicated as part of the Pacific City project, it is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the street width was studied for angled parking and turnaround, and will not inhibit the flow of traffic on Pacific View Ave. The traffic study did analyze projected traffic volumes in both the two lane design and the full-width buildout (four lane arterial). It concluded that the projected volumes do not warrant full-width buildout. In fact, the study concluded that the 2020 traffic volumes for Pacific View Ave. also do not warrant full-width buildout. However, an ultimate improvement plan has been prepared depicting Pacific View Ave. as a four lane arterial should it ever be warranted. To facilitate the potential conversion of Pacific View Ave., the developer will be posting a bond for a period of ten years. This type of bonding for improvements is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision Map Act through approval of a Tract Map, and is also compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has consistently recommended the implementation of two lanes instead of four lanes since the near and long term traffic projections do not warrant four lanes at this time. Wetlands In 1985, the California Coastal Commission certified the City's Local Coastal Program for compliance with the Coastal Act. As part of the document there were several areas classified as wetlands as determined by the Dept. of Fish and Game, including the "white hole" area. The subject site, however, was not and never has been identified as containing any wetlands. The Huntington Shores Motel and associated restaurant buildings have existed on the site from the 1960's to 2000. In 2001 the Coastal Commission certified the City's update to the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) and again, there were no wetland areas identified on the site. Section 4.15 of the Downtown Specific Plan identifies Conservation Overlays to protect degraded and restorable wetlands. The Downtown Specific Plan does not identify any wetlands on the Pacific City site. The project site has been undergoing remediation in the last few years. In 1999, approximately 200,000 cubic yards of soil material was exported from the site to be used as PL04-07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 6/1/2004 12:22 PM 9 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 fill material for the Hyatt Regency Resort. Any soil with oil was identified and either excavated from the site or mechanically treated to meet City specifications. In 2000, Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09 was approved for further excavation and remediation of the site is still proceeding. Two biological surveys were conducted on the site in 2001 and 2003 as part of the Pacific City project. The EIR includes an analysis of potential impacts to plants and wildlife as well as wetlands. 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, there is a mitigation measure to address potential impacts to special status plant species and habitat that may exist on site prior to grading for the Pacific City project. The site has no history of wetlands, therefore, the EIR concludes there will be no significant impacts to wetlands. However, since the site is still being remediated, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval that requires a formal wetlands delineation be conducted prior to the initiation of construction activities associated with project development and after the completion of on-site remediation, which includes filling of the remediation pits and restoration of the area to its natural, pre-remediation conditions, consistent with the requirements of Coastal Development Permit 00-09. This delineation will be performed in accord with the City's certified Local Coastal Program. If potential wetlands are identified at that time, the Applicant would be required to obtain all necessary permits to comply with all relevant laws and regulations and the City's Local Coastal Program. Compliance with current laws and regulations would require that no net loss of wetlands would occur. The RMC appeal letter misrepresents the requirements of the condition. The condition does not state or imply that wetlands, if they exist, could be destroyed. It does not state that a CDP or other discretionary permits would be anticipated. 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, and is not considered piecemeal development since all potential development of the site was analyzed. Storm Water Discharge The Planning Commission approved additional conditions of approval with respect to the dry weather, first flush, and storm flow discharges. These conditions comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions, i.e. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the Basin Plan. Moreover, as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, there are no standards for bacterial contamination as part of the NPDES regulations. The permit requires the city to minimize impacts on receiving water quality from new developments in order to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practible (MEP) through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). No specific numeric discharge standards are required for new developments due to the nature of urban runoff flows managed in the City's drainage system, called non-point source flows. Non point PL04.07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 611/2004 12:22 PM 17 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 source flows come from dispersed and uncontrolled sources, rather than a single identified source such as the sanitation treatment plant. The permit acknowledges the difficulties associated with nonpoint source flows, and as such, established the MEP standard for municipal stormwater NPDES permits. The Pacific City development will not contribute any dry weather flows onto the beach, and will only contribute approximately 15% of the overall stormwater flows discharged from the First Street drain onto the beach during rain events. The discharge onto the beach during storm flows may include pollutants from a wide range of possible sources, almost impossible for the city to conclusively identify (due to technology and resource limitations). The permit includes receiving water limitations to assure that the regulated discharge does not violate water quality standards established in the Basin plan at the point of discharge to the waters of the State where the drainage flow meets the Ocean. The reason the standards are not applied to individual new development projects, and only to the point of discharge into the waters of the State, is due to the nature and complexity of urban runoff as described above. Parking A Parking Demand Analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan for the commercial site which analyzed the mix of uses, the parking code requirements, a parking requirement-demand analysis, a demand ratios comparison, a shared parking analysis, a full buildout plan (240,000 sq. ft.) and reduced retail commercial alternative plan (191 ,100 sq. ft.) comparison for the commercial portion of the project, and a weekday and weekend analysis. It concluded that the proposed 1,542 parking spaces for the reduced retail commercial alternative plan with the 400 room hotel as approved by the Planning Commission is more than adequate for the proposed mix of uses. Basically, the peak demand for the reduced retail commercial alternative plan during the weekday would be 1,319 spaces and during the weekend would be 1,295 spaces. Downtown Specific Plan RMC believes that the proposed project does not comply with the Downtown Specific Plan in terms of parking and commercial uses. With the condition imposed by the Planning Commission reducing the size of the project by 49,000 sq. ft. (20%) and the shared parking concept based on the mix of uses on-site, there will be a surplus number of parking spaces at the peak period of the day. The shared parking concept is not based on the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DTPMP) because the project is not within the boundaries of the DTPMP. There is a comparison table of the total number of required parking spaces for the reduced alternative plan as part of the analysis but the Pacific City project is not subject to nor relies on the DTPMP. The project provides adequate parking based on the analysis and is recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. District #7 of the DTSP states that the purpose of this zoning category on the Pacific City site is to provide visitor-serving commercial uses to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a year round basis. It also provides for a continuous PL04-07 TTM-CUP Pac City Appeal Q 611120 04 1 2:22 PM 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 commercial link between the downtown and the visitor-commercial district near Beach Blvd. The proposed Pacific City project complies with the intent of the DTSP with its mix of retail, restaurant, office, cultural, and entertainment uses. In addition, it is designed to assure a predominantly visitor-serving orientation along Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Ave. in accord with the DTSP. E. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommend approval of 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, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Pacific City reduced commercial retail project alternative plan based upon the following: 1. The reduced commercial retail project alternative plan is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designations of CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor with a max. floor area ratio of 3.0 and a Specific Plan) and RH-30-sp (High Density Residential with a max. 30 u/gac and a Specific Plan) on the subject property. 2. The reduced commercial retail project alternative plan is consistent with the Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element as it does not impact public access or recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone. There will be a 20 foot wide pedestrian accessway through the project between Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Avenue, and a 2.03 acre Village Green Park. 3. As identified in EIR No. 02-01, the reduced retail commercial project alternative plan is the environmentally superior alternative. 4. There will be adequate parking for the project; a total of 1 ,542 commercial parking spaces and 1,291 residential parking spaces are proposed. 5. There are several public improvements to be constructed as a result of this project including the extension of Pacific View Avenue; widening of four public streets surrounding the site (Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and a portion of Huntington Street); and traffic signals at the intersections of Atlanta Avenue and First Street, and Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. All of these improvements are consistent with the General Plan. 6. 53.8 % of the residential project area (9.28 acres) will be in open space: a 2.03 acre Village Green Park, a 20 ft. wide pedestrian corridor easement (.34 acre), and 6.91 acres of common and private open space area. 7. The applicant will pay the full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. 8. The public will have the right to use 2.4 acres of open space which includes the 2.03 acre Village Green park (easement), the 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, the pocket park at First Street and Atlanta Avenue, and the 20 foot wide pedestrian easement corridor that runs between Atlanta Ave. and PCH. PL04-07 lTM-CUP Pac City Appeal 611/2004 12:22 PM IU REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 7, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 04-07 9. The project provides an equivalent to 15% affordable housing which helps in meeting the City's housing goals. 10. Project is well designed in terms of street layout, building siting, pedestrian access, and architecture. 11. The project is designed to be compatible with adjacent medium and medium-high density residential uses in terms of building layout, height, site and building terracing, and open space uses. 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. Following approval of the tentative tract map, conditional use permit with special permits, and coastal development permit, the Planning Commission must approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2). Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page . Description 1. Planning Commission Approved Findings and Conditions of Approval — TTM #16338, CUP #02-20, SP #02-04, CDP #02-12 2. Planning Commission Approved CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations — EIR No. 02-01 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 23, 2004 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 23, 2004 5. Appeal letter from Makar Properties, LLP dated May 7, 2004 6. Appeal letter from The Robert Mayer Corporation dated May 14. 2004 7. City Council adopted Broad Criteria and Objectives (April 30, 1997) 8. Correspondence received between the March 23, 2004 and May 5, 2004 Planning Commssion meetings RCA Author: SHlMBB PL04.07 TTM•CUP Pac City Appeal 6/1/2004 1:49 PM 11 ATTACHMENT I FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20/ SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12/ MASTER PLAN -- PACIFIC CITV MIXED USE PROJECT (May 5, 2004) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 to subdivide approximately 27.8 acres (31.5 gac) into three parcels (a 17.2 acre parcel for residential condominium purposes; a 6.47 acre parcel for retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment development; and a 4.12 acre parcel for a hotel development); dedicate a 2.03 acre easement for a Village Green Park/open space, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian corridor easement with public access; and dedicate Pacific View Avenue per the Precise Plan of Street Alignment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designations on the subject site. The commercial portion of the site is designated CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street), and the residential portion of the site is RH-30- sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 u/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street). The subdivision will provide for a mixed-use project consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan, and will provide for necessary public improvements around the site. In addition, the applicant will pay the full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 27.8-acre project site provides the necessary area for a mixed-use development (191,100 sq. ft. mixed-use project with retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses, a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking, and 516 multiple-family residential condominium units above two levels of subterranean parking) consistent with the intensity and density of the Downtown Specific Plan— District 7A (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and 8A (High Density Residential) with a Coastal Zone overlay, the General Plan designations, and with the implementation of mitigation measures. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project, subject to a finding being made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The tentative map provides all the necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, and easements with public access through the (04NOA0505) Attachment I.I development and to a Village Green park/open space easement to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 to construct a 191,100 sq. ft. mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,542 spaces; construct 516 condominium units within a mix of two, three, and four story buildings above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,291 spaces; permit alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, dancing, 10,550 sq. R. of outdoor dining; carts and kiosks in conjunction with the mixed commercial and hotel development; permit a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the mixed use project (1,542 spaces in lieu of min. 1,776 spaces) and for tandem parking spaces; permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the subterranean parking garage; permit any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on-going remediation activities, which may include but are not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation; permit associated infrastructure improvements including the extension of Pacific View Avenue; permit development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point; improve a 2.03 acre Village Green Park easement; and Master Plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the project area. The project also is designed with buildings that terraces with the grade, especially along Huntington Street. 3. The conditional use permit for 1,542 parking spaces in lieu of the 1,776 spaces required per Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO for the Reduced Project Alternative Plan (191,100 sq. fl.) is substantiated by the Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan dated October 15, 2003. This analysis is based on the proposed use of the buildings which will not generate additional parking demand than the proposed 1,542 spaces. In addition, a Transportation Demand Management Plan which exceeds the minimum (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.2 required by Section 230.36 of the ZSO will be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The proposed request will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in the Downtown Specific Plan and Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street) for the commercial portion of the site, and RH-30-sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 u/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street) for the residential portion of the site. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policv LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policv LU 2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policv LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policv LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Policv LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.3 Policy LU 4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Policv LU 7.1.2: Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule, as appropriate. Policv LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policv LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the appropriate principles. Policv LU 9.3.1: Permit the development of master-planned residential projects that incorporate a mix of housing types, neighborhood-serving commercial services, schools, parks, open space, and other elements in areas designated for residential on the Land Use Map. Policv LU 9.3.2: Require the design of new residential subdivisions to consider the following: a. Establish a street configuration involving the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of"blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. b. Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. c. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi-family housing within single-family areas to preserve open space. d. Establish a common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. e. Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. f Establish a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other elements that link all community areas and provide linkages to land uses in adjacent areas. g. Orient housing units to neighborhood and collector streets. h. Site and design of units and incorporate elements, such as porches, that emphasize front yards as an activity area and "outdoor living room," by locating garages in the rear or side yards. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.4 i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. j. Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. k. Include alleys or other means to minimize the dominance of garages along the street frontage. 1. Include setbacks and other design elements that buffer residential units from the impacts of abutting existing commercial and/or industrial development. Policy LU 9.3.3: Require that nonresidential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. The mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight-story hotel proposed for the site represents development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement new and existing retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high-quality visual image and character. It is in conformance with the City's Design Guidelines. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends approval of the design concept. The project provides for adequate access along all public streets, and required parking pursuant to a parking analysis in a two-level subterranean parking structure. The proposed multiple family residential buildings are well articulated and have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. Ground floor units along the perimeter of the residential site are oriented towards the street. The design of the residential subdivision includes four district neighborhoods emphasizing a cluster of buildings around a 2.03-acre village green park with recreational areas and a 20-foot wide pedestrian corridor. Connecting the village green park to Pacific View Avenue is a 65-foot entry corridor that is accessible to either crosswalk on Pacific View Avenue providing access to the retail promenade. With subterranean parking, there are no garages to dominate the street scene and front yard/patios become activity areas. In addition, there will be a landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb around the perimeter of the site. The residential project is separate from commercial activities by Pacific View Avenue. There will be surplus parking for the project; a total of 1,542 commercial parking spaces and 1,291 residential parking spaces are proposed. The number of residential parking spaces is based on Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO. and the number of commercial/hotel parking spaces is based on a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. The Analysis concluded the peak demand for the Reduced Retail Commercial Alternative Plan would be 1,372; thus, there will be 170 surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel development. (04,NOA0505) Attachment 1.5 There will be public improvements made in conjunction with the project to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. In addition, the developer will be paying required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with t4e all affected school districts. B. Coastal Element Goad C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policv C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative, on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Policy C 1.1.7: Encourage cluster development in areas designated for residential use within the Coastal Zone. Objective C 1.2. Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1. Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. 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. Policv C 2.2.3. Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments. Policy C 2.4.1: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Obiective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. (04NOA0505) Attachmcn 1.6 Policv C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Objective C 4.1: Provide opportunities within the Coastal Zone for open space as a visual and aesthetic resource. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced commercial retail project alternative plan (191,100 sq. R.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. C. Economic Development Element Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor- serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Objective ED 2.6: Expand and enhance the existing visitor-serving uses. Policv ED 2.6.1: Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Policv ED 2.6.2: Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City, thereby creating identifiable visitor-oriented centers. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. Objective ED 3.1: Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policv ED 3.1.1: Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses. Policy ED 3.2.1: Create commercial-recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Policv ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retail/office/residential) structures on the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.7 Policy ED 3.2.3: Attract visitor-serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor-supporting retail uses. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses, and a 400 room, eight-story hotel development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base and further diversify the range of overnight accommodations. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. D. Housing Element Policv H 3.1.1: 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. The residential portion of the project is designed for 516 residential units in four different neighborhoods. There will be 15 varied floor plans in a townhome and stacked flat design. The floor plan sizes range from an average of 850 sq. fl. to 2,450 sq. ft. with one, two, and three bedrooms. Also, 15% of the total project units will be affordable for low to moderate- income families. These units will be on-site and off-site. E. 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. Policy 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 applicant will be constructing Pacific View Avenue, improvements to Atlanta Ave., Huntington Street, First Street, and PCH, and a bus turnout on PCH. 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 I'a and Atlanta. Mitigation Measures TR-I through TR- 3 require the developer to contribute its fair share of the cost of these improvements and construct the signal. F. Recreation and Community Services Element Goal 5: Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. The residential portion of the project is required to provide 4.81 acres of open space area based on 25% of the total residential floor area. The proposal is for 9.28 acres of common and private open space which represents 53.8% of the site. Some of this common area will be accessible by the public including a 2.03 acre Village Green park/open space easement, 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from (04\OA0505) Attachment I.S Atlanta Avenue to PCH. In addition, the applicant will be paying the full (100%) City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. G. Subarea Schedule Subarea 4C PCH/First So-eet (Conmtercial/Hotel Component) • Permitted Uses: Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, entertainment, and other commercial uses. • Density/Intensity: Maximum 3.0 FAR; maximum height of eight stories • 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. The mixed-use project consists of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses (live entertainment and dancing) and a 400 room, eight-story hotel. The commercial buildings are two to three stories clustered along a crescent shaped pedestrian walkway with a series of gathering areas and plazas for public activity and views to the ocean. A unified, high-quality visual image and character is created by the unique building designs and architecture. There is a 20-foot wide pedestrian walkway through the commercial project from PCH to Pacific View Avenue and then it continues through the residential area connecting Pacific View Avenue to Atlanta Avenue. Along the PCH frontage is a meandering walkway with defined entries at First Street and Huntington Street. Subarea 4/Atlanta-First Street (Residential Component)- • Permitted Uses: Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and open spaces. • Density/Intensity: Maximum height of four stories; Maximum 30 units per net acre. • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific plan or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for"New Residential Subdivisions" (Policies 9.3.1 — 9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two to four stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. There are 516 multiple family residential units proposed at a maximum density of 30 units per net acre in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan. The units are in two to four story, well articulated buildings with enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The residential development is consistent with the policies of 9.3.1 to 9.3.3 as noted under the Land Use Element of this section. Incorporated into the project is a 2.03-acre Village Green (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.9 park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian casement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH, which will be open to the public. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 is for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum building setback along Pacific Coast Highway (30 ft. in lieu of min. 50 ft.) and along Pacific View Avenue (15 ft. in lieu of min. 20 ft.); b. Exceed the maximum slope percentage for three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures (15% in lieu of maximum 10%); and c. Exceed the maximum height for retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas (3.5 ft. to 6 ft. in lieu of maximum 3.5 ft.). These Special Permits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project is a blend of the reduced building setbacks along PCH north of the site and the greater setbacks of the hotels along PCH to the south of the site. The placement and design of structures along PCH and Pacific View Avenue with reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, results in a better project because it facilitates and encourages pedestrian activity and conveys a visual link to PCH and Pacific View Avenue. The reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. The hotel would not result in better land use planning so therefore it is conditioned to be redesigned to have a minimum 50 ft. setback from the PCH right of way consistent with the DTSP and the Waterfront Hilton development to the south of the subject site. The increased ramp slope is an acceptable standard for driveways without parking on either side. The increased ramp slope allows for a more efficient use of land and more usable open space area resulting in a better project. There will be private patio walls, retaining walls, and landscaped planters along Pacific View Ave., First Street, Atlanta Ave., and Huntington Street separating the ground Floor private patios with the public sidewalks around the perimeter of the residential project site that will exceed the max. 42 inches required by up to two ft. six inches (2' 6"). This special permit is necessary due to the grade differences between the ground floor patios and adjacent public sidewalk grades, and that there is an EIR mitigation measure that requires walls and barriers around patio areas and open space areas be shielded by at least a five ft.. six in. (5' 6") high block wall or Plexiglas sheets to minimize exterior noise levels to these areas. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.10 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The project does include the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas that relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project has varied setbacks along PCH that is similar to the existing developments to the north and south. The reduced setbacks allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. The incorporation of the special permits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown area. 5. The granting of Special Permits is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies as noted under the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced retail commercial project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. The proposed special permits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Coastal development Permit No. 02-12, Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final EIR No. 02-01 will comply with State and Federal Law. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 for the development project conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing (04NOA0505) A«achmem I.I 1 infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20- foot wide pedestrian casement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project does not conflict with any public recreation policies and it will add opportunities for access by improving the perimeter sidewalks and creating lookouts that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan as referenced in the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 and associated engineering exhibits received and dated February 13, 2004 for the subdivision of 34 gross acres into three lots, one of which is for condominium purposes, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Identify gross and net acreages for each lot in the summary table. b. Fully dimension the Village Green park area, and identify it as open to the public. c. Identify Lot No. I as a lot for residential condominium purposes. 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Tract Map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final tract map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Community Services Department, Public Works Department, and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map map. 1) The CC&Rs shall include language to address the right of the public to use the 2.03 acre Village Green park easement, pocket park, minimum 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and 20 foot wide pedestrian easement, and further that the right to meander off of the easements, and to walk over, traverse, and otherwise use, for recreational purposes, the areas identified as pedestrian public circulation areas depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, and the right for City to erect signs on the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas designating such property as being open for public use and access. 2) Grantor may not make any improvements to the easements or the pedestrian public circulation areas (including, without limitation, the installation of entry gates, signs prohibiting or restricting entry, or other improvements), or take any action (excluding normal maintenance), that would affect, in any manner, the right of the public to the unimpeded use of the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may give or withhold in Grantee's sole and absolute discretion. The CC&Rs shall include language that requires the Master Association to maintain the 2.03 acre park easement open space, and public access corridors as identified in the Final Tract Map and approved Improvement Plans. 3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantor shall have the right to install privacy gates to prevent public access to the portions of Lots I, 2, and 3 which are not identified as pedestrian public circulation areas as depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. 4) The CC&Rs shall include the formation of a Master Association that shall govern, oversee, coordinate, and control all individual Homeowner's Associations and all Business Associations that include all areas of the proposed development for the primary purpose of coordinating and control of uniform maintenance, liability, repair (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.13 of all common areas, public walkway easements and "A" Street. The Master Association shall also be solely responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the required landscaped medians in First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue, the decorative pavement within public streets adjacent to the project, and those items specified in the Maintenance License Agreement between the Master Association and the City. 5) The CC&Rs shall address the maintenance of all awnings and rails for the commercial and residential portions of the project. They shall also define allowable uses and structures in the 20-foot pedestrian corridor for the commercial portion of the project; fences and other permanent and temporary barriers shall be prohibited. Exclusive use by any business, carts, kiosks, and tables are not permitted. Benches, potted plants and similar amenities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Departments of Planning and Public Works. 6) The CC&Rs shall refer to the Special Utility Easement Agreement. (PV1) 7) The CC&Rs shall refer to the Maintenance License Agreement. b. A draft Affordable Housing Agreement Plan received and dated Dec. 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved plan. It shall be modified as necessary to reflect the requirements below and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the Tract Map. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site, or combination of on-site and off-site. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: 1) Minimum 15 percent (78 units) of the total units shall be affordable to families of very low-income (less than 50% of Orange County median), low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median), and moderate-income level (less than 100% of Orange County median) for a period of sixty years. Section I Requirements of the Plan is acceptable with the clarification that it shall be for a period of 60 years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units, on-site and off-site. 3) Off-site affordable units (new or rehabilitated) shall be proportionate in size and bedroom mix to the proposed one, two and three bedroom condominium units, and under the full control of the applicant. 4) The affordable units shall be constructed and/or acquired prior to or concurrent with the market rate units. The affordable units must be entitled, approved, and building permits obtained (and/or restrictive covenant recorded) concurrent with the following development phasing: PHASE RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE (Exhibit D-007) UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS Ila 68 10 111 125 20 IV 203 30 Va 120 18 (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.14 As an example, concurrent with issuing permits for any of the 68 units in phase Ila, at least 10 affordable units must be identified, entitled, approved, and building permits obtained, and/or covenant recorded. All affordable units must be made available for occupancy prior to issuance of building permits for the last phase of development unless such units are included as part of that phase; or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion of the affordable units for the respective phase. 5) A minimum of 50% of the required number of affordable housing units shall be on- site and the remaining number of units can be on-site or off-site. An option to the minimum 50% on-site is that the applicant may elect to build these units off-site, provided that the number of units is increased on a 2:1 basis and located within a redevelopment area. 6) If units are located off-site, the applicant shall consider sites located throughout the City and provide documentation thereof to the Planning Department. 7) Modify the Off-Site Units section of the Draft Affordable Housing Plan as follows: • Section 2.A. (second bullet) —delete last sentence referencing Oak View area. • Section 2.B. —delete last sentence referencing the Center Avenue area. • Add Section 4. — Applicant shall notify affected school districts of all projects intended to satisfy the off-site affordable housing requirements so that the school district(s) may identify cumulative impacts. Projects will be required to mitigate impacts to affected schools districts consistent with State law. 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. Dedicate a minimum 2.03 acres easement for Village Green park purposes to the City of Huntington Beach. The minimum 2.03 acres shall be inclusive of the public park entry corridor between the park and Pacific View Ave. The loop road may be private and include vehicle gates; it shall remain accessible to the public for pedestrian access. The Village Green park entry corridor shall be a minimum of 65 feet in width at its narrowest point and shall be a public easement dedicated on the Final Tract Map. b. An agreement shall be executed between the City and applicant prior to Final Tract Map approval that binds the Master Association and individual Associations in perpetuity for the conditions stated herein and that the Village Green Park will always be for public use and not changed to be for private use. c. The developer shall provide a Maintenance License Agreement to be a part of the Master Association agreement for maintenance of the medians, landscaping in the medians and adjacent to the project for Pacific View Avenue, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street and "A" Street if public. The agreement shall state that the Master Association shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, and fees imposed by County, City, and the Orange County Sanitation District for pumping, inspection, or other related fees for the dry weather flow diversion and First Flush Water Runoff Treatment Control System approved by the City. Furthermore, the Agreement (03NOA0505) Attachment 1.15 shall address the Master Association's responsibility for the maintenance of the 2.03-acre park easement, all enhanced paving adjacent to public streets, "A" Street, pedestrian easements, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, Edison-owned street lighting and street furniture located behind public street curbs within the project site. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, the regular maintenance and cleaning of all angled parking areas (i.e., markings, street sweeping) along Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street, etc. The Master Association shall be solely responsible for paying the cost of maintenance, inspections, cleanup, operation, monitoring, replacement planting, and equipment replacement of all improvements required for this project. (PW) d. The sewer and portions of the storm drain systems located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. e. A bond shall be posted for the potential conversion of Pacific View Avenue to a 4-lane divided roadway as dictated by the General Plan. The bond shall be maintained until such time that the roadway conversion improvements are completed and accepted by the City, or a General Plan Amendment is approved to eliminate the requirement of the conversion, or 10 years from the date of tract acceptance, whichever occurs first. The amount of the bond shall be determined by a preliminary design of full-width street improvements for Pacific View Avenue (in conformance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment) and cost estimate prepared by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. (PW) f. The two intersections of"A" Street and Pacific View shall be designed as enhanced intersections per the approved conceptual plan and shall be depicted on the Street Improvement Plans. (PW) g. Agreements with appropriate school districts intending to mitigate the impact on school facilities shall be executed. The Planning Department shall be provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final tract map. h. A Letter of No Further Action (or Letter of Closure) shall be obtained from the Fire Department regarding the soil remediation of the entire site prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, or issuance of any grading permits, whichever occurs first. (FD) 4. The water system for the entire project shall be a public system; except, any portion of the fire service water system that is not public shall be maintained by the HOA in accordance with the language to be provided by the Fire Department for the CC&Rs. (FD) 5. Prior to commencing soil remediation or grading operations, the name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number and the City's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800- (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.16 CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) 6. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. (PW) a. At least 30 days prior to grading, a notice shall be mailed to all property owners, residents and businesses located within 500 feet of the project site notifying them that the rodent population on site will be disturbed during grading and construction and may create a temporary nuisance to the neighboring area. This notice may be included in the notice of commencement of grading operations as required above. 7. A third party consultant, approved by the City, shall be responsible for monitoring on-site activities during the grading and construction phases of the project and shall serve as an agent for the City. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with this third party monitoring as determined by the City. S. A third party remediation consultant will be retained by the City from the Fire Department's approved list of qualified consultants. for the purpose of providing review, recommendations and oversight of future remediation, sampling and closure reports. The consultants scope shall include review of all documentation of work performed to date. review of any new reports and data, and field and laboratory oversight. The consultant shall work at the direction of the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs submitted by the third party consultant. 9. During the project construction phase, the applicant shall publish an informational newsletter annually and distribute to property owners, residents and businesses within a 1,000-foot radius of the project. 10. Final on-site grades and elevations on the grading plan may vary by no more than two (2) feet from the on-site grades and elevations, except adjacent to the perimeter of the site which shall vary by no more than one (1) foot from the street grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map with the approval of the Planning Department. 11. The Departments of Planning, Public Works, Fire, Building & Safety, and Community Services are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the Final Tract Map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.17 substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. The conceptual site plan, floor plans, and elevations for the reduced project alternative plan received and dated December 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout, with the following modifications: a. The retaining wall/fence combinations along PCH shall not exceed 42" in height. b. The below grade parking structures for the residential and commercial developments shall be redesigned to address the detailed comments identified in the Parking Plan Review by International Parking Design, Inc. dated January 14, 2004. Drive aisles for parking spaces shall be minimum 26 feet in width. Signage shall be provided for residential guest parking areas and guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked and accessible. Identify electric vehicle charging station parking spaces. The redesigned parking structures shall comply with the new 2005 Title 24 regulations (and any subsequent revisions, and shall include "variable volume exhaust fans with CO2 sensors" subject to review by the Departments of Planning, Building & Safety, Fire, and Public Works. c. Revise Exhibit D-006 as follows: provide minimum 25' setback from the property lines at the intersection of PCH and First St. for carts and kiosks; provide continuous eight foot wide sidewalk along the PCH frontage without any encroachment of carts and kiosks; provide minimum 20 foot wide entryway (without any carts/kiosks) to the project from the PCH/First St. intersection; and the minimum 20 foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be consistent with the tract map without any encroachment of carts and kiosks. d. The outdoor deck/dining areas for the hotel restaurant along PCH between the Porte Cochere and Huntington Street shall have a minimum setback of 25' from PCI-I. e. The hotel at the podium level shall be setback 50' from the PCH right-of-way and the hotel tower(above the podium level) shall have an upper story setback of minimum ten feet from the podium level consistent with the General Plan, Subarea Schedule. f. Maintain minimum 10' free and clear (without obstruction) pedestrian path along Pacific View Ave. from First Street to the Porte Cochere entryway for the hotel. g. Identify three areas for bike rack installation on the site plan subject to the review of the Planning Department; one shall be in the residential portion of the site. 2. The project shall comply with the Mitigation Measures of the Pacific City Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 02-01). 3. The project shall be developed in accord with the Phasing Diagram (Exhibit D-007). Phase Ila (Residential) and Ilb (Commercial Parking Structure) shall be developed concurrently. Building permits for Phase III (Residential) and other residential phases shall not be issued until Phase 11b and Ilc are completed, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.18 4. A formal wetlands delineation will be conducted prior to the initiation of construction activities associated with project development and after the completion of hazardous waste remediation in Area B (see Figure 3.7-1 in the draft EIR), which includes filling of the remediation pits and restoration of the area to its natural, pre-remediation conditions, consistent with the requirements of California Coastal Commission (CCC) Coastal Development Permit 00-09. If potential wetlands are identified at that time, the Applicant would be required to obtain all necessary permits required by the City (as trustee for the CCC), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in order to achieve compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, including, but not necessarily limited to, the California Coastal Act, the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program, Sections 160 et al of the Fish and Game Code of California, and Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. While the final conditions of these permits would be determined through permitting coordination with these agencies, at a minimum, compliance with current laws and regulations would require that no net loss of wetlands would occur. 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works a project WQMP that: 1) Addresses site design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, and creating reduced or "zero discharge` areas 2) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs 3) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs to treat all dry weather Flows and the first flush of a storm event (the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event) 4) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 5) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-tern operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 7) Describes the following management of dry weather, first flush & stomm flow discharges: • Dry Weather Flows: The system shall be designed to divert all Pacific City dry weather Flows into a structural filtration facility for treatment. Drainage areas A., B and the First Street watershed shall then be routed to the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station (ASWPS) for discharge into Orange County Sanitation District's (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.19 system • First Flush: The drainage system shall be desie�ned to treat the first flush (the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85t percentile storm event) with a structural filtration system. Following treatment, first flush flows from drainage Area B shall then be discharged into the First Street storm drain; first flush flows from Area A will then be routed to the ASWPS for discharge into the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. • Storms Flows: Storm flows above the first flush from Area B will be discharged untreated into the First Street storm drain. Storm flows from Area A will be routed untreated to the ASWPS for discharge into the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. b. The applicant, at their expense, shall develop concept and design plans and costs estimated for a regional urban runoff treatment solution for the First Street watershed storm flows. Upon review and approval by the City, the applicant shall post a minimum 8-year bond for the equivalent of 1/7 of the capital construction cost into an Urban Runoff Treatment Trust Find for the First Street watershed storm flows. Additionally, the applicant shall include in the Pacific City master CC&Rs that the project shall pay for 1/7 of the on-going annual operation and maintenance cost for this First Street regional treatment system. Upon implementation of this system the Pacific City Homeowners Association will be relieved of the obligation to maintain their on-site treatment system. 6. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the following conditions shall be complied with: a. A Pedestrian Accessibility Plan for the entire project site, depicting on-site and off-site improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building & Safety and Public Works Departments and by a third party consultant. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the consultant's review. (B & PN) b. At no additional cost to the developer, the City reserves the right to increase the water main pipe sizes necessary to support the proposed development, for the benefit of the City. For example, the City will require that the 12-inch water pipeline in Huntington Street, as required by the approved hydraulic analysis, be increased to an 18-inch pipeline. The City will pay the incremental difference in materials cost between a 12- inch and an 18-inch pipeline. (PW) c. The Village Green park area, pocket park, and entry corridor shall be designed and a detailed park improvement plan shall include typical neighborhood amenities including but not limited to tot lot play equipment, open turf play area and picnic tables and benches. All amenities must conform to current Consumer Product Safety Guidelines with certain amenities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The entry corridor to the park (from Pacific View Ave.) and all other corridors must incorporate an architectural feature that properly identifies the area as public space. The plan shall identify play equipment, architectural features, plant material, ground (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.20 cover, sidewalks, lighting, etc. and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Commission, Community Services Director, and Public Works Director prior to installation. (CS/PW) d. The median in Atlanta Avenue shall be designed to provide a solid landscaped median barrier through the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Alabama Street, unless otherwise modified as determined by the Public Works Department and/or the Public Works Commission. e. The landscape plans shall incorporate native and/or drought-resistant plants consistent with what is permitted by the City of Huntington Beach Design Guidelines and Downtown Specific Plan. 7. During grading activities, the following shall be adhered to: a. The project developer(s) shall require contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available in the Southern California area and cost effective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. b. All mucks hauling dirt, sand, soil onto or off the project site arc to be covered. 8. The following conditions shall be completed prior to final building permit inspection, or occupancy, of the first residential unit: a. All existing Washingtonia robusta located along Pacific Coast Highway within the existing Caltrans right-of-way shall be relocated or replaced with an equivalent total trunk height either within the project, or relocated off-site as approved by the City Landscape Architect. (PW) b. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 22 percent of the cost of the installation of a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway at the Warner Avenue intersection. The County of Orange and Caltrans will be responsible to complete this improvement. The costs will be based on estimates prepared by the County of Orange for completion of the project or through a separate preliminary design and cost estimate prepared by the applicant to specifically address the requirements of this condition. (PW) c. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 26 percent of the cost of the installation of a second westbound right turn lane at the intersection on Seapoint Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement by providing funds for the balance of the cost of the improvement. The applicant shall prepare plans and obtain appropriate permits for the installation, including obtaining encroachment permits from Caltrans, as needed. Final determination of fair share contribution shall be based on the actual design and construction of the improvement. The City shall complete the improvement as a capital project. (PW) (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.21 d. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue unless an alternative intersection design including traffic calming measures, which achieves the same objective as Mitigation Measure TR-3, is reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Public Works Commission. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 57% of commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to the applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) e. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue unless modified to include traffic calming measures such as a roundabout as reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Public Works Commission. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 59% of the commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) f. The Village Green park, pocket park, and corridor shall be improved prior to the occupancy of the first residential unit (other than the model homes). (PW) g. The applicant shall be responsible for 59% of the costs to improve street and sidewalk conditions on the south side of Atlanta Avenue within the existing right-of-way, between Huntington and Delaware Streets to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety conditions. 9. Submit detailed plans of the following for final review and approval by the Design Review Board: a. Elevations, colors and materials of the hotel. b. Final colors and materials of the commercial and residential buildings. C. Public Art Concept Plan. d. Landscape and hardscape plans on private and public property. e. Planned Sign Program. f. Furniture and utilities throughout the project 10. At least 500 parking spaces shall be available for self-parking (not valet) in the commercial parking structure. 11. Parking meters shall be provided at all on-street public parking locations within or fronting the project frontage. Meters shall be installed according to City requirements and standards and shall meet the specifications of the City. The City will be responsible for the collection of revenue and maintenance of all parking meters. A plan depicting the location and design of the parking meter layout shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Services and Public Works Departments. (04NOA0505) Attachmcm 1.22 12. Hours of construction and related activity shall be limited to between the following hours: Construction: Mon.-Fri. 7AM — 6PM; Clean Up/Securing Area 6PM-8PM Construction/ Clean-Up: Sat. 7AM — 5PM Pile Driving: Mon.-Fri. 8AM — 6PM Truck Hauling: Mon.-Fri. 8AM-5PM; early delivery trucks must park on-site (not on street) with engine not idling between 7AM-8AM 13. An employee entrance and parking plan during construction shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The entrance and parking is to be located in an area that minimizes impacts to surrounding residents. 14. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 15. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—PACIFIC CITY MASTER PLAN: 1. The Pacific City Master Plan received and dated July 10, 2003 shall be the approved conceptual plan or as modified herein. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board conceming this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (04NOA0505) Attachment 1.23 ATTACHMENT 2 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideratiwis FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Introduction And Background This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations required for the approval of the Pacific City project. As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine whether any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment and, if so, to narrow the focus (or scope) of the environmental analysis. For this project, the IS indicated that an EIR would be the appropriate type of environmental document to address potential environmental impacts resulting from project implementation. After completion of the IS, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research indicating that an EIR would be prepared. In turn, the IS/NOP was distributed to appropriate public agencies for a 30-day public review period, which began on January 10, 2003, and ended on February 10, 2003. Public agencies included affected State agencies and surrounding cities. In addition, the IS/NOP was sent to interested parties, property owners located within 1000 feet and occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A scoping meeting was held on January 27, 2003. The purpose of the scoping period,including the scoping meeting, was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. During the scoping period, the City received 27 written comment letters and 9 oral comments on the IS/NOP. The IS/NOP, as well as the scoping comment letters, are included in Appendix A of the EIR. During the preparation of the Draft EIR (DEIR), agencies, organizations, and persons who the City believed may have an interest in this project were specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the DEIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the IS/NOP were given an opportunity to comment during the 45-day public review period of the DEIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the project. The DEIR was distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. During the review period, 18 comment letters were received, and 7 individuals commented at the public information meeting. Following the 45-day public review period, written responses to all environmental comments received were completed.These comments, and their responses, have been included in the Final EIR for consideration by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, as well as any other public decision-makers. Furthermore, responses to all written comments received were made available to commentors at least 10 days prior to the public hearing at which certification of the FEIR would be considered. Pacific Cih' Final EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Geology and Soils, 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. The Draft EIR included a detailed description of the proposed project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects, and a detailed analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: ■ No Project/No Development Alternative; ■ Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative; ■ Reduced/Revised Project Alternative. 2. Project Objectives And Description The Project has the following primary objectives: Applicant ■ Housing. Provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre in order to assist the City of Huntington Beach in meeting its housing goals and the housing allocation determined by the City and the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and to meet the purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan District No. 8A. ■ Economic Growth and Employment. Provide: (a) economic growth opportunities for the community through development of the project dining/retail/entertainment center, consistent with the City's General Plan goals; (b) additional employment opportunities for local and area residents through the visitor-serving commercial uses on site; and (c) residential density at the General Plan designation of 30 dwelling units per net acre, to support the visitor-serving commercial components of Pacific City, the resort areas to the south, and existing Downtown businesses. ■ Neighborhood Identihj. Reinforce the neighborhood identity of Pacific City and coordinate development of Districts 7 and 8A, through control of both districts' project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatment, and roadway design. ■ Commercial Phasing and Residential Density. Maintain ability to build commercial and residential areas in phases to provide a population base to help support the visitor- serving commercial uses consistent with the purpose of District No. 8A. ■ Pedestrian Access. Implement a means of pedestrian access through the project via onsite paths consistent with the Specific Plan objectives. As a separate project in the future, provide residents and visitors with safe access to the beach via an elevated crossing of 2 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from the project site, including avoiding pedestrian conflicts with the existing PCH Transit Terminal. ■ Traffic Improvements. Enhance project circulation and the surrounding roadway system by providing efficient vehicular access through the site and connecting the site to the surrounding existing roadway network. ■ Public Vie7V Opportunities. Develop the hotel district to the maximum allowable height (8 stories) under the Downtown Specific Plan, in order to provide ocean view opportunities while maintaining space for amenities on lower floors and retention of ocean vistas. Implement an overall site design that provides public view opportunities for visitors and residents. City of Huntington Beach ■ Assist in the implementation of the City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan ■ Enhance the Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities ■ 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 ■ Enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the General Plan ■ Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development ■ Mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible The project proposes development of 31.5 gross acres of currently vacant land bound by First Street on the west, Huntington Street on the east, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the south, in the Downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach. The Pacific City project consists of a visitor-serving/neighborhood commercial-retail center, a residential village, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements. The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration within Section 7 of this document. The Reduced Project Alternative is more desirable than the proposed project and has been recommended by City staff to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the intensity of the commercial development and reduce the severity of impacts. The Reduced Project Alternative includes development of approximately 10.6 net acres of the project site adjacent to PCH with up to 400 rooms of hospitality (i.e., hotel) and up to 191,100 square feet (so of visitor-serving commercial uses that are proposed to include retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment facilities. The approximately 17.2-net-acre northeastern portion of the project site would be developed with 516 condominium homes at an average of 30 dwelling units per net acre, in accordance with density levels set forth in the City of Pacific City Final EIR 3 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Specific development would be as follows: ■ Residential Uses 516 Units ■ Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses > Retail Uses: 112,200sf > Restaurants/Clubs: 48,900 sf > Office: 30,000 sf ■ Hotel Uses > 400 Guest Rooms: 334,000 sf > Ballroom: 16,000 sf > Spa (30 treatment rooms): 15,000 sf > Restaurant: 5,000 sf Parking would include approximately 1,542 parking spaces in a subterranean garage for visitor- serving commercial uses, and 1,291 parking spaces in a subterranean garage and approximately 19 on-site surface parking spaces for residential uses. In addition, pedestrian corridors would be provided through the site to improve pedestrian access between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential and commercial components. Several accessways to the beach area south of the project site are also proposed. The proposed project has been designed to conform to the existing land use and zoning designations in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Structures would be one and two stories in height, and the overall site coverage would be similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative, by maintaining the same amount of residential development and reducing the amount of visitor-serving commercial development by 48,900 sf, would achieve most of the project objectives identified by the Applicant and the City. Implementation of this alternative would meet the City's objective of enhancing its Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities. However, because the extent of visitor-serving commercial development would not be as great as that allowed under the proposed project, the Applicant's objective of generating economic growth opportunities for the community that is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and creating additional employment opportunities for local and area residents would be achieved to a lesser degree. Under this alternative, impacts to resources that would be less than the proposed project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy and Mineral Resources,Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts to resources that would remain the same as the proposed project include Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Public Services, and Recreation. No impacts would be greater than the proposed project under this alternative. Impacts to Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic would remain significant and unavoidable, although these impacts would be less than the proposed project because fewer vehicular trips would be generated. The City finds that this alternative would meet the basic objectives of the project and reduce environmental impacts on some resources. This alternative would reduce the number of 4 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations vehicular trips and associated impacts on air quality and transportation, although impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. While the overall level of significance of impacts to each of these resources would remain the same, the magnitude of impacts would be less than under the proposed project. The project would require the following approvals by the City of Huntington Beach: ■ Commercial Master Site Plan. Approval of a Master Site Plan depicting 10.6 net acres in District No. 7 shall be required. The plan shall shore all hotel- and visitor-serving commercial uses; design details; public facilities; open space; pedestrian overcrossing; and phasing requirements. ■ Conceptual Master Plan. Approval of a Master Plan depicting approximately 17.2 net acres in District No. 8A and the development parameters for high-density residential development shall be required. ■ Tentative Tract Map. Provide a right to proceed with the project as described on the Tentative Tract Map; subdivision of the property into large lots for conveyance, grading, construction of infrastructure and/or financing purposes; and further subdivide the property for visitor-serving commercial and residential condominium purposes, including construction and sale. ■ Coastal Development Permits. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit in accordance with the City's Coastal Element will be required for the Tentative Tract Map as well as construction and operation of the project. The permit will address the site plan, floor plans, and architectural building elevations for the visitor-serving commercial and residential development of the project site. ■ Conditional Use Permit. Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Architectural Building Elevations for the resort/commercial development site(s); Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Architectural Building Elevations for residential development sites. The Conditional Use Permit also covers development on lot with an existing grade differential equal to or greater than three feet, construction of a parking structure, proposed parking controls and aspects of the commercial component (e.g., carts and kiosks, live entertainment, and alcoholic beverage sales in conjunction with restaurants). • Special Permits. Special permits to allow building encroachment into setback areas on PCH and Pacific View Avenue and to allow the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of ten percent. ■ Design Review Board Approval. Approval of all Site Plans, Floor Plans, Architectural Building Elevations and Landscape Architectural Plans designed in accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan and City Urban Design Guidelines standards and requirements would be required. ■ Redevelopment Agency Approvals. Any Redevelopment Agency actions or activities in furtherance of the Huntington Beach Merged Redevelopment Plan, including an Owner Participation Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, affordable housing agreement, or other agreement, if any, which may be considered. Pacific City Final EIR 5 Findings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations The findings (Section 4 of this document) describe the effects of the project as defined above. 3. Record Of Proceedings The custodian of the documents is the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4. Findings Required Under CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21081, subd. [a]); 2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC §21081, subd. (b)); and 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC§21081, subd. [c]). These findings are subsequently referred to in this document as Finding 1, Finding 2, and Finding 3. CEQA requires that the Iead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [31). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible' to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal' considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Citizens for Qualihj Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the 6 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta 11, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines §15091.). 5. Mitigation Monitoring Program A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the project, as required by PRC Section 21081.6. The City of Huntington Beach will use the MMP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City of Huntington Beach considered the MMP during its certification of the Final EIR. The final MMP will incorporate, under separate cover, all mitigation measures adopted for the project. 6. Significant Effects, Mitigation Measures, And Findings Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less-Than-Significant Levels The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels are listed below. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements, standards,and codes, as well as mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Aesthetics Impact AESS. Structural development would introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. Structures would range from two to eight stories in height. Buildings generally three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces that could introduce reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building facades, reflective glass) that could increase existing levels of daytime glare. Mitigation Measures for Impact AES-5 MM AES-1 To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use non-reflective fa4ade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. Building materials shall be consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and reflective glass shall not constitute a primary exterior material. Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Pacific City Final EIR 7 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project, the Applicant shall indicate provision of these materials on the building plans. Findings for Impact AES-5. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as AES-5 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1. Biological Resources Impact 13I0-1. Proposed project implementation may result in impacts on special status plant species, if present on the proposed project site. The southern tarplant, vernal barley, and Coulter's goldfields have a limited potential to occur on the site. Although general botanical surveys failed to identify any of these species on site, there is a slight potential for these species to inhabit areas of the site, or become established on site after the general surveys were performed. As such, construction and operational activities on the project site would have the potential to disturb these resources if present on site. Mitigation Measure for Impact BIO-1 MM 13I0-1 If before the start of construction, substantial growth of native vegetation or sensitive habitats has occurred on the project site as determined by a qualified biologist, then special status plant or habitat surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate time of the year prior to construction of the proposed project, to determine the presence or absence of special status plant species or habitats. These surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period as determined by a qualified biologist. if any of these species are found to be present on the proposed project site, then measures would be developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies, if the status of the species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance. Appropriate measures may include avoidance of the populations, relocation, or purchase of offsite populations for inclusion to nearby open space areas. A City-qualified biologist shall present recommendations to the city for review and approval. Any subsequent avoidance, relocation, or other mitigation strategies required to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. Findings for Impact BIO-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as BI0-1 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1. Cultural Resources Impact CR-1. Paleontological resources that could be located on-site would be adversely affected by earth-moving activities that could damage these materials. The project site had previously been determined paleontologically sensitive, and during previous grading activities, eight paleontological sites were identified in the sand borrow area. Additional paleontological resources are likely to be present on other areas of the site. 8 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure for Impact CR-1 MM CRA Monitor grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: (a) The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified (as defined by the Orange County Archaeological/Paleontological Curation Project) professional archaeological and paleontological monitors to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, and other excavation on the project site. The Applicant shall also contact the appropriate Gabrielino and Juaneno tribal representatives to determine whether either group desires Native American monitoring of grading activities. If Native American monitors are requested, the Applicant shall arrange for the monitoring with tribal representatives. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. (b) If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA, as well as Chapter 3 and Appendices E, F, and G of the Curation Project. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings,and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach, the Orange County Archaeo/Palen Resource Management Facility (APRMF), and the Orange County Historic Programs Office. (c) Monitored grading at the location of CA-ORA-1582H shall involve the removal of refuse deposit 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. If the resource encountered consists of complete or nearly complete artifacts from CA-ORA-1582H, then artifacts shall be cleaned and cataloged, in accordance with the requirements of the Curation Project, for curation 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 Pacific City Final EIR 9 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations curation fees, and the curation contract shall specify that materials shall be available for loans to educational institutions. No further study would be required. (d) In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Finding: for Impact CR-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as CR-1 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1. Impact CR-2. Construction of the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of CA-ORA-149, a prehistoric archaeological site. CA-ORA-149 qualifies as a historic resource, as defined under Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. The likelihood of encountering additional archaeological resources associated with CA-ORA-149 is considered very high. Additional archaeological resources could be present on the project site and earth-disturbing activities associated with project implementation—such as grading and excavation—could damage or destroy these resources. Mitigation Measure for Impact CR-2 MM CR-2 Scientific recovery of archaeological resources associated with CA-ORA-149: The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist (i.e., listed on the Registry of Professional Archaeologists) to develop and implement, in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation, a research design and recovery plan for remaining elements of CA-ORA-149. The recovery plan shall emphasize data collection in Locus A, between Test Units 1 and 2, as well as on a core area of Locus B, centered around Test Unit 4, and shall be designed to satisfy the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. Findings for Impact CR-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as CR-2 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2. Impact CR-3. Construction of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of previously unknown archaeological resources, including human burials, that could be present on the project site. Although investigations at the project site have detected two archaeological sites, archaeological sites can be present without providing surface indications. Because the project site and vicinity are known to be archaeologically sensitive, the potential exists for additional, unanticipated finds of archaeological resources during ground- ' 1 0 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations disturbing activities associated with project implementation. Although no burials are known to be associated with the known archaeological sites on the project site, the potential for encountering burials in archaeological contexts also exists. Mitigation Measure for Impact CR-3 Mitigation Measure CR-1, described under "Mitigation Measure for Impact CR-1;' would also apply to Impact CR-3. Finding for Impact CR-3. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as CR-3 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1. Project implementation could expose people or structures on-site to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure associated with liquefaction. Damage from an earthquake could include general damage to foundations, shifting of frame structures if not bolted, and breaking of underground pipes. The potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils on the majority of the project site is considered low. However, the potential for liquefaction is very high in the southeastern comer of the project site, which is underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial deposits. The hotel, which is proposed to be developed in this area, could experience substantial damages in the event of an earthquake. Mitigation Measure for Impact GEO-1 MM GEO-1 The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations of the final soils and geotechnical analysis prepared pursuant to CR GEO-A, as approved by the City. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project, including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, dewatering, establishment of deep foundations, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, erosion control, ground improvements, tsunami protection, and plan review. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the soils and geotechnical analysis shall be implemented during site preparation and construction activities. Findings for Impact GEO-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as GEO-1 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Impact GEO-2. Project implementation would locate structures on soils that are considered potentially expansive, unstable, prone to settlement, and corrosive. The majority of the on-site, near-surface soils exhibit a medium to high potential for expansion. The 15 to 20 feet of loose to medium-dense alluvial deposits that are found in the southeastern portion of the site are Pacific City Final EIR I I Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations settlement-prone. Soil settlement resulting from typical foundation loading of new structures on the project site could affect the foundation materials by causing structural and service-related distress to structures. Mitigation Measure for Impact GEO-2 Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described under "Mitigation Measure for Impact GEO-L" would apply to Impact GEO-2. Finding for Impact GEO-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as GEO-2 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1. Grading and excavation of the site could expose construction personnel and the public to contamination present in the soil associated with former on-site uses. Exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances could occur at the project site in relation to potential residual contaminants in areas already remediated or currently undergoing remediation, contaminated areas near the water line and archaeological sensitive areas, and potential unidentified contamination in the southwestern portion of the site. If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation, the removal activities required could pose health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, materials handling personnel, and the public to tank contents, hazardous materials, or vapors. Mitigation Measures for Impact HAZ-1 MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Registered Environmental Assessor shall perform a site inspection to identify the potential for presence of PCBs on the site. If the potential for PCBs exists, then the Applicant shall, in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach, sample soil surrounding the affected areas to identify the extent of contamination. Contamination shall be remediated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and MM HAZ-4. MM HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, sampling shall be performed in the area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as "Area D." The extent of sampling shall be determined by the Huntington Beach Fire Department as that which is appropriate to characterize the extent of any potential contamination in Area D. Contamination shall be remediated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and MM HAZ-4. MM HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall, in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach and other agencies,as required,formulate a remediation plan for further soil contamination that exists on the project site. The plan shall include procedures for remediation of the project site to the City of Huntington Beach standards. Plans shall be submitted to 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 shall include methods to 12 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties, including processes by which all drainage associated with the remediation effort shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site and requirements to provide wind barriers around remediation equipment. Qualified and licensed professionals shall perform the remediation activities and all work shall be performed under the supervision of the City of Huntington Beach. M-M HAZ-4 Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City Fire Department that document the successful completion of required remediation activities for contaminated soils, in accordance with City Specification 431-92, shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department prior to issuance of grading permits for site development. No construction shall occur on-site until reports have been accepted by the City. Closure reports will not be required in the area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as "Area C" until remediation of this area has occurred as part of project construction; these reports will be required pursuant to MM HAZ-6. If remediation is necessary pursuant to MM HAZ-3, then soil remediation permits shall be issued. Mlvi HAZ-5 In the event that previously unknown soil contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. A risk management plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post- development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department). A site health and safety plan that meets OSHA requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to the commencement of work in any contaminated area. The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the health and safety plan. Mlvl HAZ-6 Closure reports documenting the successful completion of required remediation activities for (1) areas adjacent to the existing water main on site and (2) areas of archaeological sensitivity shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits in these areas. Findings for Impact HAZ-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as HAZ-1 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6. Impact HAZ-2. Grading and excavation of the site could result in damage to existing abandoned oil wells. Twenty abandoned oil wells are located throughout the project site. Because development would occur over a majority of these wells with the proposed project and Pacific City Final EIR 13 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations the proposed underground parking structures serving the project would extend down to approximately 22 feet below ground level, the potential exists for grading and excavation activities to damage these abandoned oil wells during construction of the project. If the existing oil wells are damaged, health and safety risks could be posed to construction workers and the public. Mitigation Measures for Impact HAZ-2 MM HAZ-7 Where construction is proposed over abandoned oil wells, the developer shall consult with DOGGR to determine if plug or replug of wells is necessary. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit evidence of consultation with DOGGR indicating wells have been plugged or abandoned to current DOGGR standards. MM HAZ-8 In the event that abandoned oil wells are damaged during construction, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity immediately. Remedial plugging operations would be required to re-plug the affected wells to current Department of Conservation specifications. Depending on the nature of soil contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department). The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the reabandonment operation in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Findings for Impact HAZ-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as HAZ-2 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-7 and HAZ-8. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-4. The proposed project would result in the placement of additional structures in an area of low to moderate tsunami risk. The eastern portion of the project site is located in the designated moderate tsunami run-up area in the General Plan and may be subject to tsunami hazards. Mitigation Measure for Impact HYD-4 MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit to the City for approval a plan outlining specific planning measures to be taken to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from tsunami during operation. Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following: ■ Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and hotel guests, in addition to posting in public locations on site ■ Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents,hotel guests and persons on site in the event a watch or warning is issued 14 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Identification of an evacuation site for persons on site in the event of a tsunami warning Findings for Impact HYD-4. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as HYD-4 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Noise Impact N-3. Implementation of the proposed project could expose new residential land uses on site to noise levels in excess of City standards. Future noise levels within the project site would continue to be dominated by vehicular traffic on the adjacent roadways. Other sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment) and increased activity throughout the site. Mitigation Measure for Impact N-3 MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the new multifamily residential units located along First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Pacific View Avenue, the project developer(s) shall submit building plans that identify walls or barriers of at least 5.5 feet above the ground surface around each exterior activity area (i.e., private yards, balconies and recreation areas) that face these roadways. This can be accomplished by constructing solid walls that match the building exterior and topping them off with 1.5-inch-thick Plexiglas windows or sheets to meet the height requirement of 5.5 feet. Other means of reducing exterior noise levels to 60 dBA Ld or less within the exterior activity areas may be implemented so long as an acoustical analysis demonstrates that the alternative means would in fact reduce the noise to the required level. Findings for Impact N-3. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as N-3 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2. Population and Housing Impact P-2. Proposed housing would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth beyond current growth projections established by the City, although the required number of affordable housing units may not be provided on-site by the project. In order to satisfy affordable housing obligations, the Applicant would contribute towards affordable housing. The details of the provision of affordable housing units have not been finalized. In the absence of a complete plan that has been approved by the City to provide affordable housing, the project would not be in compliance with applicable Redevelopment Agency requirements with respect to affordable housing. Pacific City Final EIR is Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure for Impact P-2 MM P-1 The Applicant shall prepare an Affordable Housing Program to the satisfaction of the City Planning & Economic Development Departments. The Program shall detail the provisions for either on- or off-site affordable housing, or a combination of the two that meet the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law and City requirements. The Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to submittal of the final map. The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential project. The Applicant shall adhere to all provisions of the Program. Findings for Impact P-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as P-2 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure P-1. Pubic Services Impact PS-1. The current staff and equipment of the HBFD would be sufficient to meet the demands of the proposed project, although project design may not provide adequate pedestrian emergency access. Project characteristics result in a need for the fire department to observe, monitor and, as necessary, control the on-site emergency systems in order to respond effectively to an emergency, should one arise, on-site. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has expressed concerns regarding emergency pedestrian access to the subterranean garage, due to the size of the garage and the need to access both levels on foot, and not solely from emergency vehicles. Mitigation Measures for Impact PS-1 Ivl_M PS-1 Provide enclosed, fire-rated stairs to each subterranean level from the exterior every 300' lineal feet of the building perimeter NPA PS-2 Project design shall include ventilation of smoke and products of combustion. Zoned, mechanical smoke removal system, with manual controls for firefighters shall be located in the fire control room. An emergency power source is necessary and the system shall also comply with Building Code requirements to exhaust CO and other hazardous gases. MM PS-3 Dedicated rooms for Fire Department exclusive use to observe, monitor and as necessary control all emergency systems operation shall be provided. A total of three rooms shall be provided as follows: (1) commercial area and the related subterranean parking garage; (2) high-rise hotel; and (3) residential garages and dwellings. Rooms shall be located in an exterior location at grade level and have unrestricted access clear-to-the sky. Findings for Impact PS-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as PS-1 to less-than- 1 6 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measures PSl through PS-3. Impact PS-3. Development of additional residential units would result in an increase in the number of students within the school districts serving the site, and increase demands on school facilities. A total of approximately 66 high school and 175 elementary and middle school students from the proposed project and would further increase demands on the existing schools. Mitigation Measure for Impact PS-3 MM PS-5 The developer for the proposed project shall negotiate with the appropriate City school districts regarding school impact fees to address the adverse impacts of the development, thus, ensuring that the new development would bear its fair share of the cost of housing additional students generated. The Planning Department shall be provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final map. Findings for Impact PS-3. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as PS-3 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-5. Recreation Impact REC-1. Project implementation would not provide adequate recreational facilities to meet increased demands from the project. Direct and indirect increases in population would result in an increase in the general use of local and regional recreational facilities. In accordance with the parkland dedication requirements provided in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to provide 6.9 acres of parkland. While the proposed project would include five key recreational areas, which would be situated throughout the residential portion of the proposed project for a total of 2.50 acres, the project would fall short of the 6.9 acres of parkland required by the Quimby Act. Mitigation Measure for Impact REC-1 MM REC-1 The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with City parkland requirements identified in Chapter 254.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Any on-site park provided in compliance with this section shall be improved prior to final inspection (occupancy) of the first residential unit (other than the model homes). Findings for Impact REC-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as REC-1 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1. Pacific City Final EIR 17 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Transportation and Traffic Impact TR-2. Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue by increasing traffic volume under Caltrans Methodology. This intersection would operate at LOS E during P.M. peak hour with the proposed project traffic. This intersection would still operate at the same LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours without addition of proposed project traffic. However, the addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the intersection delay at this intersection and further worsen intersection operations. Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-2 MM TR-2 A second westbound right turn lane shall be added on Seapoint Avenue. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement, and the Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 26 percent to this improvement. The Applicant's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Findings for Impact TR-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as TR-2 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2. Impact TR-4. Under the Year 2020 conditions with scenario No. 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings), the proposed project would adversely affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue by increasing traffic volume. Under scenario No. 1, the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue would operate at LOS E under 2020 General Plan Buildout Conditions. The addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the ICU at this intersection by 0.022, and further worsen intersection operations. Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-4 Mitigation Measure TR-2, described under "Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-2," would apply to Impact TR-4. Findings for ImRact TR-4. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as TR-4 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2. Impact TR-6. Project-generated traffic would require the addition of traffic signals. Using the planning warrant, the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue satisfied the traffic signal warrant. This intersection would require a traffic signal due to existing traffic with the addition of ambient growth. Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-6 18 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations MM TR-3 Install a traffic signal at First Street and Atlanta Avenue prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The City shall provide reimbursement for the balance of the funding of improvements through the Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee account or shall designate credits against the project fees to that account. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement, and the Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 57 percent to the improvement. Findings for Impact TR-6. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as TR-6 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-6. Utilities and Service Systems Fact U-4. Implementation of the proposed project would substantially increase solid waste generation in the area. The project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Since the site is currently vacant, no structural demolition would occur, generating substantial sources of refuse. Waste materials would be generated during construction from construction debris, scrap metals, and shipping materials. Total solid waste produced by project operations would be approximately 1,881 tons per year, and adequate capacity exists at landfills serving Orange County to meet these demands. Mitigation Measure for Impact U-4 MM U-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component, the Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City's Recycling Coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition- generated waste from the site. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases ■ Bins for cardboard recycling during construction ■ Scrap wood recycling during construction ■ Green waste recycling of landscape materials Finding for Impact U4. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would reduce the impact identified as U-4 to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1. Pacific City Final EIR 19 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation The Final EIR concluded that certain environmental impacts associated with Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic would be significant and cannot be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Specifically, there are three significant and unavoidable impacts for which the City has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Air Duality Impact AO-1. Peak construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. During construction, two basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate emissions. First, the development site would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the new subterranean parking structure, building foundations, and roadways. Second, the buildings and roadways would be constructed and readied for use. Construction related daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO, during the site excavation and grading phase, and VOC and NO, during the peak construction phase. Mitigation Measures for Impact AO-1 MM AQ-1 The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-2 The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications that construction- related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-3 The project developer(s) shall encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. NLtil AQ-4 The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. VL�4 AQ-3 The project developer(s) shall implement dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust during the construction phases of new project development. Contract specification language shall be reviewed for inclusion of 20 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations this 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 and/or approved nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specification to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas that 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 binders to exposed piles with 5 percent or greater silt content ■ 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 daily ■ Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period ■ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load 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 cohere vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from impacting the surrounding areas. ■ Apply water three times daily or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces ■ Post and enforce traffic speed limits of 15 miles per hour or less on all unpaved roads Findings for Impact AO-1. Finding 1. The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment. The reduction in air quality emissions is limited by the best available technology, which is required to be implemented for the proposed project. Finding 3. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook identifies mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce project emissions. A number of these measures are included as part of the proposed project, and the DEIR requires that the project include all other measures that are considered feasible. Pacific City Final EIR 21 Findings of Fact and Staternent of Overriding Considerations Exceedances in NOx would result primarily from construction equipment. Construction equipment would be required to maintain equipment engines in good condition, turn off construction-related equipment when not in use for more than five minutes,use alternative fuel construction equipment and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is available, and rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites to the extent feasible. However, no other measures are technologically feasible that would reduce NOx emissions below levels of significance. Exceedances in VOCs would occur primarily due to the application of architectural coatings (i.e., exterior paint, finishes, etc). Construction contractors are limited by the available supply of products, and no products are readily available that would reduce VOC emissions below thresholds. Fact AO-2. Daily operation of the project would generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal day-to-day activities on the project site after occupation. The proposed project would generate daily emissions of VOC and INTO. that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site and this would be the primary contributor to emissions. Mitigation Measures for Impact AO-2 MM AQ-6 The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective to reduce project-related stationary and area source emissions: ■ Use solar or low-emission water heaters in the residential, office, and visitor- serving commercial buildings ■ Provide energy-efficient heating with automated controls in the residential, office, and visitor-serving commercial buildings ■ Use energy-efficient cooking appliances in the residential and visitor-serving commercial buildings ■ If fire places are provided in new residential units, install the lowest-emitting fireplaces commercially 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 the California Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the time of use. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 22 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mivf AQ-7 The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts for the commercial and offices uses on site that preferential parking spaces be provided for carpools and vanpools. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. A minimum of 7'2- of vertical clearance shall be provided in the parking structure for vanpool access. Inclusion of the vertical clearance shall be verified on building plans prior to issuance of a building permit. Findings for Impact AO-2. Finding 1. The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment. The reduction in air quality emissions is limited by the best available technology,which is required to be implemented for the proposed project. Finding 3. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook identifies mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce project emissions. A number of these measures are included as part of the proposed project, and the DEIR requires that the project include all other measures that are considered feasible. The project would be required to use energy-efficient appliances, and promote carpooling and alternative transportation. However, the ability to reduce emissions from motor vehicles is limited due to use of motor vehicles as a primary mode of transportation for the majority of the population, and current vehicular emissions. The City has no authority to limit the number of vehicles traveling to and from residential and commercial areas. Transportation and Traffic Fact TR-1. Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue by increasing traffic volume. The Year 2008 peak hour intersection capacity analysis performed using the City criteria shows that the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue would operate at LOS E and LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour,respectively. These levels are beyond the acceptable maximum level of service. This intersection would still operate at the same unsatisfactory levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours without addition of proposed project traffic. However, the addition of the proposed project traffic would result in an increase in the ICU at this intersection of 0.015 in the A.M. peak hour and 0.022 in the P.M. peak hour and further worsen intersection operations. Under the Caltrans Methodology, the Year 2008 peak hour intersection capacity analysis shows that the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue would operate at LOS F during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours, which is an unsatisfactory LOS. This intersection would still operate at the same LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours without addition of proposed project traffic. The addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the intersection delay by 12.1 seconds/vehicle in the A.M. peak hours and 26.8 seconds/vehicle in the P.M. peak hours at this intersection and further worsen intersection operations. Pacific City Final EIR 23 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-1 MM TR-1 The Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 22 percent to the installation of a third northbound through lane on PCH consistent with the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH. The County of Orange and Caltrans would complete this improvement. The Applicant's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Finding for Impact TR-1. Finding 3. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1 would improve the Year 2008 level of service at the PCH and Warner Avenue intersection under the City criteria and the Caltrans Methodology. However, this intersection improvement is currently under study by the County of Orange. Feasibility of implementing this improvement has not been determined at this time. Finding 2. The City finds that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The ultimate implementation of this measure is not under the discretion of the City of Huntington Beach. Therefore, the City is not able to implement any mitigation measures or any alternatives that would fully mitigate or avoid the impacts associated with the project as this mitigation measure is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the Pacific City project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. In some instances, mitigation measures are proposed to further reduce impacts already determined to be less than significant. Additionally, the City finds, as set forth in these findings, no other potentially significant project-specific effects of the proposed project are anticipated to occur. Aesthetics Impact AES-1. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade scenic resources within Pacific Coast Highway, a State Scenic Highway. The proposed project would include development limited to the east and north side of PCH and would not affect views of the Pacific Ocean to the south and west from PCH. The beach, the Huntington Beach Pier, and the Pacific Ocean as viewed from PCH—the salient visual resources of the PCH viewshed— w ould not be affected by the proposed project. Findings for Impact AES-1. The City finds the impact identified as AES-1 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 24 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact AES-2. Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on the scenic vista. While public views from areas north of PCH would be modified, public viewing opportunities of the beach would be provided on site. Findings for Impact AE5-2. The City finds the impact identified as AES-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact AES-3. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Development on the project site would introduce new urban uses that would provide a visually consistent Downtown and waterfront experience, including landscaping, public open space, and public ocean view opportunities. The project would be thematically linked to the Downtown area through the consistent use of architectural form and detail and would modulate the height and massing of the proposed structure in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. Project design, including architectural features, landscaping, and compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan development standards would ensure that the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Findings for Impact AES-3. The City finds the impact identified as AES-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact AES-4. The proposed project would cast shadows on surrounding residential uses. Project development would have primarily limited shade and shadow effects on adjacent properties. Light-sensitive uses would be affected for a duration of less than 3 hours during the Winter Solstice, when the days are shortest and the angle of the sun in the sky has the potential to cast the longest shadows. Findings for Impact AES-4. The City finds the impact identified as AES-4 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact AES-6. Structural development would not result in significant nighttime lighting in the project vicinity. Project implementation would increase overall nighttime lighting in the project area with the introduction of additional street lighting, building exterior lighting, and vehicle headlights. As a standard condition of approval, the City requires that all outdoor lighting be directed to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties, with indication of such provision on the final site plans. Additionally, some of this light would be masked by existing street lighting and nighttime vehicular traffic. Mitigation Measure for Impact AES-6 The following Mitigation Measure was recommended in the EIR to further reduce less-than- significant impacts: MM AES-2 The lighting plan shall include provisional measures to limit nighttime illumination during periods of fog. Measures may include but would not be limited to reduced foot-candle illumination levels or reduced number of lighting fixtures in use. Pacific City Final EIR 25 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings for Impact AES-6. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified as AES-6, are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Fact AES-7. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new sources of vehicle headlight, although they would not significantly affect adjacent sensitive uses. Proposed ingress and egress points for the parking garage would be located along the perimeter of the property and internal to the site. In addition, the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue would create two new roadway intersections at First Street and at Huntington Street. Vehicle headlights at these locations could affect adjacent residential properties. Due to ground elevation,fencing, and vegetation, headlights would be sufficiently screened from intrusion into residential uses. Findings for Impact AES-7. The City finds the impact identified as AES-7 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Air Ouality Impact AO-3. The proposed project would generate increased local traffic volumes, but would not cause localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections to exceed national or State standards. The simplified CALINE4 screening procedure was used to predict future CO concentrations at the study-area intersections in 2010 when the project is expected to be completed. Future CO concentrations near these intersections would not exceed national or State ambient air quality standards. Findings for Impact AQ-3. The City finds the impact identified as AQ-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact AO-4. The proposed project would provide new sources of regional air emissions, but would not impair implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. The proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP employment forecasts for the Orange County subregion or City of Huntington Beach, and it would not jeopardize attairunent of State and Federal ambient air quality standards Findings for Impact AO-4. The City finds the impact identified as AQ4 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Fact AO-5. Implementation of the proposed project could release toxic air contaminants, but not in significant amounts. Toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed land uses within the project site. Only small quantities of common forms of hazardous or toxic substances, such as cleaning agents, which are typically used, stored, or sold in conjunction with commercial and restaurant/bar uses, would be present. 26 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings for Impact AQ-5. The City finds the impact identified as AQ-5 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Biological Resources Impact BIO-2. Proposed project implementation would not significantly impact special status wildlife species. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for special status wildlife species with potential to occur on the project site. The lack of quality natural habitat onsite that would be removed compared to the amount and high quality of habitat available in the region would minimize impacts to special status wildlife species. Findings for Impact BIO-2. The City finds the impact identified as BIO-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact BIO-3. Proposed project implementation would be consistent with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. These local policies or ordinances include the SLAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use, Environmental Resource/Conservation, and Coastal Elements. Findings for Impact BIO-3. The City finds the impact identified as BIO-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact BIO4. The project would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although sparse areas of hydrophytic (water loving) vegetation were temporarily established within this area, its presence is directly related to the presence of non-normal circumstances (e.g., groundwater seeping from the remediation pits). As such, in accordance with Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter 86-09, the area would not be considered wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA. Findings for Impact BIO-4. The City finds that there would be no impact under BI04 and no mitigation measures are required. Impact BI0-5. Implementation of the project would not significantly impact sensitive habitat types, including wetlands as defined by the CDFG. In order to comply with the laws governing wetland resources as established by the California Fish and Game Code, the Applicant must review the conditions that exist at the project site after the soil remediation pits that were created as a result of remediation that occurred pursuant to a coastal development permit and conditional use permit have been refilled and before development occurs to evaluate the conditions that exist under natural grade. If potential wetlands are identified at that time, the Applicant would be required to obtain all necessary permits required by the City (as trustee for the California Coastal Commission) and the CDFG in order to be in compliance with the Fish and Game Code of California and the California Coastal Act. Findings for Impact BI0-5. The City finds the impact identified as BIO-5 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Pacific City Final EIR 27 Findings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations Fact BIO-6. Construction activities at the project site would not significantly disturb wildlife in the project site vicinity. Noise levels at the proposed project site would incrementally increase over present levels during construction activities. There is a lack of quality habitat onsite for most species, and the increased noise levels associated with project implementation would have limited effects. Site disturbance from construction activities at the project site may affect rodents that seek refuge or forage at the site. However, due to the site location and sparse vegetation cover on the project site,it is anticipated that rodent populations would be small. These limited rodent populations may be a temporary nuisance to adjacent uses. Disturbance of the project site resulting from construction activities would be temporary, and rodents would not pose a long-term nuisance. Mitigation Measure for Impact BIO-6 The following Mitigation Measure was recommended in the EIR to further reduce less-than- significant impacts: MM BIO-2 To further reduce potential rodent dispersal to adjacent residences, grading shall begin at the perimeter, near existing residences, and proceed toward the center of the site. Findings for Impact BIO-6. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project,which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified as BIO-6, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact BIO-7. An increase in night lighting from the proposed project would not significantly affect behavioral patterns of wildlife at the project site. Lighting of the development can indirectly affect the behavioral patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) urban wildlife at the proposed project site. Although the proposed project would increase existing night lighting, the change would not be substantially different than the current conditions in the proposed project vicinity. Findings for Impact BIO-7. The City finds the impact identified as BIO-7 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Cultural Resources Impact CR-4. Construction of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of CA-ORA-1582H—a historical archaeological dump site. CA-ORA-1582H was determined not to have sufficient integrity to provide data for the study of research topics regarding the past. Therefore, the site does not meet the criterion specified in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines (yielded, or may be likely to yield,information important in history or prehistory). As a result, the site is not considered a historic resource. Findings for Impact CR-4.The City finds the impact identified as CR-4 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 28 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Stateneent of Overriding Considerations Energy and Mineral Resources Impact EM-1. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase electricity demands beyond available supply or result in attracting additional or higher density development to the project area. Based upon the projected electricity consumption rates for the proposed project, the maximum total electricity demand would be approximately 2,058,600 kilovolt amps per year. SCE has indicated that although the proposed project, given the magnitude of its development, could result in a substantial increase in electricity demand, an adequate supply of electricity would be available since the electrical loads of the project are within SCE's parameters of projected load growth in the area. New circuits and lines would need to be erected to provide the electricity supply required to support the proposed project without impairing the level of service to the surrounding area. Mitigation Measure for Impact EM-1 The following Mitigation Measure was recommended in the EIR to further reduce less-than- significant impacts: MM EM-1 The proposed project shall implement an energy conservation plan that could include, but would not be limited to, measures such as energy efficient lighting, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC) controls to reduce the demand of electricity and natural gas. The energy conservation plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building and Safety and Planning Departments prior to issuance of building permits. Findings for Impact EM-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified as EM-1, are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact EM-2. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase natural gas demands beyond available supply or result in attracting additional or higher density development to the project area. Based upon the natural gas demand rates for the proposed project, the total project demand for natural gas would be approximately 54,503,208 cubic feet per year. According to SCGC, the proposed project would likely be served by new natural gas lines that connect to either the gas mains located on Atlanta Avenue or Huntington Street. SCGC has indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve the proposed project, and that the natural gas level of service provided to the surrounding area would not be impaired by the proposed project. Mitigation Measure for Impact EM-2 Recommended Mitigation Measure EM-1, described under "Mitigation Measure for Impact EM-I;' would apply to Impact EM-2. Findings for Impact EM-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified Pacific City Final EIR 29 Findings of Fact and Stateinent of Overriding Considerations as EM-2, are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact EM-3. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The proposed project would result in development on a portion of the site underlain by mineral resources. A loss of direct access to mineral resources would result, although slant drilling would be feasible to access this resource despite on-site development. Findings for Impact EM-3. The City finds the impact identified as EM-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-3. Construction activities would temporarily increase soil exposure to wind and water erosion. Trenching, grading, and compacting associated with construction of structures, modification/relocation of underground utility lines, and landscape/hardscape installation could expose areas of soil to erosion by wind or water during these construction processes. As the site is currently undeveloped, it is currently exposed to the potential for erosion. The addition of paved and landscaped areas would, over the long term, decrease the potential for erosion because fewer exposed soils would exist on site. Compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements and the CBC requirements would minimize impacts. Findings for Impact GEO-3. The City finds the impact identified as GEO-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-3. No residual contamination is anticipated that would affect visitors and residents of the proposed project. Although remediation of oil-impacted soils at the project site resulting from former oil production activities have mostly been completed, there remains a possibility that some contaminated soil could remain that may not have been detected. Remediation remains underway, and some remediation would occur during project construction in conjunction project construction. As such, any residual oil contamination remaining in the soil would be detected and properly mitigated prior to operation of the proposed project. Findings for Impact HAZ-3. The City finds the impact identified as HAZ-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Hydrology and Water Duality Impact HYD-1. The proposed project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, result in substantial sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The project would be required to comply with all NPDES permit requirements during and post construction, and would comply with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements and other applicable requirements with respect to excavation and grading which would ensure that impacts with 30 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations regard to pollution in stormwater discharges would be less than significant. In addition, all feasible Best Management Practices and a Water Quality Management Plan would be implemented. Impacts related to water quality during project operation would be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Findings for Impact HYD-1. The City finds the impact identified as HYD-1 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact HYD-2. The proposed project would alter the drainage patterns of the site, but not in a manner that would create substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation on or off site, or result in substantial additional polluted runoff. While the proposed project would alter the direction of stormwater flows, the drainage alterations to the site and adherence to the requirements of the NPDI.S permit and the WQMP would not result in exacerbation of localized flooding. The dry weather flow for Drainage Area "B" can be routed into Area "A" and to the ASWPS, in order that, at the City's discretion, these flows may be routed for treatment by OCSD. All flows, both dry weather and storm flow, would be treated in accordance with the City's MS4 Permit and other applicable City requirements and standards. Findings for Impact HYD-2. The City finds the impact identified as HYD-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact HYD-3. The proposed project would contribute to a reduction of flows to the over- capacity Atlanta Stormwater Pumping Station. The ASWPS has a capacity deficiency of about 574 cfs. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net reduction of about 85 percent. Design flows to the ASWPS can therefore be reduced from 1,125 cfs to 968.8 cfs as a result of the diversion of stormwater flows and the capacity deficiency reduced from 574 to 396 cfs. Stormwater flows to the ASWPS would be substantially reduced and fall below the design capacity of the ASWPS. Findings for Impact HYD-3. The City finds the impact identified as HYD-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Land Use and Planning Impact LU-1. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable land use plans,policies, and regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan and with the Downtown Specific Plan. At the time these documents were prepared, the City evaluated and determined that the uses identified for the project site were appropriate for the site and fulfilled the City's objectives for the area. Findings for Impact LU-1. The City finds the impact identified as LU-1 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact LU-2. The proposed project would not substantially conflict with existing adjacent permitted uses. The proposed project includes land uses more intense than those surrounding the site and would increase the development density of the area. While the intensity of development would increase, in terms of the number of units per acre and the total mass of Pacific City Final EIR 31 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations development, the increased intensity in land use would not result in inherent conflicts with similar, adjacent uses. The proposed project would result in uses that are permitted within the Districts and would be compatible with similar, surrounding land uses. Findings for Impact LU-2. The City finds the impact identified as LU-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Noise Impact N-1. Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate substantial temporary or periodic noise levels, but would not exceed the standards established in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Most of the types of exterior construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are possible. The highest potential noise levels would be associated with pile driving operations that would occur at intermittent times throughout the construction period. The construction activities and their associated noise levels would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and are temporary in nature. Mitigation Measure for Impact N-1 The following Mitigation Measure was recommended in the EIR to further reduce less-than- significant impacts: MM N-1 Pile driving activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Findings for Impact N-1. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project,which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified as N-1, are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact N-2. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate or expose persons off site to excessive groundbome vibration. Construction activities that would occur under the proposed project have the potential to generate low levels of groundbome vibration. However, the construction activities and their associated noise levels would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, they would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences. Findings for Impact N-2. The City finds the impact identified as N-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact N-4. The proposed project would generate increased local traffic volumes, but would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Locations in the vicinity of the project site could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of an increase in the on-site population and resulting increase in motor vehicle trips. The proposed project would 32 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.4 dBA Lm which is inaudible/imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance. Findings for Impact N-4. The City finds the impact identified as N-4 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Population and Housing Impact P-1. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth beyond current growth projections established by the City. Residential units would be expected to accommodate 1,419 persons. The project would directly generate 476 employees and indirectly generate (through accommodation) 120 additional employees. Population and employment levels would remain within the City and Southern California Association of Governments' forecasts for the City of Huntington Beach. Findings for Impact P-1. The City finds the impact identified as P-1 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Public Services Impact PS-2. The proposed project would add residential and visitor-serving uses to the area, and would increase demands on police protection. As the HBPD is currently functioning at minimum levels, the addition of the proposed project could affect the Department resources. However, the City is not considered a high crime area that experiences a disproportionately large number of crimes in comparison to other areas in the region. Persons on-site or elsewhere in the City would not be exposed to increased risks as a result of the additional demands on the police department. Mitigation Measure for Impact PS-2 The following Mitigation Measure was recommended in the EIR to further reduce less-than- significant impacts: MM PS-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Findings for Impact PS-2. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified as PS-2, are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact PS-4. Existing lifeguard services would be adequate to serve increased use of the beach area resulting from additional residential and visitor-serving uses. Project implementation would result in a higher level of activity within the Downtown area of Huntington Beach and a corresponding increase in attendance at the adjacent City beach. The Huntington Beach Marine Pacific City Final EIR 33 Findings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations Safety Division has indicated that no impact is anticipated on the ability of lifeguard services to adequately serve the beach area on a day-to-day basis. Mitigation Measure for Impact P54 The following Mitigation Measure was recommended in the EIR to further reduce less-than- significant impacts: MM PS-6 The Applicant shall develop and institute a Beach Safety and Maintenance Awareness Program to be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Department. The Program shall include (1) informational disclosures (i.e., handouts) to all residents and hotel guests and (2) posting of signs on site. Program materials shall include but would not be limited to the following items: ■ Beach safety guidelines related to swimming, tides, sun exposure, and other potential risks from beach use ■ City Regulations on the use of beach property, including permissible uses of the beach and appropriate trash disposal ■ Identification of penalties imposed for violation of City Regulations The City shall ensure strict enforcement of regulations related to beach use and maintenance. Findings for Impact PS-4. Finding 1. The City finds that the above-identified changes or alterations in the project, which would further reduce the less-than-significant impact identified as PS-4, are herby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are required. Recreation Impact REC-2. Construction effects associated with on-site recreational facilities would not significantly affect the environment over the short term. Potential impacts to recreational facilities are described in Impacts AQ-1, BIO-4, CR-1 through CR-3, GEO-3, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, N-1, and N-2. Findings for Impact REC-2. The City finds the impact identified as REC-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Transportation and Traffic Impact TR-3. Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly adversely affect the operating conditions of roadway segments by increasing traffic volume. Of the 25 roadway segments used in the roadway segment analysis, unsatisfactory LOS is expected at seven roadway segments due to background traffic conditions. The addition of proposed project traffic would not exceed thresholds. None of the study roadway segments has an adjacent study intersection(s) with adverse LOS with the addition of project traffic. 34 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings for Impact TR-3. The City finds the impact identified as TR-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact TR-5. Under the Year 2020 conditions with scenario No. 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings), the proposed project would not adversely affect the operating conditions of roadway segments by increasing traffic volume. Of the 27 study roadway segments, six roadway segments would operate at unsatisfactory LOS without the proposed project traffic. None of the study roadway segments has an adjacent study intersection(s) with adverse LOS with the addition of project traffic. Findings for Impact TR-5. The City finds the impact identified as TR-5 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact TR-7. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the operating conditions of nearby facilities or streets that are part of the Congestion Management Program Highway System (CMPHS). The CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections nearest to the project site include Warner Avenue at PCH, Beach Boulevard at PCH, and Beach Boulevard at Adams Avenue. The intersection of Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard at PCH was also analyzed. Projected intersection operations at CMP intersections would be within acceptable LOS. Findings for Impact TR-7. The City finds the impact identified as TR-7 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Fact TR-8. The proposed project would provide adequate parking. The parking conditions associated with the proposed project consist of off-site parking supply and demand adjacent to the project site, and on-site parking supply and demand provided within subterranean parking structures below both the retail/restaurant/office/hotel and residential developments. Off-site parking after project implementation would only be provided on Atlanta Avenue and First Street. Based on the shared parking demand analysis and with the addition of spaces to be relocated on-site, the total parking demand for the visitor-serving commercial component of the proposed project would be adequately served by the proposed parking supply. The residential parking demand would be based on City code and would, therefore, provide adequate parking within the residential site. The provision of adequate parking on site would ensure that the project would not result in parking demands at off-site locations. Findings for Impact TR-8. The City finds the impact identified as TR-8 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact TR-9. The proposed project would provide adequate vehicular access driveways and would not result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project site would consist of a total of ten customer/service access driveways. Design features proposed to ensure adequate operating characteristics of the project accesses. In addition, project accesses would be designed in accordance with Fire Department requirements for accessibility. Findings for Impact TR-9. The City finds the impact identified as TR-9 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Pacific City Final EIR 35 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ImRact TR-10. The project would not substantially increase roadway hazards. The traffic analysis performed for the proposed project did not identify any roadway hazards. The proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue would be constructed in accordance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment 88-1. In addition, Parking ramps would be constructed as access points into the subterranean garages for the commercial and residential portions of the proposed project at a grade of 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Ramps designed at 15 percent grade have an approximately 50 percent steeper incline than ramps constructed at 10 percent grade,although this would not result in significant roadway hazards. Findings for Impact TR-10. The City finds the impact identified as TR-10 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. ImpactTR-11. The project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Project implementation is anticipated to be consistent with local policies related to transportation, including the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use and Transportation Elements. The project proposes an Orange County Transportation Authority bus turnout on the north side of PCH, west of Huntington Street. Aside from the proposed bus turnout, a bike lane on PCH would be provided. Findings for Impact TR-11. The City finds the impact identified as TR-11 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Utilities and Service Systems Impact U-1. Sufficient water supplies would be available from existing entitlements and resources to serve the proposed project. Project implementation would generate a water demand of 393,915 gallons per day. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed project documented an adequate water supply to serve the proposed project. In addition, the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan concluded that available water supply for the City of Huntington Beach would exceed the water demands of the City, including the proposed project and other planned future developments, over the next 20 years. Findings for Impact U-1. The City finds the impact identified as U-1 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact U-2. The proposed project would be served with adequate water and fire flows. In order to accommodate the water demands of the proposed project, including required water and fire floe rates, the project Applicant has agreed to fund the construction of new water lines on- and off-site to improve the City's distribution system beyond its present capabilities. These improvements to the water pipeline system in the project area would provide the necessary pressure requirements to meet the average-day demand, peak-hour demand, and fire flow plus maximum-day demand of the proposed project as determined by the City and HBFD. Findings for Impact U-2. The City finds the impact identified as U-2 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 36 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact U-3. The proposed project would be adequately served by the wastewater treatment provider, and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or require the expansion or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Regional sewer service to the City of Huntington Beach for the proposed project would be provided through construction of a new sewer connection from the project site to the OCSD's 54-inch diameter Coast Trunk Sewer, which is located at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and First Street. Adequate capacity exists in the Coast Trunk Sewer to serve the proposed project. All discharges to the sewer from the project site would be required to meet OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Findings for Impact U-3. The City finds the impact identified as U-3 to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 7. Feasibility Of Project Alternatives Chapter 4 of the Final EIR examined three alternatives to the proposed project in detail to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2: Reasonably Foreseeable Development; and Alternative 3: Reduced Project Alternative. In addressing the No Project/No Action Alternative, the City of Huntington Beach followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative represents the status quo, or maintenance of the project site in its current state. The purpose of examining such an alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of approving the project with the effects on not approving the project. Currently the project site is vacant and undeveloped, with disturbed or no vegetation occupying most of the site. The southwest comer of the site was recently used as a temporary staging/storage facility for beach cleaning equipment and employee vehicles for the City of Huntington Beach. Since the 31.5-gross-acre project site would not be developed under this alternative, these existing uses and conditions on the property would remain. Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives listed for either the Lead Agency or the Applicant, as no new uses would be developed. Pacific City Final EIR 37 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations In general, no new environmental effects would directly result from the selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in its present state would avoid any environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems that were identified for the proposed project. No changes to view corridors would occur; however, no additional viewing opportunities of the pier and ocean would be provided under this alternative. In addition, although implementation of this alternative would not result in environmental changes to the existing hydrologic or soil conditions at the project site, erosion and siltation may occur due to the current undeveloped nature of the site. In terms of land use, the present state of the project site as a vacant and undeveloped parcel of land would conflict with the City's General Plan land use designations, but would represent a continuation of the existing conditions at the site. The site would remain as an underutilized parcel of land adjacent to the ocean. As such, no significant and adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the No Project/No Development Alternative would occur. Finding for the No Project/No Development Alternative: Finding 3. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. This alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project. The project will provide many benefits, including implementation of the Specific Plan development concept on the site, development of environmentally sound land-use planning, and other benefits as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. These benefits would not be obtained if the No Project Alternative were adopted. The project site is identified for development of the uses proposed in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Thus, development of the site has previously been considered and affirmed by the City. Reasonably Foreseeable Development For this alternative, the foreseeable uses at the project site are analyzed under a maximum build-out scenario on the property with allowed land uses that are designated in the City's Downtown Specific Plan. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed for building intensity within District No. 7 is 3.0 with an allowed maximum building height of eight stories, resulting in a maximum of approximately 1.4 million sf of visitor-serving commercial uses. For District No. 8A, the maximum allowable number of residential dwelling units is 30 units per net acre with an allowed maximum building height of 50 feet. Since the residential component of the proposed project would develop a total of 516 condominiums on 17.2 net acres of land, which represents an average of 30 dwelling units per net acre, the intensity of development within District No. 8A would be the same as the proposed project. Implementation of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would fully meet all of the objectives established for the proposed project. Under the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative, the current site would be developed to the same site coverage but would include a greater intensity (approximately twice 38 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations as much) of visitor-serving commercial development when compared to the proposed project. Impacts to resources that would be greater than the proposed project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy and Mineral Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts to Biological Resources and Cultural Resources would remain the same as the proposed project. Significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality and Traffic would be greater under this alternative than the proposed project. Finding for the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative: Finding 3. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. This alternative is less desirable than the proposed project. This alternative would increase the magnitude of environmental impacts on the site without substantially furthering project objectives or providing additional project benefits. Proposed Project The project proposes development of 31.5 gross acres of currently vacant land bound by First Street on the west, Huntington Street on the east, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the south, in the Downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed Pacific City project consists of a visitor-serving/neighborhood commercial-retail center, a residential village, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements. Approximately 10.6 net acres of the project site adjacent to FCH would be developed with up to 400 rooms of hospitality (i.e., hotel) and up to 240,000 square feet (so of visitor-serving commercial uses that are proposed to include retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment facilities, with approximately 1,542 parking spaces in a subterranean garage. The approximately 17.2-net-acre northeastern portion of the project site would be developed with 516 condominium homes at an average of 30 dwelling units per net acre, in accordance with density levels set forth in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. A total of 1,291 parking spaces in a subterranean garage and approximately 19 on-site surface parking spaces would be provided to serve this residential component. In addition, pedestrian corridors would be provided through the site to improve pedestrian access between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential and commercial components. Several accessways to the beach area south of the project site are also proposed. The proposed project has been designed to conform to the existing land use and zoning designations in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The primary difference between the proposed project and the Reduced Project Alternative is that the proposed project would result in 240,000 sf of visitor-serving commercial uses, and the reduced project would result in 191,100 sf of visitor-serving commercial uses. Finding for the Proposed Project: Finding 3. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The proposed project is less desirable than the Reduced Project Pacific City Final EIR 39 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Alternative and rejects this proposal. The proposed project would result in more severe environmental impacts without a substantial increase in project benefits when compared to the Reduced Project Alternative. 8. Statement of Overriding Considerations When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision making body of the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. The Lead Agency must state in writing the specific rationale to supports its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impact The proposed project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Air Oualitv 1. Peak construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. 2. Daily operation of the project would generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Transportation and Traffic 3. Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue by increasing traffic volume. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted all feasible Mitigation Measures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures would lessen the impacts, they would not reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. As a result, to approve the Reduced Project Alternative, the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for approving the project in spite of the significant environmental effects. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen nearly all of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR relative to the Reduced Project Alternative; that is, there are no significant impacts that will occur with the implementation of the mitigation measures related to Aesthetics, 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, and Utilities and Service Systems. 40 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Nonetheless, certain significant impacts identified in the Final EIR for the project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These are project specific impacts to Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic. Further, there are no feasible alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these significant and unmitigated impacts on Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic. For these significant environmental issues, identified as Impacts AQ-1, AQ-2, and TR-1, the City finds that notwithstanding the disclosure of these significant unavoidable impacts, there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other reasons for approving this project. The City has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects related to Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic. The City finds that implementation of the proposed Pacific City project would result in a range of benefits to the City. The project would result in development of an underutilized parcel in the City, resulting in the following benefits: 1. Implementation of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), the identified blueprint for development in the City Once land use policies identifying a particular use for a site have been adopted, those policies should not be reconsidered when a development project is proposed. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553. Reconsideration of land use policies in the context of a development application fails to achieve the objective of comprehensive, long-range planning for an area. The proposed project meets the standards identified in the planning documents that apply to the site and succeeds in implementing these standards. The project site is designated as General Plan Subareas 4C and 4I. The Subarea 4C designation applies to the commercial-visitor designated portion of the site and includes the following provisions: establish a unified "village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses; incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open spaces for public activity; and provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. The Subarea 4I designation applies to the residential portion of the project site and includes the following provisions: establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions'; allow for the clustering of mixed-density residential units and integrated commercial sites; and require variation in building heights from two to four stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. The DTSP identified that the City includes miles of prime public ocean frontage, although numerous vacant and under-utilized parcels existed across from the beach. The purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan is to encourage the revitalization of this area by providing for orderly development and improvement within the Plan area. The site lies within DTSP Districts 7 and 8A. Section 3.2.3 of the Downtown Specific Plan identifies that District No. 7 should be master- planned as a primarily visitor-serving commercial project, and hotel, motel, restaurant, and specialty commercial uses are appropriate. Section 3.2.4 of the Downtown Specific Plan identifies that in District No. 8A, high-density residential uses are most appropriate. Pacific City Final EIR 41 Findings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations .Alternatives to the general land uses proposed at the project site were also evaluated on a programmatic level in prior environmental documentation. These documents include (1) The Huntington Beach DTSP EIR 82-2 and Addendum to SEIR 82-2; (2) The Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR 94-9; and (3) The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2. The City determined that the uses identified in each of the three planning documents, which included the project site, were appropriate and fulfilled the City's objectives for the larger planning area. The alternatives identified in these documents did not substantially reduce significant impacts and/or did not meet objectives for the area. Thus, the allowable uses and alternatives to these uses were considered on a macro-level within the Program EIRs identified above. 2. Enhance the Downtown area as a destination by providing additional hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities The project would provide approximately 400 hotel rooms and 190,000 square feet of commercial uses under the Reduced Project Alternative, including retail, restaurant, entertainment, and cultural facilities. These uses would bring additional visitors to the Downtown area by providing the facilities necessary to serve visitor demands and thus further contribute to revitalization of the area. Commercial facilities would also serve the needs of local residents by providing additional retail services within the Downtown. 3. Provide 516 units of needed housing within the City including affordable housing units Additional market-rate housing is needed in the City. The homeowner vacancy rate in the City is 0.9 percent, which is lower than the statewide average of 1.4 percent for owner-occupied units, and is indicative of the overall high demand for housing within the City. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) has identified a 1998-2005 future housing need for Huntington Beach of 2,015 units. All Pacific City housing construction would be completed by 2010, at which time a new set of RHNA numbers will be applicable to the City. Nonetheless, the project would contribute 516 units to the housing needs in the City. Affordable housing is one component of the housing needs in the City. The 1998-2005 RHNA identified the need for 388 and 255 units of very low and low income housing, respectively. As stated above, a new set of RHNA numbers will be applicable at the time project housing construction is completed, and affordable housing units are anticipated to remain in demand. Affordable housing would be provided by the proposed project through a combination of units on- and off-site. Assuming all units are provided within the Merged Redevelopment Project Area, a total of 78 units of affordable housing would be provided and contribute to the affordable housing supply in the City. 4. Provide additional jobs in the City and expand the City's commercial base The project would directly generate 476 employees and indirectly generate (through accommodation in office space) 120 additional employees in the proposed office component of the project, for a total of 596 employees. SCAG predicts that the number of jobs in the City will increase relative to population and households from 2000 to 2010, providing additional employment opportunities for a growing population, and the project is consistent with this 42 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations pattern. The employment provided by the project would result in implementation of growth that has been envisioned for the area. 5. Increase opportunities for views and use of the Pacific Ocean as a visual resource There is currently no public access to the project site, from which expansive views of the Pacific Ocean are available. The project site would include two public plazas and a 20-foot wide public access corridor to facilitate movement through the site. These on-site open space areas open to the public would provide access to the scenic resource of the Pacific Ocean from the site. For the reasons stated above, and based on the substantial evidence in the record before it, the City finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects related to the impacts on Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic are acceptable, and furthermore, finds that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Pacific City Final EIR 43 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A. INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific City project (State Clearinghouse r2003011024) identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geotogv and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities. The California Environmental Quality .Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resource Code j21081.6). The Aitigation iVtonitoring Program (Mib1P) shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the PaciFc 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 monitor in 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 EIR 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implemenlafion Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documenfalion Monitoring Aclivif riming Date AesOtelkS . . MM AES-1:To Ore extent feasible,the AppGranl shag use nonreMetive facade treatments, Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning such as malle paint w glass coatings.Building materials shall be consistent with Ore City building pans Ior issuance of budding Ilrhan Design Guidelines,and reflective glass slag not constitute a primary exterior inclusion of features pemdl material.Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed prgect,the Applicant shag indicate provision of these materials on One building plans. MM AES-2:The fighing plan slag include provisional measures to limit nighttime Lighting Phan Review and approve Plan check prim In Planing illumination during periods of log.Measures may include but would not he limited(o building plans In issuance of building _ reduced foot-candle Illumination levels ar reduced number of lighting futures in use. inclusion of features permit tin Quality .. MM AC-1:The project devetopods)slag require by contract spedficalions 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 budding plans grading and budding issuance of grading manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction.Contract specif"fion plans for inclusion pural language shag be reviewed by the lily prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-2:The project developer(s)shag requite by contract specifications that Notes on grading and Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning construction-related equipmul,including heavy-duly equipment.motor vehicles,and bhcMmg plans gracing and building issuance of grading _ padatde equipment,shall he turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. pans for inclusion permit Cwuad specification language shall he reviewed by We City prim to issuance of a grading pond. AIM AQ-3:The project devefopeds)shall encauage conbacars to utilize alternative fuel Notes an grading and Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning construction equipment(i.e.,compressed wheat gas,liquid petroleum gas,and unleaded building plans grading and building Issuance of grading gasoline)and low emission diesel construction equipment to On exlenl that the equipment plans for inclusion permit is readily available and cost effective.Contract specification language shag be reviewed by the City prig to issuance of a grading permit. AIM AO-4:The project developer(s)shag require by contract specifications that Notes on grading and Review and approve Plan check prim to Planning construction operations rely an the electricity infrastructure surrounding Ure construction budding pans grading and building issuance of grading sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the plans for inclusion permit/ extent feasible.Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-5:The pmiml devel pw(s)shall Implement dust control measures consistent with Notes on grading plans Review and approve Phan check print to Planning SCADMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust during the construction phases of new project grading plan lot issuance of grading _ development.Conrad specificatmh language shag be reviewed kc inclusion of lids inclusion permit language by One City prior In issuance at a grading permit.The blowing actions are woently recommended to implement Rule 403 and have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 perwnl depending an the source of the dust genaation: Apply water andAn approved nontoxic chemical sod stabilizers according to manufacturers specification to all inactive construction areas(previously graded areas Oral have been inacive lot 10 or more days) xx Replace ground cover in disWrhed areas as quickly as possible Enclose,cover,water twice daily,or apply approved chemical sod binders to exposed piles with 5 percent or greater sift cement 2 City of liu tingtr each Millgatton Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monilor Signature Dale • Water uWcs will be utilized on die site and shag Ice available to be used Woughout de day during site grading to keep tie sal damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations.Water active grading sites at least twice daily • Suspend ad excavating and grading operations when wind speeds(as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30 minute period • All trucks hautirg did,sand,soil,or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at loasl Iwo feet of freeboard(i e.,minimum vertical distance between top of Die load and de lop of the trader),in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code • Sweep stints at the end of the day • Install wired washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, of wash off bucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip on a gravel surface la Prevent did and dust Iron impeding the surrounding areas • Apply rater Wee times daily or chemical sal stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved Parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces • Post and enlarce traffic speed limits at 15 mites per hour or less on ad unpaved roads MM AQ-fi:The project developer shag include in consWclion and sales contracts the Notes on budding plans Review and approve Plan check prior to planning following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective to reduce pmjed-related drddmg plans and issuance of building slalionary and area source eaussions: and contracts for inclusion permit • Use solar or low-emission waler healers in The residenlial,office,and visilor-serving Sales Contracts imunicidal buildings • Provide energy-efficienl heating with automated controls to de residential,office,and vloilor-serving camrmrcial iwidings • Use enegy-effidenl cooking appliances In tie in the residential and visits-serving commercial buildings • If fire places are provided in new residential units,install the lowest emitting Replace; commercially available at die time of development • Require that contract Wndscapers providing services at Vie project site use electric or battery-powered equipment,a internal combustion equipment Ihm is either certified by Die California Air Resources Board or is Three years old or less at the time of use. Contract specification language stall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a buddug permit. MM AQ-7:Tim project developer shag include in mnsbuction and sales contacts for the Notes on building plus Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning commercial and offices uses on site that preforengal parking spaces be provided far and Sales Contracts building plans for issuance of budding mrpools and vanpools.Contract specification language slag be reviewed by the City prior specified creamnm and permit to issuance of a hwlding permit.A minimum of 7'2-of vertical clean no shad be provided in the parking structure Is vanpool access.Inclusion of the vertical clearance shall be verified on bidding plans priorReview and approve to issuance of a budding permit. contract for inclusion Pacific City EIR 9 Mitigation Monftoring Prograin Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verilkaflun llffi atlon Measure Documenlallan Monitoring Aclivil Timing hlonitor Signature Date Biological Resources MM BI04:II before the slad of consWclion,subslntial growth of native vegetation or Feld survey observation Review field survey Plan deck prior to Planning sensitive habitats has occurred or the project site as determined by a qualified biologist, shag be completed to notes,and as Issuance of grading then special status plant or Imtdtal surveys shag be conducted during the appropriate Iran determine if substantial necessary, permit of the year prim to cmrstruclian of the proposed project,to delermbw the presence or growth of native Review and approve absence of special status plant species or habitats.Iheso surveys shah be conducted vegetarian of sensitive recommendations and during the appropriate bdoonfi g period as determined by a qualified bio"isl.If any of haldlals exists;and if so, these species are found to be present on the proposed project site,then measures would vegetative or habitat any other relevant be developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies,it the status of the survey reports shah be documents per this species and the sae of the population warrant a fading of significance.Appropriate prepared as necessary.If mlgation. measures may Include avoidance of the populations,rolontion,or pm chase ase of otfsde a finding of significance Is populations for Inclusion to nearby open space areas.A City-quaffed biologist shall made,then appropriate present recommendations to the city for review and approval.Any subsequent avoidance, Implementation document relocatfon,or other rtiligafen strategics required to reduce Impacts to a less than- for this mitigation will vary signi icaril level shah be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permil. acardmg e Note:Responsible party for implementation is the City-qualified biologist who Is to iecommendafions. survey at the request of the Planning Department The following mitigation measure is recommended to(unifier educe loss-gran-significant Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check prim to Planning impacts: grading plans for issuance of grading MM BIO-2:Grad"ng shah begin at the porimelet,near existing nesidences,and proceed inclusion permit toward Ile center of the site. Cultural Resources - MM CR-I:Monitor grading and excavaliorn Im archaeological and paleontological Proof of relention of Verily retention of Ptah check prior to Planning msources: archaeological and qualified monilors, issuance of grading (a)1 he Applicant shall arrange tar a qualified(as defined by the Cartage County paleonldogical mother permit ArchaeofoylaBf'aleunlnlogical Creation Project)professional artlenol gical and and monitoring reports Periodic hold d Iluoughoud ground- paleondological modlue to be present dining demoblion,grading,benching,and other check disimbing activities excavation on the project site.The Applicant shall also contact the appropriate Gatnelinr and Juaneno tribal representatives la determine whether either group desires Native American moridorlg rf grading adNities.II Native American monitors are requested,the Applranl shah anarge Ica the monitoring with tribal representatives. Additionally,prior to project conshudiot,construction personnel will be informed of tho potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological resources,and instructed In the identification of fossils and other poumttal msmacrs.AN construction personnel will be informed of l%need to slop work on the project site until a Writed ardmeofoglst or paleontologist has been provided gee opportunity to assess the significance of Ilea fed and implement appropriate measmos to protect or scientifically remove the fund.Construction personnel will also he informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. (h)It archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities,all crosbuckan acdvilfes wilidn 50 feet of the find shah cease until the ardaadogishpafoontologisl evaluates the significance of the resource.In the absence of a determination,all archaeological and paleontological resources shah be crnsldered sigiufcand.It the msomce is determined to be significaml.the archaeologist 4 City of Fluntingtr each Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity riming Monitor Signature Date ar paleontologist,as appropriate,shag prepare a research design for recovery of the resouces in consultation with the Stale Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the ropuremods of Section 21083.2Ill CEOA,as well as Chapter 3 and Apperefices E.F. and G of the Creation Project.The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a repot of gee excavations and findings,and shall submit lire repot far pact review by three Conty-cerGfhed arcmeolorpsls of paleontologists.as appropriate.Upon appeoval of gm report,fire Applcanl shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Carder at Gahlumia Stale University,Fullerton,the Cafifemta Coastal Commission,the City of Huntington Beach,via Orange County Archaeollialeo Resource Managemanl Facility(APRMF),and(he Orange County Historic Programs Office. (c,) Monitored grading at the location of CA-ORA-158214 shall involve the removal of refuse deposit in 15 to 20 cm layers using a skip loader.A8 materials shall be deposited in small to medium piles for scanning by archaeologists for diagnostic materials.If the resource atimuntene d consists of complete o newly complete arglacls from CA-ORA- 150211,then artttacs shall Ire cleaned and cataloged,in accordance with the requirements of Ilia Creation Project,Ion creation at a facihly within Orange County that is acceptable to the City of f hehlbgllon Beach.The ap ifiwnl shag be responsible for paymem of all applicable creation fees,and the creation conuod shall specify that materials shall Ire available for loans to educational institutions.No further study would be required. (d) hi fire event of the discovery on the project site of a burial,human bane,o suspected human bona.,all excavation of grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and Ow area of fire find will be protected.II a qualified archaeologist is pfeseml,he/she will determine whether the lane is human.g the archaeologist determines that the bone is human,or in the absence of an archaeologist,the Applicant mineediatcly win nofity the City Planning Department and the Orange County Conner of the find and comply with life provisions o1 P.R.C.Section 5097 with respect to Native American Involvement.hnnial treatment,and reburial. Mill CR-2:Scientific recovery of archaeological resources associated with CA ORA 149: Research design and Review and approve Prior to onset of Planning The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist(as defined by the Orange County recovery plan research design and grading on or near site Deparlmanl to _ Archaeological/Paleontological Curation Project)to develop and implement,in consultation recovery plan CA-ORA-149 and vanity with the Stale Office of Historic Preservation,a research design and recovery plan for during grading as relenfion of remaining elements of CA ORA 149.The recovery plan shag emphasize data collection In needed archaeologist; Locus A.between Test Units 1 and 2,as well as on a core area of Locus B,centered SIIPO to around Test Unit 4,and shall he designed to satisfy the:requirements of Section 21083.2 of Cf:OA,as well as Chapter 3 and Appendices E.F,and G of the Creation Projec. review plan Energy antl Mineral Resources Tim fallowing witigatimn measune is recommended to lather reduce less-than-significant Energy Conservation Plan Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning impacts: to be submitted with energy conservation issuarme of budding _ MM EM-1:Thu proposed ptoject shad implement a ever9Y conservation W that could Project Building Plans plan pem it include,but would not be limited Ia.measums such as energy efficient lighting,and healing,ventilation,and air conditioning systaras(HVAC)controls to reduce the demand of elechicly,and mnural gas.the energy conservation plan shag be subjed to review and approval by this City Building and Safely and Planning Departments pile to the issuance of budding permits. Pacific City EIR 5 Mitigation Morlitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification hfitlgaOun Measure Documentation Moniforfn Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date Geology and Sods MM GEOA:The grading plan prepared Ire due proposed project shall contain the Soils and Geotechntcal Review and approve Plan check prior to Pluming recommendations of the fmat soils and geoleclMnl analysis preµaned pursuant to CR analysis;Notes on ra g dreg grading and building issuance of budding o _ GEO A,as approved by the City.These recommendations shall be implemented In the and balding plans plans for Inclusion of grading permit design of the protect,including but nol limited to measures associated with site soils and geotechnical preparation,fig placement and conhpaclion,seisirk design fealuos,excavation slabtily recommendations and shoring requirements,dewalerirg,establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,cement type and corrosion measures,surface drainage,erosion control, ground improvements-Isunami protection,and plan review.All geotoemical n mommeMalmns provided in the soils and groloc meal analysis shag be implemented during site preparation and construction activities. For reference,the leA of CR GEO-A follows: CR GEO-A:Prior to recordation at tie Grist map,a qualified,Licensed Engineer slag prepare a detailed soils and geotectimcal analysis.This analysis shall intlhde Phase II Envuonmenlal on site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading,chemical and W properties,hqueacbrin,foundations, landscaping,dewalerbg,ground water,nelainirg wags,payment sections ark]utilities. Iaxardous Materials .. MM HAZ4:Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit,a Registered Environmental Site inspection report;sot Review and approve Plan check prim to Fee Assessor shag perform a site inspection to identify the polemist for presence of PCBs on sampling resdis and site site inspection report; Issuance of grading Department _ Die site.It the polenlial for PCBs exists,then the Applicant shag,in cortsugafion with the remediatoh plan and and any other required Wait City of Huntington Beach,sample sod surrounding the affected areas to identity the extent documentation of plans and of contamination.Contamination shag be remedaled in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and remediat'an,it necessary; documentation,as HAZA. necessary MM HAZ-2:Prior to The issuance of a grading permit,sampling shag be performed In the Soil sampling results Review and approve Plan check prior to Fue area idengged in Figure 3.7.1 as'Atea W The extent of sampling shall be determined by sampling results and Issuance of grading Department the f lunfinglon Readh Fire Department as that which is appropriate to eharac n ze the remedatiun plan permit extent of any potential cmdaminatm In Area D.Cor aminalion shag be remedated in accadarcrt with LIM IiAZ-3 and IIAZA. MM HAZ-3:Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the Applicant shag,In consultation with Benediction Plan Review and approve Plan check prim to Fire Die City of Huntington Beach and other agencies,as required,formulate a mmedialron plan Remedalion Plan lot issuance of grading Department _ for further soil runami abon gal exists on the project site.The plan shag include Ihoroughness and permit prazedmes Ire remedialion of the project site to tie City of Hunlinglon Beach standards. completeness Pudic Works, Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Planning,Pubic Woks,and Fire Departments in accordance with City Specification No. 431.92.Tie plan slat include methods to minimize remedialiomrelated impacts on the Panning surrounding properties,including processes by which all drainage associated with the remediation effort shag he retained an site and an wastes or pollutants shall escape the site and requirements to provide wind barriers around mundalan equipment.Quat6ed and licensed professionals shall perform the remodalon activities and all work shag be performed under the supervision of Um City of lluntnglon Beach. 6 City of Huntingb •ach Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Miligalion Aleasura Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Si nature Date MM HAZ-4:Clasure reports or other reports acceptable to the City Fee Department that Closure reports or other Review and approve Man check prior to Fee document the successful completion of required remedialion activities for contaminated reports acceptable to the closure reports or other issuance of grading Department suds,In accordance with City Specification 431-92,shall be submitted and approved by fire City File Department that reports acceptable to permit City Foe Deparmenl prior to issuance of grading pounds for site development.No dommenl the successful the CityRne De Ile Menl construction shag ocau urhaile wW reports Iravu been accepted by the City.Closure completion of required that dommenl the reports will rot be required in Ile area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as'Anoa C'until reeediation activities successful completion of remediagon of this area has asserted as pan of project construction;these reports will he required remediabon required pursuant to MM HAZ-b.If remedialion is necessary pursuant to MM HAZ3,then activities sod remediation pamils shag be issued. MM HAZ•5:In Ore event thel previously unknown sod contamination that mold present a Site HeallhlSafely Plan Review and approve Plan check prier to Fire great to human health or the environment is encountered during construction,construction grading and budding issuance of grading Department activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination scrag cease immediately.A risk Risk Management Plan plans for inclusion permit management plan shag be prepared and Implemented that(1)identifies the contaminants of concem and the potential risk each conommant would pose to human health and die enviorunenl drufng construction and post development and(2)describes measures to be taken In protect vrunkers and gre public front exposure to potential site hazards.Such measures could include a range of options,including,but not limited to,physical site controls duig construction,remodiation.king-lenn monitoring,poshdevelopmeni maintenance or access limitations,a some combination thereof.Depending on To nature of conlanrbobon,it any,appropriate agencies shag be nofified(e.g..City of Ilunlingtun Beach Fie Department).A site health and safely plan dial meets OSHA requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to the cammumemenl ul work in any contaminated area. The developer shall ensure proper knptemenetlon at file health mid solely plan. MM I1AZ.g:Closure lepers decumenling the successful completion of requited Remediatian dos ire Review and approve Plan dock prior to Fire remediation activities for(1)areas adjacent to the existing water main on site and(2)areas report(s) closure repents) Issuance of building Department of archaeological sensitivity shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department permit pnor to issuance of building permits In Bose areas. MM IIAZ-7:Where construction is proposed over abandoned oil wells,de developer shall Documentation of Review and approve Plan check prior to File ransed with DOGGR to determine it phig or ieplug of wells is necessary.Prior to the consultation with Div of documentation issuanco of grading Department issumm of gradng permits,gre Applicant shag submit evidence of consultation with Del,Gas and Goothermal Point DOGGR indicating wells have been plugged or abandoned to current DOGGR standards. Resources MM IIAZ-g:In the event Hot abandoned od wells are damaged during construction, Notes m grading plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire construction activities shag cease in the immediate vicinity immediately.Remedial plugging and grading plans fa issuance of grading Department _ operations would be requited to unplug the allotted Wells to current Department of inclusion permit,and as Consery itian specifications.Depending on fie nature of sail contamination,it a n ea scary menl plan,as P P dung cry• necessary Uurig appropriate agencies she!be notified(ed.,City of Huntington beach Fire DepatlmenQ. necessary Review and approve Ile developer shall ensure{rupa npleentalion of the reabandonnonl opera in whandonmenl as construction compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. necessary Pacific City EIR 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Veriticalion Mitigation Measure Documentation Alomitturing Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date Hydrology and Water Dually MM HYD-1:Prior to he issuance of grading pounits.Die developer shag submit to the City Tswrami risk management Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning and for approval a plan outlining Waft planning measures to be taken to minimize or reduce and safety plan docummiation issuance of grading Poe _ risks to property and human safety from tsunami during operation.Planning measures penni could include but would not be limited to the following: Department • Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and hotel guests,in addition to posting in public locations on site • Identification of Ne method for banwdssfon of Iwrhand wadi curd wwWngs to residents,hotel guests and persons on site in Om event a watch a warning Is Issued • Identification of art evacuation site lot persons on-site in the event of a tsunami warning Noise .. The following mitigation measure is mcanmended to bother reduce less-than-significant Notes on building plans Review and approve Prior to issuance of a Planning impacts: budding plans for building pemdl Department AIM N-1:Pile driving acliv{ties shall be Roiled to dim fours of 8:00 AM to 6(10 P.M Monday inclusion Public Works Dimugh F"iy. Feld observation or During any pile driving Department review of contractor logs construction activities during any pile driving activity MM N-2:Prior to[be issuance of building pemits for the new multifamily residential units Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Planning and located along First Street,Manta Avenue,and Pacific View Avenue,the project building plans for issuance of budding devefoper(s)shag submd budding plans[hat identity walls or banners of at least 5.5 fact inclusion of design permits[or residential Building and above the pound surface armed eadi exterior ac ivily area(i.e.,private yards,balconies features units located along Safely and recreation areas)Vial lace these roadways.This can be accomplished by constiucling First Sbeel,Atlanta Departments solid wags that match Die budding exterior and inlghing Diem off with 1.&inch II&I, Avenue,and Pacific Plexiglas windows or streets to meet Die height requirement of 5.5 feel.Other means of Vim Avenue, reducing exterior noise levels to 60 dBA I.m less within the exterior activity areas may be implemented so long as an acams"analysis demonstrates that Die alternative means woad in lad reduce die noise to die required level. Population and Housing NAM P-1:Tice Appficanl shad prepare an Alfordabe(lousing Program to the satisfaction of Affordable Housing Review and approve Submittal prior to final Planning and the City Planning A Economic Development Depatments.The Program shad detail Die Pmgmm(AHP) AHP map subrNDal _ provisions for either on-or off-site affordable housing,or a combination of Die two that Execute AMP Execute At nor to meet Din m requueeals of Community Redevelopment Law and City requirements.The p Economic Affordable HousingProgram shad he suboulled to the Phani Department fa review and issuance of first - mg log W Development approval pier to suhmillN of[he final map.The agreement shod)ho executed prior to the building petmil la residential pennon of Departments issuance of the first budding permit la We residential project.The Applicant shall adhere to residential all provisions of Die Program. City of Huntingtr inch Mitigation Monttoring Prograin Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Mornftor Signature Date Public Services MM PS-1:Provide encored,fir rated slaws to each subterranean level tram thin exterior Project Budding Plans Review and approvo Plan check prior to Fire every 300'lineal feel of the building penineler budding plans for issuance of budding Department inclusion permits MM PS-2:Project design shak include ventilation of smoke and products of combustion. Project Budding Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Fio Zoned,mechanical smoke removal system,with manual controls for firelighters shad be building plans In issuance of building Department located in fire fie control room.M emergency punter source is necessary and the system inclusion permits shad also comply with Building Code requineman6 to exhaust CO and other hazardous gases. MM PS-3:Dedicated rounhs for Fire Deportment exclusive use to obsewo,monilot and as Project Building Plans Review and approve Plan check prior to Fire necessary cwbol all emergency systems operation shad be provided.A total of lives building plans for issuance of budding [)apartment _ rooms shad be provided as follows:(I)commercial area and the related subterranean Inclusion permits parking garage;(2)With rise hotel;and(3)msidenlfal garages and dwellings.Rooms shad be located In an exterior location at grade level and have wresuicled access dear-lo-the sky. The[allowing mitigation measure is remname nded to bother reduce less than sgnificanl Documentation of Review and approve Plan check prim to Planning and i ipacls: Consultation and Project documentation and issuance of building Police MM PS-4:Prior to issuance of a buddingrron,the Applicant shad consult the Huntington Budding Plans plans permits V g Departments Police Department regarding We provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures,and shad incurpmabe the Department's recommendations into the plan. MM PS-5:The developer tar the proposed project shall negotiate with the City school Agfeemenl between Review proof of Plan check prior to Planning disiricls regarding school impact lees to address the adverse impacts of the development, Applicant and Seed payment foal map recordalon Department _ thus,ensuing Ifal the new development would bear its fair share of the cost of housing District on srheol impact additional students generated.Tim Planning Depadment shad be provided with a copy of lees and the ageemenl prim to recordation of 0he foal map. proof of fee payment Tba following mitigation measure Is recominended to further reduce less-can-significant Beach Safety and Review and approve Prior to issuance of Community impacts: Maintenance Awareness program document fist cedifcale of Services, _ MM PS-6:Tim Applicant shad develop and Institute a Beach Safety and Maintenance Program document occupancy or final ptomain Inspection of first g Awareness Program to he shag Incl and approved by the Community Services residential unit Depadmenl.Tire Prrgmm stall Include(1)hdmmational disclosures(i.e.,handouts)load residents and hotel guests and(2)posting of signs on site.Program materials shad include bul would not be limited In the following items: • Benda safety guidelines related to swimming,fides,sun exposure,and other potential risks Iran beach use • City Regulations on the use of beacit property,induction permissible uses of the beadh and appropriate trash disposal • Identification of penalties imposed for violation of City Regulations The City shad ensure shicl entorcemenl of regulations related to Mach use and maintenance, Pacific City EIR 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Turing Monitor sinafum Dale Receagon - MM REC-1:The Applicant shall demprsbale compliance with City parkland requwemenls Project Building Plans Review and approve Prior to issuance of Planning and identified on Chapter 254.08 of the City of Hunlinglon Beach Municipal Code.Any on-sile building plans for Iwgding petmil and as park provided in compliance with this section shall be improved prior to final inspection inclusion of parkland necessary,prior to Community (occupancy)of Ow first resldmnlial unit(o0wi than Ow model homes). Issuance of cerfificale Services of occupancy Departments Inspect any parks provided as required TfanspoAation raffle .. MM TR-I:The Applicant shag conuihum a fair share contribution of 22 percent'to the Proof of fair sham ConWm payment Prior to Issue of Public Works insallabot of a third nor0dqund through lane on PCH consistent with gar Orange Courtly payment cargfcate of Department _ MPAH and Calbans Roule Concept Study for PCH.The County of Orange and Caltrans occupancy would complete this improvement.The Applicant's lair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of the first cefificale of occupancy. Note:Applicant is responsible for contribution;Orange County and Caluans are responsible for improvement MM TR-2:A second westbound tight turn lane stall he added on Seapoinl Avenue.The Proof of fair sham Confirm payment Prior to issue of Public Works City shag ensure completion of this Improvement.and the Applicant shag conbthule a fair payment centificale of Department share conbwwllon of 26 ercenl'lu this improvement.The City shall compete occupancy p p Applicant's lab share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of gm first cedificam of occupancy. improvement Note:Applicant is responsible for contribution:City is responsible for improvement MM TR-3:lusted a traffic signal at rust Sheet and Agamla Avenue prior to Issuance of Proof of lab share Confirm payment Prior to issue of Public Works occupancy permits.The City shall provide reimbursement for the balance of the funding of payment City shag complete cenifcale of Department _ improvements frough the Fair Stare Traffic impact Fee account or shall designate credits occupancy against gar project fees to gal acreunl.The City shag ensum complefion of this improvement improvement,and the Applicant shag contribute a law share conubuton of 57 percent'to Ono improvement. Note:Applicant is responsible for contribution;City is responsible for improvement Pair share catcuhation is provided in Appendix 11,TnlTic Impact Analysis Report. Ibid. Ibid. 10 City of lluntinglc act, Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date Widest and Service Systems MM U4:Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component,the Applicant Solid Waste Management Review and approve Prior to issuance of Public Works shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City's Recycling Coordinator.This Plan Solid Waste building pormil Department _ plan shall discuss how the project will implement 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 demotibon-genemled waste from the site.These methods shall include,but shall not be limited to,the following: • Provision of rocycli g 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 combuclion • Scrap wood recycling doing construction Green waste recycling of landscape materials Pacific City EIR 11 ATTACHMENT 3 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT I'O: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Scott Hess, Planning Manager DATE: March 23, 2004 i SUBJECT: 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 (Pacific City) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC, Ethen Thacher, 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 21002 Pacific Coast Highway(31-acre site bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 request: - Subdivide approximately 27.8 net acres(31.5 gross acres) into three parcels for purposes of developing a mixed-use project. One of the parcels (17.2 acres) will be for residential condominium purposes and the other two parcels(4.12 acres and 6.47 acres) are for a commercial/office/hotel development. - Dedicate a 2.03-acre easement for a Village Green Park/open space and a 20-foot wide pedestrian corridor easement with public access. - Dedicate Pacific View Avenue per the Precise Plan of Street Alignment. • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 request: - Develop up to a 240,000 sq. ft. mixed-use project with retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight-story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking. - Develop 516 multiple-family residential condominium units above one and two levels of subterranean parking. - Improve the 2.03-acre Village Green Park/open space easement. - Permit outdoor dining, alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, and dancing within the proposed restaurants, entertainment, and hotel development. - Permit carts and kiosks within the commercial and hotel development. - Allow valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the below grade parking structures. - Allow the number of parking spaces required for the mixed-use project (retail,office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment, hotel, and spa uses) to be based on a shared parking analysis, and to allow tandem parking spaces. 3/812004 4:17:38 PM IU 00 CHOW A.. 80 TSon Qrrtt�,�i�TT11 r � 0 CS ftffk� Am 4 O o,o � o i�o 0o r °CEO OR 4 00° 1. Pacific City Vicinity Map N + W E S City of Huntington Beach Scale t"= 408 Location Map Permit remaining soil remediation activities for the site, which include but are not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling; and on-site remediation. Associated infrastructure improvements including the extension of Pacific View Ave. - Pemlit development on a site that has a grade differential greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point (approximately 26' from the lowest point to its highest point). • Special Permit No. 02-04 request - Allow commercial buildings and the hotel to encroach into the required setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Avenue. - Permit three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures at a slope of 15% in lieu of ntaxinnun 10%. - Permit retaining walls and low-rise patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas. • Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 request: - Allow development within the non-appealable area of the coastal zone consisting of a mixed-use project with associated infrastructure including the extension of Pacific View Avenue. • Pacific Cite blaster Plan request: - Conceptual build out plan of the commercial and residential portions of the site. • Staffs Recommendation: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Pennit No. 02- 20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, Conceptual Master Plan, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the reduced commercial retail project alternative plan based on the following: I. The reduced commercial retail project alternative plan is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of CV-177-sp (Commercial Visitor with a max. floor area ratio of 3.0 and a Specific Plan) and RH-30-sp (Fligh Density Residential with a max. 30 a/gac and a Specific Plan) on the subject property. 2. The reduced commercial retail project alternative plan is consistent with the Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element as it does not impact public access or recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone. There will be a 20 foot wide pedestrian accessway through the project between Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Avenue, and a 2.03 acre Village Green Park. 3. As identified in EIR No. 02-01, the reduced retail commercial project alternative plan is the environmentally superior alternative. 4. The commercial parking structure will be constructed concuncntly with the first phase of residential units. Based on the conditions, subsequent residential phases will be constructed concurrent or following the retail commercial area. 5. There will be adequate parking for the project; a total of 1,542 commercial parking spaces and 1.291 residential parking spaces are proposed. 6. There are several public improvements to be constructed as a result of this project including the extension of Pacific View Avenue; widening of four public streets surrounding the site (Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and a portion of Huntington Street); and traffic signals at the intersections of Atlanta Avenue and First Street, and Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. PC St:df Report 3-23-04 -3- (04srl 2 1TNl/CUP/CDP) 7. 53.8 % of the residential project area (9.28 acres) will be in open space: a 2.03 acre Village Green Park, a 20 It. wide pedestrian corridor easement (.34 acre), and 6.91 acres of common and private open space area. S. The applicant will pay the full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. 9. The public will have the right to use 2.4 acres ofopen space which includes the 2.03 acre Village Green park (casement), the 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, the pocket park at First Street and Atlanta Avenue, and the 20 foot wide pedestrian easement corridor that runs between Atlanta Ave. and PCH. 10. The project provides 15% affordable housing which helps in meeting the City's housing goals. 11. Project is well designed in terms ofstreet layout, building siting, pedestrian access, and architecture. 12. The project is designed to be compatible with adjacent medium and medium-high density residential uses in terms of building layout, site and building terracing, and open space uses. • Staffs Suggested Modifications: Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, Conditional Use Pennit No. 02-20, Special Permit No. 02-04, and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12: 1. The Reduced Commercial Retail Project Alternative plan shall be the approved layout (maximum of 191,100 sq. ft. of visitor serving commercial uses). 2. The below grade parking structures for the residential and commercial developments shall be redesigned to address the detailed comments identified in the Parking Plan Review by International Parking Design, Inc. dated January 14, 2004. 3. The project shall be developed in accord with the Phasing Diagram (Exhibit D-007). Phase Ila (Residential) and Ilb (Commercial Parking Structure) shall be developed concurrently. Building perniils for Phase III (Residential) and other residential phases shall not be issued until Phase Ilb and He are completed, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion. 4. A minimum 25' setback from the property lines at the intersection of PCH and First St. shall be provided for carts and kiosks; provide continuous eight foot wide sidewalk along the PCH frontage without any encroachment of carts and kiosks; a minimum 20 foot wide entryway(without any carts/kiosks) to the project shall be provided from the PCH/First St. intersection; and the minimum 20 foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be consistent with the tract map without any encroachment of carts and kiosks. 5. The outdoor deck/dining areas for the restaurants along PCH on the south side of the Porte Cochere shall have a minimum setback of 25' from PCH. 6. The hotel podium level shall be setback 50' from the PCH ROW and the hotel tower shall be setback ten feet from the podium level consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. 7. Maintain minimum I free and clear (without obstruction) pedestrian path along Pacific View Ave. from First Street to the Porte Cochere entryway for the hotel. PC Stafl'Report 3-23-04 -4- (04sr12 YJ',NJ/CUP/CDP) S. At least 500 parking spaces shall be available for self-parking (not valet) in the commercial parking structure, and that from Labor Day to Memorial day, at least one hour be free parking, and from Memorial Day to Labor Day, at least 30 min. must be free parking. 9. The draft Affordable Housing Plan shall be revised to include the timing of construction for the affordable units. Such timing of the affordable units shall be concurrent with the market rate units at a 15% ratio. In other words, as the 68 units in Phase Ila (Residential) are constructed, at least 10 affordable units (15% of 68) shall be constructed concurrently. Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 is being processed concurrently with these entitlements and is addresses under a separate staff report. It is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 prior to action on these entitlements. Based on the E1R analysis, following approval of these entitlements, a CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. RECOMMENDATION: Ntotion 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 (Attachment No. I) .. B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 8) ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 1038, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12, and the Pacific City Conceptual Master Plan (Applicant's Request) with Findings and Suggested Conditions Of Approval" B. "Deny 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 for Denial." C. '`Continue 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, and direct staff accordingly." PC Staff Report 3"2}_oq -j" (04sr I 2 PROJECT PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract Mao No. 16338 represents a request to subdivide approximately 27.8 acres (31 gross acres) into three parcels for purposes of developing a mixed-use project. One of the parcels (17.2 acres) will be for residential condominium purposes and the other two parcels (4.12 acres and 6.47 acres) are for a commercial/office/hotel development (Attachment No. 3.1 — 3.9) pursuant to Chapters 250 to 258 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). Pacific View Avenue will be dedicated per Precise Plan of'Alignment No. 88-1 and will extend from Huntington Street northwesterly to First Street resulting in two blocks for development. The proposed residential density is 30 units per net acre. The residential parcel will include a 2.03-acre Village Park/open space easement dedicated for public usage as well as a lettered lot for a private access road. Primary access to the proposed residential development will be from the private loop road off Pacific View Ave. Other residential accessways are from First Street and Huntington Street. Primary access to the commercial portion will be from Pacific View Ave. A 20 ft. wide pedestrian casement is proposed through the commercial and residential blocks connecting Atlanta Avenue to PCH as required by the DTSP. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 pursuant to Sections 4.9.01 and 4.10.01 of the DTSP and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 pursuant to Chapter 245 ofthe FIBZ_SO, represent requests for the following: A. To develop a mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses (up to 240,000 sq. ft.), and a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club (Attachment No. 2) above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,542 spaces pursuant to Section 4.9.01 (b) of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) and 231.18.G of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). B. To develop 516 condominium units within a mix of two, three, and four story buildings above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,291 spaces pursuant to Section 4.10.01 of the DTSP and 231.18.G of the ZSO. A draft Affordable Housing Plan has been prepared (Attachment No. 1 1) and indicates that 15% of the total units will be affordable for families of low and moderate incomes. C. To improve a 2.03 acre Village Green Park casement pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. D. To permit alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, and dancing within the commercial and hotel development pursuant to Section 4.9.01 of the DTSP. E. To permit 10,550 sq. R. of outdoor dining (Attachment No. 2.23) area within the commercial retail development pursuant to Section 4.2.33 of the DTSP. F. To permit carts and kiosks (Attachment No. 2.23) within the commercial and hotel development pursuant to Section 230.94 of the ZSO. G. To permit a shared parking analysis to establish the number of parking spaces required for the mixed- use project (retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment, hotel, and spa uses) and for tandem parking spaces pursuant to Section 231.08 of the HBZSO. Per Schedule `A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO, 1,941 parking spaces are required for the Full Buildout Plan (240,000 sq. ft.) and 1,776 spaces PC SmI7Repori 3-23-04 -6- (04sr12 TrNI/CUP/CDP) are required for the Reduced Retail Commercial Project Alternative Plan (191,100 sq. fl.); the project includes 1,542 on-site parking spaces that include 104 tandem spaces. To validate the number of parking spaces for the project, a Parking Demand Analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan dated October 15, 2003 (Attachment No. 6). 1-1. To permit valet service, parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the subterranean parking garage, pursuant to Section 231.18 E.2- and 231.18.G.5. Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions, of the ZSO. 1. To permit any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on-going remediation activities, which may include but are not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. J. To permit associated infrastructure improvements including the extension of Pacific View Avenue pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. K. To permit development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point pursuant to Chapter 230.70 of the "LSO. The site has a 26' grade differential from its lowest point to its highest point. Special Permit No. 02-04 is requested pursuant Section 4.1.02 of the DTSP (Attachment No. 2.22) for the following: A. Allow commercial buildings with outdoor dining and the hotel to encroach into the required setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway (minimum 30 feet in lieu of 50 feet pursuant to Section 4.9.06 of the DTSP) and Pacific View Avenue (nminimum 15 in lieu of20 pursuant to Section 4.9.08 ofthe DTSP). B. To permit three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures at a slope of 15% in lieu of maxinrtnn 10% pursuant to Section 231.18.G.I of the ZSO). C. Permit retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas that exceed the maximum allowed 42 inches in height (Attachment Nos. 2.11 — 2.12) pursuant to Section 230.88 of the ZSO. Pacific Citv Master Plan is requested to comply with Sections 4.9.02 and 4.10.02, Minimunm Parcel Size. of the DTSP and presents a conceptual mixed-use development plan of the entire project site (Attachment No. 4). Proposed ConttnerciallHotel Development(Full Buildout Plan and Reduced Retail Commercial Alternative Plait) A total of seven buildings are proposed for the retail promenade clustered along a crescent shaped pedestrian walkway with a series of gathering areas. There will be a variety of commercial uses within the one, two, and three story buildings including retail, restaurant, entertainment. office, and cultural facilities. Proposed with the 400 room hotel are hospitality uses including a pool, spa, fitness and yoga center, restaurant, lounge, bar, pool area grille, resort retail shops, banquet and meeting rooms, and conference facilities within two eight story towers. PC Staff Report 3-21-04 -7- (04sr12 Trm/cup/CDP) There are two alternatives for development of the commercial/hotel component of the project: a Full Buildout Plan which includes 240,000 sq. ft. of building floor area, and a Reduced Retail Commercial Alternative Plan consisting of 191,000 sq. ft. of building floor area. The Reduced Retail Commercial Alternative Plan excludes the third level of commercial floor area and part of the second floor. Of the total commercial area in either plan, up to 48,900 sq. ft. may be devoted to restaurant space. Any amount of the total commercial square footage allotted to restaurant use but not utilized for such use may be devoted to retail. The following table provides a breakdown of the square footage based on the proposed uses: FULL REDUCED PROJECT PROPOSED USES BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVE, 240,000 SF PLAN 1917100 SF PLAN Retail 141,000 sf 112,200 sf Restaurants/Night Clubs 33,900 sf 43,900 sf Offices 60,000 sf 30,000 sf Total Commercial 240,000 sf 19 1,100 sf Hotel 334,300 sf(400 rooms) 334,300 sf(400 rooms) Banquet/Meeting Rooms 9.300 sf(net) * 9,300 sf(net) Spa 15,000 sf 15.000 sf Hotel Restaurant 5,000 sf 5,000 sf Total Project 603,300 sf 554.400 sf * 16,000 gross sf of meeting and banquet facilities. 9,300 sf net includes meeting and banquet facilities only A total of 10,550 sq. ft. of outdoor dining areas adjacent to the restaurants throughout the project is proposed for both alternatives. Two levels of subterranean parking are proposed beneath the commercial/hotel component of the project area (Attachment Nos. 2.3 — 2.4). A total of 1,542 parking spaces are proposed with ingress and egress to the structure from two access points off Pacific View Avenue. 104 spaces will be in tandem either two deep or three deep. All spaces are standard size; there are no compact size spaces. Valet service parking is proposed off the circular drive adjacent to the hotel. All parking spaces will be either valet parking or paid parking, monitored by an attendant or controlled gates. Three loading areas are proposed, one along First Street, one off Pacific View Avenue, and one off Huntington Street. Pedestrian access from the parking structure to the promenade level is provided throughout the project. Alcoholic Beverq'e Sales, Live Entertainment, Dancing, and Outdoor Dining The proposed restaurants will sell alcoholic beverages indoors and on adjoining outdoor dining areas. In addition, the request includes live entertainment and dancing (Attachment No. 5) to be available outdoors within the retail promenade area, facilities within the hotel, and for the retail promenade restaurants and second story nightclub. A variety of live entertainment is being requested. The proposed live entertainment outdoors in three locations along the retail promenade will include musical bands, magicians, dance demonstrations, public speakers, Cultural activities, etc. The proposed hours are Monday through Sunday from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM. The live entertainment and dancing within the hotel will be part of the hotel's restaurant and ballroom facilities. The proposed hours are Monday through Sunday from 9:00 AM to 2:00 AM. For the restaurants and the second-story nightclub in PC Stan Repon 3-23-04 -s- (04sr12't'rA1/CUP/CDP) the retail promenade, dancing and live entertainment is proposed Monday through Sunday from 11 :00 AM to 2:00 AM. This CUP is for the outdoor live entertainment in the retail promenade and the hotel but not for any restaurants or the nightclub. Prior to any live entertainment uses in any of the retail promenade restaurants and nightclub, a CUP shall be required. In addition, all live entertainment businesses are required to obtain an Entertainment Permit from the Police Dept. A total of 10,550 square feet of outdoor dining is proposed within the Retail Promenade area. The areas proposed for outdoor dining shall be an extension of the proposed commercial establishments on the contiguous property. Those areas proposed for outdoor dining include the restaurant dining terrace areas along PCH, areas adjacent to the proposed cafe and retail fronting plazas within the retail promenade. outside retail establishments along Ist Street, and areas along the neighborhood serving retail along Pacific View Avenue. All of the restaurants and cafes that serve alcohol with outdoor dining areas can be expected to serve alcoholic beverages outdoors. Proposed Residential Development The proposed development consists of 516 multiple family residential condominium Units in four different neighborhoods above subterranean parking (Attachment Nos. 2.34— 2.50). The design includes townhomes and stacked flats in a mix of two, three and four story buildings. Four separate subterranean parking areas are proposed beneath the residential buildings; three are two levels. A total of 1,291 parking spaces are provided with 294 of them designated for guest parking. All spaces are standard size; (here are no compact size spaces. Access to each structure is proposed from the gated loop road; one has a second gated access point from First Street and two others have a second gated access point from Huntington Street. There are 19 spaces proposed on the gated loop road. The applicant's proposal includes 15 floor plans (Attachment Nos. 2AS — 2.50) in four separate neighborhoods as summarized in the following table: Average Phase No. of Units No.of Bedrooms (Sq. Ft.) I — A F 13s 1 850 t — 13 17 2 1,235 t —C 42 2 1,255 1 - D 6 3 1,450 tl— A 38 2 1,750 II — B 34 2 I,860 II —C 29 2 2,220 11 — D 24 3 1,425 III —A 72 2 1,840 III — B 26 2 2.450 111 —C 4 2 2.150 ill— D IS 2 2.350 IV —A 52 2 1.840 IV—B S 2 2,180 IV —C S 2 2.350 TOTAL: 516 PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -9- (04srl217b1/CUP/CDP) The draft .Affordable Housing Plan describes 15% of the total units will be affordable to families with very low, low, and moderate incomes as defined by the Orange County median income levels. Halfofthc Units will be on-site and the other half off-site, and restricted for a period of sixty years. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. In addition, the applicant will be paying 100% of the City's Park Land In-Lieu Fees. Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC has been working on an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School and gooRfwip... school districts regarding the School Facilities fee. H8 City The request also includes development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three feet. Currently there is a grade differential of approximately 26 feet between the low point at the intersection of Pacific View Avenue and Huntington Street (5.7 ft.) and the high point at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue (3 1.7 ft.). The site will be cut for the subterranean parking structures and filled for the remaining areas of the site including Pacific View Avenue. The first level of the commercial and residential buildings above the subterranean parking will be the podium level (30 ft.) except for several residential units along Huntington Street. Those units within 100 ft. of Huntington Street will terrace with the grade change along Huntington Street from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Avenue (Attachment Nos. 2.43 — 2.46). Remediation has been previously approved for the southeastern portion of the site through it separate conditional use permit and coastal development pennit. This 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. The remediation would occur pursuant to the phasing and mitigation measures described in the EIR. Pacific View Avenue is proposed as a two-way road with angled parking on the commercial side and parallel parking adjacent to the residential area (Attachment No. 33 — 3.4) within a 90 ft. right of way area. An ultimate improvement plan has been prepared depicting Pacific View Avenue as a four lane arterial at such time as the traffic volumes warrant the modification. The developer will provide sufficient funds to complete the improvements at that time. A Public Art Element (Attachment No. 13) has been submitted in conjunction with the project. It describes in general six locations for future art. The public art proposed includes various art mediums, which depict an array of sculptures, fountains, and decorative/functional art pieces, which will be displayed in both the Visitor-Serving Commercial District as well as the Residential Area. PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -to- (04si 1217NUCUP/CDP) The project is proposed to be developed in phases (Attachment No. 2.24) as follows: 71laResidential Development e public improvements which includes the ndin public streets - Phase I (6S units) within the loop road area nt to the Villa e Park easement. Ilb Subterranean parking structure for the commercial component and hotel. Ile Retail Promenade (podium level III Residential - Phase II 125 units along g First Street IV Residential - Phase 111 (203 units) along Atlanta and Huntington Street Va Residential - Phase IV (120 units) along Huntington Street and Pacific View Avenue Vb Hotel The ,Master Plan includes discussion of project goals and objectives, design features, a conceptual site plan, a landscape plan, a hospitality hotel, and the residential development. It also describes the vehicular circulation for the project, parking, and pedestrian access. There is a brief discussion of a pedestrian overpass from the site to the South Beach parking lot spanning across PCH. It should be noted that this CUP/CDP does not include the overpass; a separate CUP/CDP will be required at the time the applicant requests approval. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surroundine Land Uses Existing Zoning And f"istine, General Plan Desikitatious: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: CV-1--7-sp (Commercial Downtown Specific Plan Vacant Visitor with max. 3.0 (SP 5) — District 7 (Visitor floor area ratio and a Serving Commercial and Specific Plan) and RI-1- District SA (High Density 30-sp (High Density Residential) Residential with 30 u/gac and a Specific Plan) North of Subject Residential Medium Residential Medium High Multi-family units Property High Density Density-Small Lot (across Atlanta Ave.): Last of Subject Residential Medium Manufactured Home Park Mobilehome park and Property (across Density and Commercial and SP 5 — District 9 Waterfront Hilton Huntin Eton St.): I Visitor Commercial/Recreation) I Hotel PC Staff Repon 3-23-04 -11- (04sr12 TTM/CUP/CDP) South of Subject Open Space-Shore SP 5 — District I 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 designation on the commercial portion of the project is CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor with a floor area ratio of 3.0 and a Specific Plan) and on the residential portion of the project it is R11-30-sp (High Density Residential with a max. 30 a/gac and a Specific Plan). In addition, the project is located within Subarea 4C and 41 of the General Plan. The proposed tentative tract map, conditional use permit, and coastal development permit are consistent with these designations and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as discussed below. A detailed list of goals and policies is incorporated into the conditional use permit findings for approval. A. Land Use Element The mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight-story hotel proposed for the site represents development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that Would attract and complement new and existing retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high- quality visual image and character. It is in conformance with the City's Design Guidelines. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends approval of the design concept. The project provides for adequate access along all public streets, and required parking pursuant to a parking analysis in a two-level subterranean parking structure. The proposed multiple family residential buildings are well articulated and have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. Ground floor units along the perimeter of the residential site are oriented towards the street. The design of the residential subdivision includes four district neighborhoods emphasizing a cluster of buildings around a 2.03-acre village green park with recreational areas and a 20-foot wide pedestrian corridor. Connecting the village green park to Pacific View Avenue is a 65-foot entry corridor that is accessible to either crosswalk on Pacific View .Avenue providing access to the retail promenade. With subterranean parking, there are no garages to dominate the street scene and front yard/patios become activity areas. In addition, there will be a landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb around the perimeter of the site. The residential project is separate from commercial activities by Pacific View Avenue. PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -12- (04sr12"FFNt/CUP/CUP) I There will be surplus parking for the project, a total of 1,542 commercial parking spaces and 1,291 residential parking spaces are proposed. The number of residential parking spaces is based on Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the %SO, and the number of commercial/hotel parking spaces is based on a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. The Analysis indicates that there will be 170 surplus parking spaces at the peak period of the week. There will be public improvements made in conjunction with the project to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. In addition, the developer will be paying required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with the affected school districts. B. Coastal Element The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03- acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced commercial retail project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. C. Economic Development Element The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses, and a 400 room, eight- story hotel development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base and further diversify the range of overnight accommodations. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. D. llousine Element The residential portion of the project is designed for 516 residential units in four different neighborhoods. There will be 15 varied floor plans in a townhome and stacked flat design. The floor plan sizes range from an average of 850 sq. ft. to 2,450 sq. ft. with one, two, and three bedrooms. Also, 15% of the total project units will be affordable for low to moderate-income families. These units will be on-site and off-site. E. Circulation Element The applicant will be constructing Pacific Vicw Avenue, improvements to Atlanta Ave., Huntington Street, First Street, and PCH, and a bus turnout on PCH. The EIR included a detailed traffic analysis to document potential impacts associated with the project. Mitigation would be required for the PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -13- (04sr 12'Il�NUCUP/CDP) intersection of PCH and Seapoint, and PCH and Warner, as well as a traffic signal at 1't 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. F. Recreation and Community,Yervices Element The residential portion of the project is required to provide 4.81 acres of open space area based on 25% of the total residential Floor area. The proposal is for 9.28 acres of common and private open space which represents 53.8'6, of the site. Some of this common area will be accessible by the public including a 2.03 acre Village Green park/open space easement, 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian casement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH. In addition, the applicant will be paying the full (100%) City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. G. .Subarea Schedule Subarea 4C PCIUFirst Street (Commerciallflotel Component) The mixed-use project consists of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses (live entertainment and dancing) and a 400 room, eight-story hotel. The commercial buildings are two to three stories clustered along a crescent shaped pedestrian walkway with a series of gathering areas and plazas for public activity and views to the ocean. A unified, high-quality visual image and character is created by the unique building designs and architecture. There is a 20-foot wide pedestrian walkway through the commercial project from PCH to Pacific View Avenue and then it continues through the residential area connecting Pacific View Avenue to Atlanta Avenue. Along the PCH frontage is a meandering walkway with defined entries at First Street and Huntington Street. Subarea 41 Atlanta-(first Street (Residential Component) -['here are 516 multiple family residential units proposed at a maximum density of 30 units per net acre in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan. The units are in two to four story, well articulated buildings with enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The residential development is consistent with the policies of 9.3.1 to 9.3.3 as noted under the Land Use Element of this section. Incorporated into the project is a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH, which will be open to the public. Zoni»L Compliance: This project is located in Downtown Specific Plan — District 7A (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and SA (High Density Residential) - Coastal Zone and complies with the zoning requirements except for the three special permits requested. A zoning conformance matrix has been prepared (Attachment No. 7) that compares the proposed project with the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan and the HBZSO. PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -14- (04sr12'1T\1/CUP/CDPI Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The proposed reduced project alternative plan is in substantial confornnance with the Urban Design Guidelines, Chapter 5, Downtown/Main Street Commercial. The site planning is imaginative for both the residential and commercial components of the project. Multiple family residential units are clustered within groups of buildings with varying heights. Ground floor residential units around the perimeter of the site are oriented towards the public streets and have entries facing the street with private patio areas. Access to the upper story units is from within the project. There are several small recreational areas, a 20 ft wide public accessway through the project, as well as a 2.03 acre Village Green that are connected by pedestrian walkways to link the residential neighborhoods. The placement and design of the commercial structures facilitates and encourages pedestrian activity along PCH, Pacific View Avenue, and within the retail promenade. The commercial buildings are Clustered in a manner to create plazas and visual links to the street and sidewalks. The unique opportunity to do this is by designing the parking within below grade parking structures. The architectural style creates visual interest that complements the pedestrian plaza areas and walkways rather than detracts from them. Overall, the project design will establish pedestrian-oriented, attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional site arrangement of buildings that provide high quality architecture and design. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Pennit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development No. 02-12, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 02-01 (separate report). Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that Environmental impact Report No. 02-01 be certified as adequate and complete with mitigation measures, findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic. Following approval of the tentative tract map, conditional use permit with special permits, and coastal development pernnit, the Planning Commission must approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. S). PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -1 i- (04sr 12'ITNI/CUP/MP) Coastal Status.- The proposed project is located within the non-appealablejurisdiction ofthe Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Pennit No. 02-12 is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 with Special Permit No. 02-04, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16333 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. 'file proposed project complies with the zoning code (with exception to the requested special permits) and Coastal Zone requirements, and will implement the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan: • Protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide visitor-serving facilities in the Coastal Zone that are varied in type and price. • Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas. • Ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the Coastal Zone. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Main-Pier sub-area. The Economic Development Department has reviewed the request and supports the proposed development because the project will further implement the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project sub-area by: • Providing additional visitor-serving commercial opportunities in the downtown; • Providing additional overnight lodging accommodations; • Providing additional dining opportunities for both visitors and residents of the community at large; • Enhancing local revenues through the generation of sales tax, property tax increment and transient occupancy taxes that will benefit the community at large. • Providing affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project on August 28, 2003, September 4, 2003, October 7, 2003, and November 24, 2003. The Board reviewed the entire set of conceptual architecture and landscape plans. This included the review of colors, materials, design, and plans for the residential condominiums, connnercial/retail buildings, and the hotel building. At each meeting the Board commented on the architectural elements and building mass of the residential and commercial buildings. They made various recommendations to the original plans relative to roof and building faFadc articulation, building materials, and building bulk. After the second meeting, the plans were revised to reflect the Board's recommendations. At the third meeting, DRB had positive comments regarding the revised plans and had no objections to the special permit requests. Some minor changes were recommended. The Design Review Board on November 24, 2003 voted to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the following recommended condition: • Detailed plans of the following project components shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board: a. Elevations, colors and materials of the hotel. b. Final colors and materials of the commercial and residential buildings. c. Public .Art Concept Plan. d. Landscape and hardscape plans on private and public property. PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -I G- (04sr l 2'It-rM/CUP/CD p) e. Planned Sign Program f. Furniture and utilities throughout the project. Subdivision Committee: The Subdivision Committee reviewed tentative Tract Map No. 16338 on October 9, 2003 and October 21. 2003. Staff introduced the proposed subdivision including the Pacific View Avenue extension, the private loop road, street access to the development, and the layout of the condominiums. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the recommended conditions of approval for the tentative map from the Planning Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Community Services Department. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the propose(] tentative tract map to the Planning Commission with some minor modifications/clari fications. The map now reflects certain recommended changes and conditions. Other modifications have been incorporated into the staff recommended conditions of approval. In addition, the Subdivision Committee voted to revise the Assessment District condition as follows: • Revise condition from Department of Public Works requiring the applicant to be responsible for maintaining the medians, and landscaping in the medians. The Committee voted to include applicant's `fair share" for maintaining the medians. Other Departments Continents: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services, Economic Development, and Building and Safety have recommended conditions that are incorporated into the conditions of approval. Public Notification: A notice was sent out on .August 18, 2003 to all property owners of record within a 1,000 R. radius of the subject property, applicant, and interested parties about the Subdivision Committee meetings, Design Review Board meetings, and the two September 2003 Planning Commission Study Sessions. For the March 23, 2004 public hearing, legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on March 11, 2004 and March 18, 2004, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): EIR: Jan. 8, 2003 April 7, 2004 (Includes max. 90-day extension allowed by CEQA) Tentative Tract Map: December 23, 2003 Within 50 Gays from EIR Certification CUP/CDP: December 23, 2003 Within 180 days from EIR Certification PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -17- (04srl2 Ti'MICUP/CDP) ANALYSIS: This is the last major vacant parcel in the downtown area to be developed. The proposed Pacific City project is fulfilling the expectations of the Downtown Specific Plan by proposing a mix of visitor-serving commercial uses to complement the downtown commercial core. The Retail Promenade serves as a link between the Downtown area and the Waterfront Hotel complex. Located along the southern portion of the property is the proposed eight-story hotel, which is compatible with the 12-story Waterfront Hilton hotel. A wide spectrum of visitor opportunities resulting from this project acids to the destination resort image the City has created. North of the commercial promenade is J 16 residential units proposed in a mix of two, three and four story buildings compatible with Surrounding residential development. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations for the property as well as the Downtown Specific Plan density and intensity prescribed for the site. The current Pacific City mixed-use development proposal has been studied with regards to several planning issues over the last three years. During this time, several issues have been identified and addressed through the design review process, community meetings, and an extensive analysis in the project FIR. Below is a discussion of the primary issues and analysis of the special permit request. Land Use Compatibility: Open Space/Puhlic Access The residential portion of the project is required to provide the equivalent of 25% of the total residential building floor area (838.094 sq. ft.) as open space, for a total of 4.81 acres. This represents 27.9% of the entire 1723 acre residential parcel. The proposal is for 6.91 acres of open space which represents 40% of the site as follows: Residential Open Space Summary Location Area (acres) Recreational Areas (4) .49 Common Open Space 4.15 Private Open Space 227 TOTAL PROPOSED: 6.91 Village Green Park 2.03 20 R Pedestrian Easement .34 COMBINED TOTAL: 9.28 In addition, the 2.03 acre Village Green Park/open space area and the 20 ft. pedestrian corridor casement through the project adds 2.37 acres to the project requirement for a combined total of 9.28 acres of residential open space, equaling 53.8 % of the parcel. Also, the commercial portion of the project will have the continuation of the 20 it. pedestrian easement to PCH, and a meandering walkway parallel with PCH from First Street to Huntington Street that will be accessible to the public through public easements. In the retail promenade there will be many plaza areas, open-air commercial activities and view opportunities open to the public as well. PC Siaff Report 3-23-04 -I S- (04sr12 TTbl/CUP/CUP) Grade Differential There is a grade differential of approximately 26 feet between the low point at the intersection of Pacific View Avenue and Huntington Street (5.7 ft.) and the high point at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue (31.7 R.). Because of this varied grade surrounding the site, the finished floor of the commercial and residential buildings above the subterranean parking will be at a grade (podium) level of 30 ft. above sea level. There will be landscaped slopes and retaining walls along the commercial side of the project adjacent to PCH, Huntington Street and a portion of PVA. As the sidewalk along PCH traverses from north to south, it becomes higher than the road the closer one gets to the intersection of' PCH and Huntington. This higher elevation above PCH allows for lookouts for views to the ocean. Most of the residential units will be at grade except several residential units along Huntington Street and a portion of Pacific View Avenue. Those units within 100 ft. of Huntington Street will terrace with the grade change along Huntington Street firom Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Avenue. This terracing combined with the two to four story buildings creates interesting structures and a varied street scene (Attachment Nos. 2.43 — 2.46). Since the perimeter buildings provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, Staff supports the request. Archaeciure The proposed architecture is unique to the Pacific City project yet consistent with Design Guidelines. The commercial portion of the project is a style called Southern California Coastal and is based upon a variety of architectural styles that define the region with Spanish and Mediterranean architecture influence. Exterior elevations are characterized building bases, pedestrian scale, stepping of massing with grade, and roof movement. The residential buildings are designed in four styles of the California Coastal character. They have been categorized as: "Beach Cottage" (craftsman and bungalow tradition); "Southern California Spanish"; "Italianate/ Romantic Mediterranean"; and "Contemporary Coastal". No two adjoining buildings around the perimeter of the site are of the same architectural style creating a residential village appearance. Parkine Number of Poking Spacer All of the required commercial/hotel parking is within two levels of below grade parking; the majority of the residential parking is also within one and two levels of below grade parking. The request includes a shared parking analysis for the commercial/hotel parking based on the proposed mix of commercial uses. Basically, the code allows for a lesser parking requirement when it can be shown that the parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A of Section 231.04 of the ZSO. Below is a table of the required commercial/hotel parking for the Full Buildout and Reduced Alternative Plan pursuant to this Schedule: PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -19- (04sr12-17M/CUP/CDP) FULL CODE BUILDOUT REQUIRED REDUCED ALT. .ZEQUIREI USE REQUIRED PLAN SPACES PLAN SPACES Office 1/250 sf 60,000 sf 240 30,000 sf 120 Restaurant 1/100 sf 38,900 sf 389 48,900 sf 489 Outdoor Dining 1/100 sf 6,100 sf 61 6,100 sf 61 Retail 1/200 sf 141,000 sf 706 112,200 sf 561 Hotel ] .I/Room 400 Rooms 442 400 Rooms 442 - Restaurant 1/100 sf 5,000 sf 50 5,000 sf 50 - Banquet Included 9,300 sf(net) 0 9,300 sf nct * 0 - Health Spa Included 15,000 sf 0 15,000 sf 0 On-Strect 1/1 53 53 Parking Replacement"TOTAL 1,941 1 PROPOSED 1,543 1 17543 * 16,000 gross sq ft of meeting and banquet facilities. 9,300 sq ft net includes meeting and banquet facilities only Although a total of 10,550 sq. R. of outdoor dining area adjacent to the restaurants throughout the project is proposed for both alternatives, only 6,100 sq ft of this area is subject to the one space per 100 sq ft requirement. Several of these areas are small in area and adjacent to the proposed restaurant so there is no additional required parking for these outdoor dining areas. Currently there are 69 on-Strect public parking spaces abutting the property that would be removed as a result of this project due to street widening and reslriping. They are as follows: 27 spaces along PCH, 22 spaces along First Street, and four spaces on Atlanta Avenue; there are no spaces on Huntington Street abutting the property. Of these spaces, 16 will be relocated back onto First Street after project completion. The balance of 53 on-street spaces will be replaced pursuant to the Coastal Zone requirements within the commercial parking structure. It should be noted that when Pacific View Avenue is completed there will be 55 additional on-street parking spaces available. These are not part of the required parking spaces and were not counted or credited towards any part of the project. A Parking Demand Analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan for the commercial site (Attachment No. 6). It analyzed the mix of uses; the parking code requirements, a parking requirement- demand analysis, a demand ratios comparison, a shared parking analysis, a Full Buildout plan and Reduced Alternative Plan comparison for the commercial portion of the project, and a weekday and weekend analysis. It concluded that peak demand for the Full Buildout Plan during a weekday would be 1,482 spaces and during the weekend would be 1,347 spaces. With the addition of the 53 spaces to be replaced on-site, the total parking demand is 1,535 spaces. Since there are 1,542 spaces proposed, this would result in a surplus of seven parking spaces. For the Reduced Retail Commercial Alternative Plan, the weekday total demand was 1,319 spaces and the weekend demand was 1,295 spaces. With the addition of the 53 on-street spaces to be replaced on-site, the total parking demand is 1,372 spaces resulting in a surplus of 170 spaces. Staff supports the shared parking analysis for reduced number spaces than as required in Schedule "A". PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -20- (04sr 12'1-ri\1/CUP/CDP) All of the residential parking meets the code required number of spaces in below grade parking with some guest parking on the loop road. Subterranean Parking Structures/Tandem .Spaces Due to the multiple levels of below ground parking structures, valet parking; and tandem parking spaces proposed, staff recommended that an independent review of the parking plan be performed. As a result, International Parking Design, Inc. reviewed the proposed parking based on the City's Zoning Code together with recommended vehicular turning standards developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, International Parking Design, and other cities turning requirements. Their evaluation and recommendations are included in their report dated January 14, 2004 (Attachment No. 9). Several modifications are recommended that improve the turning movements within the structure and the functionality of the layout but do not substantially affect the parking structure design. There are 114 parking spaces proposed for tandem with many designed in a three deep configuration. One of the recommendations is to limit tandem spaces to two deep. There may be sonic loss of parking spaces from addressing the recommendations but based on the Reduced Retail Commercial Alterative Plan, a number Of surplus spaces will still remain. Staff recommends a condition to redesign the parking in accord with the report's recommendations. Valet Service, Parking Entrance Gates, Attendant Booths, And/Or Collection Of Fees Self-parking and valet parking will be available for all visitors using the commercial parking structure. Self-parking will be available at both entrances to the commercial parking structure and valet parking will be available at the southeast entrance at the hotel and Retail Promenade motor court/porte cochere. Upon entering the parking structure, self-parking visitors would pull a ticket from a machine at the bottom of the parking ramp, which would then allow visitors to access the parking area. Visitors who used the parking for a short period of time (approximately 15 minutes) would not be required to pay any parking fees when exiting the parking structure. Visitors who are dining, shopping, or visiting office tenants in the Retail Promenade would be provided sonic type of parking validation, the value of validated parking would vary depending on the visitor S use or the anmount of purchase. Hotel guests who use the parking structure would pay a fee per night for using the parking structure. Visitors who use the parking structure but do not shop or dine in the Retail Promenade or stay at the hotel will be required to pay the full parking fee based on the length of their stay. Visitors who choose to use the valet parking service will pay a fee for that service. The residential area will have privacy gates at all entrances. The loop road will be gated as well as the below grade residential parking areas. Staff supports the request for gates and controlled access to the commercial and residential parking structures. However, it is recommended that a longer period of time be available for free parking in the commercial parking structure as follows: minimum 30 minutes for Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends and the days in-between, and minimum one hour free parking for the days between Labor Day and Memorial Day weekend. This would allow someone adequate time to drive to the lower levels, find a PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -21- (04sr12 MI/CUP/CDP) parking space, walk to the retail promenade area, walk through the retail promenade, and then decide to stay or not without having to pay for parking. In addition, it is recommended that at least 500 of the 1,542 parking spaces be always available for self-parking (not valet). Park and Parkland Requirements: The City requires parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees for residential projects pursuant to Section 254.08 `Parkland Dedication' of the City Municipal Code. Based upon the 516 residential units proposed for Pacific City, an obligation of 6.9 acres is required. As part of the review process of the Paci fie City project, the City evaluated the need for a public park or an easement for public use of an open space area in the Pacific City project. To meet the City's Parkland requirement, the park area would need to be dedicated in-fee. Since this would impact the number of allowable units for the project; it was proposed by the applicant to dedicate a 2.03-acre open space easement for public purposes in order to provide additional on-site open space and pay the full parkland in-lieu fees. Staff supports this scenario. Alcoholic Beverage Sales, Live Entertainment, Dancing Outdoor Dining Kiosks Staff supports the proposed alcoholic beverage sales, outdoor dining, live entertainment, dancing, and kiosks as described under the Project Proposal. The proposed live entertainment outdoors in three locations along the retail promenade will include musical bands, magicians, dance demonstrations, public speakers, Cultural activities, etc. that will add to the festive atmosphere for the retail promenade. All these activities for the hotel will be within the building and/or its ancillary uses within the hotel and pool area. They will be adequately buffered from the residential areas to the north. In addition, the Police Department will be reviewing and conditioning the Entertainment Permit for these uses and imposing conditions making the entertainment uses more compatible with the surrounding land uses. A separate CUP will be required for any proposed live entertainment and dancing in any of the retail promenade restaurants and nightclub. Staff is recommending that a greater setback be provided for part of the outdoor dining area along PCH and the kiosk area be setback from the PCH and First Street intersection (Attachment No. 2.23). This will allow for more landscaping along PCH to soften the grade differential between the PCH and the proposed 30 n. elevation of the podium level. In addition, a greater setback for the kiosks at the PCH and First Street intersection will keep the corner plaza area open for pedestrian access serving as an entry node to the retail promenade. Affordable Housing The draft Affordable Housing Plan indicates that half of the affordable units will be on-site, for sale units for moderate-income households (up to 100% of Orange County median). The other half of the affordable units are proposed to be off-site rental units affordable to families of very low-income (less than 50% of Orange County median) and low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median). These off-site units will be either within the Redevelopment Project Area, or outside of the Redevelopment Project Area in which case, the required number of affordable housing units doubles. The period for affordability is sixty years. Staff supports the Plan and is recommending that the number of affordable units be constructed concurrent with the market-rate units at the 15% ratio. In other words, as the 68 units in PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -22- (04sr12'1-1'\I/CUP/CDP) Phase I I a (Residential) are constructed, at least 10 affordable units (15% of 6S) shall be constructed concurrently. Special Permits: The applicant is requesting approval of three special permits (Attachment No. 5). Section 4. 1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows the Planning Commission to grant special permits for deviations from the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. Special permits may be approved when the Planning Commission determines that significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were nuet. In addition, the Planning Commission must determine that the project and related special pemlits will also: 1. Promote better living environments; and 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; and 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and 4. Be consistent with objective of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment; and 5. Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act; and 6. Comply with State and Federal law. Special Permit No. I Allow commercial buildings and the hotel to encroach into the required setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway (minimum 30 feet in lieu of 50 feet pursuant to Section 49.06 of the DTSP) and Pacific View Avenue (minimum 15 ft. in lieu of 20 ft. pursuant to Section 4.9.08 of the DTSP). Special Permit A'o. 2 To permit three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures at a slope of- 15% in lieu of maximum 10% pursuant to Section 231.18.G.I of the ZSO). Special Permit No. 3 Permit retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas that exceed the maximum allowed 42 inches in height pursuant to Section 230.88 of the ZSO. These Special Pennits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project is a blend of the reduced building setbacks along PCH north of the site and the greater setbacks PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -23- (04srl2 TPbVCUP/CDP) of the hotels along PCH to the south of the site. The placement and design of structures along PCH and Pacific View Avenue with reduced setbacks results in a better project because it facilitates and encourages pedestrian activity and conveys a visual link to PCH and PVA. The reduced setbacks allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept' of the DTSP. However, Staff believes the hotel should not have a reduced setback and that such a reduction for the hotel would not result in better land use planning. It is recommended that the hotel be setback a minimum of 50 fl. from the PCH right of way consistent with the DTSP and the Waterfront Hilton development to the south of the subject site. The increased ramp slope is an acceptable standard for driveways without parking on either side. The increased ramp slope allows for a more efficient use of land and more usable open space area resulting in a better project. There will be private patio walls, retaining walls, and landscaped planters along Pacific View Ave., First Street, Atlanta Ave., and Huntington Street separating the ground floor private patios with the public sidewalks around the perimeter of the residential project site that will exceed the max. 42 inches required by up to two ft. six inches (2' G"). This special permit is necessary due to the grade differences bctuvicen the ground floor patios and adjacent public sidewalk grades, and that there is an EIR mitigation measure that requires walls and barriers around patio areas and open space areas be shielded by at least a five ft., six in. (5' 617) high block wall or Plexiglas sheets to minimize exterior noise levels to these areas. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. Soil Remediation The project site requires further soil investigation and clean-up/remediation as a result of the former oil uses. Included in the applicant's request are the activities to carry out these activities so that development can proceed. It is expected that remediation may include stockpiling, on-site remediation and excavation. As set forth in the EIR, the following mitigation measures require completion prior to development: Site assessment for PCB's (this is due to three former transformers mounted on a utility pole (since removed by Southern California Edison) and a possible fourth within an electrical enclosure) located on the western portion of the site. Complete sampling in Area "D" (western portion of site adjacent to First Street and PCH) Develop and implement a remediation plan for any soil contamination that exists on the project site Submit closure reports that document completion of remediation of contaminated soils for the entire site. In the event that previously unknown soil contamination is encountered during construction, cease activities and develop a risk management plan and a site health and safety plan Consult with the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regarding plug or replug of abandoned oil wells. PC Staff Rcport 3-23-04 -24. (04sr12 TrN1/CUP/CDP) Clean-up of the site will be completed under the review of the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department, who will consult with other agencies as necessary pursuant to standard procedures. Staff supports the applicant's request because it will be completed pursuant to the EIR mitigation measures and industry protocol with appropriate oversight, and it will result in a clean site thus enabling development to proceed in furtherance of the Citv's vision and goals for the downtown area. Tentative Map: The proposed subdivision will create three parcels: one for residential condominium purposes and the other two for commnercial/hotel development. The map includes right of way dedications along Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street as well as the Pacific View Avenue extension through the entire site. In addition to the perimeter sidewalk easements surrounding the site, there will be a 20 ft. wide pedestrian easement that continues through both the commercial and residential portions of the site from PCH to Atlanta Avenue. Also, the 2.03-acre Village Green Park/open space area will be an easement to the City for public access purposes. Staff supports the request. Pacific Citv Master Plan: The Pacific City Master Plan describes the site and a general overview of the project. It was used as a guide for developing details of the plan for conditional use permit submittal and the EIR analysis. Since the CUP has been submitted and the EIR complete, the Master Plan becomes an accent piece. Its only benefit now is that it does discuss a pedestrian overpass crossing PCH. Since the current CUP submittal does not include the overpass, a separate CUP will be required at such time one is proposed. Citv Broad Criteria and Obiectives: In 1997 the city Council adopted Broad Criteria and Objectives (Attachment No. 10) for the 31-acre site. They included three categories: Financial, Development, and Environmental. Based upon the proposed development and the analysis herein, the project is consistent with this criteria. SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16335, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Special Permit No. 02-04, Coastal Development Pennit No. 02-12, Pacific City Master Plan, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the RCduc'ed Retail Commercial Project Alternative Plan based on Findings, Staff Suggested Modifications, and Suggested Conditions Of Approval as noted under the Statement of Issue. PC Staff Report 3-23-04 -25- (04sr12 TTM/CUP/CDP) ATTACHi17ENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval — TTM #16335, CUP #02-20, SP #02-04, CDP #02-12 2 Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, and Sections dated December 23, 2003 (Full size plans available for review at the Planning and Zoning Counter, City of Huntington Beach) 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 dated February 13, 2004 4. Pacific City Master Plan received and dated July 10, 2003 (includes Surrounding Land Uses, Conceptual Site Plan, and Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation) 5. Project Narrative dated Feb. 24, 2004 6. Parking Demand Analysis by Linscott, Law & Greenspan dated October 15, 2004 7. Zoning Conforniance Matrix 9. Parking Plan Review by IPD dated Jan. 14, 2004 4-4- 11. Draft Affordable Housing Plan dated Dec. 15, 2003 —H-1 13. Draft Public Art Concept dated Dec. 22, 2003 SH:rI PC S[aff Repon 3-23-04 -26- (04sr12 T1'NI/CUP/CDP) ATTACHMENT NO. I SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16338/ CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT NO. 02-20/ SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12/ MASTER PLAN (PACIFIC CITY MIXED USE PROJECT) March 23, 2004 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 to subdivide approximately 27.8 acres (31.5 gac) into three parcels (a 17.2 acre parcel for residential condominium purposes; a 6.47 acre parcel for retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment development; and a 4.12 acre parcel for a hotel development); dedicate a 2.03 acre easement for a Village Green Park/open space, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian corridor easement with public access; and dedicate Pacific View Avenue per the Precise Plan of Street Alignment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designations on the subject site. The commercial portion of the site is designated CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Max. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street), and the residential portion of the site is RH-30-sp (High Density Residential - Max. 30 u/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street). The subdivision wit] provide fora mixed-use project consistent with the design concept envisioned by the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan, and will provide for necessary public improvements around the site. In addition, the applicant will pay the full City Park Land In-Lieu Fees. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The 27.8-acre project site provides the necessary area for a mixed-use development (191,100 sq. ft. mixed-use project with retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses, a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health chub above two levels of subterranean parking, and 516 multiple-family residential condominium units above two levels of subterranean parking) consistent with the intensity and density of the Downtown Specific Plan — District 7A (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and SA (High Density Residential) with a Coastal Zone overlay, the General Plan designations, and with the implementation of mitigation measures. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a Finding was made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 4. The design of the subdivision or the t7pe of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative casements, for access or for use, wilt be provided. The tentative map provides all the (02sr35 TTNI/CUP/MP) P L. Attachment I.I necessary easements and access requirements of the City for the public and provides the necessary public improvements. The improvements include dedications, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, and casements with public access through the development and to a Village Green park/open space easement to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERtIN11T NO. 02-20: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 to construct a 191,100 sq. ft. mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight story hotel, spa and health club above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,542 spaces; construct 516 condominium units within a mix of two, three, and four story buildings above two levels of subterranean parking with 1,291 spaces; permit alcohol beverage sales, live entertainment indoors and outdoors, dancing, 10,550 sq. ft. of outdoor dining; carts and kiosks in conjunction with the mixed commercial and hotel development; permit a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the mixed use project (1,542 spaces in lieu of min. 1,776 spaces) and for tandem parking spaces; pennit valet service. parking entrance gates, attendant booths, and/or collection of fees within the subterranean parking garage; permit any additional soil remediation activities for the site to complement and complete the prior and on-going remediation activities, which may include but arc not limited to excavation, temporary stockpiling, and on-site remediation; permit associated infrastructure improvements including the extension of Pacific View Avenue; permit development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point; improve a 2.03 acre Village Green Park easement; and Master Plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a contemporary Mediterranean architectural theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the Mediterranean architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other adjacent public improvements required of downtown development to provide a consistent streetscape for the project area. The project also is designed with buildings that terraces with the grade, especially along Huntington Street. 3. The conditional use permit for 1,542 parking spaces in lieu of the 1,776 spaces required per Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the 7_SO for the Reduced Project Alternative Plan (191,100 sq. ft.) is substantiated by the Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan dated October 15, 2003. This analysis is based on the proposed use of the buildings which will not generate additional parking demand than the proposed 1,542 spaces. In addition, a Transportation Demand (02sr3S TI'MiCUP/CN) P G.Attachment L2 Management Plan which exceeds the minimum required by Section 230.36 of the "LSO will be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The proposed request will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in the Downtown Specific Plan and Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project with the special permits provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor - Nlax. 3.0 Floor Area Ratio - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 4C (PCH/Lake Street) for the commercial portion of the site, and RH-30-sp (Fligh Density Residential - Max. 30 a/gac - Specific Plan Overlay) and General Plan Subarea 41 (Atlanta-First Street) for the residential portion of the site. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU L Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2: Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Goal LU2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policy LU 2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policv LU 4.1.1: Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan, as appropriate. Policv LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policv LU 4.2. 1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Policv LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access and parking. (02sr3S TrN1/CUP/CDP) G.Attachment 1.3 Policy LU 4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as rcgttit'ed by State and Federal Laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources, scale and character. Polici, LU 7.1.2. Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule, as appropriate. Police LU 7.1.5. Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors. and centers. Policy LU 8. 1.l: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the appropriate principles. Policy LU 9.3.1: Permit the development of master-planned residential projects that incorporate a mix of housing types, neighborhood-serving commercial services, schools, parks, open space, and other elements in areas designated for residential on the Land Use Map. Policy LU 9.31: Require the design of new residential subdivisions to consider the following: a. Establish a street configuration involving the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of"blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. b. Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. c. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi-family housing within single family areas to preserve open space. d. Establish a common "gathering' or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. e. Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. f. Establish a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other elements that link all community areas and provide linkages to land uses in adjacent areas. g. Orient housing units to neighborhood and collector streets. h. Site and design of units and incorporate elements, such as porches, that emphasize front yards as an activity area and "outdoor living room," by locating garages in the rear or side yards. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between stntctures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. (02sr3STl'N1/CUP/CDP) P.C. Attachment 1.3 j. Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. k. Include alleys or other means to minimize the dominance of garages along the street frontage. I. Include setbacks and other design elements that buffer residential units from the impacts of abutting existing commercial and/or industrial development. Policy LU 9.3.3: Require that nonresidential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. The mixed-use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses and a 400 room, eight-story hotel proposed for the site represents development that would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site, much of which is currently vacant, and provides additional destination uses that would attract and complement new and existing retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high- quality visual image and character. It is in conformance with the City's Design Guidelines, The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends approval of the design concept. The project provides for adequate access along all public streets, and required parking pursuant to a parking analysis in a two-level subterranean parking structure. The proposed multiple family residential buildings are well articulated and have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. Ground floor units along the perimeter of the residential site are oriented towards the street. The design of the residential subdivision includes four district neighborhoods emphasizing a cluster of buildings around a 2.03-acre village green park with recreational areas and a 20-foot wide pedestrian corridor. Connecting the village green park to Pacific View Avenue is a 65-foot entry corridor that is accessible to either crosswalk on Pacific View Avenue providing access to the retail promenade. With subterranean parking, there are no garages to dominate the street scene and front yard/patios become activity areas. In addition, there will be a landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb around the perimeter of the site. The residential project is separate from commercial activities by Pacific View Avenue. There will be surplus parking for the project; a total of 1,542 commercial parking spaces and 1,291 residential parking spaces are proposed. The number of residential parking spaces is based on Schedule "A" in Section 231.04 of the ZSO, and the number of commercial/hotel parking spaces is based on a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. The Analysis concluded the peak demand for the Reduced Retail Commercial Alternative Plan would be 1,372; thus, there will be 170 surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel development. There will be public improvements made in conjunction with the project to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. In addition, the developer will be paying required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with the affected school districts. (02sr1S TEWCUP/CDP) R C • Attachment 1.5 B. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policv C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located Within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individual or cumulative. on coastal resources. Policv C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Policv C 1. 1.7 Encourage cluster development in areas designated for residential use within the Coastal Zone. Obiective C 1.2: Provide a land use plan that balances location, type, and amount of land use with infrastructure needs. Policv C 1.2.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule, Table C-1. Policv C 1.2.3: Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the Citv 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. Policv C 2.2.3. Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments. Policv C 2.4.1: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Objective C 3.2: Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups, including low-cost facilities and activities. Policv C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. (02sr3S TrNI/CUP/CDI') P.C. Attachment LG Objective C 4.1: Provide opportunities within the Coastal Zone for open space as a visual and aesthetic resource. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03- acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced commercial retail project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. C Economic Development Element Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Obiective ED 2.6: Expand and enhance the existing visitor-serving uses. Policy ED 2.6. l: Encourage the attraction of coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wider spectrum of visitor opportunities Policv ED 2.6.2. Encourage visitor supported commercial development to concentrate in selected areas of the City, thereby creating identifiable visitor-oriented centers. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic and land use planning and sound urban design practices. Obiective ED 3.1: Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policv ED 3.1.1. Create differentiated clusters or nodes of retail, industrial, and office uses. Policv ED 3.2.1: Create commercial-recreation nodes along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Policv ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retail/office/residential) structures on the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Policv ED 3.2.3: Attract visitor-serving uses near the beach in order to create better linkages between the beach and visitor-supporting retail uses. (02sr3SYIN/CUP/MP) P.C. Attachment 1.7 The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element, as retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses, and a 400 room, eight- story hotel development will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base and further diversify the range of overnight accommodations. In addition, the visitor-serving retail and commercial uses would further support the economic needs of the City. D. Housing Element Policv H 3.1.1: 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. The residential portion of the project is designed for 516 residential units in four different neighborhoods. There will be 15 varied floor plans in a townhome and stacked flat design. The floor plan sizes range from an average of 850 sq. R. to 2,450 sq. ft. with one, two, and three bedrooms. Also, 15% of the total project units will be affordable for low to moderate-income families. These units will be on-site and off-site. E. 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 applicant will be constructing Pacific View Avenue, improvements to Atlanta Ave., Huntington Street, First Street, and PCH, and a bus turnout on PCH. 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 Scapoint, and PCH and Warner, as well as a traffic signal at 11t and Atlanta. Mitigation Measures TR-i through TR-3 require the developer to contribute its fair share of the cost of these improvements and construct the signal. F. Recreation and Community Services Element Goal 5: Provide parks and other open space areas that arc efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. The residential portion of the project is required to provide 4.81 acres of open space area based on 25% of the total residential floor area. The proposal is for 9.28 acres of common and private open space which represents 53.8% of the site. Some of this common area will be accessible by the public including a 2.03 acre Village Green park/open space easement, 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20 foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH. in addition, the applicant will be paying the full (100%) City Park Land in-Lieu Fees. (02sr3S TriWCUP/CUP) P•C. Attachment LS G. Subarea Schedule Subarea 4C PC1UFiret Street (Commercial/Hotel Conrnoneul): • Permitted Uses: Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, entertainment, and other commercial uses. • Density/Intensity: Maximum 3.0 FAR; maximum height of eight stories • 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. The mixed-use project consists of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, entertainment uses (live entertainment and dancing) and a 400 room, eight-story hotel. The commercial buildings are two to three stories clustered along a crescent shaped pedestrian walkway with a series of gathering areas and plazas for public activity and views to the ocean. A unified, high-quality visual image and character is created by the unique building designs and architecture. There is a 20-foot wide pedestrian walkway through the commercial project from PCH to Pacific View Avenue and then it continues through the residential area connecting Pacific View Avenue to Atlanta Avenue. Along the PCH frontage is a meandering walkway with defined entries at First Street and Huntington Street. Suharea 41 itlanta-First Street (Residential Component): • Pennitted Uses: Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and open spaces. • Density/Intensity: Maximum height of four stories; Maximum 30 units per net acre. • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific plan or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions" (Policies 9.3.1 — 9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two to four stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. There are 516 multiple family residential units proposed at a maximum density of 30 units per net acre in accord with the Downtown Specific Plan. The units are in two to four story, well articulated buildings with enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The residential development is consistent with the policies of 9.3.1 to 9.3.3 as noted under the Land Use Element of this section. Incorporated into the project is a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH, which will be open to the public. (02sr35 TrM/CUP/CDP) P.C. Attachment 1.9 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FORAPPROVAL — SPECIAL, PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. The granting of Special Permits pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 is for the following: a. Encroach into the minimum building setback along Pacific Coast Highway (30 n. in lieu of min. 50 ft.) and along Pacific View Avenue (15 ft. in lieu of min. 20 ft.); b. Exceed the maximum slope percentage for three driveway ramps into the residential below grade parking structures (15% in lieu of maximum 10%); and c. Exceed the maximum height for retaining walls and private patio walls in the required perimeter residential setback areas (3.5 ft. to 6 ft. in lieu of maximum 3.5 It.). These Special Pemrits result in a greater benefit from the project and will promote a better living environment because the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project is a blend of the reduced building setbacks along PCH north of the site and the ereater setbacks of the hotels along PCH to the south of the site. The placement and design of structures along PCH and Pacific View Avenue with reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, results in a better project because it facilitates and encourages pedestrian activity and conveys a visual link to PCH and Pacific View Avenue. The reduced setbacks, except for the hotel, allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. The hotel would not result in better land use planning so therefore it is conditioned to be redesigned to have a mininutm 50 ft. setback from the PCH right of way consistent with the DTSP and the Waterfront Hilton development to the south of the subject site. The increased ramp slope is an acceptable standard for driveways without parking on either side. The increased ramp slope allows for a more efficient use of land and more usable open space area resulting in a better project. There will be private patio walls, retaining walls, and landscaped planters along Pacific View Ave.. First Street, Atlanta Ave., and Huntington Street separating the ground floor private patios with the public sidewalks around the perimeter of the residential project site that will exceed the max. 42 inches required by up to two ft. six inches (2' 6"). This special permit is necessary due to the grade differences between the ground floor patios and adjacent public sidewalk grades, and that there is an EIR mitigation measure that requires walls and barriers around patio areas and open space areas be shielded by at least a five ft.. six in. (5' 6") high block wall or Plexiglas sheets to minimize exterior noise levels to these areas. 2. The granting of Special Permits will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site la out and design due to the use of appropriate site planning by the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas. 3. The granting of Special Permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of (02sr38 YFMiCUPICDP) P.C.Attachment 1.10 property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and includes perimeter buildings that provide transition and scale to adjacent properties, provides more than code required residential open space and open air commercial amenities, is designed on a pedestrian scale and character, provides the required parking to serve the uses on site, and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The granting of Special Pcrnuts will be consistent with objectives ofthe Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The project does include the arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas that relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character. The commercial portion of the project has varied setbacks along PCH that is similar to the existing developments to the north and south. The reduced setbacks allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza areas throughout the project envisioned by the "Village Concept" of the DTSP. The incorporation of the special pemlits into the project benefits the overall design and therefore provides a better living environment for the resident, tenant, customer, and visitor to the downtown area. 5. The granting of Special Permits is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. The project is consistent with the Coastal Element goals, objectives, and policies as noted under the Conditional Use Pennit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta .Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced retail commercial project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. The proposed special pennits in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20, Coastal development Permit No. 02-12, Tentative Tract Map No. 16338, and the incorporation of and implementation of adopted conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Final EIR No. 02-01 will comply with State and Federal Law. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-12 for the development project conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03-acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian easement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is (02sr3S 17V'I/CUP/CDP) P.C. Attachment I 1 provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. Willi the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for any special permits approved concurrently. The proposed is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements for the development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets, easements and reciprocal access between properties to adequately serve the site and adjacent properties. 4. The development confornis to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project does not conflict with any public recreation policies and it will add opportunities for access by improving the perimeter sidewalks and creating lookouts that are consistent with the Citv's General Plan. Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan as referenced in the Conditional Use Permit Findings. The proposed project would develop a mix of commercial and residential uses on parcels contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastntcture to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project includes a 2.03- acre Village Green park easement, 65-foot Village Green park entry corridor, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian casement corridor from Atlanta Avenue to PCH which will be available to the public. Residential units are designed in building clusters. Parking is provided for the residential and commercial uses in two level subterranean parking structures. With the reduced project alternative plan (191,100 sq. ft.), there will be surplus parking spaces for the commercial/hotel uses based on a shared parking analysis that will allow for a future demand for increased parking. Views of the beach/ocean will be available from locations along the public sidewalk along the inland side of PCH and from terraced lookouts within the retail promenade walkway and the hotel. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT NIAP NO. 16338: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16338 and associated engineering exhibits received and dated February 13, 2004 for the subdivision of 34 gross acres into three lots, one of which is for condominium purposes, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Identify gross and net acreages for each lot in the summary table. b. Fully dimension the Village Green park area, and identify it as open to the public. (02sr38l7M/CUP/CUP) P•C•Attnchment 1.12 c. Identify Lot No. I as a lot for residential condominium purposes. 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Tract Map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final tract map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Community Services Department, Public Works Department, and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map map. 1) The CC&R's shall include language to address the right of the public to use the 2.03 acre Village Green park easement, minimum 65 foot Village Green park entry corridor, and 20 foot wide pedestrian easement, and further that the right to meander off of the easements, and to walk over, traverse, and otherwise use, for recreational purposes, the areas identified as pedestrian public circulation areas depicted on the Wall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, and the right for City to erect signs on the easements or pedestrian public circulation areas designating such property as being open for public use and access. 2) Grantor may not make any improvements to the easements or the pedestrian public circulation areas (including, without limitation, the installation of entry gates, signs prohibiting or restricting entry, or other improvements), or take any action (excluding normal maintenance), that would affect, in any manner, the right of the public to the unimpeded use of the casements or pedestrian public circulation areas without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may give or withhold in Grantee's sole and absolute. discretion. The CC&Ws shall include language that requires the Master Association to maintain the 2.03 acre park casement open space, and public access corridors as identified in the Final Tract Map and approved Improvement Plans. 3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantor shall have the right to install privacy gates to prevent public access to the portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 which are not identified as pedestrian public circulation areas as depicted on the Nall & Fence Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. 4) The CC&R's shall include the formation of a Master Association that shall govern, oversee. coordinate, and control all individual Homeowner's Associations and all Business Associations that include all areas of the proposed development for the primary purpose of coordinating and control of uniform maintenance, liability, and repair of all common areas, and public walkway easements. The Master Association shall also be solely responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the required landscaped medians in First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue, the decorative pavement within public streets adjacent to the project, and those items specified in the Maintenance License Agreement between the Master Association and the City. 5) The CC&R's shall address the maintenance of all awnings and rails for the commercial and residential portions of the project. They shall also define allowable uses and structures in the 20-foot pedestrian corridor for the commercial portion of the project; fences and other permanent and temporary barriers shall be prohibited. Exclusive use by any business, carts, (02sr3S ITNUCUP/MP) Q.C. Auachment 1.13 kiosks, an(] tables are not permitted. Benches, potted plants and similar amenities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Departments of Planning and Public Works. 6) The CC&R's shall refer to the Special Utility Easement Agreement. (PW) 7) The CC&R's shall refer to the Maintenance License Agreement. b. .A draft Affordable Housing Agreement Plan received and dated Dec. 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved plan. It shall be modified as necessary to reflect the requirements below and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the Tract Map. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site, or combination of on-site and off-site. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: I) Minimum 15 percent (78 units) of the total units shall be affordable to families of very low- income (less than 50% of Orange County median), low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median), and moderate-income level (less than 100% of Orange County median) for a period of sixty years. Section 1 Requirements of the Plan is acceptable with the clarification that it shall be for a period of 60 years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units, on-site and off-site. 3) Off-site affordable units (new or rehabilitated) shall be under the full control of the applicant. 4) The affordable units shall be constructed and/or acquired prior to or concurrent with the market rate units. The affordable units must be entitled, approved, and building permits obtained (and/or restrictive covenant recorded) concurrent with the following development phasing: PHASE RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE (Exhibit D-007) UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS Ila 68 10 111 125 20 IV 203 30 Va 120 18 As an example, concurrent with issuing permits for any of the 68 units in phase Ila, at least 10 affordable units must be identified, entitled, approved, and building permits obtained, and/or covenant recorded. All affordable units must be made available for occupancy prior to issuance of building permits for the last phase of development unless such units are included as part of that phase; or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of' completion of the affordable units for the respective phase. 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be Substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PN) a. Dedicate a minimum 2.03 acres easement for Village Green park purposes to the City of Huntington Beach. The minimum 2.03 acres shall be inclusive of the public park entry corridor between the park an(] Pacific View Ave. The loop road may be private and include vehicle gates; (02sr38TFN1/CUP/CU11) t?.C.Arachment I.I4 it shall remain accessible to the public for pedestrian access. The Village Green park entry corridor shall be a minimum of 65 feet in width at its narrowest point and shall be a public easement dedicated on the Final Tract Map. b. An agreement shall be executed between the City and applicant prior to Final Tract Map approval that binds the Master Association and individual Associations in perpetuity for the conditions stated herein and that the Village Green Park will always be for public use and not changed to be for private use. c. The developer shall provide a Maintenance License Agreement to be a part of the Master Association agreement for maintenance of the medians, landscaping in the medians and Edison- owned street lighting adjacent to the project for Pacific Coast Highway, Pacific View Avenue, First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street and "A" Street if public. The Agreement shall state that the Master Association shall be responsible for all costs associated with the dry weather now diversion and treatment (including, but not limited to, pumping charges and OCSD fees, etc.). Furthermore. the Agreement shall address the Master Association's responsibility for the maintenance of the 2.03-acre park easement, all enhanced paving in public streets (Pacific View Avenue), pedestrian easements, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and street furniture located behind public street curbs within the project site. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, the regular maintenance and cleaning of all angled parking areas (i.e., markings, street sweeping) along Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street, etc. The Master Association shall be solely responsible for paying the cost of maintenance, inspections, cleanup, operation, monitoring, replacement planting, and equipment replacement of all improvements required for this project. (PW) d. The sewer and portions of the storm drain systems located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. e. A bond shall be posted for the potential conversion of Pacific View Avenue to a A-lane divided roadway as dictated by the General Plan. The bond shall be maintained until such time that the roadway conversion improvements are completed and accepted by the City, or a General Plan Amendment is approved to eliminate the requirement of the conversion, or 10 years from the date of tract acceptance, whichever occurs first. The amount of the bond shall be determined by a preliminary design of full-width street improvements for Pacific View Avenue (in conformance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment) and cost estimate prepared by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. (PW) F. The two intersections of"A" Street and Pacific View shall be designed as enhanced intersections per the approved conceptual plan and shall be depicted on the Street Improvement Plans. (PW) g. Agreements with appropriate school districts intending to mitigate the impact on school facilities shall be executed. The Planning Department shall be provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final tract map. h. A Letter of No Further Action (or Letter of Closure) shall be obtained from the Fire Department regarding the soil remediation prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, or issuance of any grading penmits, whichever occurs first. (BD) (02sr38TTM/CUP/CDP) P.C. Attachment I.IS 4. The water system for the entire project shall be a public system; except, any portion of the fire service water syslem that is not public shall be maintained by the HOA in accordance with the language to be provided by the Fire Department for the CC&R's. (FD) 5. Prior to commencing soil remediation or grading operations, the name and phone number of an on- site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) 6. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator` who shall be responsible for responding to any local conmplaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. (PW) 7. A third party consultant, approved by the City, shall be responsible for monitoring on-site activities during the soil remediation, grading, and construction phases of the project and shall serve as an agent for the City. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with this third party monitoring as determined by the City. 3. Final on-site grades and elevations on the grading plan may vary by no more than two (2) feet from the on-site grades and elevations, except adjacent to the perimeter of the site which shall vary by no more than one (I) foot from the street grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map with the approval of the Planning Department. 9. The Departments of Planning, Public Works, Fire, Building & Safety, and Conmmunity Services are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the Final Tract Map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the 1-113/_SO. (02sr3S Tr\I/CUP/CDP) P.C. Attachment 1.16 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-12: 1 . The Conceptual site plan, floor plans, and elevations for the reduced project alternative plan received and dated December 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout, with the following modifications: a. The retaining wall/fence combinations along PCH shall not exceed 42" in height. b. The below grade parking structures for the residential and commercial developments shall be redesigned to address the detailed comments identified in the Parking Plan Review by International Parking Design, Inc. dated January 14, 2004. Drive aisles for parking spaces shall be minimum 26 feet in width. Signage shall be provided for residential guest parking areas and guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked and accessible. Identify electric vehicle charging station parking spaces. The redesigned parking structures shall be subject to review by the Departments of Planning, Building R Safety, Fire, and Public Works. c. Revise Exhibit D-006 as follows: provide minimum 25' setback from the property lines at the intersection of PCH and First St. for carts and kiosks; provide continuous eight foot wide sidewalk along the PCH frontage without any encroachment of carts and kiosks; provide minimum 20 foot wide entryway (without any carts/kiosks) to the project from the PCH/First St. intersection; and the minimum 20 foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be consistent with the tract map without any encroachment of carts and kiosks. d. The outdoor deck/dining areas for the hotel restaurant along PCH between the Porte Cochere and Huntington Street shall have a minimum setback of 25' from PCH. e. The hotel at the podium level shall be setback 50' from the PCH right-of-way and the hotel tower (above the podium level) shall have an upper story setback of minimum ten feet from the podium level consistent with the General Plan. Subarea Schedule. F. Maintain minimum 10' free and clear (without obstruction) pedestrian path along Pacific View Ave. from First Street to the Porte Cochere entryway for the hotel. 2. The project shall comply with the Mitigation Measures of the Pacific City Environmental impact Report (EIR No. 02-01). 3. The project shall be developed in accord with the Phasing Diagram (Exhibit D-007). Phase Ila (Residential) and Ilb (Commercial Parking Structure) shall be developed concurrently. Building permits for Phase Ill (Residential) and other residential phases shall not be issued until Phase Ilb and He are completed, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion. 4. Prior to issuance of a precise grading pennit, the following conditions shall be complied with: a. A Pedestrian Accessibility Plan for the entire project site, depicting on-site and off-site improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building &C Safety and Public Works Departments and by a third party consultant. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the consultant's review. (B S PW) (02sr3S TTN4/CUP/CDP) P.0 .Attachment 1.17 b. At no additional cost to the developer, the City reserves the right to increase the water main pipe sizes necessary to support the proposed development, for the benefit of the City. For example, the City will require that the 12-inch water pipeline in Huntington Street, as required by the approved hydraulic analysis, be increased to an I 8-inch pipeline. The City will pay the incremental difference in materials cost between a 12-inch and an 1S-inch pipeline. (PW) c. The Village Green park area and entry corridor shall be designed and a detailed park improvement plan shall include typical neighborhood amenities including but not limited to tot lot play equipment, open turf play area and picnic tables and benches. All amenities must conform to current Consumer Product Safety Guidelines with certain amenities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The entry corridor to the park (from Pacific View Ave.) and all other corridors must incorporate an architectural feature that properly identifies the area as public space. The plan shall identify play equipment, architectural features, plant material, ground cover, sidewalks, lighting, etc. and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Commission, Community Services Director, and Public Works Director prior to installation. (CS/PW) d. The median in Atlanta Avenue shall be designed to provide a solid median barrier through the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Alabama Street. 5. The following conditions shall be completed prior to final building permit inspection or occupancy of the first residential unit: a. All existing Washingtonia robusta located along Pacific Coast Highway within the existing Caltrans right-of-way shall be relocated or replaced with an equivalent total trunk height either within the project, or relocated off-site as approved by the City Landscape Architect. (PW) b. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share contribution of 22 percent of the cost of the installation of a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway at the Warner Avenue intersection. The County of Orange and Caltrans will be responsible to complete this improvement. The costs will be based on estimates prepared by the County of Orange for completion of the project or through a separate preliminary design and cost estimate prepared by the applicant to specifically address the requirements of this condition. (PW) c. The applicant shall satisfy the project's fair share Contribution of 26 percent of the cost of the installation of a second westbound right turn lane at the intersection on Scapoint Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement by providing funds for the balance of the cost of the improvement. The applicant shall prepare plans and obtain appropriate permits for the installation, including obtaining encroachment permits from Caltrans, as needed. Final determination of fair share contribution shall be based on the actual design and construction of the improvement. The City shall complete the improvement as a capital project. (PW) d. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 57% of commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to the applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) (02sr3S TPM/CUP/CDP) F.C • Anachment 1.18 e. The applicant shall construct a new traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to clearly indicate the applicant's responsibility to fund 59% of the commitment to the cost of the improvement and the City's reimbursement to applicant for the balance of the costs. (PW) f. The Village Green park area and corridor shall be improved prior to the occupancy of the first residential unit (other than the model homes). (PW) G. Submit detailed plans of the following for final review and approval by the Design Review Board: a. Elevations, colors and materials of the hotel. b. Final colors and materials of the commercial and residential buildings. C. Public Art Concept Plan. d. Landscape and hardscape plans on private and public property. e. Planned Sign Program. f. Furniture and utilities throughout the project 7. At least 500 parking spaces shall be available for self-parking (not valet) in the commercial parking structure, and that from Labor Day to Memorial day, at least one hour be free parking, and from Memorial Day to Labor Day, at least 30 min. must be free parking. S. Parking meters shall be provided at all on-street public parking locations within or fronting the project frontage. Meters shall be installed according to City requirements and standards and shall meet the specifications of the City. The City will be responsible for the collection of revenue and maintenance of all parking meters. A plan depicting the location and design of the parking meter layout shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Services and Public Works Departments. 9. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. 10. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. SUGGESTED CONDITION'S OF APPROVAL. —PACIFIC CITY MASTER PLAN: 1. The Pacific City Master Plan received and dated July 10, 2003 shall be the approved conceptual plan. (02sr3S TTM/CUP/CDP) P.C. Attachment 1.19 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARI\ILESS CONDITION: "file owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorneys fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (02sr3S TTA1/CUP/CDP) P, C .Attachment 1.20 1 �f Mimi fps 'ia ( T n 7�•� .�_�1 tii,l r�1 1' •� E+ , _ Kr-11' �y�i q•�• ( t. � ��I.�: 1 - 1 r•:- i ~i y'LF.i ` � ,..].-`�� _ �T t SHEET INDEX VISTOR SERVING COMMERCIAL PROGRAM A4=. Cm Slaw A-100. &Jldq 6lLre0e Pons AI01 LI...LeW Gage A102 UPP,LM Genp A10] P1 PW SOYt/PWanL..l I - A10e Flm Pt L I.p A105 P .Ftw L"Tnrw -10 Attu Flm RrL F" _ LS-01 Lwasmp•Conany Pyn - - -- LSAs L&WmCw"C mW-Pwer.rwAaau Pyn LS45 L/lfteP Cac pl-VAe A I.PW LSUT LaU.ape Cana-T""SW LSA& Lr0.epe Conwpt-saws&Ew ALTERNATIVE VISITOR SERVING COMMERCLAL PROGRAM Ls L.decse ConcW-Tpu same LS-10 LNMWO C. W-Envy Dwnm. LS-11 Lwdc CwxW-Typal SWnr. LS-12 L.1rcePe Canq-Typal SWa. _ - D001 W Ce..y.o4.n D0m Pr..le COW SP og.n + D= C Cpr SO Clmpwn WIN SPecr�Plemr EW*4 _ D00& wen A QWVd vDoww D407 Rrrep C - A201 CamwcW D..ee EW. Poc Ac Co .9. ,6 Pa A202 Co yYl 8w f- Corr*Vy " Arno Cam.lal Ewrbn Pe.ec VA SIpSMA' PROGRAM A2d t ryw PvcAc Cwp Hprwy&PeCAc V. A705 Camwlrl Ewrlm FW S e &Htrl E� re✓n^Pc^St" - A-300. VYI1r 3w I Catwmw"Smcdk -. AJOI CmenIlCW SY Sr j - A-= ComnwtW SM Sech"2 AJo] C�Si$W ] . ASM Camm.yYlSA SW 3 - A400. Ree1J.Jol Movadc tr A401 R.wr&p Eyrlbn Pe V 4402 RemM L*A w Atl.r Av - A403 Re.C.NY Ey.eem l u m vw Sp - - _- - A♦01 RWJe.Itl Fy FM 81n. A405 Reedw RT*p Ehv a /SW.Stom - A�0& Re.Jneel Typd Ey I SWan Srylr A407 ReWvael Ty"Ew lSWlon Styla A e0B R•.O.RY TMW EWr /Sa SIyW - - A409 Rw0erMY Typal EW.lon l Se StyW n A-S00. RnWontW Sedans/WOW.. A-501 14br01m Se EWr DWp A.S02 H.InWm Sewe Ewwon Dww" 1� A-= 1MOOM Awl S.GeCtDWr stmcs� t _ _ �I A505 R s•ona. Dept —I A400. UnR Pum D A-0O1 RmE i PrPpyd 1 L Fpa P • ^ Ab Re.G -PWn 2"Fl,,Pyre ALO] R�P P J l Fb P m z TITLE SHEET Z PACIFIC CITY & A &N Q ..... A-0O1 N J i annw• I .osrrw. L •� rR^ •' s 1 � •s , is is—, .r� 1 ..:, i:_ � , x, t _ _ m z LOWER GARAGE PnCff1c. CTiif IA6A KMIRNCT "LN M101 w STRUCTURED RESDENML PARKING a .•-� LEVEL S WNDCAPPED lOtEST IMTAL l bR GARAGE ml 311 294 1017 \\ LOWER fiARAm ZT410127. / �. .•;�, \\\ TOTAL 71 tIDt \ STRUCTURED COMMERCLAL PARKING h/ • .• •sP IAPER GARAGE 20 71 R GARAGE �B 0 7E E2 A: V � TOTAL 1.11 27 t 1502 1„I,' Ica1.�ILLy �.y •-A + ., r.c�ri��c bii� ws.r• I I I I .+n Lwtn Z II1 ' 01*4 UPPER GARAGE ....rrt�clb. A—e'� --"L�y �v PACIFIC Crry UA liw "b L A402 - _ . o. / ��.. //Iin/ o. • �.. DETAM-WEST BATE F+,•t.ezS]•�it j�j'i a DETAIL-GATE HOUSE .. iq: ! IIII i� { _ — — — ! � / .•....sue.. r I f - �_i ik � - _ _ III{- N -2 • ti ` �' •r � 44 - - 1 r it III. � rQ91r Ls� . I�_.� �y��•r �,:.1� .�. ,� _ 'I,I 1 �I y .- I.. I _ �_ _ .rb t - S ••ram' •. •• v - w.i �.. - i••�•� '....,m ��� 'w srr.• ice. " . FLOOR PLAN-STREET 1 PODIUM LEVEL N PACIFIC Cmr e ul .ilf.L67fd LN A407 ♦� f :n \YI Aro / b / t IN ,r rn 0 Q FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL-2 PACIFIC CITY �n,H?.Kwr.S.actcn� ACH �N A-10d Q� a a . , Awv ._. - ' awrn rra:rr ear `""� • z FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL-3 N PACIFIC CITY ,Lv+t.A,.h+ .IIIAR LN J A•105 Nii i 9 gee �., r, 1rgv 1p p r.cir r r n t ( r z - O Q F + FLOOR PLAWLEVEL-4 N PACIFIC CII'11' M A-106 W Y i - r`pd f • 4. �;r Li a + a�• 1 • q i' • MI' 1011na DTIr ` - IOIDa ODu. jj '�/YJY • �. \ IDD cbYOuf y.. \ Rtl4.� fw• jr IT sip _—— — F]Fc. ti C i m Zarzo 4*, "F e.� p 2 Dwo n.w lxm O cc »e n.D u qOK 'xD .DJ1t v.wna Tc Tc a a O LANDSCAPE CONCEPT -PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN PACIRC CrrY ' Lsas wYc�unrnevnn�.r.•. � / O� �dm� LJ /.�M NA/O NMr4 MM-u �• rl OO rllTit I IM�14r 14'�Y).iM ��1V 'uewrra I�i"f ftt�s/�vvJ w.rae Lc. t �RYI.er�� `^ � V , <'>y�'ai� �•aW errWn l_-_�1Ff�Y(A� 4,�r.�J�`• d,�,Y1,�._ p N.rpIPiIT.R rw I I W.IRrNPM r OWa O�rp CMnA MrORY1T1 W11 V4>1O�M0� �rrrw � 4 J��W.V'4�r r/P Y.IIpC1I1Y NM ryY1�Yr.VIMM1� -----J// • fDp�l PI�.0 Ml1./�IO rMP.TYI 1 R001Mr •IrP/IOIrt[M LANDSCAPE CONCEPT - WALL & FENCE PLAN ti r .esl PACIFIC Crl t M A K A L L y� N ♦nMR1 1WTHCTON E.IX uc L346 a�rrrNw♦rrrn i..n,.. rN. rR.nwo rr. ♦r.A.rA rra .r•,r•e _ M ..A 1.A M10 I MI I l�l I rl Ia.1.AA •r.r uae.mM. ,u.r,r —� i ca♦r.♦r — so>r.wa NAM♦ f-(1 \\' ♦ / i I ICAu:�.r.r Amol.-nA¢noaTwiw cauAc. .,..... ru•.r.r I _ —�_ __— -1_ . _1_ _. _ � Acres.♦.�a rAsnwrr.u.oro.r '' a.m.arusn X rIWrIFY ♦ • M101m4. Ni!i_r IYa � ♦rM. IM �nrva__ _ ��I� L •ww . rra,Mo .r i � � —� NO.� r�A1 M� .aOIv1.M .OYMw.MM WAOA♦iA�A 1 -. w.e.sw Aa.�A m A.AareA� �� 11 z ICAL[ ] i -.• .ICrc.U.—NTWM MIACIWIIIMYL OII�AIC111�ILAC.T.r -- IECTUMC.♦{INIC IAlfI11NNW9fRf.—LOOT IINO z O ® f+H LANDSCAPE CONCEPT -TYPICAL SECTIONS a PAcmic Crrr n o N L Ili .. .u[. A A (N EAO LLC LS-07 ,ti,;ytif 1 • ;I��,141 F��.. Zit I sv". . ���•aw'�•^ f � -�h�l It� :.��� oil .i •1 1�M��� k Wki ---- - +.,ai.y�ngyu��,.1.A1nluiuliN .ln AL i.. ,• a i �! • • y m w m . !. u w w nleiy i .� of a .! i - !� ! i •11!!!! W 'Ni Ir nlp•�pa•N •i! m nr -_�•' •. .1 9L N x••x.•�1 I�Is•Y.•111 •. UW.\�• q •1• j !� ` II'1dl�l�• l II.•i� Y 1 alIJI . '. ` M•wlttj�� � 1/1 !;1 1 �i. 1 Z UiG lx M. i�' .st � L4Fi��ti� �«� �a�r� •: ���. - ,lR-- •a�..�s..�..,+VTw. i:.R I.YS�i.6la w' � .r..► 1 LDyy���•�+��rp�C���i�.��1.�i�j�� • • ELEVATIONS i w.aw .q. ,k r _- iWMlip wuwws 1LLlrl,ly I �IYw IIYYw111111.p � 'TI M�AY� Ar I I •ww IY�ANI� I 1 IrYe. ".rol, I ��.I.M� f wPeMii mw.wr•m+. ansrw wwr wiwe� "un...a p.wwr wrr I IR,n.x.u4 wrras. wewlw nwrl�..r I v 2 M! VEYF• KMt vr.r-r _ ___ �CII01�•,IOfIM ilOI i,01R Npq.lfJlt lbw .CMi:YY'•1'-Y YCt,OII•UR.d O1gRl141MNI111�C1O,n.�. Z I I I I ® l l ! ! LANDSCAPE CONCEPT -TYPICAL SECTIONS N PACIFIC Crrr A ja,4 ,°u •.,I.l.e. LS-09 �CYL1A'.f•I flLVA s I1ffIDNTWTOY•TC Y.'114/:Yr•r•f YWIfgM -NM��r11NI111NLMM'Iw 'i Vtl11CULM O•tta IYfM 10.[➢lETIIW41 /ar TOIiNINII�i r 41 m � r Z ; ZrYc+IT.r.r — �CIg110-lrw10� fwe:IT•r-r SLEVAIM C.MM�Mrf IWMtl rrinrallfK O I f arorump LANDSCAPE CONCEPT - ENTRY ELEVATIONS P�cu�c .. L I4_ N • ARAA H1 A jbT RHO LLL V, LS-10 •r • • • >� ..ecm.n ynr u� wR.a y I •r a.rwrtR wsw R.wrw I 4 z �I ;wwrw.w.w.w. AYIIYR Y10Yi I uuarnw. wlYtlt♦R/AM II AYrWRYPf �t _ Olw`TY•RM1W I I w.we �. w•.Y w.Aow �rva.ww•1 wwr.R w rxR:w..•-r RRCIgMR-Rang RRl CaRR�loRt wtvan rarrRom awruR.Ruv wwwl i -•www rs.ww.a Z - R Z RG{R:w.r-r KcT A.rWT"L WWtllu ocM 1G W.r-r WVATOR..MUMrO[ORw O ® ! I t t LANDSCAPE CONCEPT - TYPICAL SIECIITIONS •. PACIFIC CITY M AM1 K Ai.c6B lkh R u ' 6 ..... LS-11 a. I p SOMA IW•r•r rt11011•.��OC NICN!IQILL IN)IIi�N -A CjF I C C7wn sY m Sett r.y-r �NiC•YON�KTNL Adlf101.11RAi[Y[Mf Z 0 ® ff+i LANDSCAPE CONCEPT - TYPICAL SECTIONS N PpC1FIC Cr !�y M K A L N �qc ATLNI �NMrNGTON l� O• LLC LS-12 + / BUILDING COVERAGE / PARCEL COVERAGE j auaor.c as vacs er ccv[tua[ i / _PMCEL-I t tnmesr rso.war atM / / \ -PARCEL 2 tnwsr I nu+tsr_ m / PARCEL- ratusr tn,rtar na I .ti ♦ �°" L \ Patch 1 17.23 Aa" - _ f' rY 1 •chic s _�,� Pataal 3 ! 4.12 ACRES 2 +� ' SA7 A ACCRES _ - m © LOST COVERAGE 1�1 PAcE�Crn N a u.. D-W W Kalw .ww n cio `- 1, Y /72a Aortasy� � �\ �.,wcw.++—new es. ns as: N,16 vy , TYP.W OPEN SPACE MIN.DfM 'III (SE•1r I I \• N.DIbN910NS 1� nI rrer ltl Apl� " uj' `_ I 2 D � m Z O � PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM N PACWIC. Crnr IUA ""b caeelroN NSVACEw A 021 .. ii .• �% � 1D eA1ENENr . . •''s \ R[-0UREO cgovcto ... •' �� 0 0._. EL-� e019 f�J6fllf 5 i Wm •�osw.lwr r bn A Frw� �� � � •• 11 lml li aONb� � n �aeoer .orob. �• \ i 11 tN 11.2vb. 'i I" �_�_��\ /\ • NOTE GOe�eUr MEb UiE OVfN TIE 10 SlY X. AV AUA I \ \ •1 p \ I ` I I 7 1 r m Z �eanle e••er el•Nr�• T �i COMMON OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM Qi PACIFIC Crrl' y - ------ BUILDING BOUNDARY r""sirs -� +^• 1-2-STORY ABOVE PODIUM @ EL. r30'-32' t'•t - ...j�s,r�.-�N" 3-STORY 4-STORY " �\\ _ - �Q �\•, 5-6-STORY 8-STORY ' STEPPED BUILDING MASS TO COMPLY W/SLOPE SITE PER SECTION 230.70 C Ii ti,J- �`r.. - -.- �• °. SEE SHEETSA-503,A-504&A-505 FOR MORE DETAIL it 1 � M 1:0 D -.�: � `C� ... __ 1 -=J_ --.---:_.��� •M III O Q 111 1 BULK BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM N PACIFIC CITY l�,Aja. o j� D-004 ................ .................. `I j •�•• * ...- , ' *RAMP ATIS%. AMPATIO'A , PERMIT..PERM REQUEST 1'..16.A •PER CITY STANDARDS 7".tf —ON } - _ AI _ a .ICIsAkCm i,.,- 7. i :: ' _BUILDING ENCROACHMENT /� .�• i I s^. m - i :-* _ INTO SETBACK AREA OL.+sln r.,L+wr......L ei+'i� 4w-i. .• N O 0+4 /1 SPECIAL PERMIT EXHIBIT PACIFIC CPI'Y tit A K A 4 L (N r..v rn.A v nh,. ON D-005 PACIFIC VIEW_ • a _ { II j r.: I I�IK NIOFN IpI� C. . . PACIFIC COA6TNIGNWAY •w KpSK DIAGRAM 70 PACFICvIEw .- { w.1.:�.. ... ......... ••a a ..` •1 PLAN• — a^'� .a. - a..000n owr.c ue.s PACIFIC COAST ItlO11WAY +� Z �w OUTDOOR DINING DIAGRAM SECTION 0 - - KIOSK & OUTDOOR DINING 1`CL J' DIAGRAMS �v PAcc Crrr � w , „ W . ..... A i3O UC N D-W6 • ,,•�S PHASE 1 - OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS w ti PHASE Ila - RESIDENTIAL fib RETAIL/HOTEL PARKING PODIUM 7r � . �', � � °� .I ,•` `!Y• Ilc - RETAIL PHASE lll - RESIDENTIAL it ° PHASE IV - RESIDENTIAL PHASE Va - RESIDENTIAL L • { + •. PHASE Vb - HOTEL BUILDING °amtI n h ABOVE PHASE Ilb �/ ,�' �l '•, ' PARKING PODIUM IIa ------------ ' •. 1 q [ IIb & IIc TIb & Vl� ;.. D o t � ' !V A z �'----.-� .�I�-- .... Z PHASING DIAGRAM N AcP .mc. CRY JL uae� sm '11•y.u.41r7ci-w m� �kli_ly,in�i II_ �, : l�� PACIFIC VIEW ELEVATION n _ n - .; D _ .." -� • .st..— vvrera as 0 r. m tit z Z PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ELEVATION 1 I I � COMMERCIAL - OVERALL ELEVATIONS N i l I l PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY & PACIFIC VIEW PAc'm . C�� },rrY lu. ."b - A401 C) = D z 0 n1 III I COMMERCIAL ELEVATION N ■' I I (� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Pnc>w, Cmr M�� �9EA°N �- A-202 ,' - - ;- D I D M tuklm ` z „ z 0 Ll 1 �j 1 COMMERCIAL ELEVATION PACIFIC VIEW PACIFIC CITY M An MnA or+0 iLC N ,�..�.,.e .... A-203 / 111 PACIFIC VIEW ELEVATION �m� -$ _ _- � r z O PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ELEVATION N III I HOTEL ELEVATIONS J I I I l PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY & PACIFIC VIEW PACIFIC .. M u`�, " N A-204 I � I y _ FIRST STREET ELEVATION , a 77 O HUNTINGTON STREET ELEVATION N I l FIRST STREET COMMERCIAL ELEVATION & HUNTINGTON STREET HOTELELEVATION .i' ■ PwCIFIC. CI'[l' NNTL'TW IFAO IN +nRAHT IX LL -- A-MS L .• . .d SECTION 7 u ro - eEenoNzaA Y = T D I ` r 1' s C-- J1 y r SECTION 114A N --� COMMERCIAL SITE SECTIONS 1 (1-1A,2-2A,3-3A) O PACIFIC CITY ��A }b„4E,loul A-301 lT - - SECTION 641A tI01L'Yl�Y MBtL L- 1 TI t� tnOCfAVfMPIM� DSECTION 6dA s 0 SECTION 44A III I COMMERCIAL SITE SECTIONS 2 ! I ! p(4r-4A,51-5A,6-6AC) PACIFIC CITY A u.'{.ii„MTi KA. N A302 1 - ; lk- ..� ... T t Rmt- SECTION 8-0A - 1' SECTION T-TA W + COMMERCIAL SITE SECTIONS 3 (7JA,8-8A) �1 PACffIC CITY ; w�, Il..O N AJ87 •M1RIF[t 11� ^• — .s SECTION 12.12A ....��.1. SECTION 11.11A fl � - D ZY YJI�Iq•pN RIIR . ��uY[.. MMbGTMfAR �d .� v N SECTION 10-10A I SECTION 9-9A i1 w fl+4 COMMERICAL SITE SECTIONS 4 W c (9-9A,10-10A,11-11 A,11I2-112A)) PACIFIC CITY NU L""1Z .... A.T04 p11�1� y}yy� W e� ' �.y •y AOYrPc eliOocw�r 1'all �T 14iy�lw HUNTINGTON STRE u N T�Ip 9'011Y Sf IMCM 1 t� �► W1 4�1 R�I.GIIllLAWY1iL'L - '.:iILLimW 111.4.1u Wu D ®® mm E® 1-� � �+ edmm �t A /1 �M�• �v �w.v <* wwwlw mFIRST STREET N KEY PLAN fH RESIDENTIAL ELEVATIONS-PACIFIC VIEW PACIFIC CRY A LA L O N LLC A-401 ... - Egnf - �rwa. C� amimi=1 � 1 v I - /KIHTINOTON ST. a M lOE FIRST ST. N KEY PLAN RESIDENTIAL ELEVATION S-ATLANTA AVE. \N ® PACIFIC ITV M ^� L 1 N PAC' C CITY ARAHTA NNiTCTON EA0 LLC A-402 T IN •q 9NOman AM � xMr mr< mar r.ov uc � •�1t■1i y.� N�y� t' ATLANTA AVE. ,aarr.ao.w.. im s � � ❑ I 711.1 nn PACIFIC VIEW AVE. \� Sat m z Cc; O KEY PLAN N + RESIDENTIAL ELEVATIONS-HUNTINGTON STREET PACIFIC CITY V 4 K G L L O ,N A-403 xsgl o oojM/ JAR m En - ' FY�YYtL, 11 � v11r0.,.n1 .. - 4 ATLANTA AVE. --- — PACIFIC VIEW i rn � E rn W z - - z - O KEY PLAN N � c RESIDENTIAL ELEVATIONS-FIRST STREET V PACIRC CITY M A K 4 L L O N A-0Od i � i am EWY@Son 3 •9 p n c ❑ALL � n _ D I"� 1 Deat Ebvawn!aettion U4 _ _ Styb-B 3t1M•C m . zL = o . .. .. . _ _ KEY PLAN N III I RESIDENTIAL -ELEVATIONS/SECTIONS PAC R CITY M,A,"��.0 N A405 R D iiilll AEMvMbn I Seclon Y -D _-. -9 n Z 6�� z li z _S. •r . rr rrr O KEY PLAN 14 RESIDENTIAL -ELEVATIONS/SECTIONS Pnc�ic. Crry iYlA,......... AAW :EleveAdon(5) qSW?-Dl91istA9_c i � Y � ® ICI I � , :B �® I �Ebvalbn(B) SIVM,B `vr FZ � . I T7 T r z - -4 . .� �. . O - KEY PLAN - TTl l RESIDENTIAL -ELEVATIONS/SECTIONS N PncUqc Crrr ,,ISM"4..,Q,LN O - ....,..... A-W7 mm South E*,abo 7i 'Q Mr j -- _ p � e 'Q o.�� ply In L7 A ! ner.Mw� a S"-c S" 2 5 8 G'D Z S Oy Y! •Y ! KEY PLAN N 1-I-I- I RESIDENTIAL -ELEVATIONS/SECTIONS � T � 7 c PACffiC CITY M P# K A Qi N •nap a IWTM uc A-408 >t Nor.,.� 1�D I■ . . . a� - t Souw E%y40on I Secnan- -A �NnM E%vattm I Swum -Coo"W Sty%-A a ■ ■v eat EYv�YmShts-A I iNo.tn E%�ation -A `0 C) . to r -P D ett EWva Sty%-A m Elevate _ Stow A z 0 KEY PLAN a _H f RESIDENTIAL -ELEVATIONS/SECTIONS 5 PACIFIC CITY FRANTA N A* .EA91 IN AJ09 u �... . .. _-' - �✓ — .ram-- _—_ _'r-' _ - - PRIVATE YARD �OTOM't"�r COMBINATION SOF7iHARDSCAPES WTE FM UTE.CNCCMIXfIP ,MUI GROUND LEVEL PLAN W.u OM.K WtiL AN°MM RAN. l\p f°N Aml*.N MfgllMtgN 1 Ill.E,�PO�I♦ I .. I ro = Ii W!y n PACIFIC VIEW AVE. ELEVATION m SW Z ELEVATION DUWRAM KEY PLAN N III I ^ HUNTINGTON STREET ELEVATION DIAGRAM W PACIFIC CITY NIUA Nr An crLoN�,,O N A•301 =1. r+ ef' m :s rc ._ r PRIVATE YARD COMBINATION �� SOFTiHARDSCAPES GROUND LEVEL PLAN Mwevwr��..o rac�wr� Iaw1'a1 MCIIId����O1�Ol0Y � YM ZpE . / 10p lal llMER 1110Y/IIOY.II! i 1 g LI t�i a -tl ATLANTA AVE. ELEVATION D il —1 - 2 — r& O -- _—- ELEVATION DULGRAM K&'PLAN HUNTINGTON STREET ELEVATION DIAGRAM S PA,Cugc Crrr A" ISO Lic N A-502 UNITS BEYOND 100'SETBACK is iL PARTIAL UNITS P � , � f :.�3 WITHIN 100'SETBAC 3 C, LJ NUNTNiOTON STREET --- - LEVEL 4PLAN rt To MIA III m Z PACIFIC VIEW AVE. - Z ELEVATION A 0 Kg1(PLAN N � '` HUNTINGTON STREET c SETBACK CKK DIAGRAM E7 V, PACc CITY MATJA [kA?l IN A-503 ' UNITS BEYOND -T ❑ 100'SETBACK PARTIAL UNITS ,i- WITHIN 100'SETBACK Lp , I _ HUNTINGTON STREET l 0 LEVEL 4 PLAN ]I M lCY! El Ipp'rl MI�Mf II` ^ "� •p11�l!t n 1 L m -� ATLANTA AVE Z ELEVATION _ �^ O KEY PLAN N � HUNTINGTON STREET ' SETBACK DIAGRAM s PACIFIC• Crrr UI A L""b AZU /i.MRua YIE 9FCna GG PMTIµ 9RE YCMM E2 PMrt 511E MUM CC FM 81fE lECTgM t - ••,• �s sm sEcrax.wwm�swm D 9 y m Z Z O N r r I RESIDENTIAL SITE SECTIONS PACIFIC CITY M A K 4 L L O 1 i J _ ....,..,.. ..... . , A 505 0 i ----------------- Pam) I S-FLAT-A S-FLAT-a S-FLAT-C 850 SQUARE FEET 1,235 SQUARE FEET 1,285 SQUARE FEET ffu m z 1,830 SQUARE FEET 1.450 SQUARE FEETT Z Q N fl+-+ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR PLAN-PRODUCT ONE CSa PACwtC Crrr M�..1 �0 N A-601 I __________ _ losn i Y � I � r�t i 1,7T500 SQUARE FEET 2,220 SQUARE FEET ,.gym w.......«« n 1 d ; 1 L--------- `------------ - ------ --- - -- C7 _ { «> -� S•TOWN-D 1,860 SQUARE FEET 2.425 SQUARE FEET z O I ft H RESIDENTIAL FLOOR PLAN-PRODUCT TWO c PACIFIC CITY MA K Isl&j A402 "- - -- _ - y ! 1 D-FLAT-A D-FLAT-C 1.840 SQUARE FEET 2.180 SQUARE FEET i 1 IL1FIifi�i'l 2 1 z I D-FLAT-B D-FLAT-0 z 2.450 SQUARE FEET 2.350 SQUARE FEET O RESIDENTIAL FLOOR PLAN-PRODUCT (THREE PACffICCI'TY An lw'i�Kwshxcibr.'EucQii iN v A-603 : > Nom _ ��• f` ,/' � f Ma � ",\ r r_ ' •g Si. rr i �.r •a r ...."r ter . }Jjl��� , "t VItl1111YMN _ � T a r ti,\ - --- V. / = r ,\ 'i.; `�\ .'� am.+v• LOT U AIA ARY TAME ... � ✓ — <`` � Y �!!.\ ",`C/ .r__' "-__ .mow o. •M LOT • ` �MK $TARAAfHT Of OMTIfN4,IP rr .,,, ,,.. I' a • Yr opt - ------------- .r s ol GET ur ; -- `�_ J rwn..oA r.c.c cwn waAVAr OnAAzm .�. . r` • ._ _ r_m� � r 'fl �� ®9f[i,roll YCl.1M_r �� 1? �w �i - . M a 47 wn¢o c oL uc O • _ rc _ w.. - _ ' -_ -, ..ter ; -.. ��]l11 M u� ..ww. 1. 1, .ACM COIL{T _ lAi1WAY TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16338 d - r TVWK STRFFT%CIA�5 NOTES /r• :�Ibst — r _ r_ 1 �r • — — .—. _ • _ ♦A• TGAP a i t r zz I� ♦ IR C,• .' _ _ 101 SIM1AART TAKE r 1 RA;! yrJ cot . It Rr" It TTATDA TOI OYMY69! - _ - -•. _- — - -\4- AWC Vow Avg --- _ - ----_ D 1• �_ N• RI to, • NY Yr AGULMULONAPLANTA .,� CURT �.,. _ _ �- Q .� � to. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16338 N u. Or u• • /I 1 - v �� i . •AID # -•-' ....eiY►t'"�Y:- -lKR[S'TILA'L��_ .. LOT d' ... . y- _ 1 r.oe caul -rvaY.Y '� �� • _ — PACIFIC VIEW AVENUE INTERIM__ •.a Y' • �. � M I` l--' SU[[M[NT(%ONVI - CI muld 1 mr��R� LOT 0 LOT 64010 Y cc) _ s•e• y [ _ rre•rA nn.won u � T'yICN STR[R S[RIp+SFACPC Ir Y•hY Y -J�'_. ',.— — — — - _ i1 Ta• _ eve uas Z _ _—ti= __ —_. - — -.4___u ••'_ •recrn rwwiarrolS �a� O PACIFIC VIEW AVENUE ULTIMATE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16338 ,� v :y r.. :•w y yrt♦ r... M M M ry ..� nr� M Dr. M �qL � WINM MM 1 1—. •Il A.W AC b at_•J- �� wM —l- I. 1 -J� .. LOT I w � V— � X Vb AC p- ►AAA u , ✓ A • " r :.wwlw,.n.wra .a I :� . '� _ •!rA � I MMINGSON/E.pS uc .Iw•�aw/..r �- r 3 �, sr�m t v Z . ,! �OT _so At a AC F TENTATIVE TRACT o NO. 16338 PACIFIC VIEW PROFILE STUDY s fPAM -a nr A � C S p f na/rn Swu, _ .'bm �___ tl»ate- 1..♦+-. _ V PACFIC COAST HIGHWAY wwrimoom BUCK CIYY R[ACR PARSING _- l01 SIMNNRY 7M AC _ - I - -.. Ucx Ltt OF.SOIIION - ... 1r .i 6. I ....., ..._...-._ a:cam. GG� I M% SYAlFA1FM U 0WrAEI W _ MwPIIJ•J w 1 INV. n.. a m Anowrtv C� r',. f [� ,: fyv If ff yr 1 • W. it r n c .S - ap� I / I 3 a.� o..+R. s k IWA> PACFIC COAST HOMAY INFV-�I__ r illy'+K• _ M� IMKAL STIIE[T 5[RDYA rJau�rt>< rerr.unv, m ....wud wrr.wr+ ' .er.rr.cio..twat rrc •�(_¢jS`�_'•` ZM81rW —..•.... ' TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16338 J� Q ��� _ .....- • ` i bye�y � Ye}w. �-. p • C .terra �_ —. t SECTION B-B �20 m SECTION A—A 20 SECTION C-C SECTION D—D .'a/ — br au a�orY __�_ - •• -i -w tsar r•• w so M i0 bR r e SECTION E—E _— SECTION G—G p 7C p l ' Dso �� 111BNtl M(PA9(t)!. _ •tKY(OIIAILWfA Z fa •: Y�II:r.• --- SECTION F—F Z 10 w — TENTATIVE TRACT 0 NO. 16338 6 PACIFIC CITY - HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING GARAGE GRADING PLAN i�- 4 \, PHASE ONE OF GRADING EARMW WA"MS '- y N ; ,`•'`` wY of w rau. mxe c. nRe cr r� •— >('� \ `' `�� roru v.eso c. va.ao c. w x� 10 ... } --------- i s r w Ir � A " m - - - -- z Z YY WI w..• ■'—/waaa�/oc'� YY1L01114MI.MM.41PI t.1O� J PACIFIC CITY - HUNTINGTON BEACH 90011PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN \ \ PHASE TWO OF GRADING y s k \ (PARKING GARAGES ARE CONSTRUCTED AND IN PLACE( EARTNIYORR WANTITEH It q.t .m iwwe cn to f • .cur at•e c. tum c. +t+ rani vawo cl nww cr AvL N 1 ! 11 LOT P s I 11 b 110, .., a ... 0 ef ,� ter - -D^ ....� ... - O ...w uua+u,xu,.r .t..tAANWIfANWIM1.Ril01,Yt «ORS /.• oA s,.ar rrRYlL TADMAT)"'A• •••ew�•�.V••••-.. Ir •✓ \ ON flrfl rAre1[.AWIATpAT vxu.Ay al1P inwu�nraf or 7 1� cw sliuli r.uurA;iAW TA c tNn [a61vK. .A/Yf T i� r L IMMEMONAS a1• a � r AS L i " _------ — n ---- --- -- __ V a1r a a�• a •e•�a_ AdYAMED a w.uon .wlnup+AI MACH ..- ' 1 _ In uc 1 � � .o l�AAcn �. .� , rrrcx rrc�c HALL onus ""°° IA TENTATIVE TRACT oAcnc [Deer fphi�r"^ __.. - =- - - NO. 16338 ON-STREET PARKING EXHIBIT PACIFIC CITY MASTER PLAN DISTRICT 7 VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL and DISTRICT 8A RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 July 7, 2003 p.0 - ATTACHMENT N0. �'� Drstnct 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial and Dismc'8A Residenba!Voltage PACIFIC CITY MASTER PLAN DISTRICT 7 VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and DISTRICT 8A RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Pao 1.0 INTRODUCTION ExistingConditions .......................................................................................... 1-1 2 Purpose and Intent .......................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 PACIFIC CITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 2.1 District 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial District Uses ......................................... 2-1 22 District 8A Residential Village Uses ................ ............................................... 2-6 2 3 Circulation Plan ................................. . .__ ...... ............................................. 2-7 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 1-1 Project Location Map .................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Site Plan 8 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 1-3 2-1 Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Technical Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Vehicular Circulation ..................................................................................................... 2-8 2-4 Pedestrian Circulation ................................................................................................ 2-12 LIST OF TABLES Table EM 2-1 Pacific City District 7 Conceptual Development Statistical Summary ......................... 2-4 2-2 Pacific City District 8A Conceptual Development Statistical Summary ....................... 2-6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1-.7'- Table of Contents District 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial and District BA Residential Village 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1.1 Proiect Site The Pacific City project site is comprised of two Downtown Specific Plan Districts: District 7 and District 8A. In its entirety, the project site is approximately 31.5 acres, of which approximately 10.6 acres comprise District 7, the "Visitor-Serving Commercial District' and 17.2 acres comprise the District 8A, the "Residential Village." The remaining 3.7 acres is associated with right-of-way improvements on Pacific Coast Highway, Pacific View Avenue, Atlanta Avenue, 1" Street and Huntington Street. As depicted on Exhibit 1-1, the triangular-shaped Pacific City site (Districts 7 and 8A) is generally bound on the north by Atlanta Avenue, on the south by Pacific Coast Highway, on the east by Huntington Street and on the west by 1" Street, Pacific View Avenue, an east-to- west roadway, bisects District 7 from District 8A. Pacific View Avenue is required by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan to be extended from Beach Boulevard to 1"Street. 1.1.2 Proiect Site History The Pacific City project site has been graded numerous times over the past 100' years in connection with prior site development. Construction activities on the Pacific City site have been documented since the late 1800s, including the Southern Pacific Railroad, various branches of the Los Angeles Interurban (Pacific Electric) Railroad, San Pedro Lumber Company Lumberyard and Planning Mill, Huntington Beach Light and Power Facility(including a power house, two 500 gallon underground distribution tanks, and a storage building), the Huntington Beach Icehouse, two Federal Supply Company warehouses for oil supplies, the Municipal Auto Camp Ground for newly arrived families to Huntington Beach, beach bungalows, tent cabin campgrounds, single-family homes, agriculture (potato crops and livery stables), 21 oil production facilities, the Sea Breeze Trailer Park, the Huntington Shores Motel and the Grinder Restaurant. The Huntington Shores Motel and Grinder Restaurant have been closed; demolition of these uses is complete. The site also has been used as a stockpile and borrow site for grading operations associated with adjacent development projects. Southern California Edison currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the 1" Street property boundary and regional 66kV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. 1.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses The Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort located at 21100 Pacific Coast Highway, immediately east of the project site,is a 12-story facility that includes 290 guest rooms,24 suites, banquet and meeting rooms, a swimming pool, two lighted tennis courts and two restaurants. The Pacific Mobile Home Park is located immediately east of the project site with primary access from Huntington Street. The mobile home park includes approximately 250 mobile homes and a community center. The Pacific Mobile Home Park General Plan land use designation is Residential Medium High Density and allows for a density of 25 dwelling units per net acre. The community north of Atlanta Avenue, adjacent to the Pacific City site, is identified in the Huntington Beach General Plan as Sub-Area 3B (Town Lots). The land use designation of Sub- Area 3B is Residential Medium High Density and allows for a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. The Town Lots Sub-Area consists of various residential uses, including single-family residential units, duplexes and condominium and apartment complexes ranging from one to three stories. r� P .G. ATTACHMENT NO. � ' 7 i-� Pacific City Master Plan J' Y&S V aC .__� of fforfolk Kel A 7t►>_. IVILLep_ � e A r M�nsaif m — M ar a9watersorav - �r : --1.Qt6 S.andolass M E Kngxville m m _MunsterF a a a Joliet ' P d 0. Indlanaoolis c y M Y N �r ! Q�r -Fell c, to_ fl Gee eve_ _ Q� I o o` z_ �r '--- ---- Fr p kfo Till_—rt - _ �'` r ,•`_T �� nc Petan JrAl o'Sut)S et -Kinafisher m . a uL21'ham O: __—JjAachcomber Sn-- ° --- e-a -- { w-- _Atlanta~ ----- _ _ Mat :a e a Artlsta c o-- 0 7 I S'eabreeze -� G rrsw a o may'` '^ - H d 9 _—�_ _ Driftwo �je od o a ^ai � LL u � _rT _ f h CHal CD { w ---_-.0 vroject — Site " if �)o �r - BDnShL9-Vjita B� A �P c < c R N Sw US Ctrw"Burn TIGER 2000 Project Location Exhibit Pacific cny P. c • ATTACHMENT N . -`� 1 0.25 0 0.25 Miles : 0N5U4T ! NG s+as ee,leu tvr tztts¢oet rrr r • • qlpp i i, � ram �4 ' a , ►j I . District 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial and District 8A Residential Village The area located west of the Pacific City site along 1"Street, between Walnut and Orange Avenue, is designated District 5(Mixed-Use: CommerciallOffice/Residential)in the Downtown Specific Plan. The purpose of this district is to re-establish the area as the Downtown for the City by creating a more urban atmosphere, encouraging relatively higher intensity development with viable commercial, office and residential uses with allowable densities of 25 dwelling units per acre. Current land uses include vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes. The area located west of the Pacific City site along 1" Street, between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut, is designated District 3(Visitor-Serving Commercial)in the Downtown Specific Plan, which allows for a variety of commercial, office and residential uses at a density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Current land uses include a fast food restaurant at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and 1" Street and a mixture of vacant lots. oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes. The area located south of Pacific City site, across Pacific Coast Highway, is designated District 11 (Beach Open Space). The District is intended to preserve and protect the sandy beach area within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries while allowing parking and auxiliary beach-related commercial and convenience uses. 1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENT This Pacific City Master Plan for Districts 7 and 8A define the development concept for the proposed Visitor-Serving Commercial and Residential Village districts, respectively, and the applicable development regulations for the project, so that subsequent project-related maps, discretionary approvals and building permits can be approved consistent with the Pacific City Master Plan. 1.2.1 Project Goals and Objectives As defined by the project applicant, the following goals are applicable to District 7 and District 8A: Housing. Provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per acre in order to meet Huntington Beach housing goals and the housing allocation determined by the City and the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and to meet the purpose of the District 8A, Downtown Specific Plan. Economic growth and employment. Provide: a) economic growth opportunities for the community through development of the project dining/retail/entertainment center, consistent with the City's General Plan goals. b) additional employment opportunities for local and area residents through the commercial and retail uses on site, and c) residential density at the General Plan designation of 30 dwelling units per acre, sufficient to support the commercial retail components of Pacific City, the resort areas to the south and existing downtown businesses. Neighborhood Identity. Reinforce the neighborhood identity of Pacific City and coordinate development of Districts 7 and 8A, through control of both districts' project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatment and roadway design. P .C . ATTACHMENT NO. 1-4 Pacific City Master Plan D,Stnot 7 Visitor-Sevrng commercial and Drstnct 8A Res,aenriai VUleoe Commercial Phasing and Residential Density. Maintain ability to build commercial and residential areas in phases to provide a population base to help support the commercial uses consistent with the purpose of District SA. Pedestrian Access. Implement a means of pedestrian access through the project via onsite paths consistent with the Specific Plan objectives. Provide residents and visitors with safe access to the beach via an elevated crossing of Pacific Coast Highway from the project site, including avoiding pedestrian conflicts with the existing Pacific Coast Highway Transit Terminal. Traffic Improvements. Enhance project circulation and the surrounding roadway system by providing efficient vehicular access through the site and connecting the site to the surrounding existing roadway network. Public View Corridors. Develop the hospitality district to the maximum allowable height (eight stories) under the Downtown Specific Plan in order to provide public ocean view opportunities while maintaining space for amenities on lower floors and retention of public ocean vistas. Implement an overall site design that provides public view corridors for visitors. P .0 - ATTACHMENT NO. ` .7 1-5 Pacitc Qry Master Plan DiStnCt 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial and Disrnct 8A Remdentiai Village 2.0 PACIFIC CITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The 31.5-acre Pacific City site, comprised of Districts 7 and 8A, is a mixed-use Visitor-Serving Commercial Center and Residential Village project. The conceptual site plan for the Pacific City project is depicted in Exhibit 2-1. Designated District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) in the Downtown Specific Plan, the commercial component of the Pacific City project will occupy the approximately 10.6-acre southern portion of the project site. Proposed within this portion of the project, there will be a variety of visitor-serving commercial uses including hospitality, retail, entertainment, dining, office and cultural/museum (e.g.. relocation of the International Surfing Museum), as well as common open space areas. Designated as District 8A(High Density Residential) in the Downtown Specific Plan, the residential component of the Pacific City project will occupy the approximately 17.2-acre northern portion of the project site. Within this portion of the project, a variety of residential dwelling unit types and sizes will be clustered around recreational amenities and common open space areas to serve the residents of the village. In addition. a two-acre publicly accessible Village Green will be provided to serve residents of the village, as well as the public. Both the District 7 and District 8A developments will be implemented so that the buildings will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Urban Design Element. District 7 uses will provide a high quality architectural style that fits within the context and is integrated within the Visitor-Serving Commercial District area and downtown development. District 8A residential uses will provide for a variety of architectural styles that are well designed and fit with the context of a total integrated development. 2.1 DISTRICT 7 VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES The Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial District is intended to be a visitor destination, complimentary to the Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort and Hyatt Regency Grand Coast Resort Hotel, while providing unique and upscale businesses that serve Orange County and Huntington Beach residents. The Pacific City District 7 site is expected to be divided into two parcels as depicted in Exhibit 2-2. Project statistics for District 7 are provided in Table 2-1. One parcel, designated as Parcel 2 (Exhibit 2-2), may have retail, dining, entertainment, museum and office uses. Parcel 3 (Exhibit 2-2)will feature the hospitality uses. The Pacific City District 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial District allows for the development of an up to 400-room hospitality facility with related amenities including restaurants, spa, meeting and ballroom facilities and swimming pool: up to 180.000 square feet of shops, restaurants and entertainment venues: 60,000 square feet of office space: subterranean parking: one pedestrian bridge from District 7 to the beach over Pacific Coast Highway, and ocean view plazas. 2.1.1 Design Features Architecture. Visitor-Serving Commercial District architecture will comply with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and provide for high quality architecture reflective of the California Mediterranean vernacular. Buildings are intended to be divided in distinct massing elements to provide visual variety. Building facades will be articulated with architectural elements and details, such as arcade trellises and fenestration. Design considerations for building mass and form will create a visually attractive community that compliments the surrounding environment, both within Pacific City and the adjacent community. P -C - ATTACH'NEN71v0J-? . 2-1 Pacific Cay Master Plan v •1� of ` lod FI, II= �s .��. Al , .. ,r c 'T', tF � �R i is �,. Z.Al *1_ 1 �..1�ral �7 sue. <�1 �• �u� �htq I� � , . i • ±��+�r!�+�,M•.�*,�/ ,1�=`j` �� �► tip' � - 1 = T j M I YfY I Dtstncl 7 Visitgr-Serving Commerc al and District 8A Res de ttat Village TABLE 2-1 PACIFIC CITY DISTRICT 7 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICAL SUMMARY Hospitality Rooms/ Land Use Approximate Square Feet VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL PARCEL 2: Approximately 6.4 Acres Retail, entertainment,food and beverage, up to 180,000 sq.tt. museum Office 60,000 scl ft, Total: Parcel 2 240.000 sq.ft. HOSPITALITY PARCEL PARCEL 3: Approximately 4.2 Acres Hospitality up to 400 rooms/334,000 sq.ft. Ballroom 16.000 sq.ft. Restaurant 5.000 sq.ft Spa 15.000 sgft Total: Parcel 3 up to 400 rooms 370.000 sq.ft TOTAL DISTRICT 7 up to 400 roams 610.000 sq.ft. s:" square feet Notes (a) 1.543 parking spaces will be provided vethn the subtenanear parking structure for District 7 (b} Approximateiy 3 7 acres of the 31.5-acre Pacific City project site is associated w,th right-of-way dedications SOLrce: MVE. July 2003. Plazas and Courtyards. An objective of the project is to preserve and incorporate natural amenities unique to the site, such as public shoreline and ocean views. Primary pedestrian access to these public area promenades will be provided from Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific View Avenue and the shoreline via a pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast Highway. Secondary access will be provided from uses within the Visitor-Serving Commercial District. These public areas can include shade trees and landscaping, water features. public art, and seating. Site Entries. Public vehicular site entry will occur from Pacific View Avenue, with service entries from Pacific View Avenue, 1s' Street, and Huntington Street. The Pacific City District 7 Visitor- Serving Commercial District site will provide distinctive entry and edge design features to provide a pleasant street environment for automobiles and pedestrian. Entry areas will have street trees and ornamental landscaping, architectural monumentation, and enhanced paving. The overall design character will provide attractive edges and distinctive project gateways that enhance the image of Pacific City. Pedestrian Orientation. The placement of vehicular parking under the site enhances the pedestrian orientation of the site by creating a site free of parking lots/structures and allowing for continuous pedestrian activity from downtown Huntington Beach, through District 8A and the District 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial District, to the beach. Sidewalks around the perimeter of the site tie into existing offsite sidewalks, as well as walkways and public open spaces areas within the Visitor-Serving Commercial District. A pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast Highway will provide direct connections between the visitor-serving commercial uses in District 7 and the beach, and will P C. ATTACHMENT NO 2-4 Pacific City Master Plan Distnct 7 Visaon5ervmg Commerciai and D,stnct BA Remdentiai Village also provide safe access to the beach for existing residents and visitors from the surrounding community. Landscaping. Landscaping will play an important role in establishing the visual identity and character of Pacific City. Consistency in theme and application of project-wide design elements, such as entries, parkways, walls and fences, edge/interface conditions, and plant materials will be maintained throughout the Pacific City project (Districts 7 and 8A). The landscape/hardscape concept for the project set forth in this Commercial Master Site Plan is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines with emphasis placed on California and Mediterranean plants materials. Signage. A special sign program will provide for corporate promotion, banners, and interactive information points, this program will be prepared and implemented at a later date. 2.1.2 Mixed Use Parcel The District 7 Visitor-Serving Commercial District development project will allow for the implementation of a mix of retail. dining, entertainment, and office uses on 6.4 acres of the 10.6- acre site. Buildings will range in height from one to three stories above the promenade. Shops and services on the promenade will be oriented to provide ease of access to hotel guests, seasonal and day visitors to Huntington Beach and local residents, as well as residents of District SA. The upper level will predominately be office and cultural uses, but will also include the upper level of restaurants, entertainment establishments and retail uses. The mixed use parcel could include: • Restaurants, retail shops, entertainment venues, and specialty food outlets and upscale grocery stores. as well as neighborhood serving retail uses along Pacific View Avenue. • Relocation of the International Surfing Museum to the site • Outdoor plazas • Cultural uses • Second floor retail and professional office uses • Third floor professional office space uses • Subterranean parking • Pedestrian bridge • Landscaping 2.1.3 Hospitality Parcel The eastern 4.2 acres of the 10.6-acre Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial District site will allow for the development of hospitality uses (Exhibit 2-2). The hospitality facility will be sited along Pacific Coast Highway on the eastern portion of the District 7 site, adjacent to the existing Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. Onsite land uses will range in height from three to eight stories- ? .C .ATTACHMENT NO. Vz 2-5 Pac,f c City Maste,Plan Datnct 7 Vanor-Serving Commercial and District BA Residential Village Hospitality use characteristics are expected to include the following: Hospitality guest rooms Entertainment lounge and/or lobby lounge • Function facilities Food and beverage services • Ocean view plaza with swimming pool • Spa Subterranean parking Landscaping 2.2 DISTRICT 8A RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE USES The Pacific City District 8A Residential Village will allow for the development of 516 condominium homes and a 2-acre publicly accessible Village Green on the approximately 17.2-acre site. District 8A will average 30 dwelling units (du) per net acre Project statistics for the Pacific City District 8A project are provided in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2 PACIFIC CITY DISTRICT 8A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICAL SUMMARY Statistics Residential Number of Units (du) 516 du Density (duwac) 30 dufac Common Open Space(sq.ft.) Required 209.498 sq.ft. Provided 404,187 sq.ft. Private Open Space Required 77,590 sq.ft. Provided 77,590 sq.ft. Parking Spaces Subterranean per code Common Loop Road 19 spaces du: dwelling unit dwaC. dwelling unit per net acre sq it square feet Source PAVE. July 2003 The Downtown Specific Plan provisions governing District 8A identify a maximum building height of 50 feet, increased height is subject to a Special Permit, Along Atlanta Avenue, the three-story buildings will have a 35 foot height limit, but will also include some two-story building elevations. Along Huntington Street frontage, residential buildings will be stepped to comply with slope site requirements set forth in the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance Section 230.70C. Along the 1" Street frontage, residential buildings will range from two stories to four stories. Internal to District 8A and along the majority of the Pacific View Avenue frontage, four-story residential buildings will be within the 50 foot height limit. The Downtown Specific Plan Section 4.2.05 requires the establishment of maximum allowable site coverage within each district. Any part of the site covered by a roof, including covered walkways4 '3 P . C - ATTACHMENT N0. __• 2-6 Pacific city Master Plan Dtstnct 7 Vtsrtor-Servmc Commerpal and D,slmt SA Resident a Visage patios and carports, is included in coverage. Within District 8A, and in accordance with Section 4.10-05, the maximum site coverage is 50 percent of the net site area. Affordable housing will be provided through by either onsite or offsite units or a combination of onsite and offsite units consistent with provisions of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Housing Element, Zoning Ordinance Section 230.14 and Merged Redevelopment Plan. 2.2.1 Design Features Architecture. Residential Village architecture will comply with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and provide for high quality architecture reflective of California Mediterranean influenced architecture. A variety of compatible architectural styles will be integrated into District 8A. Such variation allows onsite residences to be compatible with the varying architectural building styles adjacent to the site and in the surrounding downtown community, while minimizing internal monotony within District 8A. Varying the spacing, sizing, shape and placement of door and window openings in building facades provides visual interest. However, random placement and style will be avoided. Rooflines will be staggered (i.e., height and segmentation) and may incorporate vertical elements to provide visual interest and breakup horizontal massing. Building and roof materials and colors will compliment the architectural styles of Pacific City. Exterior building materials will be complimentary to those used on adjacent buildings onsite and offsite. Roof materials may include tile and metal. Landscape. The landscape concept for the Residential Village district will be consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to have a cohesive appearance that will achieve compatibility with the existing surroundings and will include grasses and ground covers, shrubs, and vines and trees. Open Space. A public access corridor, 2-acre Village Green and park and recreational uses are a part of the District 8A project. A public access corridor is provided through the site linking the site to the beach to the south and downtown to the northwest. The 2-acre Village Green is located internal to the District 8A site with direct public access to the Village Green from Pacific View Avenue and public walkways through the Residential Village. A pocket park accessible to the public and residents of Pacific City is located on the northwest corner of the site at the intersection of 1" Street and Atlanta Avenue. Three additional park and recreational areas will be provided internal to the site. 2.3 CIRCULATION PLAN The City of Huntington Beach General Plan requires the provision of adequate infrastructure to accommodate anticipated vehicular traffic, the provision of transit, bus and bicycle facilities. the preservation of existing shoreline accessways and the provision of new or enhanced access where feasible and appropriate. Vehicular and pedestrian access to and through both the Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial District and Residential Village will be provided by a combination of existing and proposed roadways and public walkways, as required by the Downtown Specific Plan. For District 7, as depicted on Exhibit 2-3, two guest project entries will be from Pacific View Avenue with secondary service entries from Pacific View Avenue, 1" Street and Huntington Street. For District 8A, the primary residential project entries will be from Pacific View Avenue with secondary project entries from 1" Street and Huntington Street (Exhibit 2-3). iiy.ry P .0 - ATTACHMENT N0. 2-7 Pacthc city masw Plan r y. i I,• _ `rya II������� �-� � D �': Drsrnct 7 Visnor-Serwng Commercial and Distncl BA Res/dentiai Village 2.3.1 Offsite Access Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway is a state facility and is designated in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element as a Primary Arterial Highwaywlth an existing 84-foot pavement width, including a 12-foot-wide median and an 8-foot-wide sidewalk on the inland side. Metered parallel parking is currently provided on both sides of Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway is proposed to ultimately include three travel lanes in each direction. This modification would be implemented by replacing the existing parallel parking spaces. Parking displaced by the re-striping project on Pacific Coast Highway along the Pacific City District 7 frontage (27 parking spaces located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway) will be replaced on the site. An Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus turnout will be provided on the north side Pacific Coast Highway west of Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue. No residential site access is planned from Atlanta Avenue. Atlanta Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial Street on the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Atlanta Avenue has an existing 45-foot pavement width and a 63-foot right-of-way east of Huntington Street, 45-foot pavement width and a 58-foot right-of-way west of Huntington Street. Pacific View Avenue. One full-access (westerly driveway) is provided along Pacific View Avenue for the retail and office uses in District 7 A second full-access(easterly driveway)is provided along Pacific View Avenue for the retail, office and hospitality uses (District 7). Access to the subterranean parking garage and valet parking, as well as passenger drop-offs can occur from this location. The service access along Pacific View Avenue for the retail uses will be a right-in/right-out only access. Gated vehicular access into District 8A will be provided from two points along Pacific View Avenue. These entries will align with the entries into District 7. Entrances into the Residential Village will be security gated with either a guard house or automatic security gates, but will be accessible to pedestrians. Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue extension) is designated as a Primary Arterial Street in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element and on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In its ultimate configuration, the City of Huntington Beach has designated this roadway with a 90-foot-wide right-of-way, between Huntington Street and 1" Street, with two lanes of vehicular traffic in each direction, sidewalks on both sides of the street and onstreet bike lanes. Pacific View Avenue will be dedicated to provide its ultimate width and reserved for future widening should it be deemed necessary by the City of Huntington Beach. Pacific View Avenue will have one traffic lane in each direction with a center turning lane, onstreet bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks. Angled parking will be provided on the south side of Pacific View Avenue. Parallel parking will be provided on the north side of Pacific View Avenue between the two entry points into the Residential Village and the primary access into the Village Green. This reduced roadway width is designed to lower vehicular traffic speeds and offers safer pedestrian crossing. 1"Street. Service access to the subterranean garage in District 7 will be provided from 1" Street. For the Residential Village (District 8A), gated resident-only subterranean garage access into the site will be provided from 1" Street. This entry is intended to have an automatic security gate. 1" Street is designated as a Primary Arterial Street with a current configuration that varies in width from a 75-foot right-of-way near Pacific Coast Highway(62 feet of pavement curb-to-curb and 6-1/2 feet of sidewalk and parkway on each side) to a 95-foot-wide right-of-way near the street's intersection with Olive (75 feet of pavement curb-to-curb and 10 feet of parkway and sidewalk on each side). In its ultimate configuration, the City of Huntington Beach has designated 1" Street with a 100-foot-wide right-of-way, measuring 42 feet of pavement and 8 feet of parkway and P .C - ATTACHMENT NO. _6(0 2-9 Pacft City Master Plan D,Stnct 7 Visrfor-Serving Commercial and District 8A Residential Vdlage sidewalk on each side of the existing centerline of the street. This will allow for a raised median, as well as an additional southbound left-turn lane onto Pacific Coast Highway. Huntington Street. Employee and delivery vehicle access to the District 7 subterranean parking garage will be provided from Huntington Street. Gated resident-only subterranean garage access into the District 8A site will be provided from two locations along Huntington Street. These entries are intended to have automatic security gates. One access point is near Atlanta Avenue with the second access point located closer to Pacific View Avenue. Huntington Street is currently configured to be a Collector Street with a 40-foot pavement width and 10 feet of parkway and sidewalk on each side of the street from Atlanta Avenue south to Pacific View Avenue and a 43-foot pavement width between Pacific View Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. In its ultimate configuration, Huntington Street will be widened to a 44-foot pavement width between Pacific View Avenue and Atlanta Avenue. Between Pacific View Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Street is designated as a 4-lane secondary arterial, but has a current configuration that includes 32 feet of pavement width to curb and 8-foot-wide sidewalk east of the centerline and 20 feet of pavement width to curb and 10-foot sidewalk, west of the centerline. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way will be dedicated west of the centerline to allow for the full secondary arterial right-of-way. 2.3.2 Onsite Circulation. Access and Parking The design of Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial District and Residential Village minimizes the number of vehicular roadways to maximize safe pedestrian movement on and through the site. District 7. Vehicular ingress/egress will be provided from Pacific View Avenue, 1" Street and Huntington Street. On 1" Street, vehicular access will be restricted to service vehicles. On Huntington Street. vehicular access will be restricted to service and employee vehicles. From Pacific View Avenue, motorists can access the site from an onsite roadway, as well as access the subterranean parking structure. From 1"Street and Huntington Street, service vehicles will access the site directly into the subterranean parking structure serving the entire site. From the westerly access from Pacific View Avenue, motorists will enter District 7 and directly access the subterranean parking structure from the onsite drive. From the easterly access from Pacific View Avenue, motorists can access the site via an onsite drive and can drop off guests at the hospitality facility, drop of their vehicles to be valet parked or access the subterranean parking garage. District 8A. The design of the Residential Village includes a private community collector street (loop road) that will be gated for vehicular access for residents and guests, but will be accessible to pedestrians (Exhibit 2-3). Internal to the site, both residents and guests will have access to the subterranean parking garages. A minimum of two subterranean parking spaces is provided for each condominium unit and adequate subterranean and surface parking (along the interior loop road) to serve guests of the community per code requirements. 2.3.3 Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access improvements include pedestrian corridors throughout Pacific City, including linkages between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed Residential Village via numerous pedestrian spines that connect to an interior collector street, then through the Visitor- Serving Commercial District 7 to Pacific Coast Highway and the beach via at-grade intersections and a grade-separated pedestrian bridge, as depicted in Exhibit 2-4. Both public and private q,17 P . G . ATTACHMENT NO. _ _ _ - 2-10 Pacific City Master Plsn District 7 Visitor-Servrna Commercial and District 8A Res)oeritw Viaaae pedestrian access is provided through District 8A. Each residential building will be gated to provide security to residents of Pacific City. Pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan(Section 4.9.11). development in District 7 and District 8A requires the dedication, or a waiver thereof, of a 20-foot-wide corridor between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric right-of- way and Pacific Coast Highway. This public access corridor commences on Atlanta Avenue and aligns with Alabama Street to facilitate pedestrian movement to the downtown area. The public access corridor will follow the loop roadway through District 8A to Pacific View Avenue and extend from Pacific City District 7 to Pacific Coast Highway. Pedestrian movement across Pacific View Avenue will be provided at four locations between 1" Street and Huntington Street. At-grade pedestrian crosswalks will be provided at the intersection of 1" Street at Pacific View Avenue, the intersection of Huntington Street at Pacific View Avenue and at two mid-block locations on Pacific View Avenue between Huntington Street and 1" Street to facilitate safe pedestrian movement between Districts 7 and 8A. These pedestrian pathways connect to the Visitor-Serving Commercial District 7 via intersections and clearly delineated entrances to the retail, entertainment, restaurant, cultural and hospitality amenities. At-grade crossings are proposed at the existing signalized intersections of Pacific Coast Highway at Huntington Street and Pacific Coast Highway at 1" Street to the beach, in addition to the grade-separated pedestrian bridge in District 7 (Exhibit 2-4). The pedestrian bridge will be located midway between Huntington Street and 1" Street providing a connection from the beach to public areas near the hospitality uses in District 7. The pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast Highway will provide safe coastal access for pedestrians to and from the site. P .0 - ATTACHMENT N0. q to 2.11 Pacific City Master Plan i i 1 }dX �+ •Yid• * c ; 9116 Pill Loill Isom■ 111 4100 MCCMNX Blvd • Su to 200 - Newport 8eoch.CA 92660 • Php 949.255.1100 - Fw:949.M.1128 M AK A R February 24, 2004 Scott Hess Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Scott: The following is the Pacific City Conditional Use Permit (CUP) narrative. A. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SERVICES The subject site is a 31.5-acre parcel located in Downtown Huntington Beach with frontage of approximately one-quarter mile along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), between 151 Street and Huntington Street, and extends north to Atlanta Avenue. The Pacific City project is a mixed-use development consisting of a Visitor-Serving Commercial Center and Residential Village, Sheets A-101 through A-106 of the CUP show details of the various levels of the Pacific City project. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Land Use Program The Visitor Serving Commercial Center is intended to be a visitor-serving destination, providing unique businesses that serve Huntington Beach residents and visitors alike, while connecting the resort area to the southeast with the Main Street/Pier area to the northwest and also connecting surrounding residents and visitors to the beach. The Visitor-Serving Commercial Center component of the Pacific City project will occupy approximately 10.59-acres of the southern portion of the project site including a 6.47-acre Retail Promenade parcel and a 4.12-acre Boutique Resort parcel. Within this portion of the project, a variety of visitor-serving commercial uses are proposed including hospitality, retail. entertainment, dining, office, cultural, and common open space areas. Retail Promenade Parcel (Lot 2): The Retail Promenade parcel, located on the west portion of the District 7 Visitor Serving Commercial Center, is 6.47-acres and will include up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses. The Retail Promenade parcel is organized along a crescent shaped pedestrian promenade, which is connected together with a series of gathering areas including formal and informal plazas, terraces, and patios. The promenade will be animated with public art, landscaping, kiosks, and interactive fountains. It will provide unobstructed public views to the beach, Pier and Pacific Ocean. The type of tenants within the retail promenade P .G . ATTACHMENT NO. _ ' -- February 24, 2004 Page 2 could include, restaurants, retail shops, entertainment venues, specialty food outlets, neighborhood serving retail uses along Pacific View Avenue, second floor retail, restaurant, entertainment, and professional office uses, and third floor professional office space uses. Buildings within the Retail Promenade will range in height from one to three stories above the promenade. The first level of the retail promenade will include visitor and neighborhood serving types of commercial tenants. The upper levels will include the second level of restaurants, entertainment establishments, and retail uses (retail tenants may choose for a single level store on the second floor or a two level store on the first and second floor(, but will also offer professional office space. The upper levels may also be used to provide additional ceiling volume to the buildings to enhance architectural movement and articulation. Two alternative programs for the Retail Promenade parcel are included within the CUP request. These two programs include a program with 240,000 square feet of commercial space and an alternative program with 191,100 square feet of commercial space. 240,000 Square Foot Retail Promenade Program: The 240,000 square foot program includes 141,100 square feet of retail space, 38.900 square feet of restaurant/club space, and 60,000 square feet of office space on three levels. The podium level of the 240,000 square foot program consists of 120,100 square feet of commercial space including 91,200 square feet of retail space and 28,900 square feet of restaurant/club space. The second level of the 240,000 square foot program consists of 89,900 square feet of commercial space, which includes 49,900 square feet of retail, 10,000 square feet of restaurant/club, and 30,000 square feet of office. The third level of the 240,000 square foot program consists of 30,000 square feet of office. 191,000 Square Foot Alternative Retail Promenade Program: The 191,100 square foot alternative program includes 112,200 square of retail, 48,900 square feet of restaurant /club, and 30,000 square feet of office on two levels. The variance of square footage uses with the 191,100 square feet alternative program from the 240,000 square foot program includes a reduction of 28,900 square feet in retail on the second level, an increase in 10,000 square feet in restaurant /club on the second level, and the elimination of the 30,000 square feet of office on the third level. The podium level of the 191,100 alternative program is similar to the 240,000 square foot program with 120,100 square feet of commercial space including 91,200 square feet of retail and 28,900 square feet of restaurant/club. The second level of the 191,100 square foot alternative program will consist of 71,000 square feet of commercial space including 21,000 square feet of retail, 20,000 square feet of restaurant/ club, and 30,000 square feet of office. There will be no third floor uses within the 191,100 square foot program, but the additional building volume from the 240,000 square foot program may remain to provide additional ceiling volume to the buildings to enhance architectural movement and articulation. A table showing both programs is included below, p .c . ATTACHMENT NO. �=y- February 24. 2004 Page 3 240,000 SF PACIFIC CITY RETAIL PROMENADE PROGRAM Program Program Areas Use Area Leven Level Level Total Retail Promenade Parcel Retail 91,200 49,900 0 141,100 Restaurants / Clubs 28,900 10,000 0 38,900 Office 0 30,000 30,000 60,000 Sub-Total 30.000 240,000 Total 240,000 10,550 square feel of Outdoor fining not included 191,100 SF PACIFIC CITY RETAIL PROMENADE PROGRAM Program program Areas Use Area Level 1 Level Level Total Retail Promenade Parcel Retail 91,200 21,000 0 112,200 Restaurants / Clubs 28,900 20,000 0 48,900 Office 0 30,000 0 30,000 Sub-Total 120,100 71,000 0 191.100 Total 191,100 10.550 square feel of outdoor dining not included In addition, 10.550 square feet of outdoor dining will be included in both the 240,000 square foot program and the 19 1,100 square foot alternative program; 6,100 square feet of this outdoor dining area has been included in the parking analysis. The remaining 4,450 square feet of outdoor dining has not been included in parking analysis because those individual restaurant outdoor dining areas are proposed as either 1,200 sq. ft. or less with a maximum 5 tables and 20 seats or if greater than 1,200 square feet, are a maximum of 20% of the restaurant area or do not to exceed 4D0 square feet. Details regarding the outdoor dining areas will be discussed in further detail below. Boutique Resort Parcel (Lot 3): The eastern 4.12 acres of the 10.59-acre District 7 Visitor- Serving Commercial Center (Lot 3) will include a Boutique Resort. The Boutique Resort will be sited along PCH on the eastern portion of the District 7 site, adjacent to the existing Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. Q.C . ATTACHMENT NO. y'�'- February 24, 2004 Page 4 Hospitality use characteristics expected at the Boutique Resort could include hospitality guest rooms, entertainment lounge and/or lobby lounge, banquet and meeting function facilities, food and beverage services, sundries, health spa, plazas with swimming pools and spas. subterranean parking, and landscaping. The hotel program will consist of a 400 key hotel, 9,300 net square feet of banquet and meeting area (5,100 square feet of conference room and 4,200 square feet of ballroom), a 15,000 square foot health spa, which will include 30 treatment rooms, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant. A table showing the resort program is shown below. PACIFIC CITY BOUTIQUE RESORT PROGRAM Program Program Areas Use Floors Total Boutique Resort Parcel 400 Key Hotel / Resort 334,000 8 Banquet Room (Net Area) 9,300 1 Spa (30 treatment rooms) 15,000 2 Restaurant 5,000 1 Total 363,300 Residential Village (District 8A) Land Use Program Residential Village (Lot 1): Designated as District 8A (High Density Residential) in the Downtown Specific Plan, the residential component of the Pacific City project (Residential Village), will occupy approximately 17.2-acres on the rear portion of the project site (Lott). Consistent with Downtown Specific Plan, the Residential Village will average 30 Dwelling Units per net acre over the 17.2 acre parcel for a total of 516 condominium homes. The Residential Village, adjacent to the Downtown commercial core, will provide a population base to help support the local commercial and office business in the Downtown. The 516 for-sale condominiums are arranged into 14 buildings in four neighborhoods, with each neighborhood clustered around open space amenities. The condominium buildings will range in height from two to four stories. The unit types will include two story townhouses and single story flats: the townhouses and flats will be stacked within the two to four story buildings. One type of townhouse product is proposed as "S-Town" with three floor plans including 2 bedroom, 2 bedroom with den, and 3 bedroom plans ranging from 1,750 to 2.425 square feet. Two types of flat product are proposed including "S-Flat' with three floor plans including 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom plans ranging from 850 to 1,285 ?,C . ATTACHMENT NO. y'� February 24, 2W4 Page 5 square feet; the "D-Flat' product includes four floor plans including 2 bedroom and 2 bedroom with den plans, ranging from 1,840 to 2,350 square feet. A table showing the proposed Residential Village program is included below. PACIFIC CITY RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE PROGRAM Avg. % Total Unit Type Units SF Mix SF Nel hborhood 1 S-Flat-A 1BD/1BA 138 850 68% 117,300 S-Flat$ 2BD/2BA 17 1,235 8% 20,995 S-Flat-C 2BD/2BA 42 1,285 21% 53,970 S-Town-BB 3BD/3BA 6 1,450 3% 8,700 TOTAL 203 990 200,965 Nel hborhood 2 S-Town-A 2BD/3BA 38 1,750 30% 66,500 2BD+Den S-Town-B /3BA 34 1,860 27% 63,240 2BD+Den S-Town-C /3BA 29 2,220 23% 64,380 S-Town-D 3BD/3BA 24 2,425 19% 58,200 TOTAL 125 2,019 252,320 Neighborhood 3 D-FlatA 2BD/3BA 72 1,840 60% 132,480 D-Flat B 2BD+Den/3BA 26 2,450 22% 63,700 D-Flat C 2BD/3BA 4 2,180 3% 8,720 D-Flat D 2BD+Den/3BA 18 2,350 15% 42,300 TOTAL 120 2,060 247,200 Neighborhood 4 D-FlatA 2BD/3BA 52 1,840 76% 95,680 D-Flat C 2BD/3BA 8 2,180 12% 17,440 D-Flat D 2BD+Den/3BA 8 2,350 12% 18,800 TOTAL 68 1,940 131,920 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 516 1,613 832,405 The Residential Village is organized around a Village Drive loop road, which forms the pedestrian spine of the Residential Village and connects across Pacific View Avenue directly into the Visitor Serving Commercial District pedestrian and vehicle entries. The buildings fronting the Village Drive loop road as well as surrounding streets including 1 st Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue will be animated with front porches, stoops and patios to create an active streetscape. The first residential neighborhood, which includes 203 condominiums, is located at the comer of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, bordered by the 20 foot pedestrian P .0 - ATTACHMENT NO. y-�' February 24, 2004 Page 6 easement path across from Alabama Street, the pedestrian easement across from the Pacific Mobile Home Park, and the Village Drive loop road. The buildings within this neighborhood are designed with single loaded corridor circulation. The 203 condominiums include the S-Flat and S-Townhouses product with 1, 2, and 3 bedroom floor plans that range in size from 850 to 1,450 square feet. The second residential neighborhood includes 125 condominiums and is located on the corner of Is' Street and Pacific View, bordered by Pacific View Avenue, 1st Street, Atlanta Avenue and the 20 foot pedestrian corridor across from Alabama Street. The buildings within this neighborhood are designed with single loaded corridors circulation. The 125 condominiums include the S-Townhouse Product with 1, 2 + Den, and 3 bedroom floor plans that range in size from 1,750 to 2,425 square feet. The third residential neighborhood includes 120 condominiums and is located on the corner of Pacific View Avenue and Huntington Street, bordered by Pacific View Avenue, Huntington Street, the pedestrian easement across from the Pacific Mobile Home Park, and the Village Drive loop road. The buildings within this neighborhood are designed with double loaded corridor circulation. The 120 condominiums include the D-Flat product with 2 and 2 + Den bedroom floor plans that range in size from 1,840 to 2,350 square feet. The fourth residential neighborhood includes 68 condominiums and is located along Pacific View Avenue, bordered by the Village Drive loop road and Village Green Park. The buildings within this neighborhood are designed with double loaded corridor circulation. The 68 condominiums include the D-Flat product with 2 and 2 + Den bedroom floor plans that range in size from 1,840 to 2,350 square feet. PacHic City Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular and pedestrian access to Pacific City will be provided by a combination of existing and proposed roadways and walkways as depicted on Sheet A-105 (Floor Plan-Street / Podium Level) and Sheet LS-05 (Pedestrian Access Plan) of the CUP, and Sheet 2 of the Tentative Tract Map (7M). Offsite Vehicular Access 8 Parking: Offsite vehicular access and parking addresses improvements to PCH, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, 1st Street, and the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue. PCH is designated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a Primary Arterial Highway, with an existing 84-foot pavement width, including a 12-foot median and an 8-foot sidewalk on the inland side. Presently, metered parallel parking is provided on both sides of the street. Additionally, a median break, with an eastbound left-turn pocket is located approximately 800-feet from the easterly project boundary (Huntington Street and PCH). Consistent with the PCH Re-striping Plan, PCH will ultimately include three travel lanes in each direction by relocating the existing parallel parking spaces; 27 metered parking spaces are located along the north side of PCH fronting the Pacific City project site. Approximately 10 feet of additional right of way P , G . ATTACHMENT NO. 5 February 24. 2004 Page 7 will be granted on the north side of PCH along the project frontage to allow for an additional third northbound lane. The majority of the existing sidewalk along PCH will be relocated within the project boundary to elevate pedestrians above PCH and separate pedestrians from PCH traffic. The proposed bus stop located on PCH at the corner of PCH and Huntington Street will also connect to the relocated PCH sidewalk and Huntington Street. The 27 parking stalls located on PCH, fronting the project will be relocated into the commercial parking structure. Atlanta Avenue is currently designated as a Primary Arterial Street on the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Atlanta Avenue has an existing 45-foot pavement width and 63-foot right-of-way east of Huntington Street and 45-foot pavement width and 58-foot right-of-way west of Huntington Street. Approximately 30 feet of additional right of way will granted on the south side of Atlanta Avenue to provide a ultimate right of way of 90 feet. In the interim condition, Atlanta Avenue will include two eastbound lanes that merge into a single eastbound lane and a right turn lane to Huntington Street. The existing 4 parking stalls located on the south side of Atlanta Avenue will be relocated into the commercial parking structure. Huntington Street, between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific View Avenue is currently configured as a collector street with 40-foot pavement width and 10-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. Roadway improvements proposed for this portion of Huntington Street include 12 feet of parkway improvements on the project boundary side with 6 feet of landscaping and six feet of sidewalk. Huntington Street, between Pacific View Avenue PCH is designated as a 4-lone secondary arterial but has a current configuration that includes 32 feet of pavement width to curb and 8-foot sidewalk east of the centerline and 20 feet of pavement width to curb and 10-foot sidewalk, west of the centerline. An additional 10 feet of right of way will be dedicated west of the centerline to allow for the full secondary arterial right of way including 12 feet of parkway improvements on the project boundary side with 6 feet of landscaping and six feet of sidewalk. Is' Street is designated as a Primary Arterial Street, but has a current configuration that varies with a 75-foot right of way near PCH, which includes 62 feet of pavement curb to curb and 6.5 feet of sidewalk and parkway on each side. Near the intersection with Olive, Is'Street has a 95-foot right of way with 75 feet of pavement curb to curb and 10 feet of parkway and sidewalk on each side. The entire length of 1s, Street along the project frontage will be improved to provide an ultimate right of way of 95 feet. Approximately 25 feet of additional right of way will be dedicated on the east side of Is' Street between PCH and Olive Street. There are 38 existing parking spaces fronting the Pacific City site; eighteen of those spaces will remain along the proposed residential portion of the project while the remaining 20 spaces along the proposed commercial district and the proposed intersection of Pacific View and Is' Street will be relocated into the commercial parking structure. Q. C . ATTACHMENT NO. __ _ February 24, 2004 Page 8 As set forth in Precise Plan of Street Alignment (PPSA No. 88-1), the alignment for the extension of Pacific View Drive through the 31.5 acre site provides for a slight curvilinear design with an ultimate configuration of a 90-foot right of way. The Pacific City project maintains this configuration and will be consistent with PPSA No. 88-1. In the interim condition, Pacific View Avenue will include one lane of traffic in each direction (eastbound and westbound) with a center turning lane. The south side of Pacific View Avenue will include 39 short term parking spaces, which will front the neighborhood serving commercial proposed on Pacific View Avenue. The north side of Pacific View Avenue will include 16 short term parking spaces, adjacent to the Village Green Park. Parking on Pacific View Avenue is provided as part on the interim design of Pacific View Avenue, until such time that the full 90 foot right of way is needed, and therefore this proposed parking is considered temporary. Onsite Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking: The Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial District and Residential Village is designed to minimize the number of vehicular roadways to maximize safe pedestrian movement on and through the site. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District n Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking: Vehicular ingress/egress for the visitor serving commercial district will be provided from Pacific View Avenue, 1$1 Street and Huntington Street. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Service Area Vehicle Access: Three service areas are proposed for the Visitor Serving Commercial Center. The first service access area is proposed off of ls' Street, as shown on Sheet A-103 (Floor Plan- Street/Podium Level) of the CUP, with access limited to service and trash vehicles associated with the proposed Retail Promenade. The second service access area is proposed off of Pacific View Avenue, as shown on Sheet A-103 (Floor Plan- Street/Podium Level) of the CUP, with access limited to service and trash vehicles associated with the proposed Retail Promenade. The third service area is proposed off of Huntington Street as shown on Sheet A-102 (Upper Garage), with access limited to service and trash vehicles associated with the proposed Boutique Resort. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Guest Parking and Access: Approximately 1,543 parking spaces will be provided for the visitor serving commercial district will provided on two levels of subterranean parking. Details of the parking structure configuration, pedestrian access, and typical parking stall dimensions are shown on Sheet A-101 (Lower Garage) and Sheet A-102 (Upper Garage) of the CUP. The shared parking program for the commercial parking structure shown on Sheet A- 001 (Title Sheet) is based on the October 15, 2003 Visitor Serving Commercial Center Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Linscott Low & Greenspan for the Pacific City project. Two vehicle access points are proposed into the Visitor Serving Commercial Center parking structure, both from Pacific View Avenue. From the westerly access on Pacific View Avenue, as shown on A-103 (Floor Plan-Street/Podium Level), motorists will enter the Visitor Serving Commercial District parking structure from a ramp system leading from Pacific View Avenue directly into the parking structure. From the easterly access P .0 . ATTACHMENT NO. h•8 February 24, 2004 Page 9 from Pacific View Avenue, motorists can access a motor court drive to either drop off guests at the Retail Promenade or Boutique resort and self park, drop of their vehicles to be valet parked, or access the subterranean parking garage. Guests and employees of the Visitor Serving Commercial Center will be able to access the Street/Podium level of the Retail Promenade from two main areas within the parking structure, which are located along PCH at both the northwest and southeast ends of the Retail Promenade. A third access area with stairs and an elevator will be located in the parking structure, which will provide guests access near the northwest portion of the motor court/porte cochere. Elevator and stair access is also provided to both the second and third floor office buildings from the parking structure. Elevator access will also be available for both guests and employees for the boutique resort. From the parking structure, access will be provided to the resort lobby, gallery, and upper guest floors. From the service area, access will be provided to the banquet kitchen area and the upper guest floors. Residential Village (District 8A) Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking: The design of the Residential village includes a private community collector street (Village Drive loop road) that will be gated for vehicular access for residents and guests, but will be accessible to all pedestrians. The Village Drive loop road provides pedestrian and vehicular connections to the Visitor Serving Commercial Center. Gates are proposed at both vehicular entrances to the Residential Village off of Pacific View Avenue: the gate at the east entrance off of Pacific View will be a 24 hour manned gate, which will include a guardhouse: the gate on the west entrance will be accessible only to residents who will enter through remote access. Internal to the Residential Village, both residents and guests will have access to the subterranean parking garages. Residents will also be provided secured gated access to the parking structure from two access entries off of Huntington Street and one access entry from 10 Street as shown on Sheet A-103 (Floor Plan-Street/Podium Level). Parking spaces will be provided in the subterranean garages to adequately serve each condominium unit and guests of the community per code requirements. An additional 19 surface parking spaces will be provided on the Village Drive loop road to serve residents, guests, and deliveries to the Residential Village. Pacific City Pedestrian Access Pacific City is designed to be a walk-able beach community that integrates into the existing urban fabric of Downtown Huntington Beach. This integration includes the design of building massing blocks and pedestrian circulation paths within the Residential Village and Visitor Serving Commercial District that compliment the existing Downtown grid pattern surrounding the project site including three major public pedestrian linkages proposed through the Residential Village. These pedestrian linkages occur across from Olive Avenue, Alabama Street, and from the entrance into the Pacific Mobile Home Park and lead to the Village Drive loop road and the 2.03- acre Village Green Park at the center of the Residential Village. Pedestrians may continue along the Village Drive loop road toward the two at-grade intersections at P .C. . ATTACHMENT N0. y� February 24. 2004 Page 10 Pacific View Avenue, which lead from the Residential Village into the Visitor Serving Commercial Center or walk through the Village Green Pork to Pacific View Avenue. Pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan (Section 4.9.11), development in District 7 and 8A requires the dedication, or a waiver thereof, of a 20-foot-wide corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric right-of-way and PCH. This public access corridor begins on Atlanta Avenue and aligns with Alabama Street, continues along the northwest side of the Village Drive loop road, across Pacific View Avenue via at-grade intersection, and extends through Pacific City Retail Promenade Plaza to PCH. Pedestrian movement across Pacific View Avenue will be provided at four locations between Is, Street and Huntington Street. At-grade pedestrian crosswalks will be provided at the intersections of Is' Street and Pacific View Avenue, Huntington Street and Pacific View Avenue and at two mid-block locations on Pacific View Avenue between Huntington Street and Is, Street to facilitate safe pedestrian movement between District 8A (Residential Village) and Districts 7 (Visitor Serving Commercial Center). Pedestrian access in District 7 (Visitor Serving Commercial District) of Pacific City, is depicted on the CUP Podium Level Plan (Sheet A103) and the Landscape Concept Master Plan (Sheet LS-01) and the Pedestrian Access Plan (Sheet LS-05), which depicts the crescent shaped pedestrian promenade that connects together the Boutique Resort, Pacific View pedestrian access ways. PCH sidewalk fronting the project site including the proposed bus stop. Huntington Street, and the corner of PCH and Is, Street. Pedestrian access along the project frontage of Is' Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street and the north side of Pacific View Avenue will include public right of way dedication and the necessary pedestrian easements to allow for a 12 foot parkway, which include a six foot landscape strip and a 6 foot sidewalk from the back of curb. The south side of Pacific View Avenue will include a minimum 10-foot clear pedestrian easement, which continues from Huntington Street to 1s, Street: plan and section views of Pacific View Avenue are shown on Sheet LS-12 (Landscape Concept - Typical Sections) of the CUP. Pedestrian access along PCH will include the relocation of the existing sidewalk within the proposed slope area in order to elevate pedestrians above PCH. The proposed width of the PCH sidewalk is eight feet and will include larger circular vista points at various locations along the project frontage. A small turf strip along the PCH curb, ranging in width of one to three feet, will remain along PCH; Section B on Sheet LS-11 (Landscape Concept - Typical Sections) of the CUP shows a typical section of the sidewalk area proposed for PCH. At-grade crossings are proposed at the existing signalized intersections of PCH and Huntington and Is' Streets to the beach. p . C . ATTACHMENT NO. �� February 24, 2004 Page 1 I Pacific City Landscaping The conceptual landscape plans proposed at Pacific City is shown on Sheet LS-01 (Landscape Concept - Master Plan) of the CUP. The overall character of the Pacific City landscape concept is lush landscape, extensive garden ornaments and potted plants, with high quality hardscape and site furniture. Typical sections and elevations of the proposed landscape plans are shown on Sheets LS-07 through LS-12 of the CUP. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Landscaping: The character of the landscaping in the Pacific City Visitor Serving Commercial District is lush landscaping with palms, tropical foliages, shrubs, flowers, ground covers. The Retail Promenade's crescent shaped pedestrian promenade will include potted plants, with high quality hardscape, site furniture, and three public plazas. The main plaza will be animated with a large dancing fountain, kiosks and cafe dining. A large, two story landscaped trellis will frame the plaza. The central feature of the plaza is the event lawn which is anticipated to be the main gathering place within the Retail Promenade. The two additional plazas will have fountains of a more traditional nature. The landscaped slope along PCH is designed to buffer visitors of the retail promenade from traffic on PCH. The Boutique Resort landscaping will include the pool area garden court with pools for adults and kids, fountains and an event lawn. The landscaping around the perimeter of the Boutique Resort is mounded up to present the best possible aspect to the arriving guests and to lower the apparent height of the boutique resort building. Residential Village (District 8A) Landscaping: The overall landscape character for the Pacific City Residential Village is designed to make residents, guests, and pedestrians walking through the Residential Village feel as if they not above a parking garage. Two parks are proposed within the Residential Village including the Pocket Park and Village Green Park. The Pocket Park will include groundcover and canopy tree landscaping and a tot lot. The Village Green Park includes walkways that lead from the Village Drive loop road into the Village Green Park through five different directions to a central garden ornament featured beneath a canopy of open trees. Additional amenities within the Village Green Park will include tot lots, barbecues, and a botanical garden. Landscaping within the private residential patio areas are designed to provide generous ground floor patio and garden space to allow ground floor residents as much opportunity as possible for exposure to the sky. Pacific City Wall & Fences A variety of walls and fences are proposed at Pacific City as shown on plan view on Sheet LS-06 (Landscape Concept- Wall & Fence Plan) of the CUP. F. C . ATTACHMENT NO. y.1( -- February 24, 2004 Page 12 In certain areas within Pacific City Visitor Serving Commercial Center and the Residential Village, retaining walls, which exceed two feet in height, are required within the building setback areas; however, none of the proposed walls exceed 42" in height. The location and proposed height of these walls are shown on plan view on Sheet LS- 06 (Landscape Concept - Wall & Fence Plan) of the CUP, Sheet 1, 3, and 4 of the Tentative Tract Map (dated February 13, 2004), and Sheet 2 of 2 of the Pacific City Tentative Tract Map Preliminary Grading Plan (dated February 13, 2004). Typical sections and elevations of the proposed walls are shown on Sheet LS-07, LS-08, and LS- 09 of the CUP; Section A and B of Sheet LS-11 of the December 22, 2003 submittal has been updated with new sections shown on Sheet 5 of the February 13, 2004 Tentative Tract Map. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Walls & Fencing: Within the Visitor Serving Commercial District, proposed walls and fencing includes raised planter walls, glazing along retail and restaurant patios, pool area fencing, monument walls, and planted mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls. Within the Pacific City Visitor Serving Commercial Center, retaining walls exceeding two feet are required along PCH, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue within the building setback areas. Along PCH, there will be a series of retaining and other types of walls within the building setback area. The majority of walls are required to elevate the proposed sidewalk above PCH; none of the proposed walls exceed 47' in height. The proposed retaining wall system for PCH would be a MSE type of wall, which could be planted and screened with landscaping to soften the walls. Along Huntington Street and Pacific View Avenue, retaining walls with heights of up to approximately three feet are proposed behind the back of sidewalk to maximize landscape slope areas extending up to the Boutique Resort Building. Residential Village (District 8A) Walls & Fencing: Within the Residential Village, walls and fencing include residential vehicular gates into the Village Drive loop road, vehicular gates into the residential parking structures, private pedestrian corridor gates, exterior private patio fencing, interior private patio walls, pool area fencing, raised planter walls, and retaining planter walls. Along Huntington Street, retaining walls, located within the building setback area, with heights of up to approximately 3.5 feet are proposed to address the proposed residential building pad elevations and Huntington Street grade change from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Avenue. Sections A and B on Sheet LS-08 and elevations on Sheet A-403 (Residential Elevations-Huntington Street) of the CUP, Sheet 1 of 3 of the Tentative Tract Map, and Sheet 2 of 2 of the Pacific City Tentative Tract Map Preliminary Grading Plan show the proposed retaining walls along Huntington Street. P .C . ATTACHMENT NO. 5•�2 February 24, 2004 Page 13 Pacific City Open Space Section 4.2.11 of the Downtown Specific Plan requires minimum public open space provision will be established in each District in addition to private open space requirements for residential developments. Residential Village (Disfikt 8A) Common Open Space: Section 4.2.11(a) of the Downtown Specific Plan requires that all multi-family residential developments shall provide a minimum common open space equal to twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of each unit with a minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet. Common open space shall be designed so that it enhances the appearance of the project to passers-by. PACIFIC CITY RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE COMMON OPEN SPACE Common Common Common Avg. Open Space Open Space Open Space Unit Units SF Total SF Ratio Required Provided Gighborhood_ 1 S-Flat-A 138 850 117,300 0.25 29,325 S-Flat-B 17 1,235 20,995 0.25 5,249 S-Flat-C 42 1,285 53,970 0.25 13,493 S-Town-BB 6 1,450 8,700 0.25 2,175 TOTAL 203 990 200,965 0.25 50,241 -Neighborhood 2 S-Town-A 38 1,750 66,500 0.25 16,625 S-Town-B 34 1,860 63,240 0.25 15.810 S-Town-C 29 2.220 64,380 0.25 16.095 S-Town-D 24 2,425 58,200 1.25 72,750 TOTAL 125 2,019 252,320 0.25 63,080 -Neighborhood 3 D-FlatA 72 1,840 132,480 0.25 33,120 -D-Flat B 26 2,450 63,700 0.25 15,925 D-Flat C 4 1 2,180 1 8,720 0.25 2,180 D-Flat D 18 2,350 42,300 0.25 10,575 TOTAL 120 2,060 247,200 0.25 81800 Nel hborhood 4 0-FlatA 52 1,840 95,680 0.25 23,920 D-Flat C 1 8 2,180 17,440 0.25 1 4,360 D-Flat D 8 2,350 18,800 0.25 4,700 TOTAL 68 1,940 131,920 0.25 32,980 TOTAL 516 1,613 832,405 0.26 208,101 305,377 Common open space is shown on Sheet D-003 (Common Open Space) of the CUP. The project is required to provide approximately 208,101 square feet of common open Q.0 - ATTACHMENT NO. S!3 February 24. 2004 Page 14 space (approximately 4.78 acres): the project exceeds this requirement and provides approximately 305,377 square feet (approximately 7.01 acres) of common open space on the 17.2-acre Residential Village site. The CUP package submitted in December 2003 indicated that the project includes approximately 404,187 square feet of common open space (approximately 9.28 acres) was provided in the Residential Village. However approximately 2.27 acres of that area is surplus ground floor residential private open space, above the City of Huntington Beach requirements for private open space. Common open space in the Pacific City Residential Village will include two park areas, which will be owned and maintained by the Pacific City Residential Village Master Homeowner Association, but will be open to the public. These two park areas include the Pocket Park located on the corner of Is' Street and Atlanta Avenue (approximately 0.14 acres) and the Village Green Park located in the center of the Residential Village (approximately 2.03 acres). The Village Green, will be accessible to the public through pedestrian walkways; including 1) a pedestrian walkway from 1 Ss Street aligned directly across from Olive Avenue: 2) a pedestrian walkway from Atlanta Avenue directly across from Alabama Street; 3) a pedestrian walkway from Huntington Street across from the entrance to the Pacific Mobile Home Park: 4) pedestrian walkways at both vehicular entrances to the Residential Village, and 5) a minimum 65-foot wide pedestrian walkway from Pacific View Avenue. Sections A. B, and C on Page LS-07 of the Pacific City CUP includes typical sections of the proposed pedestrian walkways from Is' Street, Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street: Elevations A. B, and C on page LS-10 of the Pacific City CUP include the elevations for pedestrian walkways at both vehicular entrances to the Residential Village and proposed public walkway entrance from Pacific View Avenue into the Village Green Park. The remaining common open space areas include courtyards, walkways, and recreation areas within the secured areas of the residential neighborhoods, pedestrian easement areas, and common space landscape areas within the Residential Village. Section D on Page LS-07 of the Pacific City CUP includes a typical section of the proposed pedestrian walkways within the private residential courtyard areas. Please note that private open space and vehicular roads are not included within the common open calculation. Residential Village (District 8A) Private Open Space: Section 4.2.1 1 (b) of the Downtown Specific Plan requires that all multi-family residential developments shall provide private open space including ground floor units with a patio area and units constructed above ground level with balconies or sun decks. Private open space within the Pacific City Residential Village will be provided in all condominiums through a combination of patios, stoops, balconies, and roof decks. Ground level units within the Residential Village will include stoops with large patios that extend into the building setback to help promote community interaction and to activate the project walkways and perimeter streets: these expansive ground floor patio decks exceed the private open space requirements by approximately 98,810 square feet (2.27 acres). Upper level residential units will include balconies and roof decks. ? .C . ATTACHMENT N0. y '� February 24, 2004 Page 15 Sheet D-002 (Private Open Space) on of the CUP shows the locations and a typical plan for the provision of private open space for ground floor and upper level units. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Open Space: Although the Downtown Specific Plan does not specify a required amount of open space for District 7, Section 4.9.10 (Open Space), states that within District 7, public open space and/or pedestrian access shall be required for development projects in order to assure a predominantly visitor-serving orientation. Open space in District 7 of Pacific City, is shown on Sheet A- 103 (Floor Plan-Street/ Podium Level Plan, Sheet LS-01 (Landscape Concept Master Plan), Sheet LS-05 (Pedestrian Access Plan) shows the proposed open space areas including the promenade, plazas, terraces, patios for gathering within the Boutique Resort and Retail Promenade components of the Visitor Serving Commercial Center. More than 50 percent of the 10.59-acre site is open space, as Shown on Sheet D-001 (Lot Coverage) in the CUP. Pacific City Architecture The overall architectural character of Pacific City is California Coastal, and more specifically Southern California Coastal. The character is inspired by the verity of architectural styles that define the region. These styles are predominately rooted in Spanish and Mediterranean architecture derived from California's early history. Additionally incorporated are the California Craftsman style, and a Contemporary Coastal style, many interpretations of which are found in the local beach cottages and newer residences. Exterior elevations are characterized by strong bases and patios, pedestrian scale, stepping of massing with grade, roof movement, play of color to break down massing, and extensive use of stone. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Architecture: The orchitecturol character of the Village Center is collage of the residential village styles that make up the California Coastal theme. The Hotel is designed as a blend of the Southern California Spanish and Italian Mediterranean. The style has been further embellished with domed roofs adding a more civic and less residential scale to the buildings. The domes also further enhance the romantic quality of the resort. The motor court plaza at the hotel has been designed in the form of a large Italian Piazza reinforcing the design theme. The larger scale buildings of the retail promenade hove been broken down into multiple building expressions incorporating interruptions of each of the styles of the California Coastal design theme. By creating multiple architectural expressions we are able to achieve a more intimate village expression. The more varied building expression also adds to more opportunity for individual tenant expression for the various shops. To further embellish the retail village, domed roofs and tower features have been added to enhance the charm and romantic character of the village and visually relote it to the hotel resort. The central plaza of the retail promenade is a public courtyard surrounded by its landscaped trellis and central lawn characteristic of ?.0 . ATTACHMENT NO, �_ February 24, 2004 Page 16 the Spanish and Mediterranean styles. The entire Village Center will be unified with lush landscape and hardscape design. Residential Village (District 8A) Architecture: The residential buildings within the village are designed in four styles defining the California Coastal character. The styles share common materials, especially at the building bases, and similar landscape treatments to define the overall character. These styles are Style-A "Beach Cottage" Inspired by the craftsman and bungalow tradition, Style-B "Southern California Spanish", inspired by the architecture of Irving Gill, Style -C "Italianate/ Romantic Mediterranean", reflecting California's romantic history and a "Contemporary Coastal", inspired by the architecture of Rudolph Schindler. The residential buildings are designed such that no two adjacent buildings around the perimeter are of the some architectural style. This creates the "Village Look" to the surrounding community. Within the interior of the village surrounding the Village Green a singular style is used reinforcing the feeling of being within the Village. Pacific City Affordable Housing Affordable housing will be provided through by either onsite or offsite units or a combination of onsite and offsite units consistent with provisions of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Housing Element, Zoning Ordinance Section 230. 14, and Merged Redevelopment Plan. Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC has contracted with Mary Erickson Community Housing, a non profit corporation for affordable rental housing to assist in developing an affordable housing plan for the Pacific City project. Attached to this narrative is a copy of the affordable housing plan that Mary Erickson Community Housing has developed for the Pacific City project. Pacific City Kiosk & Outdoor Dining Kiosks: Sheet D-006 of the Pacific City CUP depicts the areas within the Retail Promenade )Lot 2) proposed as kiosks zones which includes a total 19,510 square feet of area within the retail promenade and plaza areas. Outdoor Dining: Sheet D-006 of the Pacific City CUP depicts the areas within the Retail Promenade )Lot 2) proposed for outdoor dining. A total of 10,550 square feet of outdoor dining is proposed within the Retail Promenade District: 6,100 square feet of that area will be parked to code and the remaining 4,450 square feet of seating area will be exempt from code because the total restaurant area will be less that 1,200 square feet with a maximum of five tables and 20 seats or the outdoor dining area will not exceed a maximum of 20% of the restaurant area and will not exceed 400 square feet per restaurant. The areas proposed for outdoor dining shall be an extension of the proposed commercial establishments on the contiguous property. Those areas proposed for outdoor dining include the restaurant dining terrace areas along PCH, areas adjacent to the proposed cafe and retail fronting plazas within the retail promenade, outside P.0 - ATTACHMENT NO. y�� February 24, 2004 Page 17 retail establishments along Is' Street, and areas along the neighborhood serving retail along Pacific View Avenue. All of the restaurants and cafes with outdoor dining areas will serve alcoholic beverages outdoors Pacific City Public Art Quality art will be incorporated into Pacific City that will enhance many facets of the project, creating a unique identity intended to enchant and stir the interest of the community and its visitors: all the while encouraging creativity, education and appreciation of the arts as well as our cultural heritage. A team of prominent artists, architects, and landscape designers will be brought together who will work in harmony to ensure that the art is not a decorative appendage, but an integral part of the structure, environment, and aura of this special project. The dedication to the creative process will introduce public art that is both functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. A separate public art program has been developed and submitted with the Pacific City CUP. The basis of the art program is intended to summarize the elements of the proposed Pacific City public art in an inclusive and descriptive manner. The art ideas represented in the public art program were carefully selected with the intent of satisfying the City's public art guidelines: however, the art should be considered as the general idea of the type of art proposed, and subject to further revision. The art placement is also detailed in the public art program and identifies, on a site plan, prominent locations within the project that are oriented primarily to pedestrian viewing. The public's accessibility will be provided and ensured for exterior public art displays. The public art proposed at Pacific City includes various art mediums, which depict an array of sculptures. fountains, and decorative/functional art pieces, which will be displayed in both the Visitor-Serving Commercial District as well as the Residential Village. Makar believes our art program will provide a prominent "showcase" of accessible art for the public and will compliment the overall quality of the Pacific City experience. Pacific City Alcohol, Dancing, and Live Entertainment Alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and liquor will be served at all the proposed restaurants and clubs within the Retail Promenade and at the Boutique Resort, including all outdoor dining areas. Alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and liquor will also be sold at some of the retail shops including grocery stores, wine retailers, etc. Retail Promenade (Parcel 2) Dancing and Live Entertainment: Dancing and live entertainment are proposed within certain Pacific City retail and restaurant spaces in Pacific City. Each establishment will direct any ambient noise towards Pacific Coast Highway, therefore, preventing direct noise impacts to neighboring residential communities. Dancing and live entertainment activities will be contained inside each establishment with hours of dancing and live entertainment being Monday through P.G. ATTACHMENT N0. 'i-( 7 February 24, 2004 Page 18 Sunday 1 1:00 AM to 2:DOAM. Any windows or doors directly fronting the Pacific View Avenue side of such establishments will be shut during dancing or live entertainment operations. Dancing will involve the presentation of music through a DJ or a live band that may consist of 1 to 12 members for both acoustic and amplified music. Each establishment will have the technology to deliver both acoustical and amplified music types of live entertainment. The October 15, 2003 Parking Demand Analysis for Pacific City, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, demonstrates surplus parking during weekdays and weekends for both the 240,000 square foot full buildout plan and the 191,100 square foot reduced alternative plan, particularly in the evening hours. If future tenants (i.e. restaurants. nightclubs, live entertainment venues, etc.) request dancing permits, the surplus parking identified in the shared parking analysis for the commercial and retail establishments will be applied toward the proposed dancing uses. Live entertainment will also occur in the three plazas of the Retail Promenade. These activities will include public speakers, 1 to 12 member live bands (acoustic and amplified), magicians, dancing demonstrations, cultural activities and presentations, publicly sponsored activities, etc. Each plaza will have the technology to deliver both acoustical and amplified presentations and events. These events will be permitted Monday through Sunday 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Special events may occur beyond these times but will require separate permits through the City of Huntington Beach. Boutique Resort (Parcel 3) Dancing and Live Entertainment: Dancing and live entertainment will be permitted within the indoor boiirooms/meeting rooms of the hotel and the outdoor function areas on the hotel grounds. The dancing and live entertainment within the ballroom and meeting areas of the hotel will be contained within each such room. The ballrooms and meeting rooms will have the technology to deliver both acoustical and amplified music/live entertainment. However these indoor events will be completely contained within the hotel, therefore, preventing direct noise impacts to neighboring residential communities. The hotel will also allow dancing and live entertainment to occur on designated hotel grounds that have been designed within the hotel proper. These public spaces of the hotel will be oriented towards PCH and use the entire hotel building as a screen, shielding these areas from any surrounding residential community. These outdoor event areas will also have the technology to deliver both acoustical and amplified music/live entertainment. The parking generation rates applied to the hotel function areas account for dancing and live entertainment, resulting in no additional parking demand. Both the indoor and outdoor entertainment areas of the hotel will have operating hours Monday through Sunday from 9:DO AM to 2:00 AM. P.C. ATTACHMENT NO. *4S February 24, 2004 Page 19 Pacific City Project Phasing The conceptual phasing program for Pacific City in divided into five phases as shown on Sheet D-007 (Phasing Diagram) of the CUP. Stage I includes construction of offsite improvements including PCH Is' Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue: Stage I also includes mass grading of the entire site. Stage II includes construction of Residential Neighborhood 4 parking structure and homes (Stage 110), the entire visitor serving commercial parking structure (Stage Ilb), and the Retail Promenade (Stage IIc). Stage III includes construction of Residential Neighborhood 2 parking structure and homes. Stage IV includes construction of Residential Neighborhood 1 parking structure and homes. Stage V includes construction of Neighborhood 3 parking structure and homes (Stage Va) and construction of the Boutique Resort (Stage Vb). Pacific City Soil Remediation Makollon Atlanta Huntington Beach. LLC is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach consider all remaining soil remediation activities on the site [excluding the soil remediation activities approved per the 2002 Harding ESE Remediation Plan, Revision 3 (CUP 00-36, CDP 00-09)], necessary for the development and construction of the proposed Pacific City project, be included as part of the proposed Pacific City CUP and CDP applications. To further clarify this request, future soil remediation activities could result from, but not be limited to, additional soils investigations conducted onsite or contaminated soil encountered during land development activities including mass grading, construction of street and utility improvements, and precise grading. B. REASONS FOR INITIATING THIS APPLICATION The proposed Pacific City development will help transform Downtown Huntington Beach. It will provide the following significant quality of life benefits to the community: Development of a first-class mixed-use project with a character that will be unique to Huntington Beach The 31-acre Pacific City site has been occupied by over 15 different land uses over the last 100 years. Pacific City will stabilize the Downtown area, creating a long-term beachfront experience that is unique to Huntington Beach. No other City in Southern California is so well located in relation to open beachfront property, and Pacific City will create a synergy with the beach culture and contribute to the City's sense of place. Its first-class architectural design and position as an oceanfront destination will make Pacific City a landmark as drivers enter the City via Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, the quality architecture and unique high-class tenants at Pacific City will act as a catalyst, encouraging a greater influx of similar tenants into the Downtown area, which will increase the occurrence of quality shopping and dining experiences in Downtown Huntington Beach. 1 .0 - ATTACHMENT NO. �7-« February 24, 2004 Page 20 The new residents, employees and businesses at Pacific City will have significant economic impacts on the Downtown Huntington Beach and the City as a whole The interaction between the residential portion and the retail portion of Pacific City along with the interaction between Pacific City and the Downtown will result in a profound economic impact on the City of Huntington Beach. The critical mass of consumers created by the residential portion of the project will generate increased sales revenue for local businesses located in the Retail Promenade and Downtown, resulting in increased sales tax revenue for the City. This fulfills the Downtown Specific Plan District 8A goal of "providing a population base to help support the commercial and office uses in the Downtown area." The Boutique Resort will also add to the consumer base by drawing more visitors to Huntington Beach. The Retail Promenade and Boutique Resort will create new job opportunities for Huntington Beach residents and new consumer options for residents and visitors alike, fulfilling the Downtown Specific Plan District 7 goal of "providing commercial facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a year round basis." Pacific City's proposed design and land uses will help link the resort hotels located southeast of the property to the main street area located to the northwest The diverse collection of retail, entertainment, and dining opportunities located in Downtown Huntington Beach are a major draw for both residents and visitors alike. Unfortunately, a physical disconnect currently exists between Main Street and the resort hotels located to the southeast along Pacific Coast Highway. The large vacant Pacific City site lies between these two activity centers, occupying 1,450 linear feet of PCH frontage. This "dead space" discourages interaction between the two activity nodes. Pacific City's proposed facilities will remedy that situation by becoming a physical link between the resorts and Main Street. Pacific City is specifically designed for this interaction and will act as a conduit and pedestrian destination for residents and visitors who try to take advantage of everything that Downtown Huntington Beach has to offer. By redeveloping an abandoned parcel with high revenue generating, state of the art land uses Pacific City will help the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency fulfill its project area goals The Pacific City site is located within the boundaries of the Main-Pier Sub Area of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Because of the magnitude of the proposed project, it will have a significant positive impact on a number of goals outlined in the redevelopment plan. Specifically, the development of Pacific City will help the Redevelopment Agency fulfill project area goals in the following ways: • Expand the commercial base of the Project Area • Promote local job opportunities Improve infrastructure P.0 . ATTACHMENT NO. 5-Zo February 24, 2004 Page 21 • Increase the community's supply of affordable housing for lower income households • Provide a population base to help support the commercial and office uses in the Downtown area. Pacific City will provide a significant amount of onsite parkland and open space for use by its residents and the general public The provision of parkland and open space that fosters the concepts of outdoor living and a village atmosphere is a major part Pacific City's design. Of the 17.2 total acres of the Residential Village, over seven acres will be common open space. In addition, 50% of the Retail Promenade and the Boutique Resort will be open space and will include plazas, gardens and landscaped courtyards, many of which will feature stunning ocean views. This porkland and open space will not be limited to residents of Pacific City, but will instead be available to visitors and members of the community. Additionally, the parkland and open space within the project will be maintained by the private sector and will not represent on ongoing burden to the City. Pacific City's environmental stewardship will benefit both residents and visitors in Huntington Beach as well as act as a model for future development A healthy natural environment is intrinsically linked to the culture and ongoing success of Huntington Beach. The City is best known for miles of beautiful beaches, and a supportive relationship between the built environment and the natural environment must be fostered. Pacific City will further this relationship and fulfill its role as an environmental steward. To begin with, in order to build on the site, soil remediation must occur. This process is underway and will continue until all of the soil meets the City of Huntington Beach cleanup standards. In addition to correcting the environmental damage of the past, Pacific City will protect the environment in the future. The project includes a state-of-the-art water quality filtration system that will help protect the oceans and beaches. This type of dedication to the natural environment will act as a model for future development in Huntington Beach. Through infill development, Pacific City will provide over 500 state of the art homes and will incorporate an affordable housing plan that will create housing for lower income households Southern California is currently experiencing a severe housing shortage. Available land is in short supply in most cities in the region, leaving infill development as the only viable option. Pacific City will help alleviate the housing shortage in Huntington Beach by building over 500 new housing units on an infill site. It will create new housing opportunities while building on land that had prior uses rather than building on environmentally critical land that has never been developed. Included in the Pacific City development plan are onsite homes that will remain affordable to lower income households along with a minimum of off-site affordable housing, allowing for a mixed- income environment in a beachfront setting. P .0 . ATTACHMENT NO. y-21 Pacific City will create a pedestrian oriented environment that improves access to the beach and throughout Downtown Huntington Beach Pedestrian access for its residents, visitors, and the surrounding community is a key design element of Pacific City. It will include a system of pedestrian paths that allow for movement to and through the Project and the rest of the Downtown and beachfront area. The paths will be beautifully landscaped and will connect the residential and commercial elements within the project. Pacific view Avenue will extend through Pacific City and incorporate accentuated old stone pedestrian crossings that provide easy access to Main Street and the beach. This design will allow residents and visitors to forget about their cars once they are parked and enjoy everything that Pacific City and Downtown Huntington Beach have to offer on foot. Pacific City will provide a world-class boutique resort that will be unique to Huntington Beach and unlike other resorts that currently exist in the City The Boutique Resort at Pacific City will provide both residents and visitors with a unique experience that is unlike anything that currently exists in the City. It will offer distinguished services and refined amenities that rival the finest resorts in the world. Its distinctive sense of style will capture the character of Huntington Beach and provide an intimate setting for overnight guests, day-use visitors, and small gatherings and social affairs. The hotel restaurants will provide an environment for those seeking a first- class dining experience. The various elements of the boutique resort will come together to create an experience that will transform the range of destination opportunities available in Huntington Beach. C. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort located at 21100 PCH, immediately east of the project site, is a 12-story facility that includes 290 guest rooms, 24 suites, banquet and meeting rooms, pool, 2 lighted tennis courts and two restaurants. The Pacific Mobile Home Park is located immediately east of the project site with primary access from Huntington Street. The Pacific Mobile Home Park General Plan land use designation is "Residential Medium Density" and allows for a density of 15 dwelling units per net acre and includes approximately 250 mobile homes and community center. The community north of Atlanta Avenue, adjacent to the Pacific City site is identified in the Huntington Beach General Plan as Sub-Area 3B (Town Lots). The land use designation of Sub-Area 3B is "Residential Medium High Density" and allows for a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. The Town Lots Sub-Area consists of various residential uses, including single-family residential units, duplexes, and condominium and apartment complexes ranging from one to three stories. The area located west of the Pacific City site along IV Street, between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue is designated as District 5 (Mixed-Use; ?.(, .ATTACHMENT NO. �;, February 24, 2004 Page 23 Commercial/Office/Residential) in the Downtown Specific Plan. The purpose of this district is to re-establish the area as the Downtown for the City by creating a more urban atmosphere. encouraging relatively higher intensity development with viable commercial, office, and residential uses with allowable densities of 25 dwelling units per acre. Current land uses include vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes. The area located west of the Pacific City site along I%' Street, between PCH and Walnut Avenue is designated District 3 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) in the Downtown Specific Plan, which allows for a variety of commercial, office, and residential uses at a density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Current land uses include a fast-food restaurant at the corner of PCH and Is' Street and a mixture of vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes. The area located south of the Pacific City Site, across PCH, is designated District 11 (Beach Open Space). The District is intended to preserve and protect the sandy beach area within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries while allowing parking and auxiliary beach-related commercial and convenience uses. D. DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION SERVED BY THE PROJECT AND/OR USES The population served by Pacific City will include existing and future residents of Huntington Beach as well as visitors to Huntington Beach. E. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST Special permits are proposed in both District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial Center) and District 8A (Residential Village) and are consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Coastal Element and compatible with the surrounding environment. Visitor Serving Commercial Center (District 7) Special Permits: A Special Permit is required for District 7 associated with minor encroachments into the minimum front yard setbacks on PCH and rear yard setbacks along Pacific View Avenue. A 50-foot front yard setback is required along the PCH frontage and a 20-foot rear yard requirement is required from the proposed Walnut/Pacific View Avenue extension. The proposed setbacks along Pacific View Avenue range from approximately 15 to 20 feet. The proposed building setbacks along PCH fronting the Retail Promenade range from approximately 30 feet to over 50 feet. The proposed building setbacks along PCH fronting the Boutique Resort range from approximately 16 feet to over 50 feet from the proposed Pacific City property line: the area along the Boutique Resort that is proposed to have a sixteen foot setback from the Pacific City property line would be setback approximately 35 feet from the proposed Caltrans right of way due to two City-owned parcels that are located between the Pacific City property and Caltrans right of way. P.C . ATTACHMENT NO. _� - February 24, 2004 Page 24 The arrangement of structures, parking, circulation areas, and open space areas proposed in District 7 relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, and character and includes a mix of setbacks consistent with existing building setbacks north of the site along PCH and the existing hotels south of the site along PCH. As shown on Sheet D-005 (Special Permit Exhibit), portions of the four restaurant building structures in the Retail Promenade and portions of the Boutique Resort restaurant and building are proposed to project into the front setback along the PCH frontage. The proposed Visitor Serving Commercial District Special Permits promote a better living environment because the reduced commercial building setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Avenue allow for the placement and design of structures that facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity and convey a visual link to these two streets. The reduced setbacks also allow for clustering of buildings to create unique plaza and gathering areas throughout the project. Residential Village (District 8A) Special Permits: A special permit is proposed in District 8A to allow for parking garage ramp grades of 15% in three locations within the Residential Village. Sheet D-005 (Special Permit Exhibit) shows the locations and cross sections of these proposed ramps. The Special Permit for increased ramp slope of 15% for the residential portion of the project results in a better project because such a design allows for more efficient use of land and more useable common open space area on the podium level. If you have any questions regarding the CUP and TTM submittal including the narrative, please feel free to call me. Sincerrely, 2 If ',' ti Ethen Thacher Makar Properties, LLC P (- ATTACHMENT N0, • Philip M.Linscon,P.E.(1924 2000) lac:NA.Greenspan,P.E. • , v:illiam A. La,,,P.E.IRet.l Paul W.Wilkinson,P.E. ♦ John P.Keating.P.E. Oa,-id S.Shender,P.E. John A.Eoarman.P.E. E n' G I N E E R S Clare,X%.!ook-Jaeger.P.E. Richard E.5arreno.P.E. ENGINEERS b PL.NNERS TRAFFIC, TP.ANSPORTATION, PARKING i 580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 • Costa mesa.Catidornla 92626 Phone: ita 641.1587 • Fac: 71464i-0i39 October 15, 2003 iNlr. Ethen Thacher IM4KAR PROPERTIES, LLC. 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92655 LLG Reference No. 2-002133-1 SUBJECT: PARHING DENUND ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED PACIFIC CITY VISITOR-SERVING COALNIERCIAL PROJECT Huntington Beach, California Dear ?v1r. Thacher: As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial project. The entire Pacific Project includes a residential component as well as the Visitor-Serving Commercial, but the residential component will be parked at City code entirely within the residential site and is therefore excluded from this parking demand analysis. Briefly, based on this parking demand analysis for the Full Buildout and Reduced Alternative Plans of the Pacific City project, a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces will be provided to accommodate the parking demand for the proposed Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial project. The Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial project site is bound by Pacific Coast Highway on the.south, 1" Street on the west, Huntington Street on the east, and the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue, from Huntington Street to 1" Street, on the north in the City of Huntington Beach, California. The entire Pacific City project includes a mix of visitor serving commercial (retaiUrestaurant/hotel), office, and residential uses. Based on our understanding, a parking study is required to determine the parking demand for the proposed Visitor-Serving Commercial Full Buildout Plan as well as for a potential Visitor-Serving Commercial Reduced Alternative Plan. In addition, as requested by the City of Huntington Beach, this parking study includes a comparison to the Downtown Park-ino, blaster Plan (Revised December 6, 2000). P .G ATTACHMENT NO. 4 - Pasadena-626 796-2322 San Diego -619 299-3090 • Las Vegas-702 451-1920 • Founded 1966 0 An LG2w8 Company Mr. Ethen Thacher MAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 Page 2 E N G I N E E R S On that basis, this parking analysis evaluates the two project development alternative's parking requirements based on the City of Huntington Beach zoning code, the Dotivnrown Parkin0a kfasrer Plan, and the methodology outlined in urban Land Institute's (ULD Shared Parking guidelines. In addition, the parking demand analysis includes the impact of relocated spaces from along the project site. Briefly, based on direct application of City of Huntington Beach parking codes to the Pacific City project, a total of 1,888 parking spaces would be required for the Full Buildout Plan, while a total of 1,723 parking spaces will be required for the Reduced Alternative Plan. Also, based on application of the City of Huntington Beach Downtown Parking Master Plan to the Pacific City project, a total of 1,566 parking spaces would be required for the Full Buildout Plan, while a total of 1,521 parking spaces will be required for the Reduced Alternative Plan. In addition, based on the results of our shared parking analysis, the Full Buildout Plan is forecast to have a weekday and weekend peak parking demand of 1,482 parking spaces and 1,347 parking spaces, respectively. Similarly, The Reduced Alternative Plan is forecast to experience a weekday and weekend peak parking demand of 1,319 parking spaces and 1,341 parking spaces, respectively. Lastly, based on the proposed Pacific City project site plan, approximately 53 existing on-street parking spaces will be relocated from the project perimeter frontage to within the proposed 1,543-space subterranean parking structure and therefore are considered parking demand for this analysis. As a result, each parking demand scenario described above will be increased by 53 parking spaces. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial Full Buildout Plan consists of the development/construction of approximately 240,000 SF of office/retaillrestaurant/club use, a 400- room hospitality component resort while the Visitor-Serving Commercial Reduced Alternative Plan consists of approximately 191,100 SF of office/retail/restaurant/ctub use, a 400-room hospitality component resort. Table IA, located at the rear of this letter report, presents the proposed land use development summary for the visitor-serving commercial development program. This table summarizes the proposed land uses and corresponding building sizes for the project analyzed in the traffic impact analysis, hereon referred to as the "Full Buildout Plan". As shown, the Full Buildout Plan totals do not include the 6,100 SF of restaurant outdoor dining, consistent with the traffic impact analysis, but the parking demand analysis does include this outdoor dining square-footage. P . C,, ATTACHMENT NO. Z Mr. Ethen Thacher lIAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study • •• October 15, 2003 E N c N E E R s Page 3 Table 113, similar in structure to that of Table IA, presents the proposed land use development summary for an alternative visitor-serving commercial development program, hereon referred to as The Reduced Alternative Plan. As shown, the proposed uses in the Reduced Alternative Plan have the same uses as those in Full Buildout Plan, however with different building sizes. The Reduced Alternative Plan results in 58,900 less building square-footage of retail shops and office space with 10,000 greater restaurant building square-footage. PARKING REQUIREMENT-DEMAND ANALYSIS This parking analysis for the Pacific City project involves determining the expected parking needs, based on the size and type of proposed development components. In general, there are two methods that can be used to estimate the site's peak parking requirements plus, in this case, The Downtown Parking Master Plan method. These methods include: 1. Application of City code requirements (which typically treat each use in the retail center as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand); and 2. Application of The Downtown Parking Master Plan requirements, which is pan of the Downtown Specific Plan and was revised on December 6, 2000. 3. Application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of-day (which recognizes that the parking demand for each land use component varies by time of day, day of week, and/or month of year); and The shared parking methodology is certainly applicable to a development such as the Pacific City project, as the individual land uses (i.e., retaiUrestaurant/hotel and office uses) experience peak demands at different times of the day. PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS To determine the number of parking spaces required to support both the preferred and alternative Pacific City project, parking demand was first calculated using the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code. As mentioned previously, City parking code requirements typically treat each individual use in the retail center as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand, as opposed to an integrated part of the shopping center. As such, the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code (Chapter231.04; Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required) specifies a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 SF of retail use, 1 space per 100 SF of restaurant and outdoor dining use, 1.1 spaces per room of hotel use plus one space per passenger transport vehicle (minimum of nvo) and any additional uses within the hotel (i.e. banqueUmeeting/baltroom, restaurant, and spa), and 1 space per 250 SF of office use. P . . ATTACHMENT NO, Mr. Ethen Thacher M.AKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 Page 4 E N G I N E E R S Table 2A summarizes the parking requirements for the proposed development project (Full Buildout Plan) using the above code parking ratios. As shown, direct application of City parking ratios to the Full Buildout Plan development results in a City parking code requirement of 1,888 parking spaces, which significantly overstates the amount of parking which will be needed to accommodate the mix of uses proposed within the Pacific City Full Buildout Plan development. Similarly, Table 213 presents the parking requirements for the Reduced Alternative Plan development plan using the City's parking ratios. As shown, direct application of City parking ratios to the Reduced Alternative Plan development results in a City parking code requirement of 1,723 parking spaces, which also significantly overstates the amount of parking which will be needed to accommodate the mix of uses proposed within the Pacific City Reduced Alternative Plan development. However, as previously mentioned, there is an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each land use component. The section following the Downtown Parking Master Plan analysis calculates the parking requirements for the proposed Reduced Alternative Plans based on the shared parking methodology approach. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS COMPARISON As requested, this section provides a comparison between the City of Huntington Beach's parking code ratios, the Urban Land institute's (ULD peak parking demand ratios, and the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) average parking demand ratios. Table 3 summarizes the parking demand ratios comparison between the three entities for the five land uses proposed in the Pacific City project, which are retail, restaurant, hotel, hotel restaurant, and office. As presented in Table 3, the retail and hotel restaurant parking demand ratios are identical between the City and ULI with the hotel ratio slightly greater in the City's code (1.1/occupied room vs. 1.0/occupied room in ULI). The office parking demand is one space per 1,000 SF greater in the City's code than ULI, and ULI's restaurant parking demand is twice the City's restaurant parking demand of 10 spaces per 1,000 SF, which is typical in most Southern California Cities. Additionally, as shown in Table 3, ITE's parking demand ratios were all less than the City's and ULI's parking ratios primarily because the ITE ratios are generally based on average parking demand, where the City's and ULI's ratios are based on peak demands. As a result, it is our finding that the City's parking demand ratios are adequate as they either equal or exceed ULI's peak parking demand ratios, except for the restaurant parking demand ratio, which is half of ULI's peak parking demand. However, the ULI restaurant surveys were based on a wide ranee of restaurant types located throughout the country with demand ratios varying between 7.2 and 25.8 spaces per 1,000 SF. Consequently, it is our experience that 10 spaces per 1,000 SF for sit down restaurants and 12 spaces per 1,000 SF for fast-food restaurants is the most appropriate rate and therefore the City's restaurant parking demand ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 SF is adequate. ,G . ATTACHMENT NO, Mr. Ethen Thacher MAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 ENGIN EE Rs Pages DOWNTOWN P R-1GNG NLASTER PL 4N REQUIREMENT To provide a basis for comparison with the surrounding downtown area, the parking requirement was calculated for both the Pacific City Full Buildout Plan and Pacific City Reduced Altemative Plan using the Downtown Parking Master Plan, which is contained in Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan and was revised December 6, 2000. The Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on the shared parking concept and consists of two parking zones (Area 1 South and Area 2 North). The Pacific City project site is located outside the Downtown Parking Master Plan area but is located in proximity to Area 1 South. Thus, the parking demand ratios contained in Area 1 South were applied to both the Pacific City Full Buildout Plan and Pacific City Reduced Alternative Plan. The Downtown Parking Master Plan Area 1 South specifies a parking ratio of 1 space per 250 SF of retail use, 1 space per 150 SF of restaurant and outdoor dining use, and 1 space per 1,000 SF of office use. The Downtown Parking Master Plan does not include a parking demand ratio for hotel uses; therefore the City Parking Code requirements were applied to the hotel component. Table 4A summarizes the Downtown Parking Master Plan requirements for the Full Buildout Plan development plan using the above parking ratios. As shown, direct application of the Downtown Parking Master Plan parking ratios to the Full Buildout Plan development plan results in a Downtown Parking Master Plan requirement of 1,566 parking spaces. Similarly, Table 4B presents the Downtown Parking Master Plan parking requirements for the Reduced Alternative Plan development plan using the above parking ratios. As shown, direct application of Downtown Parking Master Plan parking ratios to the Reduced Alternative Plan development plan results in a Downtown Parking Master Plan requirement of 1,521 parking spaces. p .G. ATTACHMENT NO. Mr. Ethen Thacher vIA CAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study ., October 15, 2001 PaLye 6 ENGINEERS ., SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS Based on the mix of uses proposed within both alternatives of the Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial project on the block south of Pacific View Avenue, the parking demand can be calculated using shared parking criteria as established by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) which lays out a calculation matrix for computing the project's realistic parking needs. The shared parking calculations included in this report are based on proposed land uses/mix of tenants for Pacific City, and reflects the most recent development tabulation presented in Tables I and 1B. Shared Parking Rationale And Basis Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each land use. Shared Parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week. When uses share a common parking footprint, the total number of spaces needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time of day or day of week), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 231 - Off- Street Parking and Loading Provisions). The analytical procedures for Shared Parking Analyses are well documented in the Shared Parking publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and have been previously accepted by the City of Huntington Beach for the Plaza Almeria project and proposed Bella Terra project, for example. As for other local application, the City of Costa Mesa, and the City of Irvine, among others, have adopted Shared Parking procedures into their Zoning Ordinances based on the ULI techniques and individual parking studies, which validate and/or refine the ULI demand projections and profiles. Shared parking calculations for the Pacific City Project utilize peak parking ratios and hourly parking accumulations developed from field studies of single developments in free-standing settings, where travel by private auto is maximized. These characteristics permit the means for calculating peak parking needs when land use types are combined. Further, the shared parking approach will result, at other than peak parking demand times, in an excess amount of spaces that will service the overall needs of Pacific City. P. c- ATTACHMENT N0. b Mr. Ethen Thacher MAK.AR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study • •• October 15, 2003 E NG IN E E Rs Pagel Shared Parking Example Graphic below illustrates the typical parking demand variation for a 50,000 square foot office building on a typical weekday. It shows that the office reaches its peak parking demand of 200 spaces in the late morning, and uses a relatively high percentage of the parking between 10 am and 4 pm. Hourly Office Parking Demand 250 200 Y x F 150 K 100 .. L a 50 47 t I 0 600 700 800 900 D00 1100 2.00 1.00 200 300 400 500 600 700 8:00 900 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PIA PM PM Time of Day Similarly, the graphic below illustrates a typical parking demand for restaurant space totaling 25,000 square feet of floor area (area consists of several restaurants). The peak parking demand of 250 spaces occurs in the evening with moderate use during the middle of the day. P.C . ATTACHMENT NO. 6 .7 Mr. Ethen Thacher NWkKkR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 N G 1 N E E R 5 Page 8 Hourly Restaurant Parking Demand 300 200 Cl 150 1C)o e4 IL 50 l 'Q qN� Z5 Z (ZF1 O1 Oo ('Z� 4,Z) 19 Cb tx �s Time of Day Without accounting for the hourly parking demand variations, the total parking required to serve both uses together would be 450 parking spaces (200 office + 250 restaurant) Merging the two hourly parking demand graphics together, as illustrated below, reveals the concept of shared parking. Using the hourly demand variations, a more realistic estimate of the parking needed to serve the two uses can be obtained. In essence, by taking advantage of the significant differences in hourly parking demand between two uses, a well planned mixed use development will require fewer total parking spaces to serve the demand, resulting in more cost effective and aesthetically pleasing developments. In this case, 355 parking spaces would be needed, versus the stand alone totals of 450 spaces. C ATTACHMENT NO. Mr. Ethen Thacher AIAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study • October 15, 2003 N G I N E E R S Page 9 Hourly Shared Parking Demand 400 350 - 300 - M E 250 - 200 150 100 0 CL 50 0 Z\-v -Q° -c° C�- Time of Day Shared Parking Ratios And Profiles The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) are based on profiles developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULD and published in Shared Parking. The ULI publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for seven general land uses: office, retail, restaurant, cinema, residential (Central Business District: CBD and non-CBD), hotel (consisting of separate factors for guest rooms, restaurant/lounge, conference room, and convention area). These factors present a profile of parking demand over time and have been used directly, by land use We, in the analysis of this project. Since the primary project component for the Pacific City Visitor-Seningg Commercial project is retail space, the ULI retail use profiles are applied directly. In doing so, there is an intermediate step in.expressing ULI profiles as a percentage of the week-long peak, thus arriving at a weekday profile and weekend profile each expressed as a percentage of the baseline parking ratio (ULI actually starts with separate ratios for weekday and weekend day, and develops profiles for each accordingly; we've found it more convenient to translate both profiles to a percent of expected maximum demand, which, for retail, turns out to be on a Saturday). The resulting profiles represent the most likely hourly parking demand profile, and are applied to a recommended parking ratio of I space per 200 SF (5.0 spaces per 1000 SF) of GLA for retail uses consistent with City's parking code. The office profiles were also directly denied from ULI. The peak parking ratio for office uses exactly equali the City's Parking Code requirement of I space per 250 SF (4.0 spaces per 1000 SF). -Cl P- C- ATTACHMENT NO. Mr. Ethen Thacher MAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 Paae 10 E u G S'' E E R 5 ., The restaurant use profile is based on a quality/sit-down restaurant (typically non fast-food). Like the retail profiles, the restaurant profile derives exactly from the ULI baseline. The City's parking requirement for restaurants is 1 space/100 SF (10 spaces/1000 SF) for establishments with more than 12 seats, and 1 space/200 SF (5 spaces/1000 SF) for places with less than 12 seats. The restaurant parking ratio recommended as part of the Pacific City Shared Parking Criteria exactly matches the City code rate of 10 spaces/1000 SF of GBA. While several of the potential restaurant uses will also provide night club activities, the restaurant component of the building use provides a more conservative parking demand because the night club use will peak during the late evening hours when a majority of the retail uses are closed. The Hotel shared parking model was separated into four profile uses based on their time-of-day parking demand and are based on the ULI baseline. The parking demand requirements for the hotel signature restaurant, hotel banquetiballrooms, and hotel spa were adjusted to account for use by non-guests, which generate additional parking demand. In addition, based on our research, hotel parking demand ratios, which are based on parking spaces per occupied room, do not include parking demand for other significant uses within the hotel, such as signature restaurants, banquet/conference facilities, and spas. Consequently, the weekday and weekend parking design models assume that non-guests of the hotel use approximately 25% of the signature restaurant and 10% (weekday)/25% (weekend) of the proposed Spa. In addition, the parking demand generated from the conference/ballroom/banquet/meeting room facilities occurs by 85% non- euest at the net conference/meeting/ballroom/banquet room area (9,300 SF) on the weekday and by 75% non-guest on the weekend. These percentages were developed based on experience with prior resort hotel shared parking studies, such as the Marriott Laguna Cliff and Ritz Carlton Laguna Niguel parking studies. The City's hotel parking requirement is 1.1 space per key plus one space per passenger transport vehicle, the signature restaurant parking requirement is based on the City code rate of 10 spaces/1000 SF of GBA, the banquet/ballroom parking requirement is based on 1 person per 30 square feet and an occupancy of 2.5 persons per vehicle on the net conference/meeting/ballroom/banquet room area, and the spa parking requirement is based on 3 spaces per spa treatment room, which is consistent with the City's parking code for a salon at 3 spaces per station. Appendix A, attached, presents the survey data from the Ritz Carlton for the banquet/conference facilities, and spa non-guest percentages, which indicated that conference/meeting rooms consisted of 23% non-guests and banquet room facilities assumed 90% non-guests on weekdays with the same 23% for conference/meeting rooms and 77% non-guests for the ballroom facilities on weekends. The Spa consisted of 10% non-guests for both weekdays and weekends. In addition, the survey data indicated that, while all of the conference/mecting/banquet/ball rooms may have been booked on a weekday, not all of the rooms were used at the same time, in that a portion of the conference/meeting/banquet/ball room space was used for set-up/storage/break area for beverage/food/etc. P. C . ATTACHMENT N4. (O• 'D Mr. Ethen Thacher iNt KAR PROPERTIES. LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 E N G I N E E R S Page 11 To account for parking demand interaction with the beach, adjacent resort hotels, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and downtown parking supply, consistent with the traffic study for Pacific City and information provided in ULI's Shared Parking, which indicates non-auto use ranging from 10% to as much as 57%. a parking demand reduction was applied to the traffic generation forecast to account for the trip interaction between the hotels, restaurants, commercial/retail, office, existing/proposed residential areas, and beach/recreational uses. Consequently, a 15% and 20% reduction was applied to the retail and restaurant City code demand and a 5% reduction was applied to the office City code demand. The reduction for the Pacific City Visitor-Commercial restaurants was the greatest based on the assumption that beachgoers and hotel guests within the vicinity would frequent the restaurants in a greater proportion than the retail component. Shared Parking Analysis Assumptions • 25% non-guest use for Hotel Signature Restaurant • 10% non-guest use for Hotel Spa on weekdays and 25% non-guest use for Hotel Spa on weekends • 85% non-guest use for Hotel Conference/Meeting/Banquet rooms on weekdays • 75% non-guest use for Hotel Ballroom/Banquet rooms on weekends • 20% City parking code reduction for restaurants to account for parking demand interaction with the beach, adjacent resort hotels, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and downtown parking supply. • 15% City parking code reduction for retail to account for parking demand interaction with the beach, adjacent resort hotels, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and downtown parking supply. • 5% Citv parking code reduction for office to account for parking demand interaction with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and downtown parking supply. Shared Parking Results for Pacific City Table 5A and Table 5B, attached, apply the ULI methodology directly and forecast the weekday and weekend shared parking requirements for the Full Buildout Plan, based upon the development summary presented in Table IA. As shown in Table 5A, the peak parking requirement for the proposed Full Buildout Plan during a weekday totals 1,452 parking spaces and occurs at 1:00 PM. As shown in Table 5B, the peak parking requirement for the proposed Full Buildout Plan during a weekend totals 1,347 parking spaces and also occurs at 1:00 PM. As a result, with the addition of the 53 spaces to be relocated on-site, the total parking demand for the Visitor-Serving Commercial project is 1,535 parking spaces. With a proposed on-site parking supply of 1,543 parking spaces, a parking surplus of 8 spaces is forecast P.c . ATTACHMENT NO. 6 I Mr. Ethen Thacher NIAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP Pacific City Parking Study October 15, 2003 Paee 12 E N G I N E E R $ Table 6A and Table 6B, attached, apply the UZI methodology directly and forecast the weekday and weekend shared parking requirements for the Reduced Alternative Plan, based upon the development summary presented in Table 1B. As shown in Table 6a, the peak parking requirement for the proposed Reduced Alternative Plan during a weekday totals 1,319 parking spaces and occurs at 1:00 PM. As shown in Table 613, the peak parking requirement for the proposed Reduced Alternative Plan during a weekend totals 1,295 parking spaces and also occurs at 1:00 PM. As a result, with the addition of the 53 spaces to be relocated on-site, the total parking demand for the Visitor-Serving Commercial project is 1,372 parking spaces. With a proposed on- site parking supply of 1,543 parking spaces, a parking surplus of 171 spaces is forecast As a result, based on the parking demand characteristics of the mix of proposed uses within the Pacific City project and shared parking demand analysis for the Full Buildout and Reduced Alternative Plans of the Pacific City project, the proposed parking supply of 1,543 spaces is sufficient to accommodate the parking demand for the proposed Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial project. SUMI IA,RY OF FINDINGS A rl) CONCLUSIONS 1. The Full Buildout Pacific City project consists of the development/construction of approximately 240,000 SF of office/retail/restaurant/club use, a 400-room hospitality/resort hotel, and 516 residential condominiums while the Reduced Alternative Plan consists of approximately 191,100 SF of office/retaiUrestaurant/club use, a 400-room hospitality/resort hotel, and 516 residential condominiums. 1,543 subterranean parking spaces are proposed for the visitor-serving conimercial component and the residential component will be parked at City code entirely within the residential site and is excluded from this parking demand analysis. 2. Direct application of City Code parking ratios to the Full Buildout Plan development plan; plus 53 relocated spaces, results in a City parking code requirement of 1,941 parking spaces. Similarly, direct application of City parking ratios to the Reduced Alternative Plan development plan, plus 53 relocated spaces, results in a City parking code requirement of 1,776 parking spaces. 1,941 parking spaces for the Full Buildout Plan development and 1,776 parking spaces for the Reduced Alternative Plan development would result in a significant amount of excess parking spaces than which is actually needed to serve the project. 3. Direct application of the Downtown Parking Master Plan parking ratios to the Full Buildout Plan development plan, plus 53 relocated spaces, results in a Downtown Parking Master Plan requirement of 1,619 parking spaces. Similarly, direct application of Downtown Parking Master Plan parking ratios to the Reduced Alternative Plan development plan, plus 53 relocated spaces, results in a Downtown Parking Master Plan requirement of 1,573 parking spaces. 1,619 parking spaces would result in a significant amount of excess parking spaces than which is actually needed to serve the project. P. C . ATTACHMENT NO, 6• IZ Mr. Ethen Thacher NIAKAR PROPERTIES, LLP • Pacific City Parking Study ' October 15, 2003 "c N G I N E E R 5 Page li 4. The Shared Parking Analysis indicates that the peak parking demand for the proposed Full Buildout Plan (Table 5A) during a weekday totals 1,482 parking spaces and occurs at 1:00 Pivi. As shown in Table 5B, the peak parking requirement for the proposed Full Buildout Plan during a weekend totals 1,347 parking spaces and also occurs at 1:00 PM. As a result, with the addition of the 53 spaces to be relocated on-site, the total parking demand for the Visitor- Serving Commercial project is 1,535 parking spaces. With a proposed on-site parking supply of 1,543 parking spaces, a parking surplus of 8 spaces is forecast. 5. The Shared Parking Analysis indicates that the peak parking demand for the proposed Reduced Alternative Plan (Table 6A) during a weekday totals 1,319 parking spaces and occurs at 1:00 PM. As shown in Table 6B, the peal- parking requirement for the proposed Reduced Altemative Plan during a weekend totals 1,295 parking spaces and also occurs at 1:00 PM. As a result, with the addition of the 53 spaces to be relocated on-site, the total parking demand for the Visitor- Serving Commercial project is 1,372 parking spaces. With a proposed on-site parking supply of 1,543 parking spaces, a parking surplus of 171 spaces is forecast. Based on the attached parking analysis, parking demand will be less than the code required Full Buildout Plan number of spaces; and the proposed uses within the Pacific City project will not generate additional parking demand beyond the 1,543 parking spaces provided within the subterranean parking structure. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for you and the City of Huntington Beach. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 641-1587. Very truly yours, LINSCO T, LA GREENSP.AN, ENGINEERS ;Keil D. M rry, P.E. Senior nsportation Engineer Attachments NA-2 10012002133�Repon\Paciric Ciry Parking Demand Analysis L Uer.doc ATYiArH �,MEA�NT p1 NO- I • E N G I N E E R 5 TABLE 1A LAND USE DEV ELOPi`4EtiT SUABIARY: FULL BUILDOUT PLAN Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial Project, Huntington Beach T M." ss »a ,_ s. uxl!s`sq ! GR05S'SQU4REFEE9 a S a IUNITS. „P.ROPOSE`,D �dAitil?'�L•TSE$ .: ��:.�1 ,r�>.<a�:�;Y�'F��a'.,. L�,,, Office 601000 GSF Commercial 180,000 GSF Restaurant/Club [11 38,S GSF Retail Shops 14 1,100 GSF Hospitality (HotellVacation Ownership Interval) 400 Rooms Hotel ConferenceBanquet/Meeting/Ballroom Area 15,000 GSF Signature Restaurant 5,000 GSF Cardio/Yoga 15,000 GSF [1] 6,100 SF outdoor dining area is,not inlcuded in this square footage However, the square-footage is included in the parking analyses. 02100\2133\Tables\2133 Parking Land Use Summary.xls P.G. ATTACHMENT NO, M E N G i N- E E R 5 TABLE I B LAIND USE DEVELOPINIENT SUNBLARY: REDUCED ALTERNATIVE PLAINT Pacific City Visitor-Serving Commercial Project, Huntington Beach "MIX C VQROK S�SQUARE FEET . M. N W V.,�N'�N �*SfVv. .... . Office 30,000 GSF Commercial 161,000 GSF Restaurant/Club [1) 45,900 GSF Retail Shops 112,200 GSF Hospitality ( otel/N,acationON%,nershipintei-val) 400 Rooms Hotel Conference/Banquet/MeeringfBallroom Area 15,000 GSF Signature Restaurant 5,000 GSF Cardio/Yoga- 15,000 GSF 116,100 SF outdoor dining area is not irilcuded in this square footage. However, the square-footage is included in the parking analyses. n:\2100\2133\TabLesN2002133\2133 Parkiag Laud Use Summary-AI[eMaLiVCA[S C . ATTACHMENT NO. • E N G 1 N E E R 5 TABLE 2A CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT: FULL BUILDOUT PLAN [I] Pacific City, Huntington Beach ^NI a Ctt} of Htiuhngton Beach. Spaces r Stze` 1 Code Pa r]uag Ratio [1] Required: Office 60,000 SF [ Space per 250 SF 240 Restaurants/Clubs 38,900 SF 1 Space per 100 SF 389 Restaurants: Outdoor 6,100 SF 1 Space per 100 SF 61 General Retail 141,000 SF 1 Space per 200 SF 706 Resort Hotel [2) 400 Rooms 1.1 Spaces Room 442 Signature Restaurant 5,000 SF 1 Space per 100 SF 50 TOTAL'PARKING CODE REQ[71REMEhT� _FULL$UII ROUT) i [1] source: Chapter 231.04. Off-Street Parking&Loading Spaces Required, City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. [21 Includes the minimum of 2 spaces for transport vehicles per City code ❑i•2306\2012306\Tables\Tablc 2A City Parking Code Requirements Alt i.xis P . C - ATTACHMENT NO, 6 b E N G I N E E R 5 TABLE 2B CITY CODE P-A-RKIENG REQUIREMENT: REDUCED ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11] Pacific Ciq,,, Huntington Beach nB6ach. Spaces,.� d L'an* d,Use- : - ire 41 s Office 30,000 SF I Space per 250 SF 120 Restaurants/Clubs 48,900 SF I Space per 100 SF 489 Restaurants: Outdoor 6,100 SF I Space per 100 SF 61 General Retail 112,200 SF I Space per 200 SF 561 Resort Hotel (2] 400 Rooms 1.1 Spaces Room 442 Signature Restaurant 5,000 SF I Space per 100 SF 50 TOTAL PARKING CODE N1ENT;(,FU-LL BUI]LD0. zi. [1] Souce: Chapter 231.04, Off-Street parking&Loading Spaces Required. City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. [2] Includes the minimum of 2 spaces for transport vehicles per City code nA-1306\-'0123WTabIes%TabIe 2A City Pa-king Codc Rcquircmcns Alt 1.x1s ATTACHMENT NO. • E N G I N E E R 5 TABLE P.ARKING DEINLAIND RATIOS COMPARISON Pacific City, Huntington Beach vera e-, ­ e [31 4,11 e r s, Land se-- L d to, NN Office 1 Space per 333.3 SF I Space per 250 SF I Space per 358.4 SF Restaurants I Space per 50 SF I Space per 100 SF I Space per 80.1 SF General Retail 1 Space per 200 SF I Space per 200 SF I Space per 309.6 S Resort Hotel 1.0 Spaces Room 1,1 Spaces Room[4] 0.81 Spaces Room Hotel Restaurants I Space per 100 SF I Space per 100 SF N/A Notes: [[]Source:Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute(ULI)&Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.(19831 [2)Source; Chapter 231.04, Off-Street Parking&Loading Spaces Required, City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. [3)Source:Parking Generation, 2ndEdition, ITE[1987] (41 Plus one space per transport vehicle. n:"_306`101 2306'.Tablcs�Table 2A Ciry Parking Code Requirements Al: 1.xls t ? -(, ATTACHMENT NO. -t - • E N G I N E E R S TABLE 4A DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN SUAB-LARY: FULL BUILDOUT PLAN [1 Pacific City, Huntington Beach -.? Huntington C :1.;Spaces i Re quired L Use..'-_. General Retail 141,100 SF I Space per 250 SF 564 Resort Hotel 400 Rooms 1.1 Spaces Room[2] 442 Restaurant [3] 43,900 SF I Space per 100 SF 439 Rest: Outdoor Dining 6,100 SF I Space per 100 SF 61 Office 60,000 SF I Space per 1000 SF 60 60' UIREi1�N '(K�ULL Lam (I I Source: The Do wrtio wn Parking Master Plan (Section 4.2.14 of Downtown Specific Plan: Revised 12/06/00). (2) Plus one space per transport vehicle. (31 Includes Hotel Restaurant n9?306%2012306'.Tables,Table 2A City Parking Code Requirements Alt I.XIS ATTACHMENT NO E N G 1 N E E R S TABLE 4B DOWNTOWN PARKING IVIASTER PLAN SUM- AIARY. REDUCED ALTERNATIVE PLAN[1] Pacific City, Huntington Beach er General Retail 112,200 SF I Space per 250 SF 449 442 General Retail Resort Hotel 400 Rooms 1.1 Spaces Room[2]H Restaurants [3) 53,900 SF I Space per 100 SF 539 Rest: Outdoor Dining 6,100 SF I Space per 100 SF 61 Office I Space per 1000 SF 30 ffice OT L P k L[7 TIN :F , .4, DDF; QUIRENIENTI(AL'TOM '0 t-.it RIU Note (1] Source: The Downto-1,Parking Master Plan (Section 4.1.14of Downtown specific Plan: Revised 12106100). (2) Plus one space per transport vehicle. [3) Includes Hotel Restaurant nA:306\20I2306\TabIeS\Table 2A City Parking Code Requimmcnu.klz !.xis ATTACHMENT NO. �L20 0 b N G I N f I k S TABLE SA WEEKDAY MIXED-USE SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS: FULL 6UILDOU'I'PLAN Pacific City, Huntington Reach (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) leI Signature hotel Conference/ land Use [Intel Hotel Restaurant Meeting Rooms Ilolel Spa Retail Restaurant Office Size(SF) 400 Keys 5,000 SF 9,300 SF 30Trealment Rooms 141,100SF 45,000 SF 60.000 Si+ Pkg Rate n1.1 SIJKey 1.0 Spit 00 SF See Note 111 ®3SP/Rm Qa ISP/200 SF QI SP/100 SF a ISP/250 SF it 'd Spaces Sat" 442 Spaces 50 Spaces 124 $ aces 90 Sam 121 600 Spaces 12 360 Spaces 131 228 Adjustments n/a 25%non-gursts as%non-guests 10%non-guesta 100% 100% 100% Seasonal Adj. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% t00% 100% Total Percent No.of tPc,ccnt No.of Percent Na.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Peiceal No.of Percent No.of Shared Time of Pcnty Parking Parking of Peak Partying of Peak Porkinq of Prink Parking of Peak Partying of Penk Parking Parking of Da Demand S aces S M Demand S aces Demand S Dees Demand S aces Demand Suss Demand S aces Demand 600AM 100% 442 3 0% 0 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3% 7 452 7:00 AM 95% 376 7 05'. 0 10% 1 8% 48 2% 7 20% 46 481 9:00 AM 65% 287 3 0'6 0 40% 4 17% 102 5% IS 63% 144 553 9:00 AM 55% 243 3 5% 5 55% 5 40% 240 111% 36 93% 212 744 10:00 AM 45% 199 3 10% 11 75% 7 65% 390 20% 72 100% 228 910 11:00 AM 60% 265 30% 4 50% 53 90% 8 93% 498 30% 108 100% 228 1,164 NOON 75% 332 50% 6 1On. 105 1001/. 9 92% 552 70% 252 905'. 205 1.461 1:00 I'M 75% 332 70% 9 100% 1I15 100% 9 95% 570 70% 252 90% 205 1,482 2:00 PM 55% 243 (A7. 8 5M. 53 100% 9 92% 552 60% 216 97% 221 1,302 ^ 3:001'M 35% 155 55% 7 10% II 100% 9 90% 540 60% 216 93% 212 1,150 4:00 PM 45% 199 50% 6 5% 5 85% 8 83% 498 50% I80 771/6 176 1,072 5:00 PM 60Y. 265 70% 9 10% II 65% 6 75% 450 70% 252 47% 107 1,100 6:OU I'M 70% 309 90% 11 50% 53 35% 3 78% 468 90% 324 23% 52 1,220 7:00 PM 75% 332 100% 13 100'/. 105 15% I 85% 511) 1O(Y% 360 7% 16 1,337 D 8:001'M 901/. 398 IW% 13 100% 105 10% BP. 498 100% 360 7% 16 1,191 9:00 PM 95% 420 IW% 13 1"/. 105 5'/. 0 58% 348 100% 360 3': 7 1,253 10:00 I'M 100% 442 90% 11 75% 79 OS: 0 30Y. I80 901/1 324 1% 7 1,041 I I:00 I'M IIQ% 442 70% 9 5(1'. 13 0% 0 12% 72 70'. 252 U: Il 828 m MIDNIGIIT IIBP/. 442 50 6 25% 26 0% 0 fP/. 0 50 180 O% 0 654 ZI I I Rcquued lurking reams delennincd based on I ,ersao pin 30 SF and 2.5 ,ersuca per vehicle. O121 Me,,uia.d pmku,g spa¢e.1-41wmr ro,d,c moil and m.u,um user assmne a I Send 2111:dirmum,,sap 6 d'.'..'coot fo,calk-in Pa..,lens d,e adjuetn bnah eo mmnity.downtown ama,uea LomWmssms,s,A besets sac. 1.11'lhe,equusd ps,ki.,seam olcul.1ims for ahe alike uu assume a 5%discwnl lo.ee...I for walk-in Iu,mns(roan the.dj.cem beach emnmunity. n:QIW12002IJJaabksV'IJl WccNJay 8lurtJ Fmku,l;b-JO-Olds N • a P N G I N E E a S 'TABLE 513 WEEKEND MIXED-USE SNARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS: FULL BUILDOU'T PLAN faacirtc City,liunlinglon Beach (1) (2) (J) (4) (5) (6) (7) (tl) Signature Hotel Banquet/ Iand Ilasne hotel Hotel Restaurant Ballroom Dole[Spa Retail Reslvuront office Sixc(SP) 400 Keys 5,000 Sir 9,300 SF 30'rrestment Roams 141.100 SF 45,000 SF 60,000 SF Pkg[late r 1.1 Sp/Key Q I.O Sp1IUO SF See Note ill Q 3 SP[Rm Q I SPl200 SF Q I SP/I00 SF Q I SP/250 SF R4�d Spaces S laces 442 Spaces SU Spaces 124 S aces 90 S aces 2 BUD S men Ili 360 S aces 131 228 Adjustments n!a 25%non-guests 75%non-guests 25%non-guru 100% 100% IOU f3ensunal AJ'. 1130% IU0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent ,0.nf I'crcenl No.of Shared Tlme of Peok Parking of C. Parking of Peak Parking of Peak Parking of Peak Parking of Peak ,rking of Peak Parking Parking of Ua Remand spaces Ikmond Spaces Remand S aces Demand so aces Demand Sam [1<mead Smen Demand 5men UemadJ 6:00 AM 9U% 398 20% 3 OY. 0 5% I 0% 0 0% 0 (M. 0 402 7:00 AM 70% 309 2U% 3 IY/. 0 1U% 2 3% IS 2% 7 3% 7 346 UK)AM 60% 765 20% 3 0% 0 40% 9 10% fA 3% 11 10% 23 371 0.00 AM 50% 221 20% 3 5% 5 55% 12 30% 180 6% 22 13% 30 473 I o:00 AM 40% 177 20% 3 10% 9 15% 17 45% 270 8% 29 13% 30 535 I I:W AM 45% 199 ]0% 4 5n. 47 90% .20 73% 436 45% 162 17Y. 39 909 294 NOON 6(Y/. 265 30% 4 n8N/. 93 ICID% 23 85% 510 100% 360 17% 39 1,347 1:00 PAI 60% 265 45% 6 100% 93 100% 23 95% 570 1 UO% 360 l3% 30 1 060 2:00 PM 45% 199 45% 6 50% 47 100a/. 23 100% 600 45% 162 l0- 2J Ip60 1 30 PM 40% 177 45% 6 10% 9 1009: 23 IDP. LOU 45% 162 7% 1/, 997 4001'M 511v. 221 45% 6 5-1/1 % 5 85'!. 19 90% 540 45% 162 7% 16 969 5:00 I'M 60% 265 60% 8 10. 9 65% IS 75% 390 9(r/s 374 3N. 7 770 -� 6:00 PM 7U% 309 90% 11 50% 47 35% 8 65'/. 390 90°6 124 1% 7 1,1396 700 PM 90% 354 95% 12 ID0% 93 15% 3 60% 360 9s% 342 3% 7 1,171 ^ 9:00 I'M 'Jm6 398 100% ❑ l0U% 93 l0°h 2 55% 330 IW% 360 3% 7 1,207 l=i 9:(W I'M 95% 420 100% 13 IW% 91 5% I 40Y. 240 100% 36U U6 U 1,127 I0:00 PM lot)% 1 442 95% 12 75% 70 0°/. 0 38% 226 95% 142 U% 0 1,1194 442 95% 11 50% 47 D% 0 IJ% 7tl 85a/. 306 [Y/. U 8fl4 ZMIDNIGFI'f 100% 442 70% 9 25% 21 0% 0 (N6 0 70•/. 252 0% 0 71G Nntcs; (11 Idnldmd puking sinocs detannhad based an 1 person per 30 Sp and 2.5 persons per vehicle. _® 121 The Cgdimd parking space cakolatian for the mail and oestauranl uses assume a 15%and 2W.dfecoum,mfpenivdy,so¢count for walk in patrons from the aAjacnu beach comm�miry,dawmo vn area,coca Iwml><mrvns,andIemch area. 131'fIn,n9uired parking space calculations for the off ice use scone a 5%discount m arcvunt fo walk-in patrons Oani Me adjacent beach comwwnliy. n:LlWLW21J3\uhIcsLI33 Weekend Shined vkWg 6.3003.ate 1 • e N c I N r r R 5 'I'AULE6A "t WEEKDAY MIXED-USE SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS: REDUCED AL7'ERNATI VE PLAN Pacific City,Huntington Beach (1) RI (3) (4) (5) (6) (8 (gl Signature Ilotel Cmderencel I ind Use ]late[ Hotel Restaurant MeetingRoons Hotel Spa Retail Restaurant Office Size(SF) 400 Keys 5,000 SF 9,300 SF 30 Treatment Rooms 112,200 SF 55,000 SF 30,000 SF Pkg Rate 1-1 sldKey n 1.0 Sp/100 SF See Note I Q 3 SP/Rm Qa 1 SPQW SF (�1 SP/I W SF a 1 SP/750 SN R 'd S acr-5 Sum 442 Spaces 50 Sot" 124 S aces 90 Spaces 2 477 S acts 2 440 S aces 3I 114 Adjustments n/a 25%nun-gusts 85%non-guests 10%non-gumis 100% 100% 100% Seasonal Ad'. 100% IOOY. 100% 100% 1110% 100% 100% Total 11emeut N..of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent Na of Percent No.of Shared Time of Peak Parking of Peak Parking of Peak Parking of Pak Parking of Peak Parking of Penk Parking of Peak Parking Parking of Da Remand spaces Demand Sam Demand Spaces Demand S aces Demand Spaces Demand Spaces Demand Sam Demand 6:00 AM IOlt/. 442 20% 7 0% 0 5% U ON. 0 0% 0 3% 3 448 TOO AM 95% 376 20% 3 0% 0 loth 1 8% 38 2% 9 20% 21 450 &W AM 65% 297 2U7. 3 0% a 401. 4 17% 81 5% 22 63% 72 469 9:W AM 55% 243 20% 3 5% 5 55% 5 40% 191 10% 44 93% 106 597 10:00 AM 45% 199 20% 3 101: 11 75% 7 65% 310 20% 88 107. 114 732 11:00 AM 601. 265 30% 4 50% 53 9016 8 83% 396 30% 132 IOU/. 114 972 NOON 75% 332 5/P. 6 100% 105 IW% 9 92% 439 70% 308 9M. 103 1,30E 1:00 PM 75% 332 70% 9 IOU 105 ]Go 9 95% 453 70% 308 90% 103 1a19 2:W I'M SS% 24] 601/6 8 501/. 57 100% 9 92% 479 60% IW 77% 111 1,127 3:00 PM 35% 155 55% 7 101/. 11 100% 9 90% 429 60% 2W 93% IW 98) 4:00 PM 45% 199 50% 6 5% 5 85% 8 83% 396 501/. 220 77% 88 972 5:001'ht 60% 265 70% 9 10% 11 65% 6 75% 358 70% 309 47% 54 1.011 6:00 PM 70% 3W 90% 11 5U/. 53 35% 3 78% 372 90% 396 23% 26 1.170 D 7:W I'M 75% 332 100% 13 100% 105 IS% I 95% 405 100% 440 7% R 1.304 tl:W PM 90Y. J9ft 100'/. 13 100% IUS 10% I BJY. 316 IOP. 440 7% 8 I,761 9:001'M 95% 470 1001/. 13 100% 105 5% 0 58% 277 IUO% 440 3% 3 1.258 a? 10:00 I'M Win". 442 905'. 11 75% 79 0% 0 30% 143 90% 396 .3% 3 1.074 II:00 I'M IOf1Y. 442 70% 9 501/. 53 0% 0 12% 57 70% 308 0% 0 869 M113NI(d IT IO0% 442 5P/. 6 23% 26 Ci% 0 1P. 0 SU/. 220 ('/. 0 699 111 Reyuieed parkin,spaces dncnnhwd based on 1 pc,an It,3o SF and 2.5 terra.,m vehicle (2)'llm felluked pa,king space ealculatine,far d,e,etail and rulau,am use uw,m a 15%and 2015 diuminr respectively,to anon.ran walk-k.parr.,6om the odjuan beach c.ality,duwmnwn a,ea,uc.ho eWnswu,and Leach uea. 'Z 13)11c re,ui ed parkin,zpace c.1.1.tions fa,the.tree use auun.a 5%diammln 1t ucount half walk-in notions Gam the adjacent beach calmneurnly. V - n:521U012.2U7Va61ut2133 Weekday Shved lS,kin,6J0.ol.als W • E N G I N F E R S rABLE 6B W6EICEND MIXED-USE SHARED PARICINC DEMAND ANALYSIS: REDUCED ALTERNATIVE PLAN laacilic City,Iluiilington [leach (q l2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ;30,W0 ) (8) Signature Ilolel Banquet/ hnJ Use HOW Hotel Ralnumnl Ballroom Hotel Spa Retail Raloumnlice Size(SF) 4W Keys 5,000 SF 9,300 SF 30'freatmenl Rooms 1I 2,200SF 55,000 SF SF Pk lime Qo 1.1 SplKcy Qa 1.0 Sp/I W SF See Note 1 3 SP/Rm 1 SP/2W SF Qa 1 SI'/1 W SF 21( RdScesS aca 442 Sam 50 S aca 124 S ata 90 Splices 2 477 S aca 2 114Adjustments Wn 25%non-guests 75%non-gnals 25%non-guars 100% IOU% 0%Sensonnl Al. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 'PolarPercent Na.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent No.of Percent Na of Percent No.of No.of Shared Time of Peak forking of Pcok Parking of Peak Parking of Peak Parking ofPmk Parking .[peak Parking of Penk Parking Parking of Da Demand Some" Demand S races Demand Spaces Remand Sam Demand Spaces Demand spaces Remand S aces Demand 6:W AM 90% 398 20% 3 0%. 0 5% 1 OS'. 0 0% 0 0% 0 402 7:00 AM 70% 309 20% J 0% 0 1V/. 2 J% 14 2% 7 3% 3 ]49 8:W AM 60% 265 20% 3 0% 0 40% 9 10% 48 3% 13 10% 11 349 9:00 AM 50% 221 20% 3 5% 5 55% 12 30Y. 143 6% 26 13% 15 425 I0:0(1 AM 4IN. 177 20% 3 In% 9 75% 17 45% 215 8% 35 13%. 15 471 I I:W AM 45% 199 309. 4 50%. 47 90% 20 73% 348 45% 19H 17% 19 8J5 NOON 60% 265 3P/. 4 100% 93 100%. 23 95% 405 100% 440 IN 19 1,249 1:00 PM 60% 26.5 45% 6 100% 97 IW% 23 95% 453 tun% 440 13% IS F[2957.00 PM 45% 199 45% 6 50% 47 I W% 2J IOaX 477 45'/. 198 10'. 11 3:00 I'M 40% 177 45% 6 10% 9 IWY. 19IW% 477 45% I78 7Y. B 4:00 I'M 50% 221 45% L 5% 5 85% 19 90% 429 45'/. 198 7% 8 5:00 I'M (Arl. 265 60Y. 8 Ill% 9 65% 15 75% J58 60% 264 3% J D 6:00 PM 70% 309 90% II 50'. 47 35% 8 65% 310 90% 396 3% 3 n 7:00 I'M 90% 354 95% 12 IWY. 9J 15% 3 W% 286 95% 418 3% J a 8:00 I'M 901/. 398 100% I3 100%. 93 10%. 2 55% 262 100% 440 3% 7 9:00 I'M 95% 420 100% I3 10011. 93 5% 1 40% 191 100% 440 0'. 0 1.158 T- Io 00 I'M 100% 442 95% 12 75% 70 w. 0 38% I81 95% 418 U`/. 0 1.123 m II:00 PM 100'. 442 95% 11 505'. 47 U°. 0 ❑% 62 HS% 374 b'/. 0 9J6 Z MIDNIGHT IW, 442 70% 9 25% 2l OY. 0 UY. 0 7P. JOB 0-/. U 7H2 ® Notes: (I)ftcqu'aed parking vexes Jmcnnmcd based on I prrsan per JO SF and 2.5 pawns per vehicle. (2171'requheJ Pinking zpxe c.kuhdom for the mail vd rests-ra-t osn arson'a 15%and 2U%4hcouot,rnpectivel7,to se"t far walk-in pavans Dom me.dpcem te.eh mumm+oy,do..umwn arza,uc.hdds/tuonz,and bncL a.n. 13173',vyuheJ Parking zpxe cakvlmh,m for the office uu aum'.5%divaom to,ecoanl for walbm pauam frwn the.djacenl he.ch rommooity. /N n:121WVW2117UakkzQ 133 Werkeod Slued Pmklne 6-30.01.ah • E N C I N E E R S APPENDIX A LAGUNA CLIFFS MARRIOTT RESORT HOTEL EVENT SCHEDULE APRIL 15, 2001 -APRIL 23, 2001 F C . ATTACHMENT NO. 6 � S catering n uay tvent Keport Sunday. April 15, 2001 Account: Laguna Cliffs Marriott Resort at Dana Point Status 0 Be: JMS CS: Contact: Ms. Joni Simpkins Method of Payment: Res ID: Post As: Easter Brunch Parking: PMS #: Event time Function NamerType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 6:00 am -7:00 pm Easter Brunch Ballroom 9563 N Account: Novo Nordisk Status D Be: CSw Cs: CSW Contact: Ms. Lisbeth Helmgaard Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G1063041601 Post As: Novo Nordisk Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 17825 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 5:00 am-5:00 am Conference Room N P.C . ATTACHMENT NO. �2 6 Page 2 Catering 11 Day Event Report Monday April 16, 2001 Account: GE Power Systems status D Be: BJM cs: JMF Contact: Ms. Rosemary Duinonez Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G5726041601 Post As: GE Power Systems Mini SOA Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 19777 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTO SET SEO # CmpitdY/f. 8:00 am- 10:00 pm Exhibition Set-up Salons 6-8 DISP 9574 Y 12:00 pm - 5:00 pm Area Council Lunch Directors Room 2 CONF 10 9575 Y 12:00 pm -5:00 pm Afternoon Break Director's Room 2 XIST 10 9575 Y 6:00 pm- 2:00 am 24 hour hold Salons 6-8 9574 Y 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Dinner Salon 5 RD 40 65 9576 Y Account: Houghton Mifflin Co. status D BB: CSW Cs: CSW Contact: Ms. Cecilia Ortiz Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L1954041601 Post As: Houghton Mifflin Co. Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 0 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlf 8:45 am-9:15 am Morning Beverage Set UP Directors Roam BUFF 8 9681 Y 9:00 am- 5:00 pm Meeting Directors Room CONF 8 9681 Y 10:30 am - 10:45 arrMorning Refresh Directors Room XIST 9681 Y 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Lunch/Regatta Grill Regatta Grill XIST 9681 Y 3:00 pm- 3:15 pm Afternoon Refresh Directors Room XIST 8 9681 Y Account: Laguna Cliffs Marriott Resort at Dana Point status D BB: WWW CS: WWw Contact- Mr. Jeroen Gerrese Method of Payment: Res ID: Post As: Laguna Cliffs Marriott Resort at Dana P Parking: PMS #: Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 8:30 am-9:30 am Executive Commitee Boardroom CONF 8 9688 Y 2:30 pm-4:30 pm Sales Meeting Boardroom CONF 12 9689 Y Account: Novo Nordisk Status D BB: CSW Cs: CSW Contact: Ms. Lisbeth Helmgaard Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res IO:G1o63041601 Post As: Novo Nordisk Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 17825 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 5:00 am-4:30 'am- - �� Conference Room N ,UZ ATTACHMENT NO. Page 3 �urc. u.6 . r agar a.vvn nrflvr c Tuesday April 17, 2001 Account: Barilla America. status D BB: NCD CS: VMV Contact: Mr. Dana Johnson Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G0788041701 Past As: Barilla America Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS It: 20839 Event time Function Namorrype Function Room Set-up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Lunch Regatta Grill XIST 10 7 9507 Y 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm Meeting Boardroom CONF 10 7 9507 Y 3:00 pm - 3:30 pm Afternoon Break Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9507 Y Account: Chugai Biopharmaceuticals, Inc Status D BE: FOS CS: www Contact: Ms. Jill Meyer Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G5989041701 Post As: Chugai Biopharmaceuticals, Inc Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 20765 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 12:31 pm- 1:30 pm Lunch Del Mar Terrace RD 12 9619 Y 1:30 pm -5:30 pm Meeting Directors Room us 12 9619 Y 3:15 pm - 3:30 pm Afternoon Break Directors Room CONF 12 9619 Y 7:00 pm -9:00 pm Dinner Regatta Grill XIST 12 9619 Y Account: GE Power Systems Status D Be: JMF CS: JMF Contact: Ms. Marisa Miotto Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L5750041701 Post As: GE Nuovo Pignone Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 2338 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET UE0 # CmpltdYlN 7:30 am -4:30 pm Ice Cream Break TBA XIST 115 9675 Y Account: GE Power Systems status D BB: BJM CS: JMF Contact: Ms. Rosemary Quinonez .Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G5726041601 Post As: GE Power Systems Mini SOA Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 19777 Event time Function NamerType Function Room Sot-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 6:00 am-2:00 am 24 hour hold Salons 6-8 9595 Y 7:00 am-4:30 pm Registration Salon 6 Foyer REG 9595 Y 7:30 am-4:30 pm Mini SOA Trade Show Salons 6-8 CKTL 9595 Y 7:30 am -8:30 am Continental Breakfast Salon 6 Foyer CKTL 100 146 9595 Y 7:30 am -4:30 pm Coffee Service Salons 6-8 XIST 100 146 9595 Y �. G. ATTACHMENT NO, Pa9e Catering 11 Day Event Report Tuesday April 17, 2001 8:30 am-4:30 pm General Session Learning Center SR 90 9604 Y 8:30 am- 4:30 pm Presentation Room B Director's Room 2 9604 Y 12:00 pm- 12:30 prrBox Lunch Salon 6 Foyer XIST 100 146 9595 Y 4:35 pm- 7:30 pm Dinner Laguna Brick RD10 100 146 9605 Y Account: Novo Nordisk Status D BB: CSw CS: CSw Contact: Ms. lasbeth Helmgaard Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G1063041601 Post As: Novo Nordisk Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 17825 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # Cmpltd Y/N 4:00 am-5:00 am Conference Room 9731 N 7:45 am-8:15 am Continental Breakfast Conference Room BUFF 10 9652 Y 8:00 am-5:00 pm Meeting Conference Room CONF 10 9652 Y 10:00 am- 10:15 antvlorning Break Conference Room XIST N 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Lunch Laguna Cove XIST 10 N 3:00 pm-3:15 pm Afternoon Break Conference Room XIST 9652 Y P.0 . ATTACHMENT NO, +- Zq Page 5 (-atering 11 uay tvent Keport Wednesday April 18, 2001 Account: Barilla America Status D BB: NCD CS: vwVW Contact: Mr. Dana Johnson Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G0788041701 Post As: Barilla America Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS If: 20839 Event time Function Name/Type .Function Room Set-up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 7:00 am-8:00 am Continental Breakfast Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9606 Y 8:00 am-5:00 pm Meeting Boardroom CONF 10 7 9606 Y 10:00 am- 10:30 an-Morning Refresh Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9606 Y 12:30 pm- 1:30 pm Lunch Regatta Grill XIST 10 7 9606 Y 3:00 pm-3:30 pm Afternoon Break Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9606 Y Account: Chugai Biopharmaceuticals, Inc status D BB: FOS CS: wVJW Contact: Ms.Jill Meyer Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G5989041701 Post As: Chugai Biopharmaceuticals, Inc Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 20765 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 8:00 am-8:30 am Continental Breakfast Directors Room CONF 12 9621 Y 8:30 am- 5:00 pm Meeting Directors Room us 12 9621 Y 10:15 am- 10:30 arrMorning Refresh Directors Room CONF 12 9621 Y 12:00 pm- 1:15 pm Lunch Laguna Terrace RD 12 9621 Y 3:15 pm-3:30 pm Afternoon Break Directors Room CONE 12 9621 Y 5:30 pm-7:00 pm Dinner Regatta Grill XIST 12 9621 Y Account: GE Power Systems status D BB: JMF CS: JMF Contact: Ms. Marisa Miotlo Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L5750041701 Post As: GE Nuovo Pignone Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 2338 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Sot-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 7:30 am -4:30 pm Ice Cream Break TEA XIST 115 9676 Y Account: GE Power Systems status D BB: BJM CS: JMF Contact: Ms. Rosemary Quinonez Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G5726041601 Post As: GE Power Systems Mini SOA Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 19777 Event time . + Function Name/Typo Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET SEO # CmpltdYlN 6:00 am-2:00 am 24 hour hold Salons 6-8 9609 Y 7:00 am-4:30 pm Registration Salon 6 Foyer REG 9609 Y A 5 p G - ATTACHMENT NO. 6 .30 Page 6 Catering 11 Day Event Report Wednesday April 18, 2001 7:30 am-4:30 pm Mini SOA Trade Shaw Salons 6-8 CKTL 9609 Y 7:30 am- 8:30 am Continental Breakfast Salon 6 Foyer CKTL 100 149 9609 Y 7:30 am-4:30 pm Coffee Service Salons 6-8 XIST 100 149 9609 Y 8:30 am-4:30 pm General Session Learning Center SR 90 9610 Y 8:30 am-4:30 pm Presentation Room B Director's Room 2 9610 Y 12:00 pm - 12:30 prr80x Lunch Salon 6 Foyer XIST 100 149 9609 Y 4:30 pm-7:30 pm Dinner Laguna Brick RD70 60 91 9611 Y Account: Novo Nordisk Status D BB: CSW CS: CSW Contact: Ms. Lisbeth Helmgaard Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G1063041601 Post As: Novo Nordisk Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 17825 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up F-xP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYrN 7:45 am-8:15 am Continental Breakfast Conference Room BUFF 10 9661 Y 8:00 am- 5:00 pm Meeting Conference Room CONF 10 9661 Y 10:00 am - 10:15 an-Morning Break Conference Roam XIST N 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Lunch Laguna Cove XIST 10 N 3:00 pm- 3:15 pm Afternoon Break Conference Room XIST N Account: Windermere Services California states 0 BB: WWW CS: WWW Contact: Mr. Steve Self Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L3870041801 Post As: Windermere Parking: PMS #: 2537 Event time Function NamerType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 8:30 am-4:30 pm Meeting Salon 1 SR 40 9701 Y 8:30 am- 9:30 am Continental Breakfast Salon 1 XIST 40 9701 Y P. C ' ATTACHMENT NO. 3 . A&7 Page 7 t-atCII8I6 I I "ay LYCIIt 1%upult Thursday April 19, 2001 Account: ACE USA - International Status D BB: CSW CS: CSW Contact: Mr. Steve Dennison Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G3172041801 Post As: ACE USA -International Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 19499 Event time Function NamerType Function Room Set-UP EXP GTD SET EEO # CmpltdY/N 6:45 am- 9:15 am Continental Breakfast Conference Room BUFF 10 9662 Y 7:00 am- 9:15 am Meeting Conference Room XIST 10 9 9 9662 Y 9:15 am -6:00 pm Off Property/Catalina Off Property 9662 Y Account: Barilla America Status D BB: NCD cs: WWW Contact: Mr. Dana Johnson Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G0788041701 Post As: Barilla America Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 20839 Event time Function HamefType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 7:00 am-8:00 am Continental Breakfast Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9607 Y 8:00 am-5:00 pm Meeting Boardroom CONF 10 7 9607 Y 10:00 am- 10:30 arrMoming Refresh Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9607 Y 12:30 pm- 1:30 pm Lunch Regatta Grill XIST 10 7 9607 Y 2:30 pm-3:00 .pm Afternoon Break Boardroom Reception XIST 10 7 9607 Y Account: Chart House Enterprises status D BB: CSW cs: CSW Contact: Ms. Michele Schoenbrod Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L1730041901 Post As: Chart House Enterprises Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 20864 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 12:00 pm -5:00 pm Meeting Conference Room CONF 11 . 9588 Y 12:15 pm- 1:15 pm Working Lunch Conference Room XIST 11 9588 Y 3:00 pm-3:15 pm Afternoon Break Conference Room XIST 11 9588 Y Account: Prestige Resorts and Destinations, Ltd. status D BB: FOS CS: KLS Contact: Ms. Pat Budey Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G9088041801 Post As: Great Clips Inc. - Annual Franchise Me Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 18483 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 7:00 am- 7:00 am Office Laguna Room (134) OTHR 9669 N 3:30 pm-4:30 pm Pre-Convention Meeting Salon 3 US 15 9671 N 3:30 pm-4:00 pm PM Break Salon BUFF 15 9671 N A TPt..ATTACHMENT NO. 6 .32 Page 8 Catering 11 Day Event Report Iursday April 19, 2001 Account: Kavesh & Gau Status D BB: CSW Cs: CSw Contact: Ms.Judi Li Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L8536041901 Post As: Kavesh & Gau Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 17009 Event time Function HamerType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 4:00 pm- 5:00 pm Set Up Salons 1-2 RD 50 60 62 9264 Y 4:30 pm- 5:00 pm Registration Salon 1 Foyer REG 2 9264 Y 5:00 pm-6:30 pm Meeting Salons 1-2 RD 50 60 62 9264 Y 6:30 pm-8:00 pm Dinner Salons 1-2 XIST 50 60 62 9264 Y Account: Lawson Products Status D Be: www CS: wvwv Contact: Mr. Dave Khoury Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G8 12904 1 801 Post As: Lawson Products Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 18791 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY4 7:31 am-8:30 am Continental Breakfast Director's Room 2 XIST 9 10 9670 Y 8:00 am-5:00 pm Meeting Director's Room 2 CONF 9 10 9670 Y 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Lunch Regatta Grill XIST 9 10 9670 Y Account: Panasonic status D as: BRS cs: BRS Contact: Mr.Mark Balsama Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L0000041901 Post As: Panasonic Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 0 Event time Function NamerType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpftdY/b 9:00 am-5:00 pm Meeting Directors Room CONF 6 9740 Y 9,00 am- 12:00 pm Coffee Service Directors Room XIST 6 9740 Y Account: United States Postal Service status D Bs: MKA CS: MKA Contact: Ms.Adriana Garcia Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L0419011300 Post As: Post Masters Meeting Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMs #: 2538 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlN 8:00 am-4:00 pm Meeting Salon 4 SR 110 9650 Y 10:00 am- 10:30 anivlid-Morning Break Salon 4 BUFF 110 9650 Y 11:30 am- 12:30 pniuncheon Laguna Brick RD 110 9650 Y 2:00 pm-2:30 pm Afternoon Break Salon BUFFr JTf rWN4FNI No. 9"N0.33 Y Page 9 Friday April 20, 2001 Account: American Cancer Society status D BB: FOS CS: MKA Contact: Ms. Judy Shope Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G7733041901 Post As: 43rd Annual Science Writers Seminar Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 7504 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 8:00 am- 12:00 am Press Workroom Directors Room SR 16 9586 Y 9:00 am- 12:00 am Headquarters Room Boardroom CONF 8 9586 Y 10:30 am- 12:00 pnPre-Convention Meeting Salon 2 HS 20 9660 Y 10:30 am - 12:00 pnBeverage Service Salon 2 XIST 20 9660 Y 1!00 prn-4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9586 Y Acc�aunt: ACE USA - International Status D BB: CSW CS: CSW Contact: Mr. Steve Dennison Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G3172041801 Post As: ACE USA -international Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 19499 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-UP EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 7:45 am-9:00 am Continental Breakfast Conference Room BUFF 10 9 9663 Y 8:15 am- 1:00 pm Meeting Conference Room CONF 10 9 9663 Y 10:30 am- 10:45 arrMoming Break Conference Room XIST 10 9 9663 Y Account: Dywidag Systems International Status D BB: SES CS: KLS Contact: Ms. Helene Wolf Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID: Post As: Dywidag Systems International Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 2539 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 7:30 am-8:30 am Continental Breakfast Salon 4 Foyer XIST 54 9492 Y 8:30 am- 12:00 pm General Session Salon 4 SR 60 9492 Y 10:00 am- 10:15 am4M Refresh Salon 4 Foyer FLOW 54 9492 Y 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Box Lunch Salon 4 Foyer FLOW 54 9492 Y 12:00 pm-3:00 pm Off Property Off Property 9492 Y 3:00 pm- 3:15 pm PM Break Salon 4 XIST 54 9492 Y 3:00 pm-6:30 pm General Session Salon 4 SR 60 9492 Y 7:30 pm-8:30 pm Reception Regatta Lawn FLOW 84 9494 Y 7:30 pm-8:30 pm Reception Back-Up Commodore Lounge FLOW 84 9494 Y 8:00 pm- 10:00 pm Dinner Regatta Lawn RD 84 9494 Y 8:00 pm- 10:00 pm Dinner Back-up Catalina Room RD 84 9494 Y q ATTACHMENT NO. _L_-A Page 11 Catering 11 Day Event Report Friday April 20, 2001 Account: Prestige Resorts and Destinations, Ltd. Status D BB: FOS CS: KLS Contact: Ms. Pat Burley Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G9088041801 Post As: Great Clips Inc. - Annual Franchise Me Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 18483 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYi - 7:00 am-6:59 am Office Laguna Room (134) OTHR 9673 Y 11:30 am-5:00 pm General Session Set-up Salons 5-8 SR 9674 Y 12:00 pm-4:00 pm Registration Set-up Prefunction Salons 5- DISP 9673 Y 12:00 pm-6:00 pm Logo Table Prefunction Salons 5- DISP 9673 Y 2:00 pm-3:00 pm PM Break Prefunction Salons 5- BUFF 150 9674 Y 4:00 pm-9:00 pm Registration Prefunction Salons 5- DISP 9673 Y 5:00 pm-7:00 pm General Session Salons 5-8 RD6 160 9674 Y 7:00 pm-7:45 am Reception Laguna Brick CKTL 150 9706 Y 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm Cash Bar Salons 1-4 9714 Y 7:30 pm -7:45 pm Doors Open Salons 1.4 9706 Y 7:45 pm-9:00 pm Dinner Salons 1-4 RD 150 159 9706 Y 9:00 pm- 11:00 pm Hypnotist Show Salons 1-4 9706 Y Account: Lawson Products Status D Be: l AAW CS: vwwv Contact: Mr. Dave Khoury Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res to:G8129041801 Post As: Lawson Products Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 18791 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYf 7:31 am -8:30 am Continental Breakfast Director's Room 2 XIST 9 10 9672 Y 8:00 am-4:00 pm Meeting Director's Room 2 CONF 9 10 9672 Y 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Lunch Regatta Grill XIST 9 10 9672 Y Account: Smith & Cicco Wedding Status D Be: JVD cs: JVD Contact: Heather Smith Method of Payment: Advance Deposit Res ID:L0421017780 Post Aw Smith&Cicco Wedding Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 11877 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # Cmpitd Y/ 10:00 am- 3:00 pm Tent Setup Regatta Lawn TENT 9561 N P .c. ATTACHMENT Na. AI Page 12 t_dtertiig i i udy event meporc Saturday April 21, 2001 Account: American Cancer Society status D BB: FOS CS: MKA Contact: Ms.Judy Shope Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G7733041901 Post As: 43rd Annual Science Writers Seminar Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 7504 Event time Function NamefType Function Room Set-UP EXP GTD SET .BEO # ,CmpltdY/N 7:00 am- 12:00 am Headquarters Room Boardroom CONF 8 9585 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Press Workroom Directors Room SR 16 9585 Y 9:00 am-4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9585 Y 11:00 am- 1:00 pm Set Up Registration Boardroom Foyer REG 2 9585 Y 1:00 pm- 12:00 am Registration Boardroom Foyer REG 2 9585 Y 1:00 pm-4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9585 Y Account: BRIDAL OPEN HOUSE status D BB: JVD CS: Contact: Method of Payment: Res ID: Post As: BRIDAL OPEN HOUSE Parking: PMS #: Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 10:00 am- 11:00 anSET UP Laguna Brick XIST 9784 N 10:00 am- 11:00 arrSEi UP Del Mar Lawn XIST N 10:00 am- 11:00 arnSET UP Regatta Lawn XIST N 10:00 am- 11:00 arrSET UP TBA XIST N 10:00 am- 11:00 anOPEN HOUSE Hotel Lobby-Commod XIST 9786 Y 11:00 am-3:00 pm OPEN HOSUE Laguna Brick XIST 9784 N 11:00 am- 3:00 pm OPEN HOUSE TBA XIST N 11:00 am- 3:00 pm GUEST ARRIVAL Hotel Lobby-Commod XIST 9786 Y Account: Dywidag Systems International Status D BB: SES cs: KLS Contact: Ms. Helene Wolf Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID: Post As: Dywidag Systems International Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 2539 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 7:30 am-8:30 am Continental Breakfast Salon 4 Foyer XIST 54 9493 Y 8:30 am- 12:00 pm Meeting Salon 4 SR 60 9493 Y 10:00 am- 10:15 an-AM Refresh Salon 4 Foyer FLOW 54 9493 Y 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Box Lunch Salon 4 Foyer FLOW 54 9493 Y Q II F - C• ATTACHMENT N0. 6.3� Page 13 Catering 17 Day Event Report Saturday April 21 , 2001 Account: Prestige Resorts and Destinations, Ltd. status D BB: FOS CS: KLS Contact: Ms. Pat Burley Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G908804180 Post As: Great Clips Inc. - Annual Franchise Me Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 18483 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # Cmpltdl 7:00 am -6:59 am Office Laguna Room (134) OTHR 9677 Y 7:30 am -8:30 am Continental Breakfast Prefunction Salons 5- BUFF 150 9678 Y 8:00 am - 12:00 pm Registration Prefunction Salons 5- DISP 9677 Y 8:00 am - 1:00 pm Logo Table Prefunction Salons 5- DISP 9677 Y 8:30 am - 11:30 am "Recruiting& Industry" Salons 6-8 SR 100 9678 Y 8:30 am - 11:30 am Leading Your Managers Salon 5 RD 100 9678 Y 10:00 am- 10:30 am4M Break Prefunction Salons 5- BUFF 9678 Y 11:30 am- 12:00 prrBox Lunch Prefunction Salons 5- BUFF 150 9678 Y 12:00 pm-6:00 pm Activities Off Property N 1:00 pm -7:00 pm Set-up Salons 5-8 9710 Y 1:00 pm-3:00 pm Tennis Break Tennis Court 1 6 9759 Y T00 pm- 11:00 pm Dinner Salons 5-8 RD 150 157 9710 Y 7:00 pm- 11:00 pm Cash Bar Salons 5-8 9715 Y Account: Laguna Cliffs Marriott Resort at Dana Point status P ee: CSW CS: Contact: Ms. Cricket Jordan Method of Payment: Res ID: Post As- Hollingsworth Birthday Celebration Parking: PMS #: Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY 6:00 pm- 10:00 pm Reception/Back Up for Catalina Room CKTL N Account: Thompson & Gensler Wedding status D se: JVD CS: JVD Contact: Sue Thompson Method of Payment: Advance Deposit Res ID:L8198042101 Post As: Kim Thompson &Carl Gensler Wedding Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 21139 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET eEO # CmpitdY/t 3:35 pm -6:00 pm Setup Salons 1-4 RD 9577 Y 5:00 pm -6:00 pm Cocktail Reception Prefunction Salons 1- RD10 150 9577 Y 5:00 pm - 12:00 am RECEPTION Salons 14 XIST N 6:00 pm-6:10 pm Introduction Salons 1-4 RD 150 9577 Y 6:15 pm-6:20 pm First Dance Salons 1-4 XIST 9577 Y 6:30 pm-6:40 pm Wedding Toast/Blessing Salons 1-4 RD 9577 Y 6:45 prri -8:00 pm Dinner' Salons 14 RD 150 [,, 9577 Y 8:00 pm - 11:00 pm Dance Salons 1-4 A �XIST�TTACFiME1VT NC.(O319577 Y A�Iv G Page 14 �.atonrs . r aiuy cvern f[Cf/Vr( Saturday April 21. 2001 8:15 pm-8:30 pm Cake Salons 1-4 XIST 9577 Y Account: Naffziger 60th Anniversary Status D BB: CSW CS: CSW Contact: Ms. June Graham Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:L2189042101 Post As: Naffziger 60th Anniversary Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 2006 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET SEO # Cmpltd Y/N 11:30 am- 12:30 prrSet Up Salons 1-2 RD 84 75 82 9640 Y 12:31 pm- 1:10 pm Guest Arrival Salons 1-2 XIST 84 9640 Y 1:15 pm- 1:20 pm Blessing Salons 1-2 9640 Y 1:30 pm-3:30 pm Luncheon Salons 1-2 RD 84 75 9640 Y 2:30 pm-2:45 pm Champagne Toast Salons 1-2 XIST 84 75 9640 Y 2:30 pm-2:45 pm (Champagane 8 Cider Bill Salons 1-2 9788 N 2:45 pm-3:00 pm Cake Cut Salons 1-2 XIST 84 75 9640 Y Account: Laguna Cliffs Marriott Resort at Dana Point Status D BB: WWW CS: WWW Contact: Ms.Cricket Jordan Method of Payment: Karen Crowley Res 10:15000021601 Post As: Regatta Grill Events Parking: PMS #: Event time Function NamelType Function Room Set-Up EX GTD SET BEO # Cmpltd Y/N 10:30 am- 11:30 amYoga Class Catalina Room N Account: Smith & Cicco Wedding Status 0 BB: JVD CS: JVD Contact: Heather Smith Method of Payment: Advance Deposit Res to:LG421017780 Post As: Smith & Cicco Wedding Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 11877 Event time Function Namefrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 5:00 pm-6:00 pm Reception Regatta Lawn RD 150 141 9459 Y 5:45 pm-6:00 pm Bride& Groom Regatta Lawn 160 141 9459 Y 6:10 pm-6:15 pm Toast Regatta Lawn XIST 9459 Y 6:30 pm- 7:30 pm Dinner Regatta Lawn R010 150 141 9459 Y 7:30 pm - 7:45 pm First Dance Regatta Lawn XIST 9459 Y 8:00 pm- 10:00 pm Dance Regatta Lawn 150 9459 Y 8:15 pm -9:00 pm Cake Cutting Regatta Lawn XIST 150 9459 Y P G.ATTACHMENT NO. 3� Page 15 Catering 11 Day Event Report Sunday April 22, 2001 Account: American cancer Society status D BB: FOS Cs: MKA Contact: Ms. Judy Shope Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G7733041901 Post As: 43rd Annual Science Writers Seminar Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 7504 Event time Function NamerType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlt 7:00 am-8:00 am Set-Up Media Interview Director's Room 2 CKTL 6 9599 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Headquarters Room Boardroom CONF 8 9599 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Press Workroom Directors Room SR 16 9599 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Registration Boardroom Foyer REG 2 9599 Y 8:00 am- 12:30 pm Set-Up Learning Center XIST 9587 Y 8:00 am- 12:00 am Media Interview Room Directors Room 2 CKTL 6 9599 Y 9:00 am -4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9599 Y 10:30 am- 12:30 prrBrunch Commodore's Loung RD 40 9587 Y 10:30 am- 12:30 pnBrunch Commodore Lounge N 11:00 am- 12:30 prrf3runch Presidential Suite BUFF 10 9612 Y 12:31 pm-4:45 pm Teaching and Briefing Learning Center SR 9587 Y 1:00 pm-4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9599 Y 1:30 pm-4:00 pm Afternoon Break Learning Center Foye BUFF 50 9587 Y 4:30 pm-5:30 pm Hospitality Set-Up Presidential Suite XIST 35 9613 Y 4:45 pm- 12:00 am 24 Hour Hold Learning Center N 5:30 pm-7:30 pm Hospitality Presidential Suite XIST 35 9613 Y 5:30 pm-7:30 pm Cash Bar Presidential Suite 9617 Y Account: Bergen Brunswig Status D BB: KCJ cs: JMF Contact: Ms. Gloria Archer Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G4077042201 Post As: Bergen Brunswig Health Systems Certi Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 18754 Event time Function Namefrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY1 7:00 pm- 12:00 am Meeting Set-up Salons 2-3 RD6 9703 N 7:00 pm- 12:00 am Meeting set-up Salon 1 us 40 9703 N 7:00 pm -7:30 pm Beverage Delivery- RoomGuestroom 7 9703 N Account: Prestige Resorts and Destinations, Ltd. status D Be: FOS CS: KLS Contact: Ms. Pat Burley Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res to:G9088041801 Post As: Great Clips Inc. - Annual Franchise Me Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 18483 Event time Function Namerrypo Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdYlP" 7:00 am-6:59 am Office Laguna Room (134) OTHR 9699 Y ATTACHMENT N0. 6-A Page 16 . . "ay ircn. nr}w. a Sunday April 22, 2001 8:00 am - 11:00 am Computer Breakout Conference Room CONF 8 9679 Y 8:00 am - 9:30 am Continental Breakfast Prefunction Salons 1- BUFF 150 9679 Y 8:00 am - 12:00 pm Registration Prefunction Salons 5- DISP 9699 Y 8:30 am -9:30 am MARC Breakout Salon 4 SR 50 9679 Y 9:00 am- 11:00 am Brunch Set-up Salons 5-8 RD 9680 Y 9:30 am- 10:45 am Problem Solving Breakout Salons 1-3 RD 140 9679 Y 9:30 am- 10:00 am AM Break Prefunction Salons 5- BUFF 9679 Y 11:00 am - 1:00 pm Brunch Buffett Salons 5-8 RD 150 9680 Y Account: Gao - Brown Wedding States D BB: JVD CS: JVD Contact: Sherry Gao Method of Payment: Res ID:L422016214 Post As: Sherry Gao -Donald Brown Wedding Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 15762 Event time Function Namerrype Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 10:00 am- 12:00 prrSetup Laguna Brick RD 52 9720 Y 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Reception Laguna Brick CKTL 50 52 9720 Y 1:05 pm- 1:10 pm Bridal Introductions/Toast Laguna Brick XIST 9720 Y 1:15 pm-2:15 pm Lunch Laguna Brick RD 9720 Y 2:15 pm- 2:30 pm Cake Cutting Laguna Brick XIST 52 9720 Y 2:30 pm-4:00 pm Dance Laguna Brick XIST 9720 Y Account: Baron - Byde Wedding Status D BB: JVD CS: JVD Contact: Wendy Baron Method of Payment: Prepayment Res ID:L4051042201 Post As: Wendy Baron -Andew Byde Wedding Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 5599 Event time Function NamerType Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/N 7:00 am-5:00 pm Bridal Dressing Room TBA XIST N 7:00 am - 1:00 pm Bridal Changing Room Catalina Room CONF 9757 Y 10:00 am- 12:00 prrSetup Del Mar Lawn TS 265 9543 Y 11:30 am- 12:00 prrGuest Arrival Del Mar Lawn TS 350 265 9543 Y 11:30 am-2:00 pm Set up Salons 1-4 RD N 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Wedding Ceremony Del Mar Lawn TS 250 265 9543 Y 1:00 pm-2:00 pm Reception Ballroom Prefunction RD 150 150 9544 Y 1:00 pm- 2:00 pm Reception Laguna Terrace XIST 115 9544 Y 1:00 pm-2:00 pm TBA N 2:00 pm- 2:05 pm Bride 8 Groom Salons 1-5 RD 250 9544 Y 2:05 pm - 2:15 pm First Dance Salons 1-5 XIST 9544 Y 2:15 pm-2:30 pm Toast Salons 1-5 XIST 272 9544 Y 2:30 pm-4:00 pm Lunch Salons 1-5 RD 250 272 9544 Y 3:30 pm-4:00 pm Viedo Program Salons 1-5 XIST 9544 Y ATTACHMENT NO. L40 Page 17 Catering 11 Day Event Report Sunday April 22, 2001 4:00 pm-4:10 pm Cake Cutting Salons 1-5 XIST 250 265 9544 Y 4:00 pm-6:45 pm Dance Salons 1-5 XIST 9544 Y A I� P.C. ATTACHMENT NO, Page 18 Monday April 23, 2001 Account: American Cancer Society States D BB: FOS CS: MKA Contact: Ms.Judy Shope Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res ID:G7733041901 Post As: 43rd Annual Science Writers Seminar Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 7504 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # Cmpltd Ylf 7:00 am-9:00 am Set-Up Learning Center SR 9616 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Media Interview Room Director's Room 2 CKTL 6 9600 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Headquarters Room Boardroom CONF 8 9600 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Press Workroom Directors Room SR 16 9600 Y 7:00 am- 12:00 am Breakfast Backup Commodore Lounge N 7:00 am- 12:00 am Registration Boardroom Foyer REG 2 9600 Y 7:30 am-9:30 am Continental Breakfast Laguna Cove RD 40 9616 Y 8:00 am - 9:00 am Continental Breakfast Presidential Suite XIST 8 9614 Y 9:00 am-4:00 pm Teaching 8 Briefing Learning Center SR 9616 Y 9:00 am-4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9600 Y 10:00 am- 10:30 anMid-Moming Break Laguna Cove XIST 50 9616 Y 11:45 am- 1:30 pm Luncheon Laguna Brick RD 75 9616 Y 12:00 pm- 1:30 pm Luncheon Presidential Suite XIST 7 9614 Y 1:00 pm -4:30 pm Beverage Service Boardroom 8 9600 Y 1:30 pm- 4:00 pm Afternoon Break Laguna Cove XIST 50 9616 Y 4:00 pm- 12:00 am 24 Hour Hold Learning Center 24 H N 4:30 pm-5:30 pm Hospitality Set Up Presidential Suite XIST 35 9615 Y 5:30 pm- 7:30 pm Hospitality Presidential Suite XIST 35 9615 Y 5:30 pm- 7:30 pm Cash Bar Presidential Suite 9620 Y Account: Applied Cardiac Systems (ACS) status D Be: WWW CS: WvWd Contact: Ms. Donna Bales Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res ID:G9366040801 Post As: ACS National Sales Meeting Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 2565 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTO SET BEO # CmpltdYIN 7:30 am -8:30 am Continental Breakfast Conference Room XIST 20 9733 Y 8:00 am -5:00 pm Breakout Meeting (Day 1) Catalina Room SR 20 9733 Y 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Meeting Conference Room CONF 20 9733 Y 10:00 am - 10:30 arrMorning Refresh Conference Room XIST 9733 Y 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Lunch Laguna Terrace XIST 20 9733 Y 3:00 pm -3:30 pm Afternoon Break Conference Room XIST 20 9733 Y Arf P. C -ATTACHMENT N0. G .42 Page 19 Catering 11 Day Event Report Monday April 23, 2001 Account: Bergen Brunswig Status D BB: KCJ CS: JMF Contact: Ms. Gloria Archer Method of Payment: Direct Bill Res 10:G4077042201 Post As: Bergen Brunswig Health Systems Certi Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 18754 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Sot-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/1 7:00 am -8:00 am Continental Breakfast Salon 1 Foyer XIST 100 95 9690 Y 8:00 am -6:00 pm Breakout 1 Salons 2-3 RD6 60 9594 Y 8:00 am -6:00 pm General Session Salon 1 us 40 9594 Y 10:00 am-3:00 pm Coffee Break Salon 1 Foyer XIST 100 95 9690 Y 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm Lunch Regatta Lawn RD 100 100 9690 Y 6:00 pm- 12:00 am 24 hr hold Salons 1-3 9594 Y 6:00 pm-9:00 pm Dinner Salon 4 RD 100 100 9692 Y Account: Nova Chemicals States D BB: www CS: www Contact: Mr. Steve Abeyta Method of Payment: Credit Card Payment Res 10:L7315042301 Post As: Nova Chemicals Parking: Hosted Self and Valet PMS #: 0 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/l 8:00 am-5:00 pm Meeting Laguna Room(134) CONF 4 9704 Y Account: Laguna Cliffs Marriott Resort at Dana Point states D BB: VVWW Cs: WWW . Contact: Mr. John Kingston Method of Payment: Res ID:15000011801 Post As: Supervisory Development Training Parking: PMS #: Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/P 4:00 pm-6:00 pm Graduation TBA RD 50 N Account: Toyota Motor Sales status D BB: KCJ cs: JMF Contact: Ms. Brenna Taguchi Method of Payment: Direct Bill Pending Res ID:G4743042301 Post As: Toyota Motor Sales Parking: On Own Self and Valet PMS #: 20734 Event time Function Name/Type Function Room Set-Up EXP GTD SET BEO # CmpltdY/;i 9:00 am-6:00 pm Rear Screen Set-up Salons 6-8 RSRN 9683 Y 9:00 am- 1:30 pm Meeting Set-up Salon 5 RD 9593 Y 9:00 am- 12:00 pm Rear Screen Set-up Salon 4 RSRN 9593 Y 11:00 am= 12:00 pnLunch Regatta Grill XIST 13 N 12:00 pm-6:00 pm Registration Prefunclion Salons 4- REG 9683 Y 16 F. G.ATTACHMENT NO. Page 20 � ac.clills l l Lay LVCIII nrjjUfl Monday April 23, 2001 12:30 pm- 1:00 pm Opening Session Salon 4 CKTL 140 9593 y 1:00 pm - 1:20 pm General Session Salons 6-8 SR 140 9683 y 1:31 pm -4:50 pm Breakout Meeting Salon 5 RD 70 9593 y 1:31 pm-4:50 pm Breakout Meeting Salon 4 SR 70 9593 y 3:00 pm-6:00 pm Set-up cars for reception Laguna Brick CKTL 9685 y 3:00 pm-3:20 pm Afternoon Break Prefunclion Salons 5- XIST 140 9683 y 5:00 pm-6:00 pm General Session Salons 6-8 SR 140 9683 y 6:00 pm-6:45 pm Reception Laguna Brick CKTL 140 9685 y 6:45 pm-8:30 pm Awards Dinner Salons 5-8 RD 140 9685 y ATTACHMENT NO. 0 •4� Page 21 DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL DTEP -- sairtion 0 criteria Code Requirement Proposed Development 4.2.01; Permitted Uses The following lists o1 visitor-serving commercial uses are allowed in District Potential uses may include: 4.9.01 7. Other visitor-serving uses that have the same parking demand as the uses set forth below may be allowed subject to the approval of the Director. . Art galleries • Bakeries • Art galleries Banks and savings and loan branch offices • Bakeries (not to exceed 5,000 sq. It I • Banks and savings and loan branch offices (not to exceed 5,000 sq.ft.) . Beach, swimming,and surfing equipment sales, rentals,and repairs • Beach, swimming,and surfing equipment sales, rentals and repairs . Bicycle sales, rentals, and repairs Bicycle sales, rentals and repairs Boat and marine supplies • Boat and marine supplies Bookstores • Bookstores • Carts and kiosks, pursuant to HB Municipal Code §230.94 • Carts and kiosks, pursuant to HB Municipal Code §230.94 • Clothing stores • Clothing stores Delicatessens,/specialty food stores • Delicatessens Florists • Florists Groceries (convenience) • Groceries (convenience) . Ice cream parlors • Ice cream parlors Museums • Laundromats and laundries Newspaper and magazine stores and stands • Meat and fish markets Outdoor dining, pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan §4.2.33. • Museums • Photographic equipment sales and processing • Newspaper and magazine stores and stands • Professional office (not to exceed 50 percent of total floor area) • Outdoor dining, pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan §4.2.33. Shoe stores • Photographic equipment sales and processing Sporting goods • Professional office (not to exceed 50 percent of total floor area) Tourist-related public and semi-public buildings, services, and facilities • Public transportation services Travel agencies • Shoe stores r l • Sporting goods D • Tourist-related public and semi-public buildings, services and facilities )> • Travel agencies D In accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan,all street-level uses will be n visitor-serving commercial uses and will be a part of the overall development = of District 7. 4.9.01m Conditionally • Automobile service stations Potential uses may include: Z Permitted Uses • Dancing and/or live entertainment Z • Health and sports clubs and spas • Dancing and/or live entertainment • Hotels and motels • Heath and sports clubs and spas O • Liquor stores • Hotels Permanent parking lots,subterranean, semi-subterranean and • Subterranean parking structures v aboveground parking structures • Restaurants • Restaurants • Taverns � • Taverns • Live entertainment theaters • Movie and live theaters Dimrici 7 Manx 011704(r) -i- I' Exit) DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL �DTSP n N i Crtterh Code Requirement Proposed Development 4.2.02; Minimum No minimum parcel size; master site plan is required. The Hotel parcel is 4.20 acres, and a retail promenade parcel is 6.40 acres. 4.9.02 Parcel Size Master Plan has been submitted for and reviewed concurrently w/CUP. 4.2.03; Maximum 3.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), calculated on net acreage for all of District 7. District 7 is 10.6 acres (461,736 sq ft).which would allow an FAR of 4.9.03 Intensity General Plan-3.0 FAR 1,385,208 sq If of floor area. Pacific City is proposing up to 61 O,DDO sq It. 4.2.04; Maximum 8 stones Maximum building height for the Hotel use is 8 stones;the retail promenade 4.9.04 Building Height 4.2.04(a): Additional 10 feet permitted for roofline treatment and will have a maximum height of 3 stories, rooffine treatments, architectural architectural features treatments, and elevator equipment may exceed the 8-story height limit, but 4.2.04(b): Additional 14 feet allowed for elevator equipment will be within noted height restrictions of Section 4.2.04 (a) and 4.2.04 (b). Increased height subject to a Special Permit. Use of hotel rooftop is requested to allow for future uses such as pool, music, food and beverage related activities (i.e. rooftop bar/lounge). 4.2.05: Maximum Site 50 percent of the net site area;any part of the site covered by a roof, Site coverage proposed is 49%. 4.9.05 Coverage including covered walkways, patios and carports is included in coverage. Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Subterranean 8 semi-subterranean parking: Less than 42 inches in height above adjacent grade are subject to provisions of Section 4.2.13(b). 4.2.06; Minimum 50 feet from Pacific Coast Highway for all structures exceeding 42 inches in Special Permit is requested for a minor deviation from front yard setback 4.9.06 Setback: Front height. no projection into or over a public right-of-way. 10 feet for parking from Pacific Coast Highway in order to better articulate the frontage along Yard lots and above grade parking structures. Deviation subject to a Special Pacific Coast Highway. Special Permit for 30'-0'for portions of the Permit. buildings. 4.2.07: Minimum 20 feet 21'-l'minimum (10 St.); 4.9.07 Setback: 10 feel for parking lots and above grade parking structures 24'-7' (Huntington St.) Exterior Side Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Yard 4.2.08; Minimum 20 feet from Pacific View Avenue Special Permit for 15'-1'is requested for minor deviation from rear yard 4.9.08 Setback: Rear Deviation subject to a Special Permit. setback from Pacific View Avenue to create a more storefront pedestrian Yard friendly experience to Pacific View Avenue. 4.2.11; Open Space Public open space and/or pedestrian access are required. No specific size Retail promenade will include plazas for sitting, gathering and public view 4.9.10 of public open spaces is described. opportunities. 4.9.11 Corridor Dedication of a 20-foot-wide public access corridor between Atlanta Avenue The 20 foot public access corridor is proposed through District 8A Dedication and Pacific Coast Highway, unless condition waived by City (Residential Village)and across Pacific View Avenue up to District 7. 4.2.13: Parking All parking to be provided on the site. 1,542 subterranean parking spaces based on a shared parking analysis as Huntington Commercial business(retail, office, restaurant) participation in the City's in outlined in the Conditional Use Permit. Beach lieu parking program is subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Ordinance Hotel parking 1.1 spaces/room Code Retail 1 space/200 sq. ft. Restaurant 1 space/100 sq. ft. Office 1 space/250 sq. ft. Q.G. ATTACHMENT N0. 7 L District 7 Matrix 111171i4rl DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL DTSP SectIon 0 CrtWis Code Requlremertt Proposed Devolo"ret 4.2.15. Landscaping Emphasis on California and Mediterranean landscapes, hardscapes, Conceptual landscape plan submitted as a part of CUP application;detailed Huntington furniture/design details and lighting. Native planting,vines,flowering plants, landscape plan conditioned to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Beach arbors,trellises and container planting are encouraged. Design Guidelines Site Entry-Main Entry Drive: a)A median with a minimum 10-toot-wide Chapters 4 landscaped area between the street and first bisecting parking aisle, b) and 5 minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk on each side of driveway, c) minimum 10 foot-wide landscaped parkway on each side of driveway; d) minimum 20- foot-wide decorative paving band. Use a three-tiered planting system: 1) grasses and ground covers; 2) shrubs and vines; 3) trees. Tree placement. a) minimum 8 feet between center of trees and edge of driveway and 6 feet from water/gas meter and sewer laterals; b) minimum 25 feet between center of trees and intersection of edge of driveways and streets or sidewalks;c) minimum 15 feet between center of trees/large shrubs to utility poles/street lights;d) minimum 8 feet between center of trees/large shrubs and fire hydrants fire department sprinklers/standpipe connections Landscape and irrigation plan is required. Street tree plan: Figure 1 of the Huntington Beach Design Guidelines Chapter 5 4.2 17 Access Ways 4.2.17(a): 24-foot-wide alleys; no more than v,of total alley dedication 4.2.17(a): No alleys planned. from one side. No new automobile curb cuts on Pacific Coast 4.2.17(b): Consistent with requirements. Highway. 4.2.17(b): All access ways to be free and clear of any and all structures including but not limited to trash enclosures,utility devices or storage areas. 4.2.18 Lighting Provide onsite lighting system on all vehicular access ways and along major A lighting plan will be prepared for Pacific City that will include lighting for all walkways vehicular access, along major walkways including the 20 foot wide Provide lighting within all covered/enclosed parking areas. pedestrian easement, and in all parking areas. Prepare lighting plan to Director. 4.2.20 Sewer and Designed to City standards. Sewer and water systems will be based on the Pacific City EIR technical Water Systems Located underneath streets, alleys or drives, reports prepared for sewer and domestic water. 4.2.21; City Signs Conform to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Planned Sign Program subject to Design Review Board approval. of 4.2.21(a): Address numbers will be in a uniform location throughout Huntington development, Director approval required. Beach 4.2.21(b): When appropriate, install onsite street name signs at Design intersections of access ways City Engineer approval required; Guidelines: Director approval for design and type. Must be consistent with Q.0 Chapter Design Guidelines. ffTACHMENT NO. 7. 3 Diann 7 Matrix 0J1704(f) -3- 01 17`a u 1 DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL DTSP Section N CrltMa Cods Requirement Proposed Devebpmwit 4.2.22 Refuse Enclosed/screened by masonry walls. Refuse collection areas will be included within the three enclosed service Collection Area Sited to minimize noise and visual intrusion on adjacent property and areas located on 1''Street, Pacific View Avenue, and Huntington Street. eliminate fire hazard to adjacent structures. 4.2.24 Antennas Antennas will be consistent with zoning requirements. Consistent with requirements. 4.2.25 Utility Lines All utility lines will be underground where possible. Utility lines abutting the project boundary are proposed to be relocated underground with the exception of the 66kv lines located on Atlanta Avenue. 4.2.26 Bus Turnouts Dedication required for a bus turnout,as recommended- Incorporate into A bus turnout is proposed along Pacific Coast Highway near the intersection development plan. with Huntington Street, 4.2.27 Orange County Locate transit center within proximity of downtown area. No transit center is proposed within the Pacific City project. Existing major Transit bus turnout is located on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Authority 1"Street and Huntington Street. Center 4.2.M City Coastal Zone Located in Coastal Zone 4-Downtown. Land use designation and general Consistent with requirements. of (CZ) Suffix plan overlay: Huntington CV-F7-SP: Commercial Visitor, 3.0 FAR, Specific Plan Beach Overlay General Design District 4C: Permitted Uses: visitor-serving and Plan Draft community-serving commercial uses. Coastal restaurants,entertainment and other uses as Element permitted by the CV and Commercial General(CG) land use categories. CV: hotels/motels, restaurants, recreation- related retail sales, cultural uses (e g.. museums)and similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors to the City. CG: Retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, household goods, food sales,drug stores. building materials and supplies, personal services, recreational commercial, overnight accommodations,cultural facilities, institutional, health, government offices and other similar uses. Height: 8 stories P.C. Iliwin 7 Matrix 0}17(14(r) "l" (3117l20(14) DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL? DTSP Section M FCriteria Code Requirement Proposed Development Design and Development: a) Requires a Specific Plan or Master Plan, b)establish a unified-village"character, required vertical setbacks above second floor; c) incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas,and common open space;d) provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas, e) establish well-defined entry from Pacific Coast Highway;f) maintain views of shoreline and ocean. Downtown Specific Plan Comply with Downtown Specific Plan overall and District 7 requirements. 4.2.31 School Provide school facilities impact mitigation and reimbursement agreement. The project will comply with the requirements of the school districts serving Facilities Condition can be waived by Planning Commission. the District 7 site and enter into a School Facilities Mitigation Agreement,as Condition does not apply to affordable housing projects. required by such districts. 4.2.33 Outdoor Dining Location and Design Criteria: a) extension of eating establishment on Outdoor dining will be provided as depicted on the Pacific City Conditional contiguous property; b) permitted on public right-of-way sidewalk areas; c) Use Permit. minimum 8-foot-wide clear passage for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in sidewalk area of public right-of-way; d) not applicable to District 7;e) establishments not serving alcohol and on public property must be separated from public sklewalk/pedestrian walkway by temporary cordon and removed when not in use;f)establishments serving alcohol must have a 36-inch-high physical barrier around outdoor eating area that will prohibit passage of alcohol through barrier;g) remove tables,chairs and umbrellas when not in use; h) minimum8-foot-wide clear passage (or permanent cordon and five- foot-wide clear passage) for pedestrian access in private sidewalk areas. Operating Requirements, Provisions and Conditions: a) obtain license agreement. b)enter into Maintenance Agreement with City; c) provide a public liability insurance policy; d) prohibit food and beverage sales to occupant or rider of motor vehicles or bicycles: e) alcohol beverages in glass containers only;f) pay all fees and deposits as required by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code;g)applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Zoning and the Subdivision Ordinance: h)applicable provisions regarding alcohol beverages; I) conditional use permit may be transferred. Parking: Comply with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Findings a)as set forth for the Zoning Administrator; b) no obstruction of building entryways; c) pedestrian traffic volumes are not inhibited; d) handicapped accessibility is provided as required. P. - ATTACHMENT N0. 7 5 INsnio 7 Mabw 071701NF) -5- (.UI7/I004) DISTRICT 8A ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (RESIDENTIAL) DTSP Section• Criteria Code Requirement Proposed Development 4 2.01, Permitted Uses Permitted Uses, for example: 4 1001 Permanently attached residential uses, including condominiums. Permanently attached residential uses, including multi- Parks and other recreational amenities such as swimming facilities and tot lots. family housing, condominiums, stock-cooperatives, and Guardhouses or automatic gales at project entries. apartments. Subterranean parking structures and surface parking on private bop road. - Accessory - Accessory buildings and uses where related and ancillary to the primary residence Building Uses are subject to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Uses may include covered patios, maintenance/storage structures/buildings within parking structure,onsite vehicle storage, spas,gazebos. and recreation facilities (indoors and outdoors). 4.2.02; Minimum Parcel No minimum parcel size, conceptual site plan is Pacific City Master Plan submitted and reviewed concurrently w/CUP. 4.10.02 Size required. 4202. . Minimum Unit Tyne Min. Floor Area (sa.ft.) Residential condominiums meet or exceed requirements. Condominium units range Residential Bachelor& Single 450 from one to three bedrooms with square footages ranging in size from approximately Floor Area One bedroom 650 850 square feet to 2,450 square feet. Requirements Two bedrooms 900 Three bedrooms 1.100 Four bedrooms 1,300 4.2.03; Maximum 1 dull,452 sq.ft of net lot area or 30 du per net acre. Residential parcel is 17.2 net acres and includes 516 units (30 dwelling units per net 4.10.03 Density acre). 4.2.04; Maximum 50 feet General Plan-4 stories Maximum building height for residential is 50 feet. roolline treatments, architectural 4.10-04 Building Height 4.2.04(a). Additional 10 feet permitted for rooline treatments, and elevator equipment may exceed the 50 foot height limit, but will be treatment and architectural features within noted height restrictions of Section 4.2.04 (a)and 4.2,04 (b). Areas exceeding 4.2.04(b). Additional 14 feet allowed for elevator 50 feet will be revised by applicant to comply with code. equipment. 4.2.05; Maximum Site 50 percent of the net site area, any part of the site Proposed site coverage is 42% for Residential parcel. 4.10.05 Coverage covered by a roof, including covered walkways, patios, and tarpons is included in coverage. Subterranean& semi-subterranean parking: Less than 42 inches in height above adjacent grade are subject to provisions of Section 4.2 13(b) 4.2.06; Minimum 20 feet: All structures exceeding 42 inches in height, Consistent with requirements: 4.10.06 Setback: Front no projection into or over a public right-of-way. Yard 10 feet: Parking lots, structures below 42 inches in height are not subject to provision. 5 feet: Subterranean & semi-subterranean parking 4.2,07; Minimum 20 feet Consistent with requirements. 4.10.07 Setback: 10 feet for parking lots and above grade parking Exterior Side structures Yard P.G ATTA (tV . -1- (3/17/2004) DISTRICT 8A ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (RESIDENTIAL) DTSP Section 0 Criteria Code Requirement Proposed Development 4208,. . Minimum 20 feet Consistent with requirements 4A0.08 Setback: Rear 20'A' Yard 4.2.09: Minimum 100 feet from northern exterior properly line(along Consistent with requirements:the three residential buildings fronting Atlanta Avenue 4.10,09 Setback Upper Atlanta Avenue)for that portion of structure exceeding will not exceed 35 feet in height for 100 feet inward from the northern exterior Story 35 feet property line(along Atlanta Avenue). Areas exceeding 35 ft height limit within the 100 ft. setback will be modified by applicant to comply with code. 4.2.10 Minimum 10 feet between detached buildings Consistent with requirements Building Separation 4.2.11(a) Common Open 25%of the floor area of each unit with a minimum Based on the 25%floor area requirement. (25%of 837,992 sq ft.)the Pacific City Space dimension of 20 feel. Residential is required to provide 209,498 square feet(4.81 acres)of common open space; Pacific City Residential will include 300.773 square feet(6.9 acres-40%). 4,2.11(b) Private Open Unit Type Min Area (s0.ft] Min Dim. ill.) Consistent with requirements. Several Plan types depict a min. dimension <10' Space-Ground These plans will be modified by applicant to provide the minimum private open space Floor Bachelor, single, dimension or one bedroom 200 10 Two bedrooms 250 10 Three bedrooms 300 10 Four bedrooms 400 10 4.2.11(b) Private Open Unit Type Min. Area(salt.) Min. Dim. ift.l Consistent with requirements Several Plan types depict a min dimension <6' Space-above These plans will be modified by applicant to provide the minimum private open space ground floor Bachelor, single, dimension. or one bedroom 60 6 Two bedrooms 120 6 Three bedrooms 120 6 Four bedrooms 120 6 4.10.10 Public Open None required. Public areas proposed include a public access corridor through District BA(High- Space Density Residential)extending from Atlanta Avenue to the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue. 4A0A 1 Corridor Dedication of a 20-fool-wide public access corridor See discussion above. Dedication between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, unless condition waived by City. 4.10.12; Resource Conceptual site plan for overlay area required prior to The conditional use permit is intended to serve as a reuse plan for the reuse of Oil 4.14.03 Production project development or subdivision of land. Overlay'C' as the proposed residential village Overlay 4.2,13: Parking All parking to be provided on the site. 1,291 spaces per code as shown in the Conditional Use Permit. A special permit is Huntingfon Exceptions apply to affordable housing. requested for 15%parking garage ramps in three locations in order to enhance Beach common open space areas. Ordinance Code p.0 . Distinct RA Mainx 071704tr) 0 17 2ixi4 i ATTACHMENT NO. 7 _. DISTRICT 8A ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (RESIDENTIAL) DTSP Section X FCriteria Code Requirement Proposed Development 4.2.15, Landscaping One 36-inch box tree or the equivalent thereof per unit. A preliminary landscape plan is included in the Pacific City Conditional Use Permit: a Huntington 75%of requirement will be 36-inch box trees&25%will detailed landscape plan will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Beach be 24-inch box trees at a ratio of 1-inch for 1-inch. Design Landscape and irrigation plan is required. Guidelines Chapter 3 4.2.17 Access Ways 4,2.17(a): Not applicable to District 8A. 4.2.17(a). Not applicable. 4.2A 7(b). All access ways to be free and clear of 4.2.17(b): Consistent with requirements. any and all structures including but not limited to trash enclosures, utility devices, or storage areas. 4.2A 7(c). Private access ways. minimum 28 feet of 4.2.17(c): Consistent with requirements: private bop road meets or exceeds 28- paved width. foot width requirement. 4.2.17(d): Private access ways exceeding 600 feel 4.2.17(d): Consistent with requirements, private access way is a bop road. 4.2.18 Lighting Provide onsite lighting system on all vehicular access A lighting plan will be prepared for Pacific City that will include lighting for all vehicular ways and along major walkways access,along major walkways including the 20 foot wide pedestrian easement, and in Provide lighting within all covered/enclosed parking all parking areas. areas. Prepare lighting plan for review and approval of Director 4.2.19 Outdoor Attached garage or minimum 100 cubic feet of outdoor Outdoor storage space will be provided within the parking structure. Storage Space storage space per unit. 4.2.20 Sewer and Designed to City standards. Sewer and water systems will be based on the Pacific City EIR technical reports Water Systems Located underneath streets, alleys, or drives prepared for sewer and domestic water. No individual dwelling unit sewer lines or mains can extend underneath another dwelling unit. 4221 Signs Conform to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A Planned Sign Program will be prepared and reviewed by the Design Review Board. 4.2.21(a): Address numbers will be in a uniform location throughout development. Director approval required. 4.2.21(b). When appropriate, install onsite street name signs at intersections of access ways: City Engineer approval required, Director approval for design and type. Must be consistent with Design Guidelines. 4.2,22 Refuse Within 200 feet of dwelling units being served. Consistent with requirements. Trash collection areas will be provided throughout the Collection Area Enclosediscreened by masonry walls parking garage. Sited to minimize noise and visual intrusion on adjacent property and eliminate fire hazard to adjacent J•C structures. . ATTAM"IbNe-) 6 - -3- 1 1, _„"I DISTRICT 8A ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (RESIDENTIAL) DTSP Section A Criteria Code Requirement Proposed Development 4.2.23 Vehicle Storage Boat, trailer, recreational vehicle. and similar vehicle Boat, trailer, recreational vehicle, and similar vehicle storage are not proposed within storage permitted within specifically designated areas the Pacific City project. on final development map and included in association's CC&Rs. Must be enclosed by 6-foot-high masonry wall andlandscaped. 4.2.24 Antennas Antennas will be consistent with zoning requirements. Consistent with requirements. 4.2.25 Utility Lines All utility lines will be underground where possible. Utility lines abutting the project boundary are proposed to be relocated underground with the exception of the 661kv lines located on Atlanta Avenue. 4.2.26 Bus Turnouts Not applicable to Distinct 8A Not applicable. 4.2.27 Orange County Locate transit center within proximity of downtown area. No transit center is proposed within the Pacfic City project. Existing major bus Transit Authority turnout is located on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. between 1" Street and Center Huntington Street. 4.2.28 Homeowner's or Development approval subject to submission of legal Legal instrument(s)establishing a plan or manner of permanent care and Community instrument(s)establishing a plan or manner of maintenance of open space, recreational areas. and communal facilities will be Association permanent care and maintenance of open space, submitted to the City for review and approval. recreational areas, and communal facilities. City Attorney approval required. Department of Community Development approval required for use of open areas. 4.2.29 Coastal Zone Located in Coastal Zone 4-Downtown. Land use Consistent with requirements. (CZ)Suffix designation and general plan overlay: RH-30-SP: Residential High Density. Greater than 30 units per net acre, Specific Plan Overlay Design District 41. Permitted Uses: multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and open spaces Density/Building Height: 4 stones Design and Development: a) Requires a Specific Plan or Master Plan: b) Follow policies and principles for*New Residential Subdivisions' (Policies 9 3 1-9.3.4), c)allows clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites.d) requires variation of building heights from 2 to 4 stones A77ACHM.NT Matax1 rl71 4- 0172(X" DISTRICT BA ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX (RESIDENTIAL) DTSP Section N Criteria Code Requirement Proposed Development Downtown Specific Plan: Comply with Downtown Specific Plan overall and District BA requirements. 4 2.31 School Facilities Provide school facilities impact mitigation and The project will comply with the requirements of the school districts serving the site reimbursement agreement. and the developer will enter into a School Facilities Mitigation Agreement.as required Condition can be waived by Planning Commission by such districts. Condition does not apply to affordable housing projects. PARKING PLAN REVIEW Dated January 14,2004 PACIFIC CITY PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Project Description The overall project consists of a mixed use facdity comprising of residential,commercial, retail,hotel and spa use with two levels of below grade parking. Project Location The project is located on Pacific coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach,Califomia.The proposed retail and hotel components of the development front on Pacific Coast Highway. It is bounded on the north by Pacific View Avenue with First Street to the west and Huntington Street to the east.The residential component fronts the north side of Pacific Avenue with First Street to the west, Atlanta Avenue to the north and Huntington Street to the wst Review Objectives This review is intended to ascertain the functional aspects of the proposed parking design including vehicular entry/exit configurations for residential areas only.pedestrian access,accessible parking location and configuration,tandem parking,parking controls, vehicular circulation and ramping. The number and type of residential units, hotel rooms,retail and restaurant areas were not given and therefore parking demand was not pan of this scope of work Documents Provided Documents provided for this preliminary review consist of the following drawings prepared by MVE Associates and EIP Associates.These are: MVE A- Lower level Plan dated July 3. 2003 A— 102 Upper Level Plan dated July 3,2003 A—301 Commercial Site Sections 1 dated November 17,2003 A—302 Commercial Site Sections 2 dated November 17,2003 A—303 Commercial Site Sections 3 dated November 17,2003 A—304 Commercial Site Sections 4 dated November 17,2003 EIP Figure 2—3a Proposed site plan—floor plan street/podium level undated. Summary and Conclusion All the above plans indicated 90degree angle of park with two-way traffic.The majority of parking stalls were Self Park with a small percentage of tandem spaces.Of the tandem spaces shown,some were parked three deep requiring two vehicles to be moved to obtain one.This is labor intensive and time consuming,which will impact both valet operations and cost. It is our recommendation that the tandem spaces be redesigned to be only two deep. P.C. ATTACHMENT NO. 9' � In general traffic flow and functional design work well,however specific areas have been identified in this report,where improvement in ramp location,configuration and turning radius is requited.Location and configuration of some of the accessible parking spaces do not meet code and need to be corrected.These are identified in the detailed report below. The structural system indicated on the drawings appears to be a start span cast-in-place concrete two-way slab. The floor-to-floor heights vary with 12'-0"on the first level and 10'-0"on the lower level. Seismic resistino system appears to be shear wall in both directions Location of these shear walls are critical and should be located to ensure that driver visibility is not impaired at critical vehicular movements.The drawings do not clearly show all shear wall locations and our comments refer to those indicated below and to placement of future walls.With the floor heights stated above,consideration must be given to the extent and location of all plumbing pipes from above and their impact on sprinklers,light fixtures,signs,and ventilation ducts that wilt be located on the ceiling of the upper level parking.Minimum clearances have to be maintained and close coordination of all services is required. Civil plans of the project were not provided and verification of exterior ramp slopes was difficult to conf nn. Scaling the length of the ramps and using the Floor-to-floor height given on the sections obtained interior ramp slopes. Detailed dimensioned drawings were not available for this review. Some floors indicated slopes that where not readily explained and the lack of detail did not allow us to comment on their necessity. In conclusion,our review of the documents described above would indicate that the structure,with the changes incorporated and recommended in this report,would fwution in a satisfaetoty manner with levels of service for interior circulation consistent with industry standards for a structure of this type. It should be stated that we have not reviewed or commented on any traffic stacking or design and or number of entry/exit points to and from[his garage.We understated that your traffic engineer has provided this. Detailed Comments PODIUM LEVEL 1. Verify that adequate fire department access will be provided along Pacific View Avenue. 2. Ensure that drivers who use the Auto CourVPate Cochere are able to enter the below grade parking without having to go out onto Pacific View Avenue. 3. Serviceltrash area entries appear very tight. Verify size of trucks to be used and confirm that the size of the areas provided are adequate to accommodate their turning movements. 4. We would recommend that the entry ramp from the southwest plaza be moved further toward Pacific coast highway.This will help minimize excavation at the lower parking levels. UPPER GARAGE 1. Accessible stalls shown in the retail area have to be redesigned to rr m code. Handicap people are not to pass behind any vehicle other than their own to reach their desdnation. 2. Ensure handicap van access is from the passenger side in all cases. PL - ATTACHMENT N0. 1- Z _ 3. Accessible parking stalls cannot be located on tamps,which exceed 2%slope. Accessible stalls at section line 7A are shown on a 5%tamp. 4. The valet entry ramp from the Porte-Cochere should be redesigned to eliminate the sharp jog.The ramp should accommodate one up and one down lane.With the current configuration,the turning movement into the bottom of the ramp is to sharp. 5. How are the valet and self-park users to be segregated? 6. How will hotel,retail and valet parkers be controlled and segregated? 7. The ramp merge between section line 8A and I IA is too short Need min 45' 8. Ramp slopes into residential areas indicate 15%.Refer to Huntington Beach zoning Ordinance 231.18G 9. Review location of enclosed stairways to ensure they do not block or hinder driver visibility at critical movement points. 10. Turning radius should be verified at all turns for two-way traffic once all structural elements have berm sized and dimensioned layouts confirmed. 11. What will be the method of revenue control for the garage for retail and visitor parkers. 12. The parking rump located in the residential section defined as"Product Type 3"should be redesigned and relocated as indicated on the marked up drawings. Current configuration will not allow adequate turning movements. 13. How is the security of the residential garage to be handled?Will this be a garage type opener with sliding or overhead gates?If so where will they be located and what provision,if any,has been made to accommodate vehicular stacking. 14. Note that where a parking stall is located adjacent to a wall,an additional 3 feet of width must be provided. 15. Entry ramps to"Product Type 2"building show 180 degree turning movements at the base of the ramp. The dimensions shown for this movement are inadequate and should be redesigned to allow for a min. 32' inside radius. LOWER GARAGE 1. Structural elements(shear walls) should not be located at the end of drive aisles where vehicles are making a 90 or 180 degree tutor. 2. A 5%cross slope is indicated in the area adjacent to section line 3A on sheet A-101.Cross slopes of any kind should be kept to 2%. P. C•ATTACHMENT NO. 3 3. Interior ramps are shown with a division line in the middle.This can be a painted line only if the driving surface of the ramp is 24'wide. If a smwtutal wall is introduced between the up and down traffic flow,each ramp width should be a minimum of 14'clear of any structure. 4. Accessible stalls are indicated on plan of"product Type I". Is there 8'-2"clearance at this level? 5. Tandem stalls shown in the valet area should be reduced to two deep not three deep. 6. No ventilation areas or ductwork has been shown in any detail.Careful consideration and coordination will be requited to ensure headroom is maintained and conflicts between the various services are avoided 7. All areas should be checked for compliance with exiting requirements,i.e.stair width and location and travel distances between stairs. 8. Ramp lengths in Product Type 3 floor plan vary from sheet A-101 to sheet A-102. 9. The dead end ramp at the lower level described in item 8 above,may require an additional means of exit. This report and our findings and recommendations,have been based on the preliminary drawings provided to us.While we realize the preliminary nature of the documents,several fundamental issues need to be addressed. which have been identified above.These issues were also discussed at a meeting with the architects,Makar Properties,LLC and the City of Huntington Beach on December 11,2003.A marked up set of the above drawings were also issued to EIP Associates. P.C. ATTACHMENT NO. q•`t v man,.N and piano uwaga ,b.o.,Comr.wninas and at•rnvntNYnMI Transmittal — - - — - PaFcs 6 Date: 1/16/2004 1") Mary Beth Broeren Fax No: 714-374-1540 Y No Ckiiglnals will follow- D C From Marianne Tanzer Subject/Project/No: Pacific City Parking Structure Review Hi Mary Beth, Here is the input received from IPD on the parking Structures. They make reference to their mark-ups, which either you or Scott has. Let me know it you need another copy of thuse. I received this via fax and will put a hard copy in the mail to you when I receive that. Marianne 13n�'n.nJ Mtta ?W'bal 5arram'nn.C:1 YSNIJ 'ra(aTlNna'91b lS.JMJr Pa[I r49163`SUIU bq SMarx..m'n vnv 'u.'SAW, 4.11914 I'N.I kJISV.2191J ,mad•14i xv....u.,a enn 1'xll Y'dM1,rt lMuk�aN Anc4V. I"' b"k'C..\'aNl$$ IYpMn, l]u?(.NNIaa 1,,. . a1n NA9175 . ui.J LL'$al(WvnN'.ha:4' Nvn 1'.a .&JISb9\Y6" Nn,n,„( wpr 'IS amJ111655J J1J4 ATTACHMENT NO. ' P.C. w.a ta.iay S]Ia..M1nn I 'd SLIB-890-0IE S31HI30SSH d13 dL2 :20 *0 91 1-19C JAv.15'2004 09:36 19495958011 INTL PAAK:NG DE6IGN 07612 P.002i036 • International Parking Design, Inc. lanusy 14,2" Muiannc B Tanxv M Assaneea 12301 Wilshuc Blvd Suitt 430 Ws Aagcks.(:A 90U23 Re. rwkwg Plan Rn1n for Pacific cmi De Mari Arta.htd for y<wt renew.is our report on the parkmg plan for thr Pacific City Develapnt9f in Huntiorm Beach(ililomu Out observaootis and recaamtersdaoons,ate Wxd on Chapser 231 Off•soeet puking and loading Provisions of she Huotington Bach Zonmg and Subdsnsioo Ordvunca togWimm with monxmndM ,ehKulu turmng geoi=wy dcvchtpnl by Tlr Immute of Traffic Fngltievs. Iniunational Pmkvir.T3r.,i(•ji and vtl. a city's sorting gcortrtry. Should you have any questions or need futber infonnaoon on any of the is,wS,x rc,omrtrniLtnoas ye have meunooed,pl a ki me know 1 5 i C7ifi0r Ssssith Senid[ P:aidmt u r.K z.,wt 10. . C.•au rqy army ragas"Moll t.+a w e.ar wyar-rrn+arose.r..tgaw raw re.s.w o I p.. 'v r la.r� P.C. ATTACHMENT NO. 9•� L 'd SL18-89e-CIE S318170SS8 d23 d8Lrd0 40 9t per Affordable Housing Plan Pacific City Huntington Beach, CA 12/15/03 Prepared for: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach LLC Prepared by: Mary Erickson Community Housing (949) 369-5419 P. C. ATTACHMENT NO- �� AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN PACIFIC CITY PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 12/15/03 This report will address the following issues: 1) Affordable Housing Requirements for Pacific City Project ON SITE: 1) Affordability & Financing 2)Target Buyer 3) Unit Description 4) Deed Restrictions OFF SITE: 1) Affordability & Rents 2)Strategy for acquisition 3) Deed restrictions 1) Requirements As the Pacific City project is within a Redevelopment Project area, the affordability requirement is 15% of all housing units developed. Affordable units may be provided as follows: 1) On site, 2) Within another area of the merged Redevelopment Project Area, or 3) Off site and outside the Redevelopment Project Area, in which case, the number of affordable housing units doubles (i.e. 2:1). Makar proposes to satisfy their affordable housing requirement in the following manner: • 39 units on site of affordable sale housing, targeted to median income households(100%of Area Median Income ) • 39 units of 50% low(51%-80%of area median income)/50%very low income(less than 50%of area median income) rental apartments, off site, if within the Redevelopment zones or; 78 units of 50% low/50% very low income rental apartments, off site, outside of the Redevelopment zones. ON SITE UNITS 1) Affordability 39 units will be sold to households earning 100% or less of the median income for Orange County. The unit sizes will be of the same ratio as the market rate units within the project. There are a number of special programs that may be available to median income buyers that will assist in affordability and qualification. This is an example of the programs that are currently available: California Housing Finance Agency (CaIHFA) has several programs available with an allowable sales price for this project. Indications are that these funds will continue to be available. ?.C. ATTACHMENT NO. �� • CaIHFA provides below market fixed rate interest rates to median income buyers. The current rate is 5.25%, or for teachers, the interest rate is 4.5%. • The CHAP program provides 3%of the sales price as 5%deferred simple interest 2nd mortgage,due upon the pay off of the first mortgage. • CaIHFA will review covenants and provide a blanket pre-approval for the project if qualified. • CaIHFA is restricted to first time homebuyers (not having an interest in real estate for the past three years) 2) Target Buyer The target buyer for the on site sale units are median income households (currently 2003, $52,900 for 1 person household to $75,600 for 4 person household). 3) Unit Description The on site median income for sale units will be composed of the following: Product Type 1 Section Affordable Total # Unit Units of Units Type Sq. Ft. 10 132 1 Bdrm/2 Bath 850 18 2 Bdmt/2 Bath 1.235 4 40 2 Bdrm/2 Bath 1,285 1 9 3 Bdrm/3 Bath 1,450 15 199 TOTAL Product Type 2 Section Affordable Total # Unit Units of Units Type So. Ft. 8 38 2 Bdrm/3 Bath 1,750 34 2 Bdrm+Den/3 Bath 1,860 29 2 Bdrm+Den/3 Bath 2,220 2 24 3 Bdrm/3 Bath 2,425 . 10 125 TOTAL Product Type 3 Section Affordable Total # Unit P.0 . ATTACHMENT NO. Units of Units Type Sq. Ft. 9 75 2 Bdrm/3 Bath 1,840 24 2 Bdrm+Den/3 Bath 2,450 4 2 Bdrm/3 Bath 2,180 21 2 Bdrm+Den/3 Bath 2,350 9 124 TOTAL Product Type 4 Section Affordable Total # Unit Units of Units Type Sq. Ft. 5 52 2 Bdrm/3 Bath 1,840 8 2 Bdrm./3 Bath 2,180 8 2 Bdrm+Den/3 Bath 2,350 5 68 TOTAL 39 TOTAL ON SITE AFFORDABLE UNITS These units will be scattered throughout the entire project. The mix of 1/2/3 bedroom units is in the same proportion as the entire project. 4) Deed Restrictions The on site units will be deed restricted for 60 years, to be sold to median income households only. This is a Redevelopment Agency requirement, based upon recent Redevelopment policy. OFF SITE UNITS 1) Affordability 50%of the off site units shall be affordable to low income households (80%of AMI) and 50% shall be affordable to very low income households (50% of AM]). Rents and affordability will also be driven by financing sources. 2003 rents, per Redevelopment Standards, including utility allowance are: Studio Low Income S757 Very Low Income S624 1-Bdtm Low Income S868 Very Low Income $716 2-Bdrm ?.(.ATTACHMENT NO. �� Low Income $966 Very Low Income $794 3-Bdrm Low Income 51,070 Very Low Income $881 Project rents will be determined by current rent schedule, based on income standards distributed by HUD for Orange County, for year placed in service. 2) Strategy for acquisition We are working on several different approaches to provide the low and very low income rental housing units. We have met with Steve Holtz of the Redevelopment agency and Mary Beth Brocren of the Huntington Beach Planning Department to assist in locating potential sites. Alternatives being investigated: A) Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units This will serve to provide affordable housing units to low and very low income households, to control overcrowding in units and to eliminate blight (depending on the units that may be available, given current market conditions). • We are working, with a local broker seeking apartment projects. We have acquired the entire list of multi-family units in Huntington Beach and are working to identify possible sites. The broker is contacting and soliciting owners on our behalf. We are working on this from larger number of unit projects (25+) to smaller number of unit projects. There are only 67 25-unit plus multifamily properties in Huntington Beach. None of these are within the Redevelopment Project zones. • We are searching both inside and outside of the Redevelopment Project areas. The only alternative for acquisition within the Redevelopment zones is to do a "patch work" approach composed of smaller number of unit properties. Ideal property would be within the Oak View zone. B) We are searching for possible sites (vacant and developed) in both industrial (for SRO) and residential locations. Specifically, close to Main/Gothard/Garfield area and in the Center Ave area. As we identify the potential sites, we will work closely with the City to ensure that they will be suitable. 3) Affordability Covenants The off site rental units will have affordability covenants & restrictions for 60 years. P-C-ATTACNMENT NO, ��• 5 INAICIFIC CITY MIC AU CONCEPT D �—I submitted to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH submitted by: rn MAKALLON ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC Z ,_..; dated: Z December 22. 2003 C J J CONTENTS a a Introduction A Site Plan g Public.Art l.ueations 6 will we \rl Direction 7 A A Public Am Matrix 8 I D J _{ J D J C7 00 _ m J � z °� �,�'ablic nn contxpt W \v • INTRODUCTION ♦ Makar Properties proposes to incorporate quality art that will enhance many facets of the Pacific City mixed-use project.creating a unique identity intended to enchant and ♦ stir the interest of the community and its visitors:all the while encouraging creativity,education and appreciation of the arts as well as our cultural heritage. Makar will bring together a team of prominent artists.architects,and landscape designers who will work in harmony to ensure that the an is not a decorative appendage,but an integral pan of re the structure. environment. and aura of this special project. The dedication to the creative process will introduce public art that is both functional its well as esthetically pleasing. A The basis of this proposal is intended to summarize the elements of Makar's public an in an inclusive and descriptive manner. The an ideas represented herewith were carefully selected with the intent of satisfying the City's public an guidelines: however, the an should be considered as preliminary, derived from third-party sources, and subject to further revision. The an placement is described in the enclosed matrix and identified on the site plan at prominent locations within the project that are oriented "ty primarily to pedestrian viewing. The public's accessibility will he provided and ensured for exterior public an displays. In the pages ahead, various an mediums depict an Darray of sculptures. fountains. and decorative/functional an pieces. which will be displayed in bah the visitor-serving commercial district as well as the residential village. Makar believes our an program will provide a prominent "showcase"of accessible an for the public and will compliment the overall quality of the Pacific City experience. nMakar is proud to present this concept proposal of multiple public art venues to the City of Huntington Beach. m z Z pp AA CMOs PK�c1r, 4 bll w w • • • • • AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH • a • e • 40 do • fb o A — — a L do A D A A D A C7 A = A � m z w PUBLIC PA Location 6 41 40 40 go 40 go ® • �• 'lPA Location 3 ` _ - _. � _ ram_ �S` �� �.J��I�•� Pbbhc Art Con.V Cat 6 Iw /• T � � T 1 � ` + � • � � - mot.^• Cam. • • • • • ART MATRIX • • NO. TYPE TITLE LOCATION DESCRIPTION • PA 1 S Pacific City Icon Main Entry The destination sculpture is intended to generate awe-inspiring effects. • i Sitting 2()­30 feet high,the sculpture will be the identifying link to Pacific • City's main entry. The sculpture's identity is still to be determined. PA 2 F The Liquid Effect Central Plaza& A synchronized fountain artistically demonstrates the power of water in a Seating Area unique visual display. At certain times of the day(e.g..noon time)the sounds • of sea mammals can be heard thereby making this fountain"the place to be" during this particular time of day. PA 3 F/FA Busy Bubbles Visitor-Serving Fun water bubbles pop-up out of a decorative mosaic ground display for Whale Tail Benches Commercial anticipating youngsters to grab. Whale tail benches are perfect seating to view children at play. • PA 4 F Kelp Bed Motor Court Located at the center of a pool of water.a kelp bed rises up to 15-20 feet high • to expose several meandering sea creatures- This fountain can be visually • pleasing wet or dry and will make a spectacular site for motoring around the • court or for visitors who valet park. PA 5 S Portal Village Green A 20-30 fout tall arched topiary forms a portal achieving a creative and 't7 Entrance effectual entrance to the Village Green. • PA 6 S Play Time Pocket Park Bronze sculptures of kidstanimals at play. • D • n Legend: F=Fountain S=Sculpture FA = Functional.Art • _ • _ r Kl l.. o„ 8 r Z O I� ATTACHMENT 4 PC Minutes March 23,2004 Page 2 7: P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE LLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING MMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scan Ray, Davis, Shomake ingwall, Livengood AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS CON D BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGE FOR MARCH 004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas candura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, L ngood NOES: No ABSENT: ngwall ABSTAIN- None M ION 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). AppIicant/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). Project 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 (04pcm0323) 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. CUP/CDP: 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 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 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 (04pcm0323) 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 staff's recommendation that the 3rd 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 1" 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-1 a. 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 (04pcm0323) 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 Millbern, 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. (04pcm0323) 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 concerns 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 1 g`" 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 jobs, 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, 141" 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 Barkelew, 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 concerns 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 (04pcm0323) 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 concerns 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 concerns 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 modern 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. (04pcm0323) 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 Specific 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. (04pcm0323) 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 party 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' concerns. 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 (BTP) 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 1/7 of the water that flows into the 151 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 191' 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. (04pcm0323) 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. APPROVED BY: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Ron Davis, Chair (04p=0323) ATTACHMENTS RECE vFi) MAY 0 7 2004 M A K A R l00'� MAY -1 P U �u 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 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 (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Ehring: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC,.4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ("Makar") 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 at the June 7, 2004 Huntington Beach City Council meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, !choel Gagnet Makar Properties, LLC Office Hospitality Golf _ Land Development Industrial Residentic Mckar Progenies, LLC p. 949.255.1 1 C 4100 PnccAnhur Blvd., Suioe 200 f. 949.255.1 1 Ne-,00n cecch, CA 92660 •"w.makorpropenies.cc ATTACHMENT 6 ]1 THE INOBERT MAYEI� CORPORATION 7 i May 14, 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 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; Q) 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 Ncwport CCiller Drier . Smic 1:50 . Newporr Reads. CA 92660 P.O. Bo. S6S0 . Ncwpo-i Fx.uh. CA 9265S-S630 tel9a9.i59.8091 . t:i\ 9;9.'10.101; 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. (111 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 Boisa 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 Califomia 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 Master 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 %: 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 3.3.2 (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 art 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 City Council act to deny the project approvals. THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION Shawn K. Millbem 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 1, 2004 THE I-,OBEP,,,T MAYER, CORPORATION 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 Newpon Center Drive . Suite 1050 . Newport Beach, CA ?2660 PO. BON S680 . Newport Beach, CA 9265E-86SO tel 949.759.8091 . tax 949.7M101 7 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 "tire 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 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 % 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 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 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 1/4h 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 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, Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 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 'h 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 oven 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 MAYE'R/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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHN:ARZENEGGER. Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 20^'lceangate, Suite 1000 L each,CAso802se2 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 salty✓ater 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 fcr consideration. The location and extent of these areas should be mapped. In addition, the City 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-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 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 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 intearally 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 Ccmments—Path rc 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 valei 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 reolacement 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. Soecial Permits The DEIR indicates that "special permits' will be required to allow building encroachment into setback areas along PCH and Pacific Viev:Avenue and to allow the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of ten percent. T ie 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 Pace 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 par, 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 DEIR 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. Archaeoloav/Paleontolog 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 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. Development Phasing The Construction Schedule indicates that hotel construction will not commence until the second phase of residential develooment. 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 I ilters to manage water quality impacts caused by the proposed development. The proposed DEIR Comments—Pacific City Pace 5 of 5 measures must be sized and designed to miticate 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 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. I Sincerely, art Sch ' g, Supervisor, Regulation & nning Orange County Area cc: State Clearinghouse, File H:ILettersICEOAIVRIPecific City-HB.doc EXHIBIT "C" TO APPEAL LETTER DATED MAY 14, 2004 Letter from California Coastal Commission dated April 13. 2004 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Cosa A=Ofricc 200 Occangam,5Wla 1000 Long 3=11.CA 90902AI02 (562)500-5071 April 13, 2004 Scott Hessuvy'��,' Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street 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 30603(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 ($100,000) 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.] Pacific City Appealability Page 2 Given the scope of development contemplated, the highway widening aspect of the proposed project likely qualifies as a "major public works" project, and thus the 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 93577(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 the transfer of private land to a public entity (such as the City or Caltrans), the approval of the land division for this conveyance may be 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. Sincerely, Y� Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst HNS Pcimy Im 4.13.04 MV ATTACHMENT 7 c City ojHunkngtan Beach Broad Criteria ziii Ob�ectzves Shea/Morgan Stgnlgy , Acres : PCH/Huntington/fltlanta"%First , r In order to shape and influence the proposed development of this premier coastal site, it is recommended that the City establish a set of broad criteria and objectives by which future development proposals can be measured. This outline presents Staffs proposal for the key criteria. Financial • Provide positive cash flow to City General Fund (net of cost of service). • Provide positive cash flow to the Redevelopment Agency, net of costs associated with participation in the project, if any. i • Provides economic success to the property owner. Promotes the financial success of future tenants/business owners in the project. Facilitates full development of the site over a period that would ideally not exceed two or three years. Linkage between commercial phases and residential phases. Address City obligation to construct Walnut /Pacific View extension. Development • Assure a high-quality architectural development which is exciting and visually stimulating, while recognizing the relationship of form over function. I • Incorporate commercial and residential into the project which maximizes the amount of specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment, hospitality, other visitor-serving uses and providing the opportunity for creative design and the needs of the customers and residents. ATTACHMENT NO. �� 0 Assure that the development is planned and designed with the future in mind, specifically discouraging any type of suburban design or development (i.e., parking lots at front of property on Pacific Coast Highway). Meet public open space standards, and ensure the appropriate accessibility levels to the public. • Provide linkages including pedestrian, landscape, and urban design with orientation towards the beach, downtown, and Waterfront development. • Functionally from an operational perspective (loading, parking access, etc.), should be integrated as a design concept priority. Vr Provide adequate traffic and circulation improvements which ensure free movement of traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the area given the additional traffic generated, and which provides an inviting and design-compatible connection to the downtown from Pacific View through the site to the existing downtown street grid. • Coordinate land use and development standards between Waterfront Resort and future development on the Shea 31 Acres. • Address Redevelopment Agency affordable housing requirements for the project. Recognizing the desire to encourage the connections between the Pier, Main Street and the Waterfront Resort, orient the commercial components, especially the retail / restaurant / i entertainment uses, towards PCH and First unless a development scenario is proposed which I achieves this objective in an alternate manner. T Create a positive and inviting environment for all customers including pedestrians and bicyclists. Environmental �. • Minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. • Provide new jobs and economic opportunities to residents of the region. • Fully remediate any soils issues in compliance with State/City requirements. i i t • Address impacts identified through the appropriate level of environmental review. I� (g:dcb:projects:sheaobjc) 2 - ATTACHMENT NO, ?' ATTACHMENT 8 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Pluntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org March 23, 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: Pacific City CUP and Conceptual Master Plan Huntington Beach Tomorrow has reviewed the EIR and Staff report for the Pacific City applications. We are in support of the project with appropriate conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which satisfy environmental concerns. We believe the project can be a valuable asset to the city of Huntington Beach. We believe our two major concerns can be satisfied by appropriate CUP conditions of approval . The conceptual master plan calls for a pedestrian overpass over PCH. We believe this pedestrian overpass could be a major factor in the success of Pacific City. The overpass would be an attractive avenue for visitors and residents to circulate between Pacific City commercial entities and the beach. It is our understanding the applicant has not included this overpass in the CUP in the belief that there would be community opposition and it would require a Measure C vote. Our opinion is the bridge will not become a reality if it is not part of this application. Recommendation: Include the pedestrian bridge in this application. Recommend to the City Council that a Measure C vote for the pedestrian bridge be put on the November 2004 ballot. Huntington Beach Tomorrow will support such a Measure C vote. We believe the intersection of Atlanta and Huntington Street will become a bottleneck due to the lack of sufficient right of way upon project completion. Southeast Huntington Beach residents will be deterred from traveling to downtown due to this bottleneck. We do not accept the traffic projections that imply there will be no traffic problem. Recommendation: Planning Commission examine this intersection with future traffic volumes in mind. L Dom_ Edward Kerins Presidentnt,, Huntington Beach Tomorrow i; CHAMSER�0� fijntu 1 % ?.D(1 COMMERCE March 12, 2004 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 Citv'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. Siacerely, Charlie Bunten Chairman 19591 beach alva.,Suite 140 Re Hwling;on beach.C1714)536.&Fax f7td1 OFn-7F51r—.=r.-rn PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST HAZARDS 3/23/04 ADDENDUM, SUMMARY & UPDATE TO 2/24/04 PRESENTATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION SAFETY HAZZARDS • HILL ■ 20 MPH BICYCLIST WITH SURF BOARDS ■ NO SIDEWALK OR BIKE LANE ■ BUS STOP • LOOSE RAIL TIES BLOCK PATH • DELAWARE & ATLANTA INTERSECTION • 10' TRAFFIC LANE-MOST DANGEROUS • PEDESTRIANS ENTER TRAFFIC LANE WHEN MEETING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ■ PEDESTRIANS ENTER LANE WHEN PATH FLOODED ■ NO SWERVING SPACE FOR VEHICLES WHEN EAST BOUND TRAFFIC IS IN CENTER LEFT TURN LANE • WALK PATH TOTALLY UNUSEABLE FOR CHILDREN PACIFIC CITY • PLANING 2833 PARKING SPACES ■ INCREASING LOAD ON ATLANTA ■ TRAFFIC ■ RESIDENTS USING BUS ■ ATLANTA & HUNTINGTON ■ 4 WAY STOP SIGNS TO BE REPLACED ■ NEW TRAFFIC LIGHT • EASTBOND TRAFFIC ENTER DANGER ZONE AT 40 MPH (35 MPH POSTED) ■ VERBALLY DISCUSSED WITH TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS ON 3/22/04 ■ PC SHOULD FINANCIALLY SHARE HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY • UNIMPROVED PORTION OF ATLANTA CONTRIBUTES TO EXTREME HEALTH & SAFETY PROBLEM • GET HB TO COST ESTIMATE FOR SIDEWALK (MEANDERING AROUND OBSTICLES) & BIKE LANE ■ HB & PACIFIC CITY DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Miff-C3-6uuv IUL u, 1 NGNDOd BuGCh.CA 92860 Ph�P01019,211 1100 FO•_9/4-255.1118 1 .ih1' dIQO MOCA11dUt Alva. • $tnlG l��__. -- M I march 23, 2004 Scott Hess Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Deportment of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Pacific City CUP TTM Conditions of Approvcl Dear Scott: Makollon Atlanta Huntington Beach. LLC disagrees with the following Pacific City Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Condition Use Permit (CUP), Coastal Dee Development Permit (CDP), and Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) condition of approvalproposed in the March 23, 2004 staff report. Page 5, Stafi Suggested Modification #8 / Page 21. last paragraph The proposed condition states that "At least 500 spaces shall be • available for self-parking Inot valet) In the commercial parking structure, and that from Labor Day to Memorial Day, at least one hour be free parking, and from Memorial Day to Labor Day, at least 30 min. must be free parking." Orkin seems • The condition to provide 30 minutes to one hour of free parking during different times of the year seems punitive compared to other parking provided in the Downtown. Below is ° table outlining the different parking rates in Downtown Huntington Beach. Parkin Area Free Parkin Parkin Rafe Validation Promenade No 2.00/Hour w/ 9.00 max Unknown Main Mainde Pavilion No 3.00/Hour w/ 10.00 max Yes 00/Hour w/ 9.00 max No Ocean view Promenade No 1 50/Hour No Downtown Parkin Meters No Plaza Almeria 1%1 half hour 2.00/Hourw/ 9.00 max Yes 12�/Da Unknown Pier Plaza No 10.00/Da NO South Beach •EIIecli�e APnl 1,2004 Sit vv� Aor MRK-Z3-ZUU9 'fUt U1 :91 M MilkHK rKvrtttiita rnn 1\V JYJGJJIILJ Marcn 23, 2004 Page 2 o As shown, Plaza Almeria is the only parking area that provides the first half hour of parking for free. Pacific City has proposed that the first 15 minutes of parking be provided for free to allow visitors time to enter the parking structure and determine if they want to park in the Pacific City parking structure. Parking rates have yet to be determined. If you have any questions regarding our opposition to this condition, please feel free to call me. Sincerely. Ethen i hacher Project Manager Mokor Propertles, LLC OPR-13-2004 06 :26 YM MRKK nuul.�Vn f 14 eaa 4tf ao r. tla April 13, 2004 Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Mark Hodgson;I am one of three brothers who own Pacific MobileHome Park at 90 Huntington St., across from the Pacific City development. I understand that recently a Planning Commissioner had been in contact with our business office seeking to speak to an owner. While we have not as yet connected, as the Managing Member, perhaps I can comment for the benefit of you all about a few things. We have met with folks at Makar Properties over the years and have dialogued with them concerning the project. One meeting was in Howard Zelefsky's office. Yesterday, prompted by the attempts to reach us, I with my brother,were able to meet again with Project Representatives and City Staff through the kind efforts of Mr. Scott Hess. Throughout all these meetings, we have been pretty clear and consistent- we would like to be just left alone to operate our business with a minimum of impact from outside forces (including the Mayer Group). We think this is an appropriate and realistic goal even in the face of development taking place in close proximity to us; and, it is our feeling that this is a sentiment shared by Makar, philosophically and practically_ We do, however, have concerns. They are not new. We have been reassured through every step of the way that these concerns were addressed. While we fundamentally support private property rights, we would want to know if a giant building was being proposed right next door that would block light, air and view. That's not happening. Will there be more traffic- yes. But we are not of the we-got-ours-so-now-nobody-else-should skein. I think we have to trust the system to a certain extent to provide the appropriate level of corresponding infrastructure and mitigation. Public comment does play an important role in this. Other impacts on our Park and residents are unavoidable and we have a keen interest in seeing them minimized and mitigated to whatever extent possible. it is our understanding that the construction will be primarily worked from the inside out, which is good. Rumbling trucks and dirt on Huntington St., our main entrance, is a concern. These are not desirable in any project, and 1 don't see them off the table in this cage. But specifically, we understand that a liaison person is in place as a contact for any unforeseen problems, and that is as it should be-(with the Hilton project, we had homes in the Park shaken ftom their foundations by the pile driving operations;which the developer did correct). Dust along Huntington St.,then, was bad enough to warrant the offer to those residents adjoining the street to have their homes gashed.This would be an apt saggestlon/recommendation for the Pacific City Project; as horses will doubtlessly need it in the course of the construction, and probably more than once. Also, we understand the issues raised by Mr. John Sisker,a resident of our Park,and-trust that he has the good of his neighbors at heart. Beyond that,on his specific case, we make no comment except to say that we would absolutely share the goal of protecting the Park's residents. Ill IINRn nv Ll.eVn II- ... "oIe r. n< The foregoing is pretty much old news, however. What is new, is now at this late date to open a can of worms for the widening of streets requiting a taking of property= from the parcel being developed, but from usl This we cannot abide! We are still fuming from the elimination of seven homcsites from our Park as a consequence of the Hilton. That act was consummated as a willing buyer/willing seller style agreement,but always had the implied threat of eminent domain as the hammer ready to drop backing it up. We have come to see ourselves since, as the chumps among unequal strength bargaining partners in that deal. We won't be doing that again. Huntington St. is being widened on the west side, the side that is being developed. That is appropriate. If and when our parcel sees some other use in the future, a further discussion of the street configuration would be appropriate at that time, and only then. Even a cursory thought of relocating 23 homes along Huntington St. AND THE FAMILIES, seems to indicate a glib disregard of the experience regarding the "wood/Mushroom Form debacle. A descent into that Dante 's Inferno is not somewhere 1 would have thought anyone even slightly associated with it would be eager to go again anytime soon! Not to mention that the main entrance to the Park would be affected,and that all the utility systems would have to be re-configured, not the least of which is the sewer lift/pump station that handles the output from some 450 people! These things get proposed when the seller is willing and there is some great nexus of need to the project for the developer to pay for it. (Because we all know the City is not coming out of pocket for something like this.)NONE OF THESE FACTORS EXIST, i1ERE! I certainly do object in the most strenuous of terms, on behalf of my fellow owners and for all the residents of the Park, to the very thought that anyone would even entertain such an idea. The same goes for Atlanta Ave.The home impact would be less, but the corresponding encroachment into the Park on a per capita basis if you will, is dramatically greater. The systems impact is far worse as well, due to the location there of the main water and gas services that feed the entire Park, along with the primary connections to all the feeder systems. Traffic studies don't warrant it, and Makar isn't asking for it, and I'm sure wouldn't want to pay for it. Oh yeah, and those prooertv owners, THEY REALLY DON'T WANT IT! I understand there is an intersection between the interest of the right- of-way holder and the property owner,but the burdening interest often seems to be thought of as an absolute right- it is not, it is an overlay to the basic underlying structure of property ownership. That underlying bundle of rights is not one that should be lightly discounted; it is worth protecting. Having said all of that,there is one subject that might, might be appropriate for further discussion, and that would be for some sidewalk on Atlanta Ave. We ourselves,are currently trying to "beautify"this area, and some overlap of goals may prove mutually beneficial. A Staff meeting on the related topics involved was already proposed as a result of yesterday's meeting, and I will pursue it. Thank you for the opportunity to touch on these issues with you, and i appreciate your kind attention regarding them. Continued dialogue is,I think, useful;and I would welcome it. Please feel free to contact me further, Sincerely, N00650N 12B O&D F007NIU SWU A.W.G 121M.120 (7+91633-48J 8 AV-la-LUUA Oa:C ISM rroo-la1110tn12 loaftal Lommi G[lon I-oae r.00L/0o3 r-ela STATF.O'r'N rFOR\IA•THE RFSOURCFS ACrFN('V Amn1A Schm .r rb " . CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Cana Aroa Orfice 200 Occangaic,Suite t000 I.ong Dnch.CA 90902-a502 (562)590-5071 April 13, 2004 Scott Hess �T Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street /GGy 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 30603(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 ($100,000) 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-I YCuu4 ud:LCpn r l om-ua l l r or ni a loai tai uom.iii ion 1-044 r.uu4/uu4 r-a r4 Pacific City Appealability Page 2 Given the scope of development contemplated, the highway widening aspect of the proposed project likely qualifies as a "major public works' project, and thus the 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 the transfer of private land to a public entity (such as the City or Caltrans), the approval of the land division for this conveyance may be 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. Sincerely, 1 �MelVg /VV a_1Iug Ihn Staff Analyst HNB PdCry In,4.13.04 my U`1/ UJ/ LUU4 io: vL t MESA HOMES PAGE 01/04 F'tRE% ONAMMENT April 9, 2004 To--Duanc Olson,Huntington Beach Fire Department i -)M APR -9 P 150 Fax (714) 174-1551 From - John Sisker, Pacific City Action Coalition Re: Response regarding criteria for the selection of an Independent Consultant for Pacific City Received your voice mail this date where you state that you had not received the email response sent to you and Councilwoman Boardman on by Mike Churchin on April 5, 2004. As a courtesy, I am enclosing a copy of the email response which was sent to you and Councilwoman Boardman on Monday, April 5,2004. The response reiterates our position that the selection process for the Pacific City Independent Consultant should be thorough and deliberate, not rushed. Thus the April 9 deadline for a selection from a group which was unilaterally selected by your department and we have not had the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate is contrary to our agreement of Friday, March 19, 2004, unrealistic and not in the community's best interests. Please call or email me if you have any fitrther questions. Lugar, Robin From: John Sisker Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:35 AM To: Robin Lugar Subject: Late Communication: Planning Commission Hearing 4/13/04 -Pacific City April 13, 2004 Honorable Ron Davis, Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 Re: Pacific City... B-1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 163381 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02_2.0 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-121 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN (PACIFIC CITY)=(CONTINUED FROM MARCH 23, 2004j, Dear Mr. Davis and Numbers of the Planning Commission: I personally feel it is important for me to restate the importance of the goals and objectives, as just one member of the Pacific City Action Coalition, but also as a resident and Residents Representative for Pacific Mobile Home Park. This is far more than possible future encroachments on just Pacific Mobile Home Park, but the other surrounding neighborhoods as well. Yet, a major and looming issue that actually out governs all other issues and concerns combined, and to make sure the Pacific City Project Site is really safe to build on. Previous internal discussions brought up the Atlanta Avenue bottleneck, official deletion of the Delaware Street extension, widening Huntington Street which would not affect the mobile home park, and possibly relocating the entrance of the mobile home park from Huntington Street to the current dead-end configuration of Delaware Street. This open dialog was hopefully an attempt to save and/or preserve the mobile home park in relation to the Pacific City development and the ultimate build-out. However, possibly neighborhood encroachments and the true Coalition objectives include far more than just the mobile home park. Residents all along Atlanta Avenue has a concern that a future condemnation proceeding may take their property as well. Likewise, the residents in these area also have justifiable concerns about obstructed and/or totally eliminated views. Naturally, as a resident and representative of the mobile home park, my goal is to take 4/13/2004 whatever measures I need to take to save and preserve the park property and our homes. However, as I said, saving the park and/or surrounding neighborhoods also includes making sure the Pacific City Project Sites is safe to build on. Presently, from all the information, reports and tests that have been released by Makar Properties, Chevron Oil Company and the City, neither I, nor the Pacific City Action Coalition is convenience that this is the case. To restate for the official record, which I read into the minutes at the March 23, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing, and before the Public Hearing was closed: "The City of Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Plan in the General Resource Protection Policies states, "When policies within the Coastal Element conflict, such conflicts shall be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources." "The Land Use section C1.1 goes on to state, "Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible." "The Pacific City Action Coalition believes that the documented site testing and remediation conducted thus far by Chevron and developer Makar Properties is out of compliance with the city's Local Coastal Plan. It is misleading, incomplete and contradictory. It is the Coalition's position that the best means to effectively mitigate adverse coastal impacts is to have an independent consultant, chosen jointly by the Coalition, Makar, Chevron and the city, oversee the site's testing and clean-up." Therefore, any Minute Actions and/or Conditions of Approval to the Conditional Use Permit for Pacific City, must set the selection of a truly Independent Environmental Consultant as the number one propriety. Addressing all the other concerns without properly taking care of the real issue, is simply a major defeat for the entire community. What follows is a dialog of the official Pacific City Action Coalition's stance to both Councilwomen Connie Boardman and Fire Chief Duane Olsen on April 5, 2005 in reference to the Independent Environmental Consultant. This was also to reconfirm what was agree to at the March 19, 2004 meeting with the City, Fire, Makar Properties, Connie Boardman, Dick Harlow and the Pacific City Action Coalition. . Importance of an Independent Consultant for the community — 1. health and safety risks associated with contamination exposure based on scientific evidence, 2. historic mistrust of developers, Chevron and the city based on evidence accumulated for this and prior projects . As our agreement stipulates that all parties —the Coalition, Makar Properties and the city have an equal say in the process of selecting an independent consultant - it is essential that this undertaking be thorough and deliberate — not rushed. When it comes to protecting the community, due diligence must be a strong part of the 4/13/2004 decision making process. 1. the Coalition must develop assessment criteria for the independent consultant which best meets the community's needs 2. once that criteria is established, the Coalition must find appropriate candidates who meet that criteria, and 3. due diligence must be performed on all of the candidates being considered, including the five being proposed by the City Fire Department, before a final decision is made . Additionally, the Coalition will require that this process be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Pacific City project. This will ensure that our agreement, which the Coalition, developer Makar Properties and the Planning Commission confirmed in the public hearing on March 23. will be carried out in a manner which best benefits all parties. Sincerely, John Sisker 80 Huntington St., #266 Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536-3850 4/t 3/2004 Kevin Ives `.34`J- lbi'-bbF34 p. l li 301 Main Street Suite 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4113R004 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission cl Robin Lugar Regarding: CPU 02-20 and 02-04 Pacific Citv Dear Members of the Planning Commission, As you know,last month Inka Grill came to you to obtain a permit to allow dancing at our location downtown. And,as you will remember,you denied the passing of that permit based on information that Chief Small provided. As you will remember,the Chief stated that be would not be able to pro- vide sufficient police protection if we were to get a permit. Now,you are being asked to approve a permit that will include dancing at this location juxtaposed to the downtown area. inka Gr0l does not,obviously,wish to deny any business or citizen the right to vote. We are simply reminding you that the city police department will not be able to provide suffi- cient manpower to cover any issues that may arise at this new project when people begin to dance. If you argue that the scope of this new project is such that the tax revenues would be sufficient to jus- tify the passage of this permit,I would argue that the incrrase in business to our small,by comparison location,would be sufficient to offset any increases caused by a permit to us. So,therefore you sbouid deny this petition based on your own previous arguments. In addition,the passing of a mixed use center will,in your own words,cause you to have similar neighbor problems as we have experienced. The old move next to an airport and then sue for peace and quiet By the way,the neighbors that caused such a stir over our location have since sold their unit at a great profit and have moved to a quieter area. Therefore,we vehemently the permitting of dancing at this location based on the Chiefs, and planning eommi ions( ents against dancing. Sind Kevin Ives CEO Inka Grill Restaurants. Lugar, Robin From: Darrin Aldridge [darrinsurfs@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:00 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I live on 15th st, downtown huntington. I fully support Pacific City, It will spread out the downtown area . It will make the area much more desirable to live and provide jobs . Thank you Darrin 1 Lugar, Robin From: Suzanne Christy [adreamcometruesc@msn.comj Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:13 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City I was unable to make the meeting on March 23rd, but would like to voice my enthusiastic support for the Pacific City project. Thank you, Suzanne Christy-Goldberg 5142 Warner Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 3/30/2004 o Ocean View School District 17200 Pinehurst Lane District Superintendent Board of Trustees Huntington Beach James R.Tanvater, Ed. D. Barbara Boskovich,President California 92647-5569 Carolee Focht, Clerk 714/847-2551 Sharon Holland, Member Fax: 7141847-1430 Pam Ogdon, Member "Equity and Web: wvnv.ovsd.org Tracy Pellman, Member Excellence" April 13, 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: April 13, 2004, Agenda Item—Tentative Tract Map 16338 and Conditional Use Permit No. 02-20 Conceptual Master Plan (Pacific City) Dear Planning Commissioners: On March 8, 2004, the Ocean View School District (District) became aware of the Affordable Housing Plan, Pacific City Project, dated December 15, 2003, that requires 78 units of 50% low/50% very low income rental apartments, off- site, outside of the redevelopment zones. The District wishes to express our concem that we have not had any notification from the City Planning Department or the consultant that prepared the plan, Susan McDevitt, Executive Director of Mary Erickson Community Housing, that the Affordable Housing Plan may impact the Ocean View School District and require a mitigation agreement to resolve the impact on our schools. The need for a mitigation agreement has not been considered by either the EfR; the Affordable Housing Plan; Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC; or City officials and no mitigation agreement has been discussed with Ocean View School District. In reading the Affordable Housing Plan, section Strategy for Acquisition, we note that one option is to acquire a number of multi-family units within the Oak View zone. The Oak View zone is within the Ocean View School District. Oak View Preschool and Education Center serves preschool students (3-4 year olds), Oak View Elementary serves K-5 elementary students, and all four 6-8 middle schools, Marine View, Mesa View, Spring View, and Vista View Middle Schools, receive the Oak View sixth, seventh, and eighth graders as required by a 1992 State of California Voluntary Desegregation Plan. A second option in the Affordable Housing Plan is to acquire a vacant site for development of 78 new affordable units. One of the vacant sites under consideration may be a 4.9 acre parcel located at Nichols and Warner, a site adjacent to Oak View Preschool and Education Center. Of foremost concern to the District is the potential development of 78 or more new affordable one to three bedroom apartment dwellings within the Oak View Elementary School boundaries. That school has reached its capacity of 795 students and could not accommodate additional students. Our estimate of the student generation/experience factor for 78 units for the period of 2004 - 2010 by grade levels follows: Planning Commision Page 2 April 13, 2004 ■ Pre K-5 students - a range of 2.23 to 3.08 students per apartment ■ 6th, 7th, 8th graders - a range of.95 to 1.32 students per apartment ■ The total student generation/experience factor of Pre K-8 students is a range of 3.18 to 4.40 students per apartment ■ The total projected enrollment increase from 78 units ranges from 248 students for year 2004 to 343 students for year 2010 ■ The grand total number of students generated Pre K-8 is a range of 1,838 to 2,536 students for the years 2004 to 2010 (See Attachment A) These student generation/experience factors are based on actual experience for the Oak View School attendance zones. These experience factors are higher than the District's student generation factor of K-5 .175 and 6-8 .043 as reflected in the District's Master Plan for 2002-2003 for other school sites. This occurs because more than one family often reside in one apartment dwelling within the Oak View attendance boundaries. When Oak View Elementary School reached its capacity, the District determined that students would be housed at other elementary schools under an open enrollment program. Attachment B provides the Ocean View School District Elementary Boundaries. Attachment C is the Projected Enrollment for Oak View School Attendance Zone for the years 2004 - 2010 for Pre K - 8 students. One hundred thirty-eight students from the Oak View School area are currently enrolled at other elementary schools. In short, there is no space available in the Oak View neighborhood school. We also transport 346 sixth, seventh, and eighth graders to the District's four middle schools, Marine View, Mesa View, Spring View, and Vista View Middle Schools. "Ihe District's estimated cost of transporting and providing classroom space for the projected additional 1838-2536 students (Pre K-8) that would result from 78 new affordable units is summarized below and more fully described in Attachment D: ■ Fourteen new classrooms at a cost of $2,822,400. ■ Three restroom buildings at a cost of $827,640. ■ One library building at a cost of 5345,600. ■ Fourteen classrooms of furnishings, text books, and supplies at a cost of $245,000. ■ Four new 84 passenger buses at a cost of$520,000. ■ ADA improvements at three sites at a cost of$258,000. ■ Additional parking at three sites at a cost of$105,000. ■ Annual operating expenses for four buses at a cost of 55.70 per bus mile equaling$191,041 per year. By the way, this $191,041 expense becomes an ongoing annual transportation cost plus inflation. The District's estimated total cost to mitigate the impact of 78 new affordable apartment dwellings by providing new classrooms, support facilities, parking and school buses is 55,314, 681. The following is required under the Mitigation Monitoring Program as incorporated in the Environmental Impact Report for Pacific City as Mitigation Measure - MM P-I: Planning Commision Page 3 April 13, 2004 "Die Applicant shall prepare an Affordable Housing Program to the satisfaction of the City Planning &Economic Development Departments. The Program shall detail the provisions for either on- or off-site affordable housing, or a combination of the nvo that meets the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and City requirements. The Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to submittal of the final map. The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential project. The Applicant shall adhere to all provisions of the Program. " The Ocean View School District understands that the City and Applicant must meet the affordable housing requirements. We request that, prior to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and any approval of final maps, the Applicant meet with the Ocean View School District to negotiate a mitigation agreement to mitigate the impacts from the proposed 78 new affordable apartment dwelling units in the District's boundaries. The required payment of the standard developer fees will not produce adequate funding for the District to mitigate the impacts of housing and transporting 343 additional students from a new high density apartment complex. The District's preference is that the Applicant acquire existing apartment units, rehabilitate them, and convert them to low/very low income units rather than to build new high density apartment units that increase the number of students in the Ocean View School District, specifically in the Oak View Elementary School area. The District also requests that the Applicant and City Planning Commission consider low income/very low income senior citizen housing as an alternative to low income family apartment dwellings for the Oak View zone. We look forward to working with the Planning Commission and the developer of Pacific City to insure that adequate school facilities and support services continue to be provided by the Ocean View School District and to mitigate impacts from the proposed Affordable Housing Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ames R. Tar-water, Ed-D. District Superintendent JRT:vf Attachments: Projected Enrollment OVSD Elementary Boundaries Attendance Zone for Oak View Estimated Cost for Mitigation Planning Commision Page 4 April 13, 2004 c: Commissioner Carrie Thomas Commissioner John Scandura Commissioner Steve Ray Commissioner Ron Davis Commissioner Jan Shomaker Commissioner Robert Dingwall Commissioner Tom Livengood Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Susan McDevitt, Mary Erickson Community Housing OVSD Board of Trustees OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT PROJECTED ENROLLMENT FROM 78 ADDITIONAL APARTMENT DWELLINGS For Year 2004 Student Enrollment Generation/ Increase Total Enrollment Experience From Enrollment Factor 78 Units PreK-5 1,200 2.23 174 1,374 6-8 390 .95 74 464 Total J`• ? 590.. ,", s.: .....w 3. 18 , T,777 s_ K' a « 1 838 a r248<. PROJECTED ENROLLMENT FROM 78 ADDITIONAL APARTMENT DWELLINGS For Year 2010 Student Enrollment Generation/ Increase Total Enrollment Experience From Enrollment Factor 78 Units PreK-5 1,601 3.08 240 1,841 6-8 592 1.32 103 695 Attachment A LE C/) -0 7 __E-1 C) 13 Co M 40 ST a) g Co F_ -LI-U U. Lil J.X _J 1_ 4 _71 I_7 j L Z, 0 M CID > Q)L-k fn ou) a) > 0) CD a) > 0 0 tM a) o a) 0 > > > CM U) vases 0 0 M 0 Mu Attachment B OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTENDANCE ZONE FOR OAK VIEW Elementary School #44 Projection Date 10/01/03 ACTUAL PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 K 220 223.3 226.6 229.9 233.2 236.5 239.8 243.1 1 149 220.0 223.3 226.6 229.9 233.2 236.5 239.8 2 132 149.0 220.0 223.3 226.6 229.9 233.2 236.5 3 145 132.0 149.0 220.0 223.3 226.6 229.9 233.2 4 139 145.0 132.0 149.0 220.0 223.3 226.6 229.9 5 148 139.0 145.0 132.0 149.0 220.0 223.3 226.6 6 127 148.0 139.0 145.0 132.0 149.0 220.0 223.3 7 115 127.0 148.0 139.0 145.0 132.0 149.0 220.0 8 104 115.0 127.0 148.0 139.0 145.0 132.0 149.0 Pre K 192 192.0 192.0 192.0 192.0 192.0 192.0 192.0 Pre K-5 1125 1200.3 1287.9 1372.8 1474 1561.5 1581.3 1601.1 6-8 346 390.0 414.0 432.0 416.0 426.0 501.0 592.3 Pre K-8 1471 1590.3 1701.9 1804.8 1890 1987.5 2082.3 2193.4 Attachment C OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED COST OF MITIGATION FOR 78 ADDITIONAL APARTMENT DWELLINGS OAK VIEW SCHOOL BOUNDARIES Item Quantity Size Unit Cost Total Classrooms 14 960 s . ft. each $210 per s .ft. $ 2,822,400 Restroom Buildings 3 836 s . ft. each $330 per s .ft. $ 827,640 Library Building 1 1,440 s . ft. each $240 per s .ft. $ 345,600 Classroom Furnishings 14 - $17,500 per $ 245,000 and Textbooks classroom 84 Passenger Buses 4 - $130,000 per bus $ 520,000 ADA Improvements 3 sites $86,000 per site $ 258,000 Added Parking 3 sites 25 more spaces $35,000 per site $ 105,000 each Annual Operational 4 buses 8,379 miles per $5.70 per mile $ 191,041 Bus Miles bus Grand Total $ 5,3149681 Attachment D Lugar, Robin From: Bunten, Charles [cbunten@ebuilt.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:37 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org' Su'Sject: Support for Pacific City Chairman Ron Davis and Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission I understand that the Planning Commission will again be discussing the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the Pacific City development project . You have all heard my comments in support of this project. While I must be in Sacramento and unable to address the Commission in person on Tuesday, April 27 I would like to ask you to take a moment and project yourselves to a point two or three years from now and consider the impact of your forthcoming decision from that future frame of reference. So join me now in the year 2007. The property known as the "31-acres" lies fallow but deserted at the steps to what was once a promising shopping, tourism, dining and entertainment venue just steps from four star hospitality and the sparkling Pacific Ocean. Our city chose to ignore the opportunity promised by the 2004 proposed "Pacific City" while here in 2007 Huntington Beach continues to hear its negative, "no growth" arguments. While at the same time the city government is being pressed by many of hose same sources for improved, even increased, city-provided services . . . . . everything from better roads to accessible, affordable and up-to-date libraries. The millions of dollars that the city COULD have earned directiv from Pacific City through TOT, Sales and Real Estate taxes is NOT in the City budget which has crippled the city from making incremental budget decisions. The question lingers in 2007 . . . . . . "What were those in city government and the planning commission thinking when they denied the Pacific City project? Meanwhile, just south of the city border, the Newport Beach "Mariner's Mile" redeveloped dining and entertainment area has reached completion and is drawing retail, business and tourism dollars away from Huntington Beach, because the Hyatt and Hilton guests, other tourists along with Surf City residents see only an abandoned 31-acre field instead of what could have been the completion of an upscale destination for their dollars in Huntington Beach. Is this the vision that is shared in the Planning Commission? Is this the legacy that you plan to present to Huntington Beach? Please choose to support the completion of Pacific City as the City Staff has recommended and Makar has proposed. Be very careful to understand the motivation behind the negative, opposition to the project. The "this is my beach and I refuse to share it with others" argument voiced by some is 1 very transparent. The run-off water management, parking, architectural and density plans are all well founded on scientific fact and top-notch civic planning. In fact, we could only hope that the run-off filtration system proposed for Pacific City would be installed at key points all along the Santa Ana and San Gabriel rivers. The quality of our ocean water would be enormously improved if those proven systems were mandated by the appropriate agencies throughout Orange County. The Pacific City project is only choice for the 31-acre parcel and the time is now, in 2004 . I urge you to move forward with your vote for full approval. Charlie Bunten Chairman of the Board, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce e Built, Inc. 3540 Howard Way Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 949. 609.4703 Fax: 949. 609,0001 Builders of Industrial-Strength Enterprise Applications TM "Minds are like parachutes---they only function when open. " . . . . Thomas Dewar 2 Lugar, Robin From: Peter Nguyen ipeterl9610101@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:27 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City 4/22/04 Respectfully Chair Davis, Vice Chair Ray and the Honorable Commissioners, My name is Peter Nguyen, I am a resident of Huntington Beach since March, 2002, moving from Placentia. I would like to thank you for making the City of Huntington Beach so beautiful with many positive change in the last few years, and I also saw some of other nice improvements along the coast between Beach Blvd and Goldenwest still coming! You really change the face of Huntington Beach for the better! May I send this email to you to support the Pacific City Project. I was attending the last hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, and I saw the Pacific City presentation. What an awesome vision! I think it is time now to bring a vision into action. Pacific City Project will enhance the lifestyle of a surf city with such a modern Community to be built, with Shopping Center and Hotel to provide convenience to the local residence and to attract tourist at the same time. I think this project are compatible with Fashion Island of Newport Beach, and Pacific City will become one of the newest interest point of the County of Orange as well. So please consider to approve this project, and do anything in your authorization to expedite the process. We will endure some of the noise and dust, but I think it is worthwhile to bring a vision into life. It just like to make a dream come true to me. Again, thank you for your great leadership. Peter Nguyen 7711 Timber Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-596-3897 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 2 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: matt@4stewardship.com Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:32 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I 'm a resident of yB (200 block lith Street) . I support the Pacific City project. However, I :know that the streets in the downtown area need stop signs. These crazy intersections sometimes have signs on the North-South direction only, and sometimes on the East-West only. Why? Who designed this mess? (Everday people run the signs due to confusion - I saw another accident just the other day! ) . Inconsistency of these signs is a major safety concern that no one is doing anything about. When are you guys going to put 4-way stops in all the intersections? If Pacific City increases the trafic even more, then. we REALLY need 4-way stop signs! Anyhow, Pacific City will be good for the city- please approve it. Matt McLaughlin 949-285-7962 This message is a confidential communication for the intended recipient only. Thank you. 1 Lugar, Robin From: richard rasmussen [richrass@hotmai1.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:58 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Hello, I wanted to voice my support for Pacific City. I am currently on their waiting list for purchase of a home in the residential portion of the development. I look forward to doing so as I love Huntington Beach and I strongly believe that this will be yet another project that sets Huntington Beach as a leader in beach front living/retail/office. I'm excited to spend my hard earned Arizona dollars in Huntington Beach. Thanks, Richard Rasmussen Sunbelt Business Advisors, LLC 101 W. Main St. Mesa, AZ 85201 Web site: _w-\vw.SBAaz.com Office Phone: 480-223-1234 Ext. 14 Office Fax: 480-223-4249 Cell Phone: 480-518-7055 E-mail: RicliRass.@SunbeitNet\vork.com Get_rid.of annoy_ing_pop_up acts_with the new_MS_N_Toolbar - FREE! 4/26/2004 "Ilan - I Lugar, Robin From: Lorinda McClure [lorinda.mcclure@att.net] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:24 AM To: dugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City LoYi;toa F. 1\ICC(rt4Ye, Iniregrity and Service n .,., Email: lorinda,mcclure@,att.net Website: ochomeinfo.com We are in definite support of the Pacific City project. We are residences of Huntington Beach and we would love to see Pacific City come into our city. The retail is desperately needed and so are the homes. It sounds like a beautiful project. If you would like any additional information let me know. My direct cell is 714-299-6688. Thank you Lorinda & Tom McClure o rxiza� C>J. Cr�i'c tGrfCFc Real Estate Executive Star Real Estate 19440 Golden West Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Office: 714-500-3300 Fax: 714-374-4286 Mobile:714-299-6688 t 1 4/23/2004 Lugar Robin From: Steve Rousseau isrousseau@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:19 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I 've been a resident of Huntington Beach since 1985. Over these years I 've been privileged to be a part of a wonderful growing community which, at one time, had more of a reputation for the darker side of life in the downtown/beach area than anything else. The dramatic changes that have taken place over the last several years have helped change that image to one that is very positive. I believe the Pacific City project will be the stamp that takes HB to next level equalling, if not surpassing, our other fine neighboring beach cities in terms of quality of life and tourism. Please approve this project. Thank you, Steve Rousseau Do you Yahoo! ? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25t htto: //photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splas.i 1 Lugar, Robin From: Lynda Shephard [lynda44@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:01 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I think this is the best project I have seen ever. It has been the dream of my husband and I for as long as I can remember to retire to such a place. What is that about the worst kind of broken heart....that it is one that is broken because of broken dreams? I actually am counting on the project coming to fruition and living my days out here. If my husband and I get an opportunity to iron out the details and move here, our remaining days will be spent in absolute contentment and peace. The "brains" behind this idea are certainly forward-looking and visionary_....It will be Paradise in Paradise. Thank you. Respectfully, Lynda Shephard 488 W. Duarte Rd. #36 Arcadia, CA 91007 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Irving Cliongenbooger [longbow147@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:48 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I have attended nearly every commission on pacific city held so far, but because of a prior committment I cannot attend on the 27th. I would still like to voice my strong support for `his excellent and needed project. I can think of no better use to put this land to, even though it will most likely be far too expensive for me to buy a home there. I earn over $80, 000.00 per year, but I cannot buy ANY home in Huntington Beach unless I find some way to put one-fifty to two-hundred thousand down payment, despite my more than excellent credit rating. K. Maylone Do you Yahoo! ? Win a $20, 000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 1 Lugar, Robin From: coupon [lulinlu@aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:34 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City As we will down size in the the 1-2 years as our children will complete HBHS....we look forward to living in the community at Pacific City...Please consider this email representation of my support.. Sincerely, Linda Simonian 4/27/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Torbik, Bernie [JJCUS] [BTorbik@CORUS.JNJ.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:39 AM To: 'rlugar@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: Support for Pacific City To whom it may concern: I strongly support the proposed Pacific City development and urge the commission to approve it without further delay. It will greatly improve the blighted look that the lot has long had, and bring badly needed housing and retail development to Huntington Beach. Thank you. Bernie Torbik 18631 Park Meadow Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714.642.5143 Bernie Torbik Director, Technical Architecture Global Competency Center, PeopleSoR Apps. Network and Computing Services In times of change, the learners shall inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to handle a world that no longer exists. Johnson& Johnson 1003 US Hwy 202 Raritan, NJ 08869 f MOBILE: 714.642.5143 (Orange Co., California) 9 PHONE: 732.524,1387 (New Jersey) E-MAIL: bfcrbik@torus ini.com A FAX: 714.908,7735(Orange Co, Califomia) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any documents which may accompany it contains information from Johnson &Johnson, which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and which may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact us immediately. Thank you. 4/27/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Phyllis [Pbailey1@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:56 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We look forward to the development of Pacific City. The empty lot has been an eyesore and a source of embarrassment to our city, especially since the development of the beautiful hotels and the facelift of downtown. It is our hope that HB will see that the land is clean and ready to build ASAP. Pacific City looks like a development the residents as well as tourist could enjoy. Please see that this land is developed as soon as the land is declared safe. Thank you, Mike and Phyllis Bailey 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: sara nussbaum [snussbaum@socal.rr.comj Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:01 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific city Dear Sir/Madame. This e-mail is being sent out of concern for the well fair of Huntington Beach and in support of Pacific city project. My name is Sara Nussbaum,and for the last 25 years I have been a resident of Huntington Beach . 1 have raised 5 very successful kids,but to my regret no one wants to stay here,and the reason is that it lucks culture, and high level fun activity. In order to attract young professional, the city need to provide housing plus entertainment area like Jazz clubs quality restaurants etc. this will keep the residence of Huntington Beach in the city from going to other cities as it is happens now. My kids prefer to go to Irvine and actually they moved out of the city. Hope you will support the project of Pacific City. Sara Nussbaum 4/27/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Leslie Alsenz(lalsenz@socal.rr.com) Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:51 AM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Dear Planning commission members, I live across the street from the Pacific City site and I am writing to show my enthusiam and support for the project. I think any city would be clad to have such a lovely developement in thier city. This is the very sort of project that will take our "diamond in the rouch" city and polish it up. Please approve this project. Thank you ! Leslie Sarac 234 2nd Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 Lugar, Robin From: Luanne Hallett(Ihallett@socal.rr.comj Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:58 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We think Pacific City is a great idea -- Huntington Beach needs more areas where people can live, go shopping and enjoy entertainment. Hopefully, more areas like this will pop up. It seems a shame that so many people have to go out of our city to find a place of"entertainment" and a fun place to shop and eat; Those places should not be reserved just for Newport, Irvine,Costa Mesa and Long Beach, The Hallett's 16251 Santa Barbara Lane Huntington Beach, CA 714-846-0072 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Thomas & Joan Smith [oantomsmith@hotmail.comj Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:16 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Please approve the PACIFIC CITY project ! ! ! They have designed the perfect community for these new times -- combining both residential and commercial uses. [Just please ensure some ' (truly) affordable' properties are included for us common-folk (those who use this area the most ! ) ! ] Sincerely, the SMITH family Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN 'r.otmail Extra Storage ! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmaii/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362 ave/direct/O1/ 1 Lugar, Robin From: Kathleen Elmore [kelmore_ca@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:06 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Dear Planning Commission, PLEASE approve the Pacific City project! Our citv is in DIRE need of a better retail district in downtown HB! AND, above all, PLEASE allow/encourage a major Book Store to go into this project as the ONLY one is all the way by the 405 ! HB deserves to be MORE than just seedy junk shops (Yes, most of the surf shops need to go or be overhauled. They are too run-down! ) Thank you for your kind consideration. Kathleen Elmore Do you Yahoo! ? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25z http: //photos .yahoo.com/ph/print_splash i Lugar, Robin From: Scott Heinila [sc_heinila@hotmail.coml Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:51 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Date: April 22, 2004 From: Scott Heinila I am a long time resident of Huntington Beach and could not think of anything better for the downtown area than the new and beautiful Pacific City. What a wonderful opportunity to bring new housing, beautiful lanscape, businesses and tourism to the "Surf City". I am strongly in support for the proposed development of Pacific City. Thank you, Scott E. Heinila Stop_worrying about overloading_your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: SLim924468@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:15 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City I am in complete support of the project planned. It will create well needed homes and supply jobs for the community. It is a win win situation provided our beautiful coastline is well protected from pollution. Sincerely, Shannon Limbach H.B. Resident 4/27/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Jack Siart gacksiart@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:50 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We are in support of Pacific City provided the streets around it are widened. and sidewalks are provided for pedestrians on both sides of these streets . We agree it is time to begin to realize the vision. Jack and Kathy Siart 1 Lugar, Robin From: mo azam [mo5173@yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:23 PM To: r!ugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We must utilize the space left vacant for many many years, so that people can enjoy the life at warerfront properties. Thanks, A Resident Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: HigtLquaFity 4x6 digita!prints for 25c 4/26/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Donna Gould [dgould5250@hotmail.comj Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:37 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City the best , and what a great place it will be; ; thank you pacific city for making our city so beautiful. . HSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - FREE download! http: //toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/Ol/ 1 Lugar, Robin From: Jim Kent Ukkblk@sbcglobal.netj Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:29 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City 4/26/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Wayne LeFors [747497@msn.comj Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:38 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Planning commission- I fully support the Pacific City project and I think it would be a beautiful addition to the HB landscape. A bold and innovative concept that should be approved. Wayne LeFors HB resident From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring Travel Guide ! http: //special .msn.com/local/springtravel.armx 1 Lugar, Robin From: Kari ikibandy@sbcglobal.netj Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 4:52 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I support the plans for Pacific City. I hope these plans include some affordable living. As a law enforcement officer, I make decent money, but still cannot afford to buy anything new in Huntington Beach. Thank you, Kari Bandy 4/26/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Rita J. Manasse ]manasea@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 1:38 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City As a Huntington Beach resident since 1991 , I have been vary pleased with all of the improvements that have been made to the city. I strongly support the Pacific City development and look forward to seeing this improvement to the city. Philip H. Manasse 509 loth Street 714-969-9969 4n612004 Lugar, Robin From: Johann boner abonarl @cox.net] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:47 PM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City -Its Time to put vision into action! Thank you for the email! I will be there to show my support! See you then P.S. How can I ensure that I get to purchase a home? Johann Bonar 949-387-5059 4/26/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Jamee Emens oameeemens@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:27 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I am sorry that I cannot attend the city planning meeting. I would like to send my support for Pacific City via e-mail. I think this project is exactly what HB needs! Jamey is MevW 610 11th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Stop Lvouying about overload ing.ygur inbox - get NISN Holman Extra Storage! 4/26/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Michael R. Collins [mrc@orangecoastfunding.coml Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:21 PM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I am a resident of Huntington Beach and I am in total support of this project. lr. e � waft. . Mekdel R Collins, Operepons mawg-ar 369 San Ab�cl Drive, Suite # ?,B,S Nerp,,� Beach , Ce .92660 www.orangecoastfunding.com www.orangecoastrealestate.net Be great to yourselfl!!!!! 4/26/2004 Lugar, Robin From: raymond tsai [raymdtsai@yahoo.comj Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:25 AM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Dear commissioners : I strongly support the pacific city project put in the city of Huntington beach, because it would promote higher quality of the city also would increase the income of the city. so please let it passes the project. thank you very much. sincerely Ravmond tsai 4/23/2004 Do you Yahool7 Yahoo! Photos: High=quality_4x6 digital_prints for 250 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Bill Demarest]bill@delillo.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:38 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Dear sirs The project would be fantastic for this city. With what we have downtown any upscale retail would be a welcome addition to H.B. Thanks Bill Demarest 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Gregg Steiner [greggsteiner@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:31 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Pacific City will raise the level of sophistication in Huntington beach. People think of HB as just a place for low class people. Main street has no place for adults to gather. Main street caters to big kids not business class adults. Lets change that about HB! Gregg 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: JAMES READ Uread@prodigy.netj Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:17 AM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I hope be ablt to make the meeting for Pacific City I'm just showing my support for it. I think i mixed-used center would really clean-up that whole area. Thank You Jim Read Sperry Van Ness 949-225-1847 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: peggy cheng [pcheng2@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:58 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We have been waiting for four years for this project to be brought into reality. Don't disappoint us now! 1 Lugar, Robin From: Bradley Gillespie (gillespie67@cox.net) Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:05 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I am in total support of Pacific City.. A project like this will do so much to make Downtown H.B. an exciting, livable, safe, and improved area Bradley T. Gillespie 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: James A. Demarais, Esq. [demarais3@comcast.net) Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:15 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City This is a well needed development and I strongly support it! James A. Demarais, Esq. I A Professional Law Corporation I Residential i Commercial Real Estate Broker SOUTH COAST EXECUTIVE CENTRE 1 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 150 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 424-4280 1 Mobile: (714) 330-5380 1 Fax: (714) 241-8937 1 demarais3@comcast.net 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: The Olsons [tomaolson@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6,22 PM To: rlugar@surtcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Our family is definitely in support of Pacific City. The Olsor.s 1 Lugar, Robin From: Suzanne Christy [adreamcometruesc@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:36 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City As a Huntington Beach resident of 13 years, I feel it is imperative that you hasten plans to approve Pacific City. It can do nothing but add to city hall coffers and enhance the downtown area as well as draw new business into the area. Suzanne Christy-Goldberg 5142 Warner Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Michelle Pont [mpont@apexpressfreight.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:38 PM Subject: support for pacific city As residents of Huntington beach we show our support for Pacific City and would like to see the project move forward Jeff 6 Michelle Pont 200 Pch unit #447 Huntington beach Ca. 92648 1 Lugar, Robin From: Paul Nguyen [nguyen_h_paul@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:40 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I am writing this email to show the support for the Pacific City. It's time to put vision into action. Sincerely, Paul 1 Lugar, Robin From: Seni Lawi [senilawi@yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:16 PM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I am completely excited about Pacific City. I believe it is a great project for the community. Thank you for your support. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Brian C Burton [brian_burton@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:02 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City To the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, I would like to express my strong support for Pacific City. Thank you, Brian Burton Huntington Beach Resident 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: KEVIN SCOTT [otterscott@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:05 PM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I fully support Pacific City. Thanks. --Kevin Watch LIVE baseball tames on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http: //join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb3pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/ direct/O1/ 1 Lugar, Robin From: Quan Duong (gdsj@yahoo.com) Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:44 PM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Dear Sir, I think it's a wonderful idea to have a place like Pacific City in Huntington Beach.... besides increasing the tax base, the project also provides a nice place for people to live, dine and entertain. Pls help support the Pacific City project. Sincerely, Quan Duong Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High7quality_4x6 digital prints for 25¢_ 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: ricardo Carbone [litaso2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:08 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City It's time to put vision into action RICHARD CARBONE 408 HUNTINGTON ST. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 250 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: MOSTAFA ELAGIZY imelagizy@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 4:22 AM To: riugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Planning Commission : We support the badly needed excellent project . Mostafa (N.E.) Elagizy 19481 Woodlands Lane Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Tel:(714)969-4741 Cell:(714)654-5414 Fax:(714)969-4741 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: jfp photography Ufp@jfpphotography.comj Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:45 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I support Pacific City. John Partridge 562-277-4480 mmfpphotograp>y-com 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: r.garthwaite2 [resOglcz@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:46 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We support the new Pacific City project and hope it becomes a reality. 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: Joe Shelfo UShelfo@stromberg.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:47 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City Hello, I am e-mailing in support of the proposed Pacific City Community. As housing in Orange County and specifically in Huntington Beach become more scarce and less affordable, we need new developments to help supply the demand. Thank you, Joseph Shelfo Stromberg, LLC Ph#(714) 374-8326 Cell#(714) 642-3274 ishelfo@stromberg.com 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: email@heatherfife.com [hfife78@yahoo.comj Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:55 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City I can not make the meeting, however, I do support the Pacific City Development. "I'hank you, Heather Fife Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-_quality 4x6 digital prints forte 4/23/2004 Lugar, Robin From: christine vudinh [chdstinevudinh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:08 AM To: rlugar@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Support for Pacific City We think it is a great idea to have a well planned community like Pacific Cit_v on ?CH. The design for what will be there will only enhance the city and its surroundings. Christine vudinh N,SN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any 'Web page - FREE download! http: //toolbar.msn.com/go/o=00200413ave/direct/Ol/ 1 Lugar, Robin From: GOURLAY, ANDY [andy_gourlay@adp.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:34 PM To: 'rlugar@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: Pacific City Good Afternoon. I am writing you in opposition to the Pacific City development plan. I understand the revenue the development will bring in will be tremendous. However, the traffic congestion, and amount of people that it will bring will be too much for the area to handle. The streets in the area are not designed to handle the kind of traffic impact the development will bring. A smaller development with more park land might be a better solution. Please, vote no on the Pacific City development and work with local groups to put the land to better use. Thank You, Andy Gourlay 420 Lake St #104 Huntington Beach, CA 1 April 25, 2004 RECEIVEEr Honorable Chairman Ron Davis & Planning Commission Members APR 2 5 Z004 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Davis & Members of the Planning Commission: The Pacific City Action Coalition is responding to the Planning Commission anyway, by your April 26, 2004 deadline, even though Fire Chief Duane Olson overruled your original vote to work further with the Coalition. Likewise, in this reference, the Coalition feels that any arbitrary timeline imposed on us to simply choose from a list of 5- Consultants already pre-determined by the Fire Department and Public Works, is not per our original agreement, and is therefore not acting in good faith. In addition, even though we did agree to search into the hiring of our own Independent Environmental Consultant in the past, this offer for us to do so, was actually withdrawn the very next day by both the City and Makar Properties. Furthermore, while it may indeed be unprecedented to let a community group choose from a list of Consultants, as mentioned by select Council Members, this again is still not in compliance with the original March 19, 2004 agreement for the Pacific City Action Coalition to have equal input in the choosing of a true Independent Environmental Consultant. If there had been more community input allowed in the past, on these other developments, also on former oil production fields, perhaps the issue of sick and dying kids would not be an issue today that could easily rock the entire City. As stated several times before, the Coalition will accept nothing less than the terms of our March 19, 2004 agreement: (1) The Coalition shall develop assessment criteria for the independent consultant which best meets the community's needs, (2) Once criteria is established, the Coalition shall find appropriate candidates who meet the criteria, and (3) Due diligence shall be performed on all of the candidates being considered, including the five being proposed by the City Fire Department, before a final decision is made The above conditions provide the only means of assuring that a truly independent review of the Pacific City site take place. Sincerely, i John Sicker Pacific City"Action Coalition C/o 80 Huntington St., Q66 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-3850 /J, April 26, 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 Pacific City site visit on April 24, 2004. There was noticeably more vegetation present on the site compared to my previous visit on March 14, 2004. Vegetation species that were present last month had become more numerous and lush. Perhaps the most striking difference was the large quantities of curved sicklegrass (Parapholis incurva, OBL) that I observed growing adjacent to the southem half of Huntington Street. Here is a photo of one such specimen located at the edge of one of the remediation depressions: t�Ai T't ���M'{. �ir J"r p,,.'a � J• .�,�r`�;�I f .��� ygi j _ � �. •Z�: r AH f 6i i. ,i: 1� y^G�C _1�,./ ? tiv •�Z Ik r Additional vegetation species observed were: • Fivehom smotherweed (Bassia hyssopifolia, FAC) —moderate to large quantities adjacent to the entire length of Huntington Street. • Alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa, FAC)-observed in large quantities in the same general locations as on my previous visit. • Salt sandspurry (Spergularia marina, OBL)- moderate quantities in the same remediation depression as on my previous visit, with additional areas scattered along the southern portion of Huntington Street. • Spreading alkahweed (Cressa truxillensis, FACW) -tentative sighting of several large aggregations scattered along the southern portion of Huntington Street. This is a new species that I have not previously seen at this site. • Annual rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis, FACW+) -a few scattered individuals. • Tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca, FAC)-at the edge of the deep remediation pit at the intersection of PCH and Huntington Street. This is a new species that 1 have not previously seen at this site. All of the species mentioned in this report are also enjoying their annual springtime growth season at the Shea Parkside site at Bolsa Chica, which is not surprising given the coastal and near-coastal locations of both sites. Yours truly, RU4 D, g Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hill.-ate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.org Message n Of Page 1 of I Fikes, Cathy From: Lenehan, Brendan T (BTLenehan@DirecTV.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:40 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City Development Good afternoon, as a resident of the city of Huntington Beach I would like to voice my support and excitement at the possibility of the Pacific City Development. I have lived in several southern California beach communities and it is my feeling that something of this nature is a very positive move forward for ours as well. Neighboring towns enjoy great revenues from both tourism and taxation as a result of this type of growth. Please feel free to contact me via this email address should you be looking for any more information on my stance. Respectfully, Brendan T. Lenehan Account Manager Canon Business Solutions 310-964-6643(office) 310-567-7142(cell) �CL C-3 r- 6/3/2004 1 Page I of I Fikes, Cathy From: Bryan Ackerman [BAckerman@HACSB.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:41 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org I support Pacific City. Bryan Ackerman G/3/2004 Fikes, Cathy From: John Thomas bohnthomas123@hotmaii.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:03 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City- Strong Supporters! Hello, My wife and I are residents of an Irvine planned community and are a strong proponent of such developments . Huntington Beach is one of our favorite weekend beaches and feel that Pacific City would be a huge improvement to the waterfront of Huntington Beach, not to mention the economic stiulus it would provide for existing as well as new business . We are writing this email in strong support of Pacific City and even intend on becomming residents of the community when it is complete. Sincerely, John & Sarah Thomas Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/ 1 Page I of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Kerie Dawson [Kerie@dawsonappraisal.coml Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:04 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Re: Pacific City Quite frankly 1 don't know what the hold up is in approving the Pacific City project. Having been a resident of Huntington Beach for the last 16 years I have felt the need for an upscale commercial site for some time now. Every time my husband and I want to go out for a nice evening we either have to go to Lone Beach or Newport Beach. Huntington Beach simply doesn't have anything that fits the needs of someone that's not in shorts and a tank top. I am looking so forward to the Huntington Beach Mall being finished, however 1 certainly hope there will be no more stores such as Kohl's. My goodness...we already have Target, iMervyns, JC Penney and Burlington, what did we need Kohl's for? Huntington Beach is a great place to live, however with the median price of a home being in the mid S500,000, don't you think we need something that meets the needs of those who can afford that. N\7e need some upscale dining, upscale entertainment verities, upscale, upscale, upscale! I wish I knew who specifically is putting up road blocks for Pacific City because I'd write them directly. Anyway I hope that you folks on the City Council will pave the way for Pacific City to begin development, AND QUICKLY! Kerie Dawson 15581 Placid Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-901-2222 714-901-4444 fax 6/3/2004 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: DrGladysDe@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:20 PM To: cfkes@surfcity-hb.org Cc: REBAJBRANCATI@SOCAL.RR.COM Subject: Pacific City Yes, I am in favor of the construction of Pacific City because it is an esthetically, organized man-made environment on a site that is otherwise a depressing pit of neglected landscape. The location is prime, beachfront and should be enhanced for people to enjoy in a multitude of ways. Dr. Gladys de Barcza, Homeowner nearby 6/3/2004 Fikes, Cathy From: mekvalheim@beckman.com Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:30 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City I support the Pacific City development. I support it because of the environment it will create, with retail and commercial opportunities as well as homes for residents . Matt Kvalheim 1 Fikes Cathy From: Isgoldsteinl@cox.net Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:45 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Cc: info@pacificcityhb.com Subject: Pacific City To whom It May Concern: This e-mail is in support of the Development of Pacific City. Although we are not able to attend the meeting on June 7, we want you to know that we feel that Pacific City will be an asset to Huntington Beach in many ways and we personally want to be a part of this exciting growth opportunity. Thanks you for your consideration. Dr. and Mrs. Lester Goldstein (Susan) 1 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Aimee Khan [aimee.khan@dslextreme.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:05 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: PACIFIC CITY HOW COULD THIS BE DENIED! THE AREA IS SO RUNDOWN. WHAT A WONDERFUL THING IT WOULD BE FOR HUNTINGTON TO HAVE THIS! PLEASE DON'T STOP THIS PROJECT FROM HAPPENING 6/3/2004 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: SLongSCL@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:08 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City Dear Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council; I urge you to give final approval to the Pacific City Project. As a 30 year resident of the City of Huntington Beach, and finally seeing it begin to live up to it's potential, Pacific City is a most welcome element. The opportunity to live near the ocean in such a well planned, attractive community......where imagine, you can accomplish almost all of your daily needs without ever taking out your car! That, by itself is almost reason enough to greet it with open arms in these days of expensive gasoline costs, and excessive car use. I have served on the Orange County Planning Commission for almost ten years (in July I will complete ten years,} and have seen some wonderful projects throughout Orange County, and this one is one of the most outstanding. PLEASE BRING PACIFIC CITY TO REALITY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I wish I could attend the meeting on June 7 when you will address this project, but I leave the next morning very early for Sacramento to attend a Director's meeting for the California Association of Realtors, and will return the following weekend. If any of you would like to speak to me when I return, please leave you number on my office phone...that number is 714-846-1383. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Shirley Commons Long PS. Please share this letter with all council members. 6/3/2004 Fikes, Cathy From: crownsps [crownsps@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:15 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City approval Dear Sirs : I wanted you to know that I would like to see this project approved and moving forward as someone very interested in buying a home in Huntington Beach. sincerely, Candi Hoffman 1 Page ] of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Joe Shelfo UShelfo@stromberg.comj Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:22 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Approval for Pacific City Since I can not attend the upcoming meeting to approve or deny the Pacific City project I am forwarding this e- mail in strong support of this project. This is exactly what we need in order to provide housing and revenues for this city that we love living in and want to remain a part of. Thank you, Joseph Shelfo Stromberg - Professional Services Ph# (714) 374-8326 Cell# (714) 642-3274 jshelfo@stromberg.com 6/3/2004 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: robert kaminski (MSN) iz3kid@msn.comj Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:39 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Pacific City As a downtown resident of Huntington Beach I would like to offer my full and complete support for the Pacific City project. If it's not constructed I feel that it would be a huge step back in what has become an exciting progression of this wonderful city. Robert Kaminski lI 24 Sth St., H.B. is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virtu scan from McAfee® Security. 6/3/2004 Pa,c 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: GEORGE ALEXANDER [galex1999@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:49 PM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org I HAVE OWNED A BUSINESS IN HB SINCE 19S3 AT 7622 EDINGER AVE. 1 FULLY SUPPORT PACIFIC CITY. PLEASE APPROVE IT. BELLA TERRA TOOK LONG ENOUGH. GEORGEALEXANDER Do you Yahoo!? Friends, Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger 6/3/2004 O6/03/2004 15: 27 P_1S 32SS604901 C I M CROUP , IAOO2/0O2 June 3, 2004 C I M o G R O U P Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As the developer of The Strand in Downtown Huntington Beach, CIM Group would like to offer our support for the Pacific City project scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on June Vh. Makar Properties has done an excellent job of designing a project that will enhance the beachfront area of the City by providing an exciting mix of retail and residential uses in an environment that displays a high level of quality architecture and design. The approval and development of Pacific City is imperative for the future of Downtown Huntington Beach in that it will provide a vital link between the newer resort hotels and the historic downtown area near the Huntington Beach Pier. I encourage you to support the Planning staffs and the Planning Commission's recommendations and approve Pacific City. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, I John Given Senior Vice President of Development �� IN l ` 6922 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood.CA S0028 C �`G 3231860-A900 main 3 2 31960-00 1 lax �' I _OBI a.ww<,m;.nop cam Ehring, Liz To: edkerins@netscape.net Subject: RE: HBT letter on Pacific City Hi Ed - I will include your communication in the agenda packet. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: edkerins®netscape.net (mailto:edkerins®netscape.net) Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:36 AM To: cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Cc: lehring®surfcity-hb.org Subject: HBT letter on Pacific City Cathy - Please distribute attached letter to City Council. Liz - Please include attached letter in council packet . Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Thank you, Ed Kerins Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service. Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups . Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Huntington Bench tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtoniorrow.org June 1, 2004 Mayor Green and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: Pacific City CUP and Conceptual Master Plan Huntington Beach Tomorrow has reviewed the EIR and staff report for the Pacific City applications. we are in support of the project with appropriate conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which satisfy environmental concerns. We believe the project can be a valuable asset to the city. Our two major concerns can be satisfied by appropriate Council action. The conceptual master plan calls for a pedestrian overpass over PCH. This pedestrian overpass could be a major factor in the success of Pacific City. The overpass would be an attractive avenue for visitors and residents to circulate between Pacific City commercial entities and the beach. It is our understanding the applicant has not included this overpass in this CUP as possible denial by the Coastal Commission could result in CUP denial . We believe the pedestrian overpass will not become a reality if it is not part of this CUP application. Recommendation: Add a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit an application for the pedestrian overpass upon final approval of this CUP by the Coastal Commision. We believe the intersection of Atlanta and Huntington Street will become a major bottleneck due to the lack of sufficient right of way from Deleware to Huntington. Atlanta Avenue is a primary route for southeast area drivers to access downtown and presents delays today during peak travel times. Huntington Beach Tomorrow met with public works, planning and Makar Properties representatives in April to discuss this problem. The meeting produced three options that need to be analyzed. It may be possible to make adequate improvements that will not require the removal of existing coaches. Makar Properties advised they would pay their fair share. Staff suggested the best way to resolve the problem would be to add this intersection to the city's capital improvement program. Recommendation: City Council direct staff to add the Atlanta and Huntington intersection for study as part of the Capital Improvements program. Edward Kerins President, Huntington Beach Tomorrow Cu To: Huntington Beach City Council From: Ronald H. Satterfield, 110 Huntington Street 714 969-0042 1 t Date: June 2, 2004 A 0, Subject: Pacific City Project As a resident, I was appalled at the demeanor of two of the Planning Commissioners and City staff. On the night the vote was passed for Pacific City, it was very apparent that Ron Davis and Jan Shoemaker appeared to be on the applicant's payroll. These commissioners made statements that were completely out of order. The information spoken by these two was not in reference to whether or not to approve or denied the Pacific City project. As City Council members, you oversee these appointed individuals and City staff. At this meeting the commissioners and city staff gave the applicant the opportunity to increase the project's density, and not handle the project's infrastructure issues. 1. Special Permits - Mr. Hess conceded to give special permits In lieu of variances. So this project's property setbacks and encroachments will now not have to go thought the variance process. As residences from this point on we should get the same equal treatment and waving of our variance when we want to improve our property. With this action by staff and the Planning Commission has started a new policy for all within the city. 2. 1 agree with the Robert Mayer Corporation, traffic, less parking and traffic flow was not properly address in the EIR. It appears that the numbers were given in stages of construction, and not in total as required by CEQA. CEQA guideline 15201 (" Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reaction to environmental issues related to the agency's activities"). The Planning Staff was beyond approach to this project. It was very apparent, that Mr. Hess has had already made his decisions on this project. The density of this project to great. The City as the right to lower the density as determent by growth in area. By State Law CEQA has NO time frame for years that could effect the impact of the area. 3. The infrastructure issue is ajoke. Fire Department access with only be one semicircle road, given the distant from major streets and the one road way how does the fire department achieve getting fire fighting equipment to the businesses and homes. Does the department have ground ladders that will reach the 60 feet high roofs? The bottleneck at Huntington and Atlanta was not an issue to Mr. Hess. He stated that that intersection was not required by this project. He is so wrong...CEQA states that any infrastructure with would cause an impact to the surrounding area caused by the applicant (no time frame) should be considered as part of the EIR. Who pays Mr. Hess's salary? "We will look at this issue in 2008, and the City has funds for these type of projects" great fiscal responsibility, let's have the public pay for what could have been required by the applicant. 1 want to see this project happen, but I am opposed to this project as approved by the Planning Department and Commission. JA G � �tet�k f4tGnni;!-.r Statement On The Record By Paul Cross To the City Council Of Huntington Beach On The Subject Of The Planning Commission Approval Of The Pacific City Development Project This statement consists of three attachments One dealing with much of the overall merits of the Planning Commission action approving the Pacific City project essentially as proposed by the developer The Planning Commission action includes adoption of a toothless"final environmental impact report'and timid conditions upon approval." A second attachment is devoted to a discussion of"conflict of interest."'The third attachment expounds upon the ROW of the former Pacific Electric railroad. You are duty bound to protect the ROW, unless in the exercise of sound discretion you should find the ROW to be unnecessary As you probably already have discerned, there are two basic problems with the Pacific City project 'There is a need for independent expert verification of the soil conditions at the site There also is a need to downsize the project so that it better fits it surroundings Cleanup of the soil and a reduction in building density will solve virtually every problem attendant to the commencement of construction Do this right Send the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions to plan for reduced density Meanwhile, push ahead on site cleanup,and no time will be lost Respectfully submitted by Paul Cross on May 27,2004 for inclusion in the record of the pending public hearing on the Pacific City project set for Jura 7, 2004, before the City Council of Huntington Beach Pwl Cross r Request of Paul Cross to the City Council of Huntington Beach that the Pacific City project which is set for public hearing before the Council on June 7, 2004, be remanded back to the Planning Commission In support thereof, I submit the following: One former Planning Commissioner participated in this matter in the face of a factual showing which goes beyond mere speculation. Another Planning Commissioner was busy with E-mail under a fictitious name and appeared to be concerned with expedition at the expense of extended consideration of the project. Two Planning Commissioners had so little time to review the project that they were required to do their study of the submitted materials while on vacation. Another Planning Commissioner was so unfamiliar with the project as to make a recommendation for a traffic circle at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. The most amazing aspect of the planning process is that not one of the neighborhood suggestions for improvement of the project was adopted by the Planning Commission, leading one to a strained conclusion that this huge undertaking is perfectly planned. A California Coastal Commission requirement as to a maximum height of four stories for the residential area is exceeded along the southeast quadrant of the project because Huntington Street is the highest street adjacent to that quadrant. (The intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue, is almost a quarter of a mile away from the southeast quadrant, and is erroneously used as a benchmark.) The Planning Commission failed to exercise its discretion concerning the public use of the former Pacific Electric ROW.(The location of the ROW was never identified and it was impossible for the Commission to exercise any discretion without knowing the true scope of the ROW.) Even a city finding that the ROW is unnecessary cannot be made without a clear understanding of what is being given away. City owned land(once owned by Pacific Electric)along the north side of PCH and fronting the proposed hotel site also is being given to the developer(Makar)with nothing given back to the city in return. A 20-year traffic study was not done as required by law. The EIR approved by the Planning Commission assumes construction of a new bridge over the Santa Ana River which the Council opposes. The EIR assumes construction of a highway across Big Shell wetland connecting Hamilton Street with Pacific View Avenue, something the California Coastal Commission is unlikely to approve. The configuration of 1° Street as a major arterial highway makes it apparent that the concept of shared parking between the project and downtown is seriously flawed The absence of public transit through the project will materially disadvantage disabled individuals. The lack of a sidewalk on the north side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Alabama makes pedestrian access through the project difficult, especially in the absence of a crosswalk at the intersection of Alabama and Atlanta Avenues There is no land in the vicinity of the project upon which in lieu of fees can be expended to ease the parkland shortfall of about six acres resulting from residential density of the project. The CCC limits the developer to 30 units per acre on a filly consolidate block. Although there are no city blocks as such,the developer declares that the residential area is separated into quadrants renecting the grid layout of the old town neighborhood north of Atlanta Avenue. For example, neighborhood I of the project"is located at the comer of Atlanta and Huntington Street, bordered by the 20 foot pedestrian easement path across from Alabama Street,the pedestrian easement across from the Pacific Mobile Home Park, and the Village Drive loop road." Within this neighborhood 1, which consists of about four acres,the developer gained Planning Commission approval to construct 203 condominiums, or about 50 per acre. For purposes of comparison, the adjacent Pacific Mobile Home Park has 250 units on 20 acres, which comes to about 12 per acre. Plainly, the developer far exceeds CCC requirements for neighborhood 1, which even the developer touts as a fully developed block. Even worse, the developer seeks to place 100 percent of its planned smallest units into this block. There will 138 one-bedroom units with 850 square feet and 65 others, with an average of 990 square feet. Fully two-fifths of all of the planned units will located in this four-acre"fully developed block." And at a current price of$500 dollars a square foot,they will sell in a range of$450,000 apiece, perhaps more but not less. Who will buy them. Certainly not low or moderate income families. Will this be known as the H. B. weekend fun zone. If you do nothing else, put an end to this greedy grab for extra money by the developer and downtown bar owners. Fifty units per acre is way out of bounds. Nothing is done about the traffic bottleneck on Atlanta Avenue. Nothing is done about eliminating the propose extension of Delaware Avenue through the Pacific Mobile Home Park. Nothing is done about the 66-K Power lines on Atlanta Avenue Improvements to Atlanta Avenue, even that pan bordering the project, are deferred to an uncertain future time. Huntington Street between Pacific View Avenue and Atlanta Avenue is not widened into the project by one or two lanes as required for traffic conditions. View lines to the ocean south along Huntington,our namesake street, will be destroyed, and will be replaced with a wind tunnel. As well, adjacent residents will lose the afternoon sun as it will be blocked by the walls of tall buildings reaching 90 feet above sea level. Many other considerations are minimized by the Planning Commission, such as clean-up of the site, storm water run-off, and oil overlay C. I leave these subjects for others to expound, but they are important matters that were not properly handled by the Planning Commission. Finally, nothing is going to happen on the site until it is cleaned up. Honestly, 1 know of no one who is opposed to project. Everyone wants it built sooner than later, hopes for a successful project, and we are all puzzled by the total rejection of our suggestions for improvements. Inasmuch as the developer proposes to erect a platform extending from Atlanta Avenue south to PCH, what goes on top can be reconfigured without causing undue delay. For example, when the planning staff complained about the total absence of parkland, the developer quickly created a smallish two acre green space, while at the same time ramping up the number of one bedroom unit from ten percent of the total residential units to the current twenty-five percent of all units, every one of them located, as noted, in neighborhood 1. Please send this matter back to the Planning Commission for further review, albeit with instructions to downsize the project. It is not yet ripe for your approval. Submitted by Paul Cross Petition To The City Council Of Huntington Beach Seeking Remand Of The Pacific City Matter To The Planning Commission For Further Consideration Of The Proposed Development Of The 31-Acre Site As you are aware,on October 22, 2003, 1 requested that you make a finding of disqualifying conflict of interest on the part of elected, appointed,or other officials of the city of Huntington Beach, barring them from participation in voting on the Pacific City project,if they work for real estate companies with offices located on or adjacent to downtown Main Street. You did not act upon my petition. Subsequently, t made filings with the Planning Commission with essentially the same request. Again, no action was taken upon my request, although one member of the Planning Commission did disclaim orally at a Planning Commission session that there was no conflict of interest. Attached you will find an informal opinion of the California Fair Political Practices Commission(FPPC) dated December 18, 2003, dealing with Mayor Scott P. Brady of the city of Placentia and a proposed Transit-Oriented Development(TOD)project. It so happens that Mr. Scott Brady also is a licensed real estate broker operating a real estate office in Placentia. In its long winded opinion,the FPPC found at pages 12 and 13 that sufficient facts were not provided for a determination whether a future financial effect can be reasonably foreseen as meeting one of the thresholds which would disqualify Mr. Brady from participation in voting on TOD. For the purpose of this petition, a$20,000 threshold standard in any fiscal year is applicable under FPPC regulations. Unlike the Brady matter, facts are available in this instance which in my opinion establish that the$20,000 amount can be reasonably foreseen for any active downtown real estate business. There is no time limit as to how far one may go into the future. Although it is true that if you do go out three or four years, one's moral certainty or expectation of the threshold tends to diminish. However, it is not necessary to show absolute certainty. While a mere possibility is not sufficient, if there is a substantial likelihood of a$20,000 return in a fiscal year, the public official must refrain from voting on a project. Facts available to you in this instance include proximity to and specialization in downtown properties,numerous affiliated agents serving the downtown area, listings of representative and comparable sales in the downtown area,and a web site calling attention to the unique ability of a downtown office. In this regard, 1 see no need to burden you with an individual and personal filing I made on April 16, 2004, because any fact available to me is equally available to you. However, 1 do note that the voting participation I object to occurred not just in formal public sessions, but in study session and during committee work as well. I urge you to level the playing field and return this matter to the Planning Commission for a fresh look. As a matter of secondary interest, I also attach a recent article in the L;A.Times regarding TOD. The article even includes some comment by Mr. Brady. Respectfully submitted, Paul Cross December 18, 2003 Thomas F. Nixon Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 701 South Parker Street, Suite 8000 Orange, CA 92868-4760 Re: Your Request for Advice Our File No. A-03-207 Dear Mr. Nixon: This letter is in response to your request for advice on behalf of Mayor Scott P. Brady regarding the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").' Your request contains multiple questions, including several that do not specify the exact decision, but seek only general guidance. For those questions, we are treating Your request as one for informal assistance only, as described in more detail below.2 This letter should not be construed as advice or assistance on any decisions of the Placentia City Council or Redevelopment Agency that may have already taken place. Our advice and assistance is based on the facts presented in your request; the Fair Political Practices Commission ("Commission") does not act as a finder of fact when it provides advice or assistance. (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71.) QUESTIONS 1. Does Mayor Brady have a conflict of interest prohibiting him from participating in decisions of either the city council or redevelopment agency on the preparation and approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Placentia and the developer of the proposed Transit-Oriented Development project ("fOD")? 2. Based on his interest in two real properties located on South Walnut Avenue in the City of-Placentia, does Mayor Brady have a conflict of interest prohibiting him ' Government Code sections S 1000—91014. Commission regulations appear at"ritle 2, sections 15109-IS997, of the California Code of Regulations. '- Infornial assistance does not provide the requestor with the inununity provided by an opinion or formal written advice. (Section S31 14; regulation I8329(c)(3),copy enclosed.) File No. A-03-207 Page No. 2 from participating in decisions of either the city council or redevelopment agency on the proposed TOD project? a. Assuming that Mayor Brady has a conflict of interest based on his interest in these properties, if he were to dispose of his interests in these two properties, will lie continue to have it conflict of interest barring his immediate participation in decisions of the city council or redevelopment agency on the TOD project? b. If so, for how long would he be precluded from participating in such decisions? 3. Would Mayor Brady have a conflict of interest prohibiting him from participating in decisions of either the city council or redevelopment agency on the proposed TOD project should he represent, in his private capacity as a real estate broker/agent, future buyers and sellers of real property located: a. Within 500 feet of the proposed TOD Phase I boundaries; b. Within 500 feet of the proposed TOD build-out boundaries; or c. Within a one-half mile radius of the TOD proposed commuter rail station? 4. Based on either his ownership interest in Tri-City Realty or his interest in real estate agents working out of the Tri-City Realty office, who are sources of income to him, would Mayor Brady have a conflict of interest prohibiting him from participating in decisions of either the city council or redevelopment agency on the proposed TOD project should either Tri-City Realty or these agents become engaged in real estate sales transactions involving property located: a. Within 500 feet of the proposed "COD Phase I boundaries; b. Within 500 feet of the proposed TOD build-out boundaries; or c. Within a one-half mile radius of the TOD proposed commuter rail station? CONCLUSIONS 1. No. Since the MOU will relate solely to the developer's voluntary reimbursement to the city of its cost of processing various licenses, permits, and other action items, and does not by itself confer any authorization upon the developer to go Forward with any facet of the TOD project, it is not reasonably foreseeable that decisions concerning the MOU will, by themselves, have a financial effect upon any of Mayor Brady's economic interests. He does not have a conflict of interest disqualifying him from participating in decisions of the city council or redevelopment agency concerning the MOU. 2. The two South Walnut Avenue properties are located more than 500 feet from the boundaries of the TOD project and for that reason will, in most cases, be indirectly involved in decisions concerning that project. Under the Commission's regulations, it is presumed that there will be no material financial effect upon real property which is indirectly invoked in a specific governmental decision. Thus, the two South Walnut Pile No. A-03-207 Page No. 3 Avenue properties generally do not give rise to a disqualifying conflict of interest prohibiting Mayor Brady from participating in decisions concerning the TOD project. However, for decisions concerning the TOD project which potentially affect property located beyond the project boundaries (such as approval of certain general plan amendments, zoning changes, or similar decisions affecting properties located jurisdiction-wide), we cannot state at this time whether Mayor Brady will have a conflict of interest prohibiting his involvement in those decisions, based on his economic interest in these two properties. it will be necessary for Mayor Brady to examine each such decision to assess whether the two South Walnut Avenue properties will be the subject, or are located within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of, such decisions. a. & b. No. if Mayor Brady were to dispose of his interest in the two South Walnut Avenue properties, once he no longer had any direct or indirect interests with respect to these properties, they would immediately cease to be an economic interest to him and any prior conflict of interest premised solely on his former ownership interest in the two properties would be extinguished. The purchaser(s) of his interests, however, would be a source of income and an economic interest to him for the 12 months immediately following the sale of the property. Moreover, if he were to sell these properties to Carpe Diem, lie would retain an indirect interest in these properties and would still have an economic interest in the properties.3 3. & 4. Possibly. A real estate broker or agent representing others in the sale or purchase of real property does not obtain an interest in the real property which is the subject of the transaction, solely by reason of his or her involvement as a representative in that transaction. In those circumstances, distance of the real property involved in the sale, relative to the TOD project, is immaterial when determining whether a conflict of interest exists. However, those persons, including business entities, which, by reason of their involvement in the transaction, become sources of commission income to the public official, will also become an economic interest to the public official. We cannot say at this time whether Mayor Brady will have a conflict of interest in a particular TOD project decision by virtue of his involvement as a real estate broker or agent in the sale of real property within the city. This detennination depends on the facts of cacti particular sale and the nature of the particular governmental decision. PACTS The City of Placentia sought plans from a developer for the improvement of an area of approximately 450 acres within the city. In response, the developer submitted plans for a transit-oriented development ("TOD") project, taking advantage of railroad 3 Since Mayor Brady has a 10%or greater interest in Carpe Diem, he has an indirect interest in any real property owned by Carpe Diem. Thus, if he were to sell his ownership interest in one or more of these properties to Carpe Diem, he would still retain an interest in the property for purposes of identifying his economic interests. File No. A-03-207 Page No. 4 tracks which currently bisect the city and are located within this project area. The project would convert a light industrial and warehouse area into a mixed-use residential and commercial core that is urban in character. The TOD plan centers around a proposed regional transportation center and commuter rail terminal. These proposed facilities would serve daily commuters and local residents with rail and bus lines. The TOD plan is to create a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, supported by public transportation. A mix of residential, retail, office, community facilities, parks, plazas, and various commercial uses would be situated within walking distance of one another and of public transportation. Construction of the TOD is planned in two phases over a multi-year period. Phase I is expected to be completed over a three to five year period with final build out being completed in approximately ten years.' Development of the TOD project would require amendments to the city's general plan and also approval of a TOD specific plan. The city staff is currently reviewing the developer's plans and no approvals have been issued to date to this developer with respect to the project. Prior to formally pennitting any matter with respect to this project, the city anticipates entering into a MOU with the developer concerning all phases of the TOD projeet.5 The MOU is not part of the plan for the project, but would: 1) establish a process for the preparation of a specific plan and the general plan amendments with respect to the project; 2) make provisions for financial reimbursement to the city of costs related to the preparation and processing of the specific plan, general plan amendments, and project development plans; and 3) address the city's potential acquisition of property within the plan area by exercise of eminent domain, and subsequent resale of that property to the developer. However, the sale of this real property would not alter the proposed boundaries of the project. The MOU represents an exercise of rights granted to cities under Government Code sections 65358 (general plan amendments), 65456 (specific plans) and 66014 (local agency zoning and permits), which allow cities to recoup their processing and planning costs for these activities from the person sponsoring the proposed change or permitted activity.7 The TOD project is expected to enhance property values and economic activity in the immediate vicinity of the project. However, the project's developer anticipates that ' This information was provided in your telephone conversation with Commission staff, held on December 9, 2003. Ibid. Ibid. This information was provided in your telephone conversation with Commission staff, held on December 10, 2003. File No. A-03-207 Page No. 5 an area of one-half mile around the proposed rail station will also be influenced by the project, based on their expectation that residents within that one-half mile area ("area of influence") would be predisposed to walk to the commuter rail station to avail themselves of this public transportation. Mayor Brady is an elected member of the Placentia City Council, which serves as the board of directors for the Placentia Redevelopment Agency. In his private capacity, Mr. Brady is a licensed real estate broker owning and operating a real estate office, Tri- City Realty ("Tri-City"), doing business in the City of Placentia. Tri-City is a closely held corporation under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code, in which Mr. Brady owns an 85-percent interest. Real estate agents operating from the Tri-City office have signed California Association of Realtors standard form agreements identifying themselves as independent contractors. Each real estate agent pays Tri-City either a monthly flat fee of 5350 or a portion of their real estate commissions. Agents paying the monthly flat fee retain 100 percent of the commissions earned in their real estate transactions. Mayor Brady cams commissions from the agents' transactions in which he directly participates. Mayor Brady is also a 33-percent owner of Carpe Diem Development, LLC ("Carpe Diem"), a limited liability corporation formed to own and develop real estate. The value of Mayor Brady's investment interest in Carpe Diem is more than $2,000. At present, Carpe Diem owns two properties located on South Walnut Avenue, in the City of Placentia. The value of Mr. Brady's pro rata interest, through Carpe Diem, in these properties is estimated to be 592,000 and $75,000, respectively-8 These properties are collectively referred to below as the "South Walnut Avenue properties." The South Walnut Avenue properties are not located within 500 feet of the proposed boundaries of either Phase I or Phase 11 of the TOD project area. They are, however, located within the one-half mile area of influence surrounding the proposed commuter rail station. ANALYSIS Section 87100 prohibits a public official from making, participating in making, or otherwise using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. The Commission has adopted an eight-step standard analysis for deciding whether an official has a disqualifying conflict of interest (regulation 18700, subdivisions (b)(1) —(8)), which is discussed below. 1. & 2. Is Mr. Brady a public official making, participating in making, or influencing a governmental decision? The conflict-of-interest prohibition applies only to public officials. As an elected member of the city council, Mr. Brady is a public official. (Section 82048; regulation s This information was included, in part, in your request for advice and was also provided in your telephone conversation.with Commission staff, held on December 11, 2003. File No. A-03-207 Page No. 6 18701(a).) Asa council member, unless disqualified under the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Act, Mr. Brady will make, participate in making, and influence governmental decisions, including the votes regarding the proposed Transit-Oriented Development project, and related decisions of both the city council and the redevelopment agency.9 (Section 87100; regulations 18702.1 — 18702.3.) 3. What are Mr. Brady's economic interests? The economic interests that might give rise to a conflict of interest are defined in regulations 18703-187035. The specific economic interests10 that may apply to Mr. Brady are described below. A. Business EntitY -- A public official has an economic interest in a business entity in which he or she has a direct or indirect investment of$2,000 or more (section 87103(a); regulation 18703.1(a)); or of which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management (section 87103(d); regulation 18703.1(b).) The value of Mayor Brady's interest in Carpe Diem exceeds the $2,000 threshold amount. in addition, Mayor Brady, as a one-third owner of Carpe Diem, is presumably either an officer or employee of Carpe Diem, or holds a position of management with Carpe Diem. in either case, Carpe Diem is a business entity that is an economic interest to Mayor Brady. B. Real Property-- A public official has an economic interest in real properly in which he or she has a direct or indirect interest of$2,000 or more (section 87103(b); regulation 18703.2.) An indirect investment or interest in real property means, among other things, any real property owned by a business entity in which the official owns directly, indirectly, or beneficially a 10-percent interest or greater. (Section 87103.) Under the facts you provide, Mayor Brady has a 33-percent ownership interest in Carpe Diem, which is valued at 52,000 or more. Thus, he has an indirect interest in the real property owned by Carpe Diem. (Section 82033.) These facts also show that the 9 If a public official's office is listed in section 87200("87200 filers" include city council members and city mayors)and he or she has a conflict of interest in a decision noticed at a public meeting, then he or she must: (I) immediately prior to the discussion of the item, verbally identify each type of economic interest involved in the decision as well as details of the economic interest, as discussed in regulation 18702.5(b)(1)(B), on the record of the meeting;(2)recuse himself or herself, and(3) leave the room for the duration of the discussion and/or vote on the item. For closed sessions, consent calendars, absences and speaking as a member of the public regarding personal interests, special rules found in regulation 18702.5,subdivisions(c) and (d)apply. (Section 87105). Since Mr. Brady is both mayor and a member of the city council (which are positions enumerated in section 87200), these requirements apply to him. 10 In addition to the economic interests separately listed in section 87103, a public official always has an economic interest in his or her personal finances, and may have a conflict of interest in any decision foreseeably resulting in an increase or decrease in the personal expenses, income, assets or liabilities of the official or his or her immediate family, in the amount of$250 or more over a 12-month period. (Regulation 187035.) File No. A-03-207 Page No. 7 value of Mayor Brady's pro rata interest in the South Walnut Avenue properties owned by Carpe Diem exceed, respectively, the S2,000 threshold. Thus, under section 87103, Mr. Brady also has an economic interest in the Carpe Diem properties located on South Walnut Avenue. Should Mayor Brady sell his interest in the two South Walnut Avenue properties to Carpe Diem, for the purposes of the Act that sale would not extinguish his interest in these properties. Since his interest is indirect, it is derivative and results from his interest in Carpe Diem and not in the properties themselves. Thus, as long as he has a 10% or greater interest in Carpe Diem, and Carpe Diem has an ownership interest in these properties, Mayor Brady retains an indirect interest in these two properties. If the value of that indirect interest in each property, determined by his pro rata ownership interest in Carpe Diem, equals or exceeds S2,000, that property constitutes an economic interest to Mayor Brady. (Sections 82033 and S7103; regulation 13703.2.) Should Mayor Brady sell these properties to a party other than Carpe Diem, he would no longer have an indirect interest in the two South Walnut Avenue properties, although the purchaser of the property would become an economic interest to him, as explained in paragraph D. below- C. Sources of Arcome -- A public official has an economic interest in any source of income, including promised income, which aggregates to $500 or more within 12 months prior to the decision at issue. (Section 87103(c); regulation 18703.3). Income, for this purpose, includes a pro rata share of the income of any business entity or trust in which the individual (or his or her spouse) owns directly, indirectly, or beneficially, a 10-percent or greater interest. (Section S2030(a).) We do not know the value of Mayor Brady's investment interest in Tri-City. However, as an 85-percent owner of that business and the real estate broker under whose license business is conducted, Mr. Brady holds a position of management in Tri-City. For that reason, Tri-City is a business entity that is an economic interest to Mr. Brady. In addition, since his ownership interest is greater than 10 percent, sources of income to Tri- City are also economic interests to Mr. Brady, if Mr. Brady's pro rata share of the income from that source is S500 or more. Under the facts provided, this means that the real estate agents in the Tri-City offices are sources of income to Mr. Brady and number among his economic interests. D. Real Estate Brokers and Agents — Special rules apply to identify sources of income which are an economic interest to a public official when the official receives commission income. Regulation 18703.3(c)(3)(B)(C) identifies these sources of income as follows: "(B) A real estate broker: (i) The person the broker represents in the transaction; (ii) If the broker receives a commission front a transaction conducted by an agent working under the broker's auspices, the person represented by the agent; File No. A-03-207 Page NO. 8 (iii) any brokerage business entity through which the broker conducts business; and (iv) Any person who receives a finder's or other referral fee for referring a party to the transaction to the broker, or who makes a referral pursuant to a contract with the broker. (C) A real estate agent: (i) The broker and brokerage business entity under whose auspices the agent works; (ii) The person the agent represents in the transaction; and (iii) Any person who receives a finder's or other referral fee for referring a party to the transaction to the broker, or who makes a referral pursuant to a contract with the broker." Any of the foregoing persons who provide Mayor Brady, when acting in his capacity as a real estate broker and/or agent, with income, including promised income, which aggregates to S500 or more within 12 months prior to a particular governmental decision would be an economic interest to him. 4. Will these economic interests be directly or indirectly involved in the decision? A. Sources of Income -- Any person, including a business entity, which is a source of income in which a public official has an economic interest, is directly involved in a governmental decision if that person, either directly or by an agent initiates a proceeding by filing an application, claim, appeal, or similar request, Or is a named party in, or is the subject of a proceeding before the official or the official's agency. (Regulation 18704.1(a)(1)-(a)(2).) A business entity or source of income is the subject of a proceeding concerning a decision before the official or the official's agency if the decision involves the issuance, renewal, approval, denial, or revocation of any license, pennit, or other entitlement to, or contract with, the source of income. (Regulation 18704.1(a)(2).) i. MOU: We assume that neither Carpe Diem, Tri-City, nor agents from the Tri- City office are named parties in, or the initiator or subject of, the proceedings in which decisions concerning the iMOU will be made. If this is correct, they are deemed to be indirectly involved in these decisions. (Regulation 18704.1(b).) ii. Future Decisions Concerning the TOD Project: In your request for advice, you question whether Mayor Brady will have a conflict of interest with respect to future decisions concerning the TOD project, based in part on the involvement of his real estate brokerage, agents working from his brokerage, or his own involvement as a broker or agent, in future real estate sales when the real property involved is located either within the area of influence or within 500 feet of the boundaries, for different phases of the TOD project. File No. A-03-207 Page No. 9 in these circumstances, the economic interests in these transactions would be the various persons who would be a source of income to Mayor Brady." The question which determines whether a source of income is directly or indirectly involved is whether the source of income is a named party in, or the initiator or subject of, the proceedings in which these decisions will occur. Unless the answer to this question is in the affirmative with respect to a person who is a source of income to Mayor Brady, that person is deemed to be indirectly involved in these decisions. (Regulation I8704.1(b).) B. Rea! Properly -- Under your facts, the appropriate standard for determining direct or indirect involvement of an official's economic interest in real property is found in regulation 18704.2(a):12 "(1) The real property in which the official has an interest, or any part of that real property, is located within 500 feet of the boundaries (or the proposed boundaries) of the property which is the subject of the governmental decision. . . ." i. MOU: The proposed boundaries of the property which is the subject of decisions concerning the MOU are the boundaries of the development in its completed state. Although property outside these proposed boundaries is expected by the developer to be affected by the project (e.g., the area of influence), the city council will not have to make decisions about property outside these boundaries while they consider the proposed MOU. Additionally, although the developer expects that pedestrian traffic will increase within the area of influence, there is nothing in the facts you provide that suggests that when considering the MOU, the city will also be deciding additional matters associated with increased pedestrian traffic outside the project area and in the area of influence. For instance, you provide no facts indicating that additional crosswalks, traffic signals, traffic barriers or other accommodations for pedestrians are being considered concurrently with the MOU. Thus, the property which is the subject of decisions concerning the MOU is the complete TOD project area, but not the area of interest laying outside the complete TOD project area. Neither of the two South Walnut Avenue properties are located within 500 feet of the proposed Phase i or final boundaries of the TOD project. Thus, these properties are presumed to be indirectly involved in decisions concerning the MOU. ii. Future Decisions Concerning the TOD ProiecL You also inquire generally about future decisions concerning the TOD project. For instance, you indicate that the " Neither Mayor Brady nor any of the real estate agents involved in such transactions would acquire an ownership or beneficial interest in the real property which is being sold or purchased simply by reason of their participation in the transaction in a representative capacity. Mayor Brady would not have an economic interest in the real property and thus the distance between the real property and the project boundaries is not a factor to be considered. 1'The only decisions which you specifically describe concern the pending MOU. It is possible that other, future decisions concerning the TOD project involving subjects other than the MOU will implicate different standards for determining whether Mavor Brady's economic interests in real property are directly or indirectly involved in those decisions. (See e.g.. regulation 15704.2(a)(2)—(a)(G).) File No. A-03-207 Page No. 10 city council will consider in the future a specific plan and amendments to the city's general plan. Without knowing the details of those decisions, we cannot state whether the boundaries of the property which will be the subject of those decisions would be the same as the TOD project boundaries, or whether property other than the TOD project area will be affected Thus, we do not know at this time whether the South Walnut Avenue properties will be located within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which will be the subject of these decisions. In the absence of this knowledge, we cannot offer formal advice, but only provide our infomial assistance by describing the applicable regulation and analysis to be followed when that knowledge becomes available to Mayor Brady. 5-6. What are the applicable materiality standards and is it reasonably foreseeable that the financial effects of the governmental decisions upon these officials' economic interests will meet this materiality standard? A conflict of interest may arise only when the reasonably foreseeable financial effects of a governmental decision on a public official's economic interests is material. (Regulation 18700(a).) Different standards apply to determine whether a reasonably foreseeable financial effect on an economic interest will be material, depending on time nature of the economic interest and whether that interest is directly or indirectly involved in the agency's decision. We discuss below only the materiality standards that correspond to the type of involvement identified in step 4, above. A. Material Financial Effect i. Business Entities When a business entity that is an economic interest to a public official is indirectly involved in a governmental decision, the financial effect deemed material varies in amount in direct relationship to the size of the business entity. Regulation 18705.1(c) sets out four tiers that rank business entities by size, using either the business entity's public listing status (i.e., among Fortune 500, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, or NASDAQ) or, if not listed, the business entity's earnings before taxes (or in certain instances net income) over the most recent fiscal year. Previously, we concluded that Tri-City and Carpe Diem, due to their small size, fall under the ranking provided in subdivision 18705.1(c)(4). (Nixon Advice Letter, No. A-02-081.) The materiality standard appropriate to that ranking and applicable to Tri- City and Carpe Diem is: "(A) The govemmental decision will result in an increase or decrease to the business entity's gross revenues for a fiscal year in the amount of $20,000 or more; or, t3 For example, a general plan amendment which would change density for residentially-zoned properties could affect all similarly zoned residential property throughout the city, and not just residential property located in the TOD project area. File No. A-03-207 Page No. 1 I (B) The governmental decision will result in the business entity incurring or avoiding additional expenses or reducing or eliminating existing expenses for a fiscal year in the amount of S5,000 or more; or (C) The governmental decision will result in an increase or decrease in the value of business entity's assets or liabilities of 520,000 or more." (Regulation 18705.1(c)(4)(A) - (C).) If it is reasonably foreseeable that decisions concerning the MOU or the TOD project generally will have any of the above-listed financial effects on Tri-City or Carpe Diem, the effect will be deemed material and Mayor Brady will have a conflict of interest with respect to his potential involvement in these decisions. ii. Individuals as a Source of Income When a source of income to a public official is an individual who is indirectly invoked in the governmental decision, the applicable materiality standard is found at regulation 18705.3(b)(3): "(A) The decision will affect the individual's income, investments, or other tangible or intangible assets or liabilities (other than real property) by S1,000 or more; or (B) The decision will affect the individual's real property interest in a manner that is considered material under...[regulation] I8705.2(b)." Thus, if it is reasonably foreseeable that decisions concerning the MOU or the TOD project generally will affect the income, investments, or other tangible or intangible assets or liabilities (other than real property) of individuals by S 1,000 or more, such as real estate agents in the Tri-City Reality office, who are sources of income to Mayor Brady, and individuals who provide Mayor Brady with commission income aggregating 5500 or more within the 12 months preceding these decisions, the effect will be deemed material. iii. Real Propertv Under the Commission's regulations, it is presumed that a governmental decision will not have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect upon real property which is indirectly involved in that decision. (Regulations 18705.2(b)(1) and (b)(2).) This presumption may be rebutted under specific circumstances described in the Commission's regulations. (Regulations 18705.2(b)(1)(A)-(C), and 18705 2(b)(2)(A)- (E).) Thus, it is presumed that decisions concerning the MOU will not have a material financial effect upon the South Walnut Avenue properties. Similarly, when the South Walnut Avenue properties are indirectly involved in future decisions concerning the TOD project, Mayor Brady will not have a conflict of interest disqualifying him fi-om these decisions, based solely on his economic interest in File No. A-03-207 Page No. 12 these properties. However, should these properties be directly involved in those future decisions, it is presumed that the decisions will have a material financial effect on the properties and lie will have a conflict of interest on that basis, unless the presumption is rebutted. (Regulation 18705.2(a).) This presumption can be rebutted by proof that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the decisions will have any financial effect at all, even one penny, on the real property. (Regulation 18705.2(a)(1).) Any proof relied upon by a public official in this regard must be objectively defensible, that is, based on a full and accurate assessment of reasonable and objective underlying facts. (Kuhn Advice Letter, No. A-02-192; O'Harra Advice Letter, No. A-00-174.) B. Reasonably Foreseeable An effect upon economic interests is considered reasonably foreseeable if there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur. (Regulation I8706(a).) A financial effect need not be certain to be considered reasonably foreseeable, but it must be more than a mere possibility. (In re Thorner (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 198.) i. MOU: The MOU is limited in scope to the city's ability to recover from the developer its cost of processing various future action items which are legal or regulatory prerequisites to the development of the TOD project (for example, adoption of a specific plan, amendment of the city's general plan). By itself, the MOU does not confer any license, permit, or other authorization upon the developer to undertake any action in furtherance of the project. Nor does it express the city's approval of ally facet of the project. If the MOU is not entered into, the developer is not precluded under local or ordinance or state statute from applying for all necessary authorizations from the city with respect to the TOD project.' Given these facts, there exists an "extra degree of remoteness" between decisions concerning the MOU and any actions by the developer which might have a financial affect upon Mayor Brady's economic interest.t5 Thus, it is not reasonably foreseeable that city council decisions conceming the MOU will have a material financial effect upon any of Mayor Brady's economic interests. Based on the facts you supply, lie does not have a conflict of interest prohibiting him from involvement in decisions of the city council or redevelopment agency concerning the MOU. ii. Future Decisions Concerning the TOD Project: Whether an anticipated future financial effect can be reasonably foreseen as meeting or exceeding one of the financial thresholds defining a material financial effect on one or more of Mayor Brady's economic interests is a factual question which requires more than mere speculation to resolve. You have not provided facts sufficient to resolve this question. Thus, we cannot state at this time whether it is reasonably foreseeable that future decisions concerning the 1° You provided this information in a telephone conversation with Commission staff, held on December 10, 2003. " In re 77tornet concluded that one or more of the materiality standards applicable to a public official's economic interests will not be met if there exists an extra degree of remoteness between the govemmental decision and the decision's potential financial effect upon that economic interest. A copy of this opinion is enclosed for your information. File No. A-03-207 Page No. 13 TOD project will have a material financial effect upon one or more of his economic interests. 7. & 8. "Public Generally" and "Legally Required Participation" Exceptions Step seven is an exception that applies when the reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on an official's economic interest is not distinguishable from the effect on the public generally. (Section 83112; regulation 18707.) Step eight is an exception that applies when the official's participation in a governmental decision is legally required. (Section S7101; regulation 18708.) Both of these narrowly construed exceptions are fact-driven and you provide no facts addressing these exceptions. Accordingly, we offer no advice whether these exceptions apply to Mayor Brady with respect to the decisions you describe. If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660. Sincerely, Luisa Menchaca General Counsel By: Kenneth L. Glick Counsel, Legal Division Enclosures KLG:jg 1:\AdviceLtrs\03-207 SU (day, May 23, 2004 '�ofar."t`x�� ir' '-.an�TT"''�r'a-"�1r %' ;..'??�ii"�s^..{''a' SY �ST ::YtCa j Had ivebe(-,ta►noresophistiazted, we might not havefiVen into this trap. ' Connie Underhill,Placentia councilwoman RA Tza ! Fq r c•[ �S. i. !11`�" } r l �v@x. yt f , Yi5 t �qy i �,.�2�+Y 3j•.'ia5w y [.,+y tr ' I y� ih fh'��,:,[�tW�ri�i "> � r { 11 F ,r„rywY AV � f[f ;Z ��r ort�,i�`>l11 a�rla�k TT-fkK' � Y : Sbu r'.-� _. "��,�£i'� L �R 6� l�_. •�W g F s< W T i r>i��'����a-ra�.� 111 JO . Y's3!''. t EA.; y nil . ir"' -yi �. �� a u "7'�C'��.;' �1++.'"✓ i�_l� [ t r .a � '- -- ed� [. ` £^` "t5Y7 �:�'. r ..d✓��.ix r��i"`. 1 _1 t„ s _. }?i j'fi r .s._ fhb ,�° � I F4R..^}�:. _. l-.i 1 _y! ._-..� __ . -' -_ '6TTu'�_R r i L ?_!:u.���✓y'r r^^°�'1 pop Ka[bes to.niyel<v nn,e, PROGnE SS:Placentia plans to spend$461)mtll iore to place a sl retch uj thr Barti ngton Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks through doumtown in a concrete trench,but the only part that is underway is(in anderpass on lifelrose Street at Crowther Avenue. Rail Trench Plan Is in Own Rut Placentia project is like the little city that couldn't. high-priced consultants, in- be a big project,but we let oirr- The town's$460-million On- eluding OnTrac's executive di- selves be [talked] into thinking Tr essentially broke and ac project,which supporters rector,have agreed to take half we could do this although we has little.to show after beast is In thevanguard of a na- their pay until more govem- were small," said Placentia tional effort W improve vital rall ment money can be found. Councilwoman Connie Under- $33 rnillion and siz corridors,Is essentially broke: There is so little work that hill. `Maybe we were just naive Officials of the city, located the OnTrac office in Brea ds about controlling costs and years.City officials five miles east of Disneyland, staffed only part time, perhaps too trusting. Had we insist it will be built. have little 6show for about S33 Supporters of the project been more sophisticated. we j million they'have spent thus far defend it as an enterprising e6 might not have fallen into this By DAN WEIKEL on consultants, COnCeptaal fort. to improve the movement trap." ! AND JEAN O.PASCO plans and right-of-way 'pur- of cargo and rescue the city At its heart, OnTrac is the 'time..Staff wrier: chases. from a busy rail line thut ah but story of a small city that bought Work on a grand plan to also cuts the city !n half as noisy into a big dream: pushing a Six years after embarking on rebuild ll intersections along trains rumble through town. bothersome rall line into a con- an ambitious project to hide be- the track has come to a stand- They remain steadfast that crete trench so its quaint but neath ground level a stretch of still except for alone underpass funding for the project till be aging downtown could be re- railroad tracks that run under construction. secured eventually. developed into a stylish busi- through its historic downtown, The city has cur.funding for Others aren't so sure. ness and shopping district. Placentia is beginning to look the project, and a variety of "We knew this wns wine ut rSee OnTrar.Pane B91 IV) o ''jj��'' by selling$3 nitilion in parkland a,���jt_. zr:;i!s;u:nga tnilhonh.bonds to investors. It even tried to i hi, lnatie Its 1pffee Department _ asacoSt-savl measure. - �Trer. Ali of this has taken a toil. When the undertaking be- gan, Placentia City Hall was in (OnTrac,ftorn Page Bl) the black and had a healthy Placentia Ic a bedroom Co. cash reserve of more than sl munity of about 50,000 pew million.Now the town is$22 mil- with a$20-rni'lion annual bud lion in debt, partly because of get Its dowrvown is a bodge- $12 million in city payments to;,,.. podge of smtgl businesses bi OnTrac. Cash reserves have sected by the hustling east-west dwindled to less than$300,600,a' Line for the Bit rlington Northern level. municipal officials de- Santa Fe Railway Co. scribed as dangerously low. The train corridor through The project is facing its own northern Orange County is one debt.problems as well. It owes of ihree major rail lines that S5.0 million to OMee Depot for move freight to and from the property near Placentia Avenue ports of Los Angeles and Long needed for rall Improvements, Beach. About 50 to 100 freight and Burlington is owed$5.1 mil. and passenger trains a day lion for track work. travel the route, a number ex- Project officials insist the fi- pecied to in:;rease to 250 by nancial bind Is temporary. 2030, accotcll og to projections I About SA million in emergency from the Solthern California funding from the federal gov- Assn,ofGove.nments. ernmentIs on the way,city ofrl-_- Placentia launched the clals say, and the Orange project in IM and, after two County Transportation Author- years of p.'ellminary work, try is considering a $5.6-million formed the OnTrac joint-pow- I loan to help OnTrac pay Its bills. ers authori%,•. Officials confl- Earlier this month, Gov. dently precli;ed that, several Schwarzenegger restored $163 cltles along the roll corridor million to a gutted state fund for would join, boosting the transportation projects. On- prglect's political heft in Sacra- Trac Is part of that program, - merito and Washington. which lost more than $1 billion So far, however, the agency because of budget cuts.Projects has only one member: Placen- from around the state will com. tia::Put off by the Pete for those funus. tdgb I costs )f On- Ultimately, project officials Trac, neighboring - are confident that state funding citiesdeeitim to pro- will be fully restored and that ceed:wtth th,n, own Congress wWauthorize anaddl- rail-'. mill crossing Im- tional $225 ion for the m proveent Projects. Project this year.The balance of :Jeverthelass, OnTrac's costs will be sought Placentia Plunged from Congress in the decade ahead with the ef- j ahead. 'or- 'hiring consult- "I would not change any de- j ants.to hancle such cision we've made on the � « tasks as manage. • , { project," said Wally Baker, a i merit, lobbying, en- ,r+ senior vice president of the Los I gineeiing,lar:dscape y'` Angeles County Economic De- _ architecture and velopment Corp., a nonprofit public relations at - organization that has been paid ratesofuptoS300an $1.2 million to supply consuit- houi. ante, lobbyists and studies to At the t1n.e state OoTtue. "There are always go- If wa:• flush, Ing to be some bumps.You can- and. city 3fflcials not forecast them. It will ,l continued to move come back for Placentia." forward with opts- But this may he wishful rnlsih. But the stafs o`n" thinking, said Rep. Gary huller budget crisis (R-blµmitind Bar), who sits on changed the picture dramati. the, :House Comrnittee on card.The flow of vehicle license Transportation and Inrrastruc- revenue to P acehtia wus inter- ture. Though he supports On , ruPted,and it$28-million grant Trac,he said,there is no way of to OnTrae was cut nearly in knowing how or when Congress half,,' will act. Tq snake up the difference, "it's not a slant dunk"�111!er Placentia tal.�ped municipal re- said,.'I'm fig ting with 434 serpas and money set aside for, other,membe lot' Congress;, i - - parka, and theydll.-h epprojeCLS They •. will attempt to recunr;ile dither- Placentia COrinellrnan Scott ences between the funding re- Brach• and On:'rac officials de- ; qu'aemenir for projeCls ap- fended the e%tens;v Use of con- j 1 i proved sepnnrtely by the House sultants.saving tha lacentla is and Sena- and the .spending a small city chat lac the polltl- ? - -" proposed t he Bush admiuis- cal douc and stslllr i I tratlon.Ten {{������ necessary wWVnsofdollars to finance and o'.'ertiee a major t ! separate the Btlsh and congres- bail project. sional spending proposals. But as they:an out of money, I it a consensus cannot be Placentia council members re- f ached the tr I n Congress,it will doom duced Beeler s pay to about E pc ation bill for this M0,000 a year,initiated a renew Year, ler said, which ineans of OnTrac expenses and scaled _ Or,T �o lid not get the $14 back the citys contribution to '1611bon in e:nergency funding he the project to$77,000 a month. fought so hord to get. Nine of OnTrac's private con- Just a:, sfgttirlcart, the sulLants, Including Becker, have amount of federal money, set agn-eed to Cake half their pay until •i aside for m.Uor projects, includ- $50 million more In goverrunent landing can be found. City activists agree that rail Im- provements are needed in Placer.- tia, but not the gold-plated pro- posal pushed by i OnTrac support- ers. "The projects are fine,"said Craig Creen of Citizens for a Better Placen- tia,a group of local watchdogs with an office in the middle of the redevelop- ment zone.But the way OnTrac has been run Is "the biggest mistake the city has made."De- I _ spite the mounting N. �Politlum and Man- ing OnTrac, has been eu ciai pressures;.some city officials i r — - remain optimistic that the In- r $17 8 bllliCh to about$6.6 b o A grow? of community j - vestment In OnTrac will pay off. t rer,sa<�s It's mo o doubt critical times are fpersuading- v+E- g..A lot of balls are In the r 1 '' r'nrnntato; air," said Councilman Brady. 3pt. They nnulo a "rm confident we will get the y: , x , j ,r .pend!rfg. state and federal funding.We will ' expendituree secure the OCTA loan and have an Issue entry last year when to a redevelopment project under- city proposed contracting out li way in the next few years." po4ce 6elvices to the Orangs .. County Sheriffs Department to save money. Community actin. Ists quickly zeroed in on the lu. crative contract of OnTrac Ex. ecutfve . Director Ctuistopher 'Becker,a lbrmer public works di. rector for the city who turned private consultant. His contract guaranteed him $450,000 a year for the 10-year life of the project,plus 15%adrninis. crative fees for overseeing con- suiting contracts awarded by OnTrac. The compensation package riade tun one of the highest paid transportation u9t- ' :t.` cia!s In the n ion. 6pen 1g on other consult- " t r 1 ante' attracted concro- a e d ' f ) �. _ _ t $9.2 million, city � x 1 ?F n has been spent on . ;tJtt :r 1 gdmlRl Stm- ' tors. strategists, grant writers, Right Of Way(ROW)Of The Pacific Electric Railroad Within The 31-Acre Site Know As Pacific City With this statement you will find a roadmap and historical data identifying the pertinent ROW of the Pacific Electric which 1 obtained from the official records of the Southern Pacific railroad which is now owned by the Union Pacific railroad. I regret that neither the developer nor the city could provide the Planning Commission with this valuable document. How could the Planning Commission exercise its discretion to provide for an"alternative public use', while sitting in ignorance of the scope and location of the ROW? The California Coastal Commission(CCC)provides in a letter dated March 16, 1995, that Huntington Beach shall have a corridor dedication as follows: Development in District#7 shall require the dedication of a twenty(20)foot corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH for public access between the southern end ofthe Pacific Electric ROW and PCH for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric ROW and PCH. This requirement may be waived if an alternative"public use" is provided or if the corridor is deemed unnecessary by the City. Any proposal for an alternative"public use' must be approved by the Planning Commission. Is it the position of the City that the corridor is unnecessary without even knowing where it is? Does the City even want to know the location? A majority of the Planning Commission seemed to care less. Be that as it may, the corridor enters the 31-acres at the exact intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street and proceeds in a southwest direction to the intersection of 10 Street and PCH. This is a great diagonal corridor for citizens and visitors and it is impossible understand why such an asset should be given away by the Planning Commission or the City. Please review the attachments for confirmation. You will find that even the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue is the result of a grant to the city by the Pacific Electric. In addition to the Pacific Electric passenger ROW noted above, there was a Pacific Electric freight line to Stanton which was acquired from the Southern Pacific, as well as Pacific Electric car storage facilities in the Lake Street-Alabama Avenue area. In fact, except for some gates and walls,the old route of the Stanton freight line is still available to the City for trail use. Granted, it would take some cooperation with two gated condo associations(The passage of one group of condo buildings appears constricted to a 10 foot but still useable gated way.), plus the fire department and residents who have come to regard the ROW as their own property, in order to perfect a protected pedestrian pathway of over a mile in length through old town Huntington Beach. What a blessing this would be for residents who could bike or stroll all the way to the ocean along the former ROW. Here the track charts I have obtained show that the Stanton ROW enters the 31-acres at a midpoint proximate to I°Street and Alabama Avenue and curves south where connection is made with the Santa Ana ROW. The ROW then continues through the 31- acres to an exit at 1" Street and PCH. What a great benefit such a pedestrian walkway would be for old town residents. If there are public safety concerns, it would be possible to close the condo portion of the trail during the night. Even though this is, after all, one of the safest cities in America. Please do not accept the tiny pale imitation of public use offered by the developer. Protect the valuable assets of the City, and return this matter to the Planning Commission with instructions to exercise the discretion mandated by the CCC. Paul Cross Pacific Electric Santa Ana-Huntington Beach Line Page 1 of 2 Retum to ERHA homepage. W Pacific Electric Santa Ana-Huntington Beach Line Introduction: Wfhis cross-country line was built by old PE to draw beach patronage to Huntington Beach from Santa Ana rather than to Santa Ana's logical beach town, Newport Beach. The reason was Mr. Huntington's large enterprises on foot in the community named after him; one of the largest such undertakings was the great hotel which depended almost entirely on holiday seekers for patronage. It proved insufficient, however,to make Huntington Beach a successful contender with Newport-Balboa for Santa Ana.The line early lapsed into a desuetude and was one of the earliest casualties of the PE rail empire. Route: WFrom Santa Ana PE Station via private right-of-way to New Delhi, Acelga, Talbert and Bushard to Huntington Beach. Mileage: Santa Ana 0.00 New Delhi 2.69 Acel 5.60 Talbert 8. 66 Bushard 10.53 Huntin ton Beach 13.31 History: WThis line was built in 1907 by the Pacific Electric Land Co., a Huntington corporation. Principle construction work occurred in May and June of that year. As PE Land Cc was not an operator,it leased all of its lines to PE for an indefinite term under verbal agreement by PE Ry. to pay interest on investment and all costs of maintenance. WAs this line traversed a highly developed sugar beet area, it proved profitable to construct two sizeable spurs to serve the Holly Sugar and the Southern Califomia Sugar companies; these spurs were built in 1911 and 1908 respectively and aggregated 4.41 miles in length. WOn September 15, 1911, PE Land Co.granted, sold and conveyed unto new PE all its properties. WNew PE continued to operate this line, for a while even continuing cars to Newport. WThis line was operated by PE until a 1922 Flood washed out a bridge; as there was but one daily round trip operated at that time, and as freight service could be provided from either Huntington Beach or Santa Ana,through passenger service was thereupon abandoned(March, 1922). Segments of this line still are operated for freight only. Equipment: Wlt is extremely difficult to pin definite car types down insofar as this line is concemed. Old records indicate that through 1911,at least, heavy cars(800s)were employed.Thereafter,the picture is unclear. It is probable that the three 400s assigned to Santa Ana from 1916 to 1922 were used on this line;these were almost certainly cars 400,401, and 402. Track: WThis line was laid in conformity to PE standards of the time; 60 Ib.T-rail, redwood ties, dirt ballast, all on private right-of- way. Electrical Facilities: WNone on the line; energy received from Santa Ana substation primarily. ........_. ...................................................................................... _.............._............. .................. Car Storage: WEquipment assigned to this line was stored at Santa Ana PE Station and at Huntington Beach. http://www.erha.org/pessahb.htm 5/12/04 Pacific Electric Santa Ana-Huntington Beach Line Page 2 of Freight: Win old sugar beet days,this was an excellent freight line, but with the decline of that industry, it was axiomatic that this line should fall into relative obscurity. As of 1938,the stub lines(Greenville and Dyer)accounted for but $8,082 in revenues. (Greenville was at MP 4.9; the Dyer branch took off at MP 3.5 and was 0.8 miles long.) Air Base Extension: WThe establishment of the Santa Ana Army Air Base in 1942 brought about demand by the government for direct rail service. As a result PE built a single-track line which was owned by the government. No passenger service was provided; freight was exchanged at Greenville. Passengers: WNo records available. Miscellaneous: WProbably no other line on the PE system could find less reason for existence than this one. It may validly be cited as a telling example of the futility of attempting to contort normal passenger needs to fit an artificial mold. WEffective June 16, 1948, PE purchased and began operating over(diesel) 11.38 miles of SP trackage: Stanton to Los Alamitos(4.48 miles),and Stanton to Wintersburg(6.67 miles)plus west leg of wye at Stanton. In addition PE acquired ownership of trackage it already operated over: Wintersburg to Weibling(1.10 miles),and Weibling to Huntington Beach(La Bolsa Line), 2.66 miles. This enabled diesel freights to reach Huntington Beach and Newport without going via Long Beach-East Long Beach-Sunset Beach;as a result, former Newport Line trackage from Loma Ave., East Long Beach, to the San Gabriel River was removed in 1958; now Huntington Beach-Newport Beach freights move via the Santa Line to Stanton Junction. Return to ERHA homepage hup:/hvww.erha.org/pessahb.htm 5/12/04 ti lI y �tr ELECTRIC INTERURBAN 4 � THE 1 - WAYS IN AMERICA ,� rt GEORGE W. HILTON and JOHN F. DUE it Second Printing, 1964 with corrections and additions I i STAINFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS STANFORD. CALIFORNIA 406 The Individual InterurLans California 407 the Afarko Street Railway) completed a mileage was built during the next decade. of West Coast promoters,and was acquired from passenger service. A wide variety suburban line to San Mateo in 1903, which The Pacific Electric, as a coordinated by Huntington in 1905. of equipment was employed, most of the reached downtown San Francisco via hfis- system, was largely the work of Henry In addition, four smaller Huntington cars being acquired in large batches, from lion Street. This line was operated with Huntington, the nephew of one of the Cen- properties in the San Bernardino area were Jewett in 1913, Pressed Steel Car in 1915, interurban-type equipment, some of the tral Pacific's Big Four, C. P. Huntington. absorbed, and later cannected with the re- Pullman in 1921,and Standard Steel Car in original 1903 equipment still being used at Henry became president of the SP in the mainder of the system. 1924. Some Northwestern Pacific equip- the time the line was abandoned in 1949. nineties and became very interested in the Most of the Construction of the lines had ment was acquired in 1941, and a group of A line, electrified as the California Rail- Los Angeles area. Later in the decade he been completed prior PCC was a q ht g way, built between East Alameda and began to build interurban lines in the area, p p or to the great merger g cars were bought for the Leona in Fast Oakland in 1896, had some and acquired several existing lines. He of 1911. but the nest several years saw the Glendale-Burbank line. Two-man opera- characteristics of an interurban for a time shared ownership of the interurbans with building of the San Bernardino line, and l ru ion was usual,partly because of a Los An- operating loth nonelectrificd coaches be- the Southern Pacific until 1911, but dis- ) the making of numerous improvements in geles ordinance. All lines except the 1,200- hind an electric freight motor and individ- agreements with Harriman (to whom he the system. By 1915 the PE was one of the volt San Bernardino route used 600-volt ual cars. The road eventually passed into had sold controlling interest in the SP in finest electric railway properties in the nc, with trolley pickup rather than the the hands of the Key System's predecessor 1901) and other factors led him to sell his country, with the most modern equipment, usual SP pantograph. companies, and cars were run on the line stock to the railroad. Following the great extensive private right-of-way, relatively Profits for a number of years were mod- from downtown Oakland. The line became merger in 1911,Harriman sent Pau! Shoup high speeds, frequent service, and very erate but not high; traffic rose sharply tip the Leona streetcar route,but freight serv- to Los Angeles to head the system, a post complete coverage of the rapidly growing to 1923 as the area grew rapidly, and then ice by electric motor continued until aban- that Shoup held for three decades. Shoupp, Los Angeles metropolitan area. No other fell as car use increased. However, traffic donment in 1936. who had risen from the job as Santa Fe area of the country ever had such an in- held up better during the twenties than on ticket agent in San Bernardino to head the tensive network of lines built largely ahead most interurbans, but the system was very SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Peninsular Railway, became one of the in- of the growth of population. Over a thou- hard hit by the depression, its revenues terurban industry's leading spokesmen and sand trains a day left from the Los Angeles falling in half from 1929 to 1933. The Los Southern California had one great - one of the first to complain strongly of stations, with headway as low as 7.5 min- Angeles area was particularly suited to the tem, the Pacific Electric, in the Los Ali- -subsidized motor competition" and taxa- I utes on some of the lines with the highest automobile, because of the widely scattered geles area, plus a few minor lines, lion as the sources of the difficulties of J density. population and industry, good roads at an electric railways. The nature of the service, of course, early date, and favorable weather. How- PACIPIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY The principal segments from which the varied with the type of line; the true inter- ever, PE was never subjected to much bus The largest intercity electric railway system was built were: urban lines, such as the one to San Ber- competition after the initial difficulty with nardino, had much less frequent service jitneys (see Chapter 7), except on the system in the United States was the Pacific 1. The original Pacific Electric, char- than the shorter suburban-type lines. The Venice-Santa Monica and Venice-Whit- LlectricJs which, in its peak years, op- tered in 1901, and developed from the first inner segments of the lines were double- tier lines. In 1923 it established its own erated over 1,000 miles of track,and about by Huntington personally. This road ac- track, and the two main routes out of the bus system in cooperation with Los An- 700 route miles of service. Because routes quired the Pasadena line from the Los An- city, to Watts and Sierra Vista, used by a geles Railways. overlapped, the true, non-duplicating line- geles Pacific, and built a number of the number of lines,had four tracks—two local mileage figure was closer to 520 miles. The major routes, including the San Pedro, - Until the late thirties, the company con- investment was estimated by the Califor- Long Beach, Covina, and Newport lines. and two express. The tracks reached the timed to operate much the same fashion center of Los Angeles, and service on ass had twenty years before. The service nia Railroad Commission to be about $I(p 2. The Los Angeles Interurban Rail- virtually all lines, except those out of San was still good, by comparison with what million, far more than the investment of way, also a Huntington project, which Bernardino, operated directly from the was offered in many areas, but it had not any other system,and nearly 10 per cent of built the Glendale, Monrovia, and Santa downtown area. Although there was some been modernized in any way,and the com- the total interurban investment in the Ana lines. The LAI bought the indepen- street running, mainly on the segments of pany seemed to have lost all ability to ad- United States. In a sense, however, much dent California Pacific (San Pedro via the western lines leading out of downtown just to changing conditions. After the vol- of the operation was not typically inter- Gardena) in 1903. This enterprise was Los Angeles, in Hollywood, in Santa ume had fallen for a few years after 1923, urban, but more like a suburban electrified leased to the original PE in 1909. Monica, in Pasadena, and in Glendale, a the management began to lose interest in main-line service. 3. The Los Angeles Pacific, a separate large part of the system was operated on the whole venture. Cars became obsolete, The history of the system is very com- enterprise developed from 1895 on by M. private right-of-way, with stations in the track began to deteriorate. and few at- plex, and cannot be developed at length. H. Sherman and E. P. Clark; the LAP various towns. Street railway service was tempts were made to introduce improve- The Pacific Electric was formed in Sep- built the Hollywood, Santa Monica, Ven- also operated in Pasadena, Long Beach, ments. Finally in the late thirties the first tember of 1911 by the merger of eight ice, and Redondo (via Playa del Rey) Glendale, and parts of Los Angeles. In cutbacks of any consequence were made. companies, which had all been under com- lines, which after the merger became the 1925, in the last expansion program,a one- An elaborate study by the California Rail- mon control, although some had started PE's western district. The LAP lost the mile tunnel was built in downtown Los road Commission suggested the company life as independent roads. The predecessors Pasadena and Los Angeles to Huntington Angeles to eliminate some of the street op- might eliminate much of its rail service, date back to 1895, when a line was coot- in 1898, and in 1906 the SP bought con- eration for the western lines, but the over- and make improvements in the remaining pleted from Los Angeles to Pasadena, and trot of the entire company, although the all program of relocation was stopped be- operations. The company took the former 1996,when the line via Hollywood to Santa road continued to operate separately until cause of the falling off of business sugggestion, if not the latter.i0 Between Monica was finished. The bulk of the the merger; Huntington had no direct in- The road developed freight service at 1938 and 1941 a significant portion of the terest in LAP. an early date, particularly carload inter- passenger service was abandoned, includ- e If routes that operated entirely on lines 4. The Los Angeles and Redondo. The change traffic with the SP in citrus fruits, ing the service to San Bernardino, River- also used by other routes are added, the lines to Redondo, except the one via Playa oil,and inbound merchandise; most of this side and Pomona,San Gabriel and Temple, figure is 760. Major examples were the del Rey, were built by the Los Angeles was carried on the Santa Monica Air Line, Yorba Linda, Fullerton and Whittier, Re- Watts and Sierra Vista local service lines, and Redondo, originally developed as a and on the San Bernardino, Stern, El Se- dondo(via both lines),and Newport Beach and the routes operated to provide connec- narrow-gauge steam road, and eventually gundo, and Santa Ana lines. But most of i tions for S. P. trains to Pasadena and to electrified. The road was built by the (temporarily restored during World War Long Beach-San Pedro. Ainsworth-Thompson syndicate, a roes the revenue (typically about 1 per cent, maiII) But the high-density traffic lines re- f y group and 50 per cent even as late as 1953) tame mained. California ... 409 World War II brought a record traffic and by the management's failure to make volume and a temporary financial improve- any effort to modernize. It is regrettable a 3 o ment,soon lost because cost increases were that government units did not take over the E�a y+ A yt a not offset by rate increases. Basically the system in the mid-thirties,while it was still road was the victim of the productivity intact, rather than two decades later, and �yvq 3 ep squeeze, and any attempts to avoid it were recognize the importance of continued rendered difficult by union and municipal use of the rail facilities in the over-all solu- attimdes and by the cost of new equipment tion to the transportation problem in the °g v,rn Once the traffic volume began to fall again area. n after the war, the road took steps to con- A detailed review of the various lines •• ti•�na 99 pq vert to freight-only operation. In 1950 all would occupy a whole volume in itself; q a u 7 ww remaining passenger service was aban. only a brief sketch is possible. The lines '1 doned except to Long Beach and San are numbered to correspond to the map RPedro, and to Bellflower, Hollywood, and key on p. 408; PE did not number its o Burbank. In 1954 these remaining lines routes. Those numbered above 100 did not S were sold to the newly formed Metropoli- normally operate from downtown Los An- _^ 'g z v o tan Coach Lines, the Pacific Electric geles. retaining the tracks for freight service. Northern District. The lines north and The new company bought the Passenger eastward from Los Angeles constituted the _ ^ lines with the deliberate intent of convert- Northern District. These lines began at ix a.e3 ing them to bus service; this was done on the station at 6th and Main in downtown as _ fO' i c aai fij the Hollywood and Burbank lines and per- Los Angeles, ran on the streets for about mission for it sought on the ogler lines, a mile, crossed the Los Angeles River and ,z •V� = c _ "fi gzb C,1 I but this application was rejected by the went onto private right-of-way, with four °0f 2 1 state commission. An impasse had been tracks to Sierra Vista. The San Bernar- __ w g m e E°g`.^, created,since the company was determined dino line diverged at Valley Junction, the 'ei.;, r: ra •� ° 8 w„dg 46.ap, to get out of rail operation; finally in 1957 San Gabriel line at Sierra Vista,the Pasa- o ''e . . . . the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit dena line at El Moline, and the Sierra S m Authority was formed and (as of April 1, btadre line from the Glendora line at San 1958) purchased both the Metrowlitan Marino. mi ° .• 3 Coach Lines and the Los Angeles �ransit 1. lowdena Short Line, the high-fre- e e Company. The Authority, however, pro- ty, h a o quency-service main line to the Pasadena cceded to abandon the remaining rail lines business district (12 miles), completed late a except to Long Beach.* in 1902, abandoned on September 30, 1951. Unlike the usual interurban, the Pacific 1A. Mt.Lowe,an extension of the Pasa- w` Electric could have comprised the nucleus drna lint to the summit of het. Lowe, ti o .• -�+ € n 2 of a highly efficient rapid transit system, "a strictly a tourist attraction. The portion s •. . $ •. D A which would have contributed greatly to as far as Rubio was Completed in 1891, the m+, + es z t m ° lessening the tremendous traffic and smog second section, an incline railway, in 1893, $ c = o c problems that developed from the popula- and the last 4 miles to the summit in 1596. =g g !� £ •- w 5 e G<� u tion growth. In Itself, the PE suffered PE took over the line in 1902,and typically ac ea serious limitations, particularly the exces- ;f 3 = c s, S operated 5 round trips a day,the cars using E 96 sive street rliMllig on the western district the Short Line. The line was abandoned xz lines and the numerous grade crossings. in 1938 after the Alpine Tavern was de- ra � But the system, with its extensive private •• :S ««rr ram right-of-way, was far superior to a sys- tem consisting solely of buses on the much of the line crowded streets, and was important as a 2. Po•rodena-Oak Knoll, operating on the main line to El Molino and thence into ga potential element in a system involving east Pasadena, completed in 1906, aban- g`e subways in the downtown area. It is in- doned in October 1950. For a time cars evitable that such a system will fail to cover its costs directly;nonetheless,it may operated3. South Pasadrno,h to Itthe first line in the e y be entirely justified economically. But so c'e - " B 2-0 long as PE was in private hands, it was area, completed on May 6, 1895. by the .9 o 0 5 '8 v Sherman-Clark group as the Pasadena and virtually impossible to keep its unprofitable " S e o w n" — u + c° n services Los Angeles from downtown Los Angeles i a ,e v c� <g $ e,-, c "a 'a going, regardless of how much via Echandia Junction and Garvanza into o e4 a o0 _ <99 g O,.u' ww they contributed to the solution of the traf- South Pasadena and thence into Pasadena. 2=" all. Y° ' "�"' 'ctA a ®'o c fic problem. The difficulty was aggravated wsp a :ya E v 'J,`2 o y>:e '6��:o :: w 66 9 9 by absentee control for many years, by the After Huntington acquired it in 1698, and w o P1fA after the main Pasadena lines were com- e c cw"a-a • .�=y ae c c; t r a ay y „m SP's general lack of interest after 1924 in v e o''Oa o o: y "c 2 c�F'k � __ '•_"�^9 s°::g local passenger service, by the consider- Pletcd, this line became a secondary route g_Aga E ca ^�w" EE= �= 5°"w0+_ wmw" able public hostility toward the com an run in conjunction with the Watts local Be 3 wSZ�nv"i��� x>' viz'c' bw 3 p P y' service, cars going on to Altadena on the The Long Beach Line was abandoned on northern end. The line was abandoned on •- ^ N�"•InV h + • ��•� NNNNNN N NNN ^^ ^^ A ril 9, 1961. P January 2, 1935. 0.4 °� (4 6"( 410 The Individual Interurbans California 411 4. Sierra Madre,one of the lighter traf- route. For many years,one car for River- The Whittier line forked off at Slauson, Beach line from North Long Beach,which fic routes,opened to Sierra Madre in 1906. side was attached to the San Bernardino while at Watts three major routes di- followed the shore line via Huntington Cars were operated on a shuttle basis ex- trains and cut off at Rialto. Service was verged, the El Segundo, Redondo-via- Beach (1904) and Newport Beach (1905) cept in rush hours after the thirties,and the eliminated on June 9, 1940. Gardena and Torrance-San Pedro lines to Balboa, reached in 1906, It was built line was abandoned on December 28, 1950. Eastern District. A number of rather going off to the west, the Santa Ana line largely to serve the beach resort area. Pas- 5. Monrovia-Glendora, completed to short lines served the terri[o around to the southeast, and the main San Pedro senger service, never heavy beyond the Oneonta in 1902, Arcadia and Monrovia Riverside and San Bernardino, Important and Long Beach-Newport Beach lines con- Long Beach area,was discontinued in 1940, in 1903,and Glendora (26 miles from Los fruit-growing areas. Several lines were tinuing straight south. The southern dis- reestablished in 1942 for war needs, and Angeles) in 1907. This was a heavy-traffic built before the main line by the San Ber- trict consisted primarily of private-right- abandoned again in 1950. Track has been route west of Monrovia, with half-hour nardino Valley Traction Co. Cars were of-way lines able to operate at relatively retained for freight, except from Newport service typical. Passenger service was dis- not operated through from Los Angeles, high speeds, constructed for the most part to Balboa (abandoned in 1941). continued in September 1951, but the por- except for a time on the Redlands line. after 1900 by Huntington. A separate local Two local interurban lines operated out tion east of Arcadia was retained for 300. Redlands,completed from San Ber- service was operated from Los Angeles to of Long Beach, one to San Pedro via freight service, joined to the San Bernar- nardino in 1903 (9 miles). Passenger serv- Watts, one of the last lines, continuing Wilmington (113) and one to Seal Beach dino line by a cutoff built at Rivas in 1951. ice was abandoned in 1936. service until November 2, 1959. (114). The lines were completed in 1910, The track between Azuza and Glendora 301. Riverside-Corona, electrified from 10. Whittier-La Habra-Fullerlon,a ma- and abandoned in 1949. was abandoned in 1959. Riverside to Arlington in April 1899, and d jor route, opened to Whittier in 1903 14. San Pedro via Dominguez,the direct 6. Alhambra-San Gabriel-Temple, a to Corona (14 miles) in 1915 (February I (December 31) and offering high-fre- line to San Pedro, using the same track as branch off the main line at Sierra Vista to 17). This line had the most frequent serv- quency service for many years. Abandon- the Long Beach line to Dominguez. This Temple (14 miles). This route was com- ice of all the lines in the area, but service ment occurred in 1938. was also a high-speed, heavy-traffic line. pleted to San Gabriel in 1902 by the Los was cut back to Arlington in 1931, and the This line was extended (10A) to La The route was placed in operation to Wil- Angeles and Pasadena, and a branch was remainder was eliminated in 1943. Habra in 1908 and Stern in 1911.Typically mington in 1904,and to San Pedro July 5, built to Shorb (101) in 1904 to connect 302. San Bernardino-Riverside, 10 only 5 runs a day served this extension,but 1905. Passenger service ended Dec. 8, with Southern Pacific main-line trains and miles, completed on December 13, 1913, freight service was important. Passenger 1958. providing direct connecting service to Pas- passenger service discontinued in 1939. service beyond Yorba Linda to Stern was 15. San Pedro via Gardena and Tor- adena (until 1924). Not until 1924 was the 303. Colton, 5 miles, built 1902, aban- abandoned in 1933, and the track itself in ranee, built by the California Pacific, an San Gabriel line extended to Temple, in doned 1942. 1938; on January 22, 1938, all passenger offspring of Los Angeles Traction, via the system's last expansion. The line was 304. Arrowhead Springs, completed in service on the entire line was eliminated. Vermont Avenue to Gardena and McKin- abandoned on November 29, 1941,the por- 1907 largely to haul mineral water; pas- A branch to Fullerton (]OB) had been built ley (December 30, 1901) and to San Pedro tion to Alhambra retained for freight serv- senger service abandoned, September 1932. in 1917. (January 1903). Control was obtained by ice until 1951. The Short, spur is still in Freight was dieselized in 1943. 11. Santa Ana, a high-speed, private- the Southern Pacific in 1903, but not until use for freight. 305. Pollon-Ilighlands, built 1903. The right-of-way line, opened on November 6, 1912 was the line standard-gauged. At 7. San Bernardino, the longest line in extension to Patton was abandoned in 1905. The bulk of the travel was on the this time cars were rerouted over the cut- the system and the most typically inter- 1924, and passenger service to Highlands inner portion of the line, but service was off to Watts, and the northern portion be- urban, from Los Angeles to San Bernar- was abandoned 1936. Part of the route- continued to Santa Ana until July 2, 1950, came a Los Angeles Railways car line. dino (58 miles). The line was completed had been built in 1898 as a steam road. when it was cut back to Bellflower. This Also in 1912 a loop line was built into to Covina in 1907, to San Dimas in 1910, service was eliminated May 25, 1958. The Torrance, location of the P.E.shops. Pas- and to Pomona in 1912. A line built from In the area east of Pomona, the pioneer track has been retained for freight service. senger service was discontinued south of Pomona via Claremont to Upland in 1910 Ontario and San Antonio Heights, a local Two branch lines extended from Santa Torrance in 1939 and north thereof in 1940. by the Ontario and San Antonio Heights project later absorbed by Pacific Power Ana. One north to Orange (110), was 16. Redondo via Gardena. Redondo Company was incorporated into the sys- and Light and sold to Pacific Electric in built in 1887 as a horse-car line, and elec- Beach was served by three (and for a rem, the route was extended from Upland 1912, had built two routes, a portion of trified in 1906. A line south 13 miles to short time by four) routes, one of which to San Bernardino, and through service one becoming the Claremont-Upland sec- Huntington Beach (I 11) was built in 1907. was a portion of the western district and established on July 11, 1914. This route, lion of the PE's main line to San Ber- Passenger service on the Orange line was will be considered below (20). The princi- the only one to use 1200-volt power, was nardino noted above. discontinued in 1930, and the track from pal route operated via Gardena; it was one of the best from a physical standpoint. 306. Ontario-San Antonio Heights,built Huntington Beach to the Santa Ana River electrified (from a narrow-gauge steam Passenger service was discontinued east in 1887 as a mule-car line, the mules rid- was removed in 1930. Through service road) west of Gardena in 1903. Originally of Baldwin Park on November 1, 1941,ex- ing back down hill in a trailer attached to on the Huntington Beach line had ended in cars reached Los Angeles via Vermont cept for rush hour service to Covina which the car. The line was electrified in 1895. 1922 when a flood washed a bridge out Avenue, after 1907 via Moneta Avenue, was continued until 1947. Remaining pas- The portion north of Upland was aban. Much of the remainder of this line was and finally after 1911 via Watts. The line senger service ended on October 15, 1950, doned in 1924, and the Upland-Ontario abandoned in 1936, but some segments re- was abandoned in 1940. and the freight service was then dieselized. line in 19M in two of PE's earliest aban- main in freight service. 17. Redondo via Hawthorne,built by the 7A. Pomona, a branch from La Verne donments. 12. Long Brach, 20 miles, the most im- Los Angeles and Redondo as a steam road on the San Bernardino line into Pomona, 307. Pomono-Claremont, a portion of portant in terms of traffic of all the lines, and electrified in 1902.The route originally completed in 1912 with hourly service op- the line built in 1910 between Upland and and the first major Huntington project. operated via Inglewood but in 1911 was re- erated through from Los Angeles, Pas- Pomona, and operated as a shuttle line by The line was completed on July 4, 1902, routed via Watts north and east of Haw- senger service was discontinued on No- PE following acquisition. Passenger serv- with wide publicity. With high-frequency, thorne, and the Inglewood line became a vember 1, 1941. ice was abandoned in 1933. high-speed service and the hest equipment, LARY car line. The through route to Re- 7B. Riverside, service established from Southern District. The Southern Dis- this was the system's most profitable route. dondo was cut in 1937 when the El Nido- Los Angeles to Riverside via Rialto in trict lines also operated from the 6th and As of January 1960 it is still operated by Hawthorne segment was abandoned. March 1914,the line having been electrified Main Street terminal, with only a limited the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit 17A. Hawthorne-El Segundo. A line of from Riverside to Crestmore in 1908 and amount of street running,and with a four- Authority, the last intercity electric pas- minor importance for passenger service to Bloomington in 1911. A Union Pacific track line as far as Watts (7 miles), the senger line west of Chicago. but one of the major freight routes extend- branch line was utilized for much of this two additional tracks completed in 1902. 13. Newport, an extension of the Long ed westward from Hawthorne to El Se- 412 The Individual Interurban Canada 413 gouda,cars using the route of the Redondo- Venice,and thence north to Santa Monica. crossed the famous intersection of Holly- road was operated with typical wooden via-Hawthorne line east and north of This route, completed in 1902, was the wood and Vine. Niles interurban tars. In 1916, following Hawthorne. This line was placed in serv- fastest and most heavily traveled of the 24A. West Hollywood (Colegrove), a a serious flood, the interurban operations ice in August 1914, largely to serve the western lines, Abandonment occurred on secondary line after the Hollywood Boule- were discontinued. Service on the north- Standard Oil refinery in El Segundo. Pas- September 17, 1950. vard line was opened,abandoned June 1953. ern portion of the line was taken over by senger service was abandoned October 31, 22. Wert 16th-Sawtelle, operated via 25. San Fernando Valley,one of the last the San Diego city system, using city cars. 1930. Vineyard, and thence northwest to Santa routes built. It left the \Nut Hollywood The interurban equipment went to the PE. Western District. The Western District Monica via Beverly Hills and Sawtelle, line at Highland Avenue, and extended Northward from San Diego to La Jolla consisted of the lines extending westward running much of the way on Santa Monica northward via Cahuenga Pass into the San extended the 18-mile Los Angeles and San and southwestward from Los Angeles that Boulevard. The line was completed from Fernando Valley. The line forked at Van Diego, which planned electrification but had comprised the Los Angeles Pacific Los Angeles to Beverly Hills in 1897 to Nuys (reached in 1911), one line (25A) never succeeded, and in 1919 was aban- prior to the 1911 merger, plus the Glen- connect with the line built from Santa goingg north to San Fernando (completed doned. In 1923 a portion of the right-of- dale-Burbank and San Fernando lines. Monica via Hollywood the previous year. 1913), the other (25B) west to Canoga way was taken over by the San Diego Most of the segments of this road were Through service was discontinued on Park (1912). Passenger service beyond Feectric Railway, and an electric line was I built under Sherman-Clark management, July 7, 1940,and service as far as Olympic Van Nuys was discontinued in 1938 and the built to La Jolla, opened on July 1, 1924. before Huntington acquired control of the Boulevard ended in 1950. remainder followed in 1952. This was operated with city-type equip- road. The equipment used was painted 22A• Westgate,a loop line off the Saw- 26. Glendale-Burbank,completed north- ment, employing pantographs. Abandon- green instead of the PE's red. The West- telle route from Sawtelle to Santa Monica ward from Los Angeles to Glendale in ment occurred in 1940. ern lino had their own terminal the Hill via Westgate, through service being op- 1904 and Burbank in 1911.This was a high- Street terminal, used by the Nlest-16th- crated only during rush hours. Completed density line with frequent service,operated Sawtelle cars until 1909- In that year Hot- 1906, abandoned on June 30, 1940. after 1940 with PCC cars-the only mod- lywoDd and Colegrove Cars also began t0 23 Santa Monica Air Line, operated ern equipment the PE ever acquired. Serv- California had several lino which classi- use the terminal,and later in the year (fob- {rani the Main Street station via the ice was abandoned by Metropolitan Coach fied themselves as interurban, although lowing the completion of a tunnel) the Lines in 1955. g Short Line Cars did so as well. In 1925, line to Amoco,and thence via Private right- they never used electric power. These in- when the subway was completed for the of-way directly to Santa Monica. This was eluded: Hollywood and Glendale-Burbank lines, always primarily a freight line, built in GLENDALE AND MONTROSE RAILWAY Stockton Terminal and Eastern Rail- the new Subway Terminal was built on the 1875 as the Los Angeles and independence COMPANY road, completed from Stockton eastward same location. The only western district by Nevada mining millionaire John P. Glendale was also served b the inde to Bellota, in 1910, Lacking funds for line to use the Main Street station was the Jones, who developed Santa Monica. Pur- pendent Glendale and Montrose, built e- electrification,the road purchased from the to Santa Monica Air Line, mainly a freight chased by the SP, it was leased to the I-os Eagle Rock in 1909 and la Crescen[a in SP the old Mariposa, a steam locomotive route, which connected with the Watts Angeles Pacific and electrified eastward to built in 1864, which continued in regular Sentous in 1908 and into Los Angeles in 1913, abandoned in 1930. Four miles of service until after 1950, the longest active line at Amoco. 1911. For man Union Pacific track were used to reach y years only one passenger life of any steam locomotive in the United The Western lines may be classed into trip a day was provided; this was des- I Los Angelp. States. three groups: (1) the lines that turned continued in 1953 and the line diesclized. Modesto and Empire Traction Company, south out of the subway terminal and op- 231. Soldiers Home. a branch off 23, I THE SAN DIEGO LINES completed in 1911 from Modesto to a can- Air via Vineyard,plus the Santa Monica electrified in 1908, abandoned 1920. nection a with the Santa Fe at Empire, but Air Line; (2) the lines that operated to the A 13-milt interurban line extended never electrified, west via the subway and Hollywood; and 23? Port Los Angeles, an extension of southward from San Diego to Chula Vista Fresno Interurban Rai/eta completed t 3 the GlendalrBurbank line. These the Air Line, electrified 1911, abandoned g y' p ( ) I and 87, a This was built as a steam road, in 1916t 19 miles from Fresno el Belmont routes were all handicapped by a great 1924. in 1887, and electrified to Chula Vista m Road, the City portion being electrically amount of street running and congestion; 233. Ingleruood, a line extenditg east- 1907 (service began on December 1) and operated until 1921. The line was ulti- _, - Z none were able to maintain the speed of the ward from Santa Monica,utilizing a Santa to Otay in 1909. The line was originally mately sold to the Santa Fe. other district lines, except outer segments Fe branch, purchased in 1902 and eicc- the National City and Otay, becoming the The Ocean Shore Railroad, projected of the Van Nuys and Redondo lines,which trifled that year. For many years one pas- Son Diego Southern in 1908 and a part of down the coast from San Francisco to handled relatively little traffic. senger trip a day (labeled "mixed") was the San Diego Southeastern in 1912. The Santa Cruz, but the gap between Tunitas 20. Redondo via Playa del Rey, a nar- operated; this was discontinued in 1928, road had passed into the Spreckels hands and Swanton was never closed. The road row-gauge route from Los Angeles to Re- but the line is still used for freight service, prior to electrification and was thus an was abandoned in 1920, never having been dondo, via Playa del Rey, running on the 24. Hollywood-Santa Monica-Venice. affiliate of the San Diego city system The electrified except in San Francisco. beach south of Playa. The line was built The first route to the west extended (after by the Los Angeles Pacific in 1903- It 1926) via the subway, Sunset and Holly. shared tracks as far as Vineyard with the wood boulevards via downtown Hollywood Canada West 16th line, and as far as Culver with to Beverly Hills and thence on the same 1.C the Venice Short Line. The track was track as the West 16th line to Santa Mon- standard-gauged in 1908. Abandonment ica and Venice. The line was completed in ALTHOUGH the interurban developed used in Canada, the roads being referred occurred on May 12, 1940. 1896 via Colegrove, and the main line re- simultaneously in Canada and the United to as electric railways or (particularly in 201. Lagoon, a 6-mile line connecting routed via Hollywood Boulevard in 1900. States, Canada had no integrated system Ontario) as radials. Canada's first inter- the Venice line with the Redondo-via- This was little more than a streetcar serv- of lines. Canada's 25 companies, with a city electric line, from Thorold to St. Playa route in Playa. The line was com- ice,with 390 runs a day to Hollywood,only peak mileage of M, were almost entirely Catharines, began operations in 1887, two pleted in 1905 and abandoned in July 1936. about 20 going on to Venice. Service west isolated from one another. Over half the years before the Newark-Granville line, 21. Venice Short Lint, which operated of Beverly Hills ended in 1941, and to total mileage was in the province of On- but several major lines were built well via Vineyard and Culver directly into Hollywood in 1954. It was this line which tario. The term "interurban" was rarely after the peak of U.S, construction. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: 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 Pacific City) 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) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Si ned in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement Unbud et, 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 Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCAAuthor: HZ:SH:MBB REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA's submitted after Deadline Department: Planning Subject 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 (Pacific City) APPEAL Council Meeting Date: 617/04 Date of This Request: 6/1/04 REASON (Why is this RCA beingsubmitted late?): Waiting for attachments to be finalized. EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): Should accompany RCA No. PL 04-06, CERTIFICATION OF EIR 02-01 Pacific City) APPEAL CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): Further delays development of mixed used project that will provide increased property taxes Sig to Approved rl Denied Department HeadPenelope Culbret -Graft City Administrator oil Wk NAY -l 1-' ' 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/Conceptual Master Plan and Related Findinas of Fact and CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations (Pacific City) Dear Ms. Ehring: Makollon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC. 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ("Makar") 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 Pion 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. Maker 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 at the June 7, 2004 Huntington Beach City Council meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I Sincerely, iF7fchael Gagnet Makar Prop*rtl*s, LLC Office Hospitality Golf Land Development Industrial Residential Makar Properties, LLC p. 949.255.1 100 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 20C f 949 255 1 128 Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.mokorproWies.com NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COINIMSSION ACTI N S_S OP Date Of Planaicg CM a Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: O City Attorney (I copy) ✓ FILED BYLG C PruySLc\\�o LLc� C 1" REGARDING: 41(,-IVI[)=—� LQ N JL� G.`�TSt era �{ GICM nS J a f Tentative Date for Public Hearing: � � V'4 T) Qt') 1 Copy of Appeal Letter attached. _LEGAL NOTICE AND A P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED-THE CITY CLERECS OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING➢ATE Connie Brockway City Clerk X52n ' � .irk.L.,.. .�.....�.•.--.r.....�.uu�1•,_�+... .. ......11_J.r-la..uuuru.�i..:,�r,..11...r.l'uJJrW::LJrI_\L3LL:Li:IL•I:L�'..W1J.r.�y'u�y�y LL�6r�.Lu�.u.ur� Makallon Atlanta HB, LLC 2250 III III III California Bank 8 Trust i 4100 MacArthur Blvd 19200 Von Kaman Ave I Suite 200 Irvine,CA 92612 IAAR A R Newport Beach,CA 92660 (949)255-1100 122-003-396 i **** TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS TO THE ORDER OF 05/0 04 $2, 335 . 00*** j City of Huntington Beach / a 2000 Main Street j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c� ._ _-. -- _. _.. �,ar-e.-.�an•lasaa.,avre:L�. .,,. ., _,r.. ,. :. sr: •: : v0022SOv 1: 1 2 200 3 3961: 3510 64311P DATE:05/07/04 CK11:2250 TOTAL:$2,335.00•.. BAHK:cbt621 - Makallon Atlanta HB, LLC PAYEE:City of Huntington Beach(chb) Prop/Job/Categ/Acct Invoice;'_ Description i_ II Amount 621/alovl/02100050/1600-0100 ct05D7B4 y I' 4",• t :j� �fcit fees � �" 2,335.00 2,335.00 � CASH RECEIPT i CiTp OF hUNTiN41�.yy' fH__ Ch _ P.O.BOXm 5000021i141 2.9 ..di HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFgffN I�Eji�,E- HUNTINCTON BEACH CITYT�F SURER-SHARIC.I ' ---- — fi.R�IfJEf�ICH DATE ISSUINGOEPT. �`�-�'• I \� ' TELE.# n t. RECEIVED FROM � 4 (l - ADDRESS y �,• •.i_. —'�l� �1 1\�. ": � i clv .. FOR i '� C'• \ iC', L{ .I .' (�l�.C� AMOUNT RECEIVED ❑CASH rJDHEDK# EICREATCARD PREPARED BY RECEIVED FAY ' /�' "�"" � IF OBJECT=50000 THRU 90000•FINANCE APPROVAL I/ DATE Business Unit Object Sub-Account Amount 0 IJI� vc ` - - - - - - TOTALS I i I No.A737p3 ISSUING DEPARTMENT COPY DATE:05/07/01 CK1:2250 TOTAL:$2,335.00•.• BAIrK:Cbt621 - Makallon Atlanta HB, LLC PAYEE:City of Huntington Beach(chb) ProWJob/CateWAcct Invoice D"OVOon Amount 621/alovl/02100050/1600-0100 dr05B7U4 City lees 2,335.00 2,335.00 THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION May 14, 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 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 identifv 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 incora;tly 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 6W Newport Center Dove . Suite 1050. Newprt Beach.CA 9266C P.O. Box 8680. Newport Beach,CA 92658-8680 tel 949.759.W91 . fax 949.720,1017 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANTMG COMMISSION ACTT N OF Date of Planniog Commission Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) City Attorney (I copy)) DATE[ S—Iv;-�L FILED BY �.13`f I? o. REGARDING: v% �l CA1 P C C) `J Tentative Date for Public Hearing: Copy of Appeal Letter attached. EGAL TICE AND A.P. NLkMING LIST FFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ST BE RECEIVED THE CITY CLERK`S Connie Brockway City Clerk sS227 City Clerk of the City off-luntington 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 #00-09 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 E..IR 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 Bolsa C'hica Land gust 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 Master 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 '/z mile [to the proposed Projecti..." (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 3.3.2 (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 City Council act to deny the project approvals. THE ROBERT MAYERR CORPORATION Shawn K. Millbern 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 ROBERT MAYEI\ CORPORATION 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 Citv 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 altematives 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 . Newporr Beach, CA 92660 P0. Box 8680. Newport Bcach, 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 an outride 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 3.d 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 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 '/2 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 fixture 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). Flowever, 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 CEOA: - 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 altematives, 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 altematives 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 1/4d' 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 Proiect 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, Bolsa Chico 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 invoked 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 EXHIBIT "D" TO APPEAL LETTER DATED MAY 14. 2004 Letter from California Coastal Commission dated March 18, 2004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCL WARZENEGGER. Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 20n')ceangate, Suite 1000 _ .... L each.CA 90802-4202 =' March 18, 2004 Mar, 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 hyd rophytic 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 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-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 DEIR 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 proiect 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. Archaeology/Paleontology 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. Development 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 DEIR Comments—Pacific City Pace 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 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. r Sincerely, arl Sch g- Supervisor, Regulation & nning Orange County Area cc: State Clearinghouse, File H:LLetters10EQA0RIPaciric City-HB.doc EXHIBIT "C" TO APPEAL LETTER DATED MAY 14, 2004 Letter from California Coastal Commission dated April 13. 2004 n _ nrn•nn xnw,rteneeeer.vnvm,n• CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SGU111 CMij Arno Office 200 Occunaar,Sohe 1000 I.Wi;3=11.CA 90902A302 (562)590-5071 April 13, 2004 kP Scott Hess , ; Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street 2GQ� 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 30603(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 ($100,000) 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-13-2004 GLUM From-Cal!torn i a t.ouoi LW I--IY-- Pacific City Appealability Page 2 Given the scope of development contemplated, the highway widening aspect of the proposed project likely qualities as a "major public works" project, and thus the project would be appealable for this reason. Please advise if you believe the cost of the Id for it to qualify as a "major public works" development wouldn't exceed the thresho 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 te the transfer divis f private for this conveyance may a the 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. Sincerely, Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst HNB PcfCry Iv 4.13.04 my Co u z M � L O W C w z O z s w O u O U Ll < c9 UO— z O '". ° Z C N O < 'J per-. U O in Ln ` x x L v Li. A in O ui z _ o a U � CO Q 0 o u 0 e u H _ tO L G ca- n W - �' .� CO C. Q 0 _. V Q£ i o .. n w p r m z 0 o x o m _ z ¢ C- N x x moo w ti U) CC0 O u � �� or Z o r r w¢ H U O Zz" o � F OUWl s LL EY ¢ LL owm F 5 WR:�m o Hwa� r Qom c mWe wzm N C N � N 0-0ti \ e x i O E O E vz U F °a z o a3 Y Y E E U CL O U < U V z o >° a L, mN `ov .4 m Fizz m $ C O a cc L 0O N 00 'o G d N G w c N ., Qa ^' .-1 W 3 ?li ° 0 _. Ur � m ry x z `�° o � n U ti o I � � � F z N > 'o LL o > G c �o kD Wo m Uax Q o =� L 00 d W Qmmm a� = m a3 0 m [ g O C.to`nZa' Bona a rwu Eeoa 11�cm caws OF N CRY a 1p(OIrrION KW IIU is minify VIh n1ra . 1 m I n: v, J ,. .. .cite otY ur a s.li L°pea .uLn. ma ie( m �. nlvw�nP •I"AMEAI CE THE PtAMN01G WAM ,T SA4N's RT tl0[d2 OIM k TENTATIVEIM TRACT rob PROOF OF PUBLICATION w,,N$Pact"iIRMIT NO 02-04/COAST" DIVEEOPMEMI PERMIT NO. 01.12/ CONCIP ,UAL iperKls ,W .NI s11 - Cl 0e,,, , .. Ia 11.t" lIl beach, LLC.Ethw Enact...41UU MacArlha Bhd STATE OF CALIFORNIA) M;a;�^'P V Reach. err M-741 L,o,caahoo Ledo @r NbOi .DMpeed Smith. LIP ss. IieY peat q6 AD .110" al tea patentee menial I[Pb flat Ina, Otto, hum ae E, tr relopmanl of*Aact F, Cnty pngKcl TIM, A County of Orange ) .eOu"t to..bdMk ApproaimalelY 3t b ens nto three p!C•H For pI/Dates of daeelopnn[• mrted ,ne aoKct Ow of the pei wdl be for am a Citizen of the United States and a te51'pe,c .undpmforui.prlputea and the other d" parcels one he • comma-cuVoHlc Of the resident of the County aforesaid; I am O'IcI. i. In the r.,Id20. patiwt ar% propel. en well be • 20 boa . W DUE r W,for 6 is pubbc usage a well as • Nitwe l over the age of eighteen years and not a lo"°'e;M eC!"'fro- tCluoia:tip°pl r ea a. a m�aed-wa M Iw M ra1M. party to or interested in the below °;;e:�o:a° t �l«:i':oa'n). 4U entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of «; .I[hottpry ^ wa •na near ewe • [0 c e pen sp 'e/Dar e•aeme-e. 6l6 onoommrum unrb chew eObtwian" Parboil the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a .no a.saated Inhastr°ctrr• Including the e slergarr of Peefie VMw Awnw. The request also newspaper of general circulation, printede tr,; °effoldift" ",.e„ bow mow+" and published in the City of Huntington denoting,„t w hloaDtowA+toM+imh� Beach County of Orange State of "ties"'pe "'ift "rear ` NE &e t .tlYrbre veho ' ' w•cowetior ofrwe rNlrw able befvw addle California, and that attached Notice is a p.,hNE,W"twe1M�^n "•roww" 'And" • uowedctim ..hill. "-IrZ'P of 0 true and complete copy as was printed r.eaelloDYthe wwo rw n..N..d+a.pr[5M1 ftoM.MNw.EetdrllwE and published in the Huntington Beach „N:P"w"M"�"; wal. hK and Fountain Valley issues of said to NOW eedt �o/h hEN hDhw Wt W./odo dinwm" /wW WN New (3)IMI tiaw the low to W M/1 'a(,ppmainaiii 25•YD"IM newspaper to wit the issues) of: lowest P" In fea Wow Dilld)• am '" ,HWW MM " B" comw Z— Losair. the iearest hewn my BMW-a' -1 1 aclnitW he an 60 to.WINO"" ht died errr'DUM IN prier alit on-PoaM r ,by nebod1 but is not ^meted to eacar•twn. stocApNl. May 27 , 2��4 empa nY m end on site rmrMldn"W". Three Speeol P"mrt rpnest, are " follows: 1) to aNdw commrtcl&I build,,,, to ent,oach albe IM required setback%11colt Pacific Coast Hann"'y end PscdK VMw Awnw:2)to&Now three drNeNay into but residential below VOda PMhlo[ ahu[Nree at a slow at 1r.. .n be. - nrmum 10%. and 3) to panel lelgmol¢ •redo '=.d lruate uatw walls in the lectured P"urrsfar re.rdcMM - I declare, under penalty of perjury, that ulb.ch .e&s A C—MPs..1 ..>:•= PIaN IN utluded that ptond" an",,all bo" t pbn of lM commwcia� and lee . Hub, pcalrary: of the the foregoing is true and correct. Yea Local". 21002 Pa«Irc Coast Hgh..3Y 01 art. site bounded by PacdN Coast Knihoe" Erse Shee,, All•nta AVen&e. and Ibntrl[ton Street) "." nearer. Sea" Nees. Piamm.[ Mange[/ Mar,B."Stable.,Pnncpel Planner Executed on Ma 27 2004 NOncf IS Id Way GIVEN that the rent were Y ns located in the non Mpeal.ble Daisdwben of the bart at Costa Mesa, California. P°'m`i' �"0in12'rikdeicon AWN 4, 20132 in .onlumt un with the .bore request The Cuastal W",Mr,ant Permit MNug w,a comet of a ebN fall, I. yrbinc hearing. City Corned drau»mn and ar ICE IS HEREBY calise GIVEN that Iba nmiW nun,&... and contorted fa the a - d•m procened and coaplrlad m ecca act it with .e. ralred Fret the F McCt Qualty hare cv[ofic&nt Jebrmaad I I the «place art menroayonlo dleata and, Therefore. an on r.,rOne el Impact report was r01 we En....d A a Impact with C No it 0 was Signature prepared Ci accordance fl B and u On hN d the GIY of din S[1on Beach Plenum[ Uep'.bhc . 20OU." Man Street. and a lydbbN f.- pub Lc mspepeft end or by t.l by conlac Un[ Inc plbmmn[ pbVLlmenf. a by t<MVnomn( (lie) S76-S211 ON Fit A copy of the propellant iequlst is on if. tothe CITY Garble Office 2000 Main Sir.. . rluntev.Beach.C•Ms n�g26aB. le�fume Of by Ile, bubble A copy w aNNle " apweaM"tics el the city Clorha fMINs w(TiwreMP htAMe omt-W haft 1.ION ARE DQm wD WAW to be trl l fain ttrN --a~'w— ' w erdw*d n ....vic r F C M June 11, 2004 16787 Beach Blvd., #316 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 City Clerk Joan Flynn City of Huntington Beach ✓r" 5 Lo/ 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648- Re: Appeal of the Pacific City Coastal Development Permit #CDP 02-12 Dear Ms. Flynn: Enclosed is the appeal of Pacific City Coastal Development Permit #CDP 02-12 by the Pacific City Action Coalition. If you have any questions, please call (714) 430-8596. Sincerely, // //-- -- // 6�� Pacific City Action Coalition cc: Meg Vaughn - California Coastal Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA .THE RESOURCES AGENCY Govemor OWN CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office .: 200 Oceangate. 10th Floor y Long Beach, CA 90802-1302 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT (562)590-5071 DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Commission Form D) Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form. SECTION I . Appellants) Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s) : fl 6 0(Z. Zip Area Code Phone No. SECTION II . Decision Being Appealed 1 . Name of local /port government: C _l t Km1'l!(C7 d BEADY,) 2. Bri f d scri tion of development bein appe led: d G 0 M CIAI� L 00 0 3. Development' s location (stree address , assessor' s yrcel n cross s treat , etc. > :_ oZ10UaaP1�1C 0)AST �I"1 . , EA (AK El, k (7 X± d"ll_00 C06I.AEAo VAC)nG 4. Description of decision being appealed : a. Approval ; no special conditions : b. Approval with special conditions : C. Denial : Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable. TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION: APPEAL NO: DATE FILED: DISTRICT: 115: 4/88 M COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL QQVERNMENT (Page 2) 5 . Decision being appealed was made by (check one) : a. _Planning Director/Zoning c . _Planning Commission /Administrator b. 10 City Council /Board of d. _Other Supervisors 6. Date of local government' s decision: Jywf� 7. Local government' s file number (if any) : SECTION III . Identification of Other Interested Persons Give the names and addresses of the following parties . (Use additional paper as necessary. ) a. Name and mail ',ng address of permit appli ant: 141hN EW b. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s) . Include other parties which you know to be interested and should receive notice of this appeal . ( 1 ) C n C PRE FLIlyd - UTY1 D OtlG (2) (3) (4) SECTION IV. Reasons Supporting This Appeal Note: Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act . Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section, which continues on the next page.. APPEAL L FRQH COASTAL PERMIT DE T510N Of LQCAJ GQVERNMENT (page 31 State briefly your reacnnc f r hiD� Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary. ) Stc Agra. ri ) Go�v, r��MS - (��G Ic r>'Y AC,DOPJ 1'WQ hG�IG cjy GRAirr EIS P�cS�ar H�zP 20oVV MP��► A l,S Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal ; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal , may submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request. SECTION V. Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge. Signature of Appellant(s) or Authorize Agent Date p NOTE: If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also sign below. Section VI Agent Authnriza io I/We hereby authorize representative and to bind me/us in all matters c appeal . on�erning actsth�sour Signature of Appellant(s) Date June 11, 2004 16787 Beach Blvd., 316 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Nis. Meg Vaughn California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10"' Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: Appeal of the Pacific City Coastal Development Permit i"CDP 02-12 Dear Ms. Vaughn: Enclosed is the appeal of Pacific City Coastal Development Permit KDP 02-12 by the Pacific City Action Coalition. If you have any questions, please call (714) 430-3596. Sincerely, p Pacific City Action Coalition cc: City Clerk - City of I-funtington Beach Pacific City Action Coalition Coastal Development Permit Appeal The City of Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Plan in the General Resource Protection Policies states, "When policies within the Coastal Element conflict, such conflicts shall be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources." The Land Use section C1.1 goes on to state, "Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible." The Pacific City Action Coalition believes that the approval_of Coastal Development Permit #02-12 based on documented site testing and remediation conducted thus far by Chevron and developer Makar Properties is out of compliance with the City's Local Coastal Plan. It is misleading, incomplete and contradictory. It is the Coalition's position that the best means to effectively mitigate adverse coastal impacts is to have an independent consultant oversee the site's testing and clean-up. 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 ofha_-ardous materials on the site of'the proposed Pacific City development. An environmental chenust consulting for the Pacific City Action Coalition reviewed the Hazardous iWaterials section of the Pacific City Drcrft Environmental Impact Report and other reports describing remediation and characterization activitieson 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 with a recommended course of action that will ensure adequate assessment and mitigation of environmental and hiunan health risks associated with development on the Atlanta Avenite site. THE EIR CLAIMS 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 II 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 pan 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 Ntakar Properties, Chevron and their consultant, Harding ESE in late 2001 or early 2002, identifying potential groundwater contamination by hydrocarbons. 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. City of Huntington Beads —Prrci/ic City 16 The Urban Planning Consulting Group 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 they 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 N9akar 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 Nlakar referencing the above discussion. The report includes a groundwater testing plan, but references the southeastern pan 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 afltdavit 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 rernediation 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 analyzed in the EIR rather than deferred until after development has already proceeded. (3) In 1990, a warning sign identifying the presence of carcinogens and chemicals 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 propetty at the time, was aware of prior groundwater contamination and has reports indicating such. City of Huntington Beach—Pacific City 17 The Urban Planning ConsultiiT 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 "groundwater beneath the project is also brackish due to saltwater intrusion, and as such, is not used as potable water by the City" as a justification 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 IIAVING CONIPLETED RENIEDIAT[ON. (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. City of Huntington Beach —Pacific City 18 TGe Urban Planting Consulting 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 puree the soil of low molecular wei,ht 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) Nlayer Corporation has a history of non-contpliance with state and local requirements spanning- the last decade, including: A 1990 class action lawsuit tiled by Pacific Mobile Home Park residents against the Mayer Corporation for violating .AQivID 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 AQNiD lawsuit tiled against the Mayer Corporation for dust control violations during the construction of the Hilton hotel which was settled for S 15,000. Several neighborhood complaints were lodged with both the AQildD and the City during the 1999 soil transport. Although the Nfayer 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 Ntaver 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 oft 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 Niakar for more details on Mayer's report, (4) Was the contaminated soil actually excavated and remediated on site orjust transported as eyewitness accounts verify, (5) Why is the soil contamination being disclosed now despite the public being told City of lfuntiiTton Beach— Pacific City 19 Ae 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) tMoreover, the 1996 Phase 11 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, SUfHlcal Excavation Number I 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 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, (I) 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 otherwise affect soils on the property site." While Section 3.7-13 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? City ofHuntinKton Beacb — Pacific City 20 The Urban Planning Consulting Croup • 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 II testing of the northwest portion and/or the 1999 testing by Nlayer, 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 mJkg for shallow soil and 68,000 mJkg for deep soil. These levels are 15 to 100 times higher than the prior testing conducted in the 1996 Phase 11 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 11 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 Nlakar for months and have not been disclosed to the public. (2) Developer i'vlakar, 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 Citv. The developer and Chevron withdrew their exemption request shortly after the Pacific City Action Coalition disclosed the above details to the public. 02 ofHuntinQton Beach Pacific City 21 The Uyban PGttnrittg Consulting Group EIR for Pacific City Project EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 November 26, 2003, Page 22 CONCLUSIONS The Pacific City Drall Environmental Impact Report's hazardous `Materials section relies heavily on prior studies conducted by developer Nlakar Properties, Chevron and their consultant(s) f larding Lawson and Harding ESE, and the Robert Mayer Corporation. 'I'hese 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 invoked in assessing the site was even convicted of submitting fraudulent test results for another site. _The City of Huntington Beach has improperly sanctioned and (list ributed.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 Nlakar 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 Finn, 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. City of Huntington Beach —Pacific City 22 The Urban Planning Consulting Group �9 /~ G'iC �f anie .