HomeMy WebLinkAboutBetter Neighborhoods, Inc. - Appeal of Huntington Beach Plan City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
Office of the City Clerk
FB.",1
g0
1.a Robin Estanislau, City Clerk
June 12, 2018
Mr.J. Michael Goolsby
Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
17901 Von Karman Avenue,Ste. 600
Irvine CA 92614
Re: Appeal of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Decision-- Mixed-Use Development at
602-620 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach
Mr. Goolsby,
On Friday, June 1"at 1:18 PM my office accepted check#1004 submitted by your company, Better
Neighborhoods, Inc., in the amount of three thousand five hundred and fifty-two dollars to appeal the
Huntington Beach Planning Commission's May 22, 2018 approval of a mixed use development project at
602-620 Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach.
On Thursday, June 7th the Finance Department notified me that check#1004 had been returned for non-
sufficient funds. On Friday morning,June 8, 1 left you a voicemail indicating that the City would allow
your company until Monday,June 11 at 5:00 PM to rectify the matter. On Monday morning,June 11, 1
sent you an email as a reminder to submit your appeal fee in the form of cash, cashier's check or money
order to the City no later than 5:00 PM.
Given that the City has not heard from you or any other associate with Better Neighborhoods, Inc., by
the extended deadline of Monday,June 11 5:00 PM, your original appeal received on June 1, 2018 has
officially been denied for non-payment.
If you have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me at 714-536-5405.
Sincerely,
Q
Robin Estanislau, CIVIC
City Clerk
c: Finance Department
Tess Nguyen, Associate Planner
Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ♦ Waitakere,New Zealand
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER OFFICE COMMUNICATION
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
To: CITY CLERK
From: DEBORAH ALLIN, DEPT SERVICES AIDE H
Date: June 7, 2018
Subject: RETURNED CHECK ITEMS
The attached check was returned by the bank for nonpayment. The Finance Department sends
out two notices to the person who wrote the check. If the person fails to respond,we attempt to
contact them by phone. When the person does make payment,the Finance Department will
notify you.
Your part of this process is to:
1. Stop or cancel services or classes being provided as a result of the returned check.
2. Attempt to make contact with the person and/or notify me of any additional
information you may have (all we have is what is on the check).
3. Do not accept payment on the returned item—refer them to the Treasurer's Office.
4. Do not accept check payments from this person for future services or classes.
We need to make every attempt to reduce the number of returned check items. You can help by
ensuring that you get the proper identification and by verifying the information on the check.
When verifying the information on the check, please look for the following:
1. Ensure there is a complete street address, not just a P.O. Box, verify the phone
number, and add Driver's License number.
2. Do not accept checks on new accounts, which don't have printed information unless
the service to be provided is over three weeks away.
3. Note the check's date. Post-dated checks are not acceptable and normally cannot be
prosecuted.
4. Observe the writer's signature and make sure the signature matches their ID.
5. Make sure figure amount and written amount matches.
6. Place Cash Receipt Number,Building Permit Number or Business License Number
on front of check.
If you have any questions,please contact me at(714) 536-5238.
I
Thank you for your support on this.
RV.04,2010
i
i
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER OFFICE COMMUNICAT461,q
Ju
FINANCE DEPARTMENT16 17
To: CITY CLERK
From: DEBORAH ALLIN, DEPT SERVICES AIDE 11
Date: June 7, 2018
Subject: RETURNED CHECK ITEMS
The attached check was returned by the bank for nonpayment. The Finance Department sends
out two notices to the person who wrote the check. If the person fails to respond, we attempt to
contact them by phone. When the person does make payment, the Finance Department will
notify you.
Your part of this process is to:
1. Stop or cancel services or classes being provided as a result of the returned check.
2. Attempt to make contact with the person and/or notify me of any additional
information you may have (all we have is what is on the check).
3.
Do not accept payment on the returned item—refer them to the Treasurer's Office.
4. Do not accept check payments from this person for future services or classes.
We need to make every attempt to reduce the number of returned check items. You can help by
ensuring that you get the proper identification and by verifying the information on the check.
When verifying the information on the check, please look for the following:
1. Ensure there is a complete street address, not just a P.O. Box, verify the phone
number, and add Driver's License number.
2. Do not accept checks on new accounts, which don't have printed information unless
the service to be provided is over three weeks away.
I Note the check's date. Post-dated checks are not acceptable and normally cannot be
prosecuted.
4. Observe the writer's signature and make sure the signature matches their ID.
5. Make sure figure amount and written amount matches.
6. Place Cash Receipt Number, Building Permit Number or Business License Number
on front of check.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 536-5238.
Thank you for your support on this.
RV.04.2010
JUN
?r],8
Account# Location Amount Reason Account# Charged
2740013419 0 3,552.00 NSF 2740013419
Payer Bank Routing# Maker Account# Sequence# Submitted by:
121042882 6762656814 99000789
Better Neighborhoods Inc. 1004
17901 Von Karman Ave.,Ste.600
1 t-a2eerizlo
Irvine,CA 92614
DATE
PAY THE fC{! 3��SZ, OCJ
ORDER OF r�
'r 2 ------ —rOLLARS
Wells Fargo
FOR r—r�0,16��u
00 100 ►: 1 2 LD4 288 2►: 6 76 26568 jL'
X m
G m
4 lu n
-aoTz
6/4/2018 C9196 037 001 C_ f11
3O
AU9
i
7 T
' m
Statement Date ! Received
Image Archived f To Finance �--
r
Adj/In Access Notes/Log DD Tracking Letter Letter To Dept Cancel Autopay
Item#1
Notes:
Returned Bank Items.xlsx
CASH RECEIPT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
P.O. BOX 711
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-0711
www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/payments
DATE ���/f ' Issuing Dept. lei
Dept. Phone# F7/
FUNDS RECEIVED FROM /
�7
ADDRESS
Phone#: tf�'�-71AI
FOR fJx �f: fr`%.�_ .�r -.V'ezi/P e i,r'J:.w 1
AMOUNT RECEIVED O Cash Check# O Credit Card �j` ~f✓l�
Prepared.. Received Finance
B :x l,_ ?'. fff B _ Approval
IF OBJECT=50000'THRLJ'9d000, FINANCE�ROVAL REQUIRED Approval Date
Subs"Urnty_, 'Object Subs, m e 1 sSub,;Ledger, rw;, T
l`' - - — — — — — —— — —
--- -
TOTAL
Stamped Validation Only -
Please do not write in the box below
INN t Z'10['E M?-A/.9
No. 1298317
ISSUING DEPARTMENT COPY
I
� ZSCS %2t =
.w»» ,
ZN
; 2p%�35 �gear w
Tba9R 2oU!
Rlass» 2 6» gs CG 2��eb
' DIRECT BANK DEPOSIT TRANSACTION
�R CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
— --- Finance Department
P.O.Box 711
fB 9p9" ` HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA92648-0711
(714) 536-5200
I I
DATE:
; , .
FUNDS RECEIVED FROM ` -
ADDRESS
r -
FOR z_
i
Prepared Reviewed f�
By '- gy ,-�
IF OBJECT=50000 THRU 90000, FINANCE APPROVAL REQUIRED Finance !i
Approval/Date
Business Unit I Object Subs Sub-Ledger IType
r I
- - —— — — — — — — — — — - - — —— — — —— — —
i - - - - --- - —— — — — - - — —— — — —— — —
k - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - --- - -- - -
5
-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - -
--- - -
---- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - --- -
k
f.
G TOTAL $
04 —.
Please do not write in the box below
�J !F
i
i
r
i
i
i
DD '
SUING DEPARTMENT COPY
Esparza, Patty
From: Estanislau, Robin
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 10:49 AM
To: michael@better-neighborhoods.com
Cc: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Appeal of May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Decision Mixed Use Development, 602-620
PCH (the "Project"
Attachments: 20180607123100133.pdf; Appeal of May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Decision Mixed Use
Developmen....pdf
Mr. Goolsby,
I left you a voicemail on Friday,June 8 about the attached check to appeal a mixed-use development at 602-620 PCH in
the city of Huntington Beach being returned for non-sufficient funds. I haven't heard back from you, and would like to
remind you that the City will accept payment in the form of cash, cashier's check or money order up until the close of
business today at 5:00 PM, Monday,June 11, 2018.
Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
714-536-5405
Please consider the HB City Clerk's office for your passport needs!
i
�
*FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, |
P
2 3
4tZl F�TG H 1��ORI��
17901 Von Kannan Ave, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 556-8714
www.better-neighborhoods.com/
June 1, 2018
Ms. Robin Estanislau
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Appeal of May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Decision
Mixed Use Development, 602-620 PCH (the "Project")
Dear Ms. Estanislau:
Better Neighborhoods Inc. is an organization established to help neighbors have an equal voice to
that of the planners and developers on new development decisions, to encourage smart growth that
is consistent with the needs of the community, to protect the natural environment and our places of
historical and esthetic significance, to support affordable housing, and to balance the needs for
growth and livable cities.
The PCH Mixed Use Development project involves the construction of a 109,892 sq. ft. mixed-use
project consisting of 4 levels, 29 condominium units (levels 2-4), 10,495 sq. ft. of retail and
restaurant use (level 1), 117 parking spaces (14 spaces at grade and 103 spaces at 2 levels of
subterranean parking), and alcohol and live entertainment for the proposed restaurant in the coastal
zone (the "Project").
We hereby appeal the May 22, 2018 decision of the Planning Commission approving the above-
referenced Project on the following grounds.
Additional study is necessary with regard to several issues to determine whether they might
create significant environmental impacts resulting from the Project, and whether feasible
mitigation measures can be implemented that would reduce the identified significant impacts
to a less than significant level.
Ms. Robin Estanislau
Re: 602-620 PCH
June 1, 2018
Page 2
We do not believe that some of the potential significant impacts raised by members of the pubic and
by Better Neighborhoods in our May 22, 2018 letter submitted in advance of the Planning
Commission hearing (see attached) have been adequately addressed or studied at all.
Specifically, there is (1) no hydrogeologic study related to the potentially significant impact on
groundwater from the subterranean excavation activities or from the possible use of RAP that may
cause toxic/hazardous materials presently in the soils to be discharged into the groundwater; (2) no
study of the proposed roof top drainage feature and water treatment/capture; and (4) no study of
traffic impacts/safety/flow and noise impacts during the anticipated 24-36 month construction and
after construction caused by the new residents and restaurant delivery trucks, especially in the alley;
and (5) no parking feasibility study related to the increased density and restaurant activities.
Better Neighborhoods also incorporates into this appeal the other points raised in our prior
correspondence as well as any and all opposing comments made by others at or before the May 22
Planning Commission Hearing.
Sincerely,
J� 'oolsby,
Pr sident
Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
i
`µme,
NEIGHBORHOODS
17901 Von Karman Ave, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 556-8714
www.better-neighborhoods.com/
May 22, 2018
Tess Nguyen VIA EMAIL
Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
tn�,Tuyen(a>,surfcit -1�org
Re: Mixed Use Development, 602-620 PCH (the "Project")
Dear Ms. Nguyen:
Better Neighborhoods Inc. is an organization established to help neighbors have an equal voice to
that of the planners and developers on new development decisions, to encourage smart growth that
is consistent with the needs of the community, to protect the natural environment and our places of
historical significance, to support affordable housing, and to balance the needs for growth and
livable cities.
We have reviewed the staff MND for the pending Planning Commission hearing scheduled for
tonight with respect to the above-referenced matter. Unfortunately, one of our staff will be unable
to attend the hearing to provide oral testimony. Accordingly, please provide this letter to the
Planning Commission as one of the public comments for the hearing and include this letter in the
administrative record for this project.
Project Summary
The PCH Mixed Use Development project involves the construction of a 109,892 sq. ft. mixed-use
project consisting of 4 levels, 29 condominium units (levels 2-4), 10,495 sq. ft. of retail and
restaurant use (level 1), 117 parking spaces (14 spaces at grade and 103 spaces at 2 levels of
1
Ms. Tess Nguyen
Re: 602-620 PCH
May 22, 2018
Page 2
subterranean parking), and alcohol and live entertainment for the proposed restaurant in the coastal
zone (the "Project").
As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the Project is set at the absolute
maximum allowed density ("The maximum density allowed in District 1 of the DTSP is 50
dwelling units per net acre. The project is proposing a density of approximately 50 units per acre").
The Project is intended to inhabit one of the most magnificent and valuable pieces of real estate in
America and would sit right in the heart of"Surf City", within easy walking distance of the Pacific
Ocean.
There are a number of significant problems with this proposal. These are set out briefly as follows.
Aesthetics
In such an iconic location, one would expect a sophisticated, light, airy modern design in light
pastel hues, using natural, local materials to blend with and accentuate the colors and textures of the
area's main draw—the beach. As DTSP Objective 2 Policy states: `Include "quality standards" that
will exchange increased development potential for quality architecture, including green design
methods.' Unfortunately, what we observe in Figures 5-1-1 and 5-1-2 is an awkward, densely-
packed concrete-and-glass bunker of a building topped on either side with an unusual prison-style
watchtower, where one can imagine armed guards patrolling. How does this unusual design feature
fit in, one wonders?
Then there are the transparent balconies wedged so closely to one another that they would prevent
any semblance of privacy. Not just neighbors but everyone nearby would be able to observe
residents as they sit outside on their respective balconies along with whatever tables, chairs, planters
and other clutter they store there. This could substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings and have a potentially substantial adverse effect on the
scenic view of the ocean.
Light Pollution
The transparent material of the balconies would also pose an extra risk of glare and reflection in
addition to all the other new light sources the development would create. Balconies would likely
reflect sunlight during the day—perhaps dangerously - as well as traffic and street lighting and the
lighting from the restaurant and other commercial interests on the ground floor throughout the night.
Has the city considered the potentially significant impact of glare and light reflection at different
times of the day posed by the transparent balconies?
Noise
How long before a resident weary of still another night of restaurant patio diners' uninhibited
conversation lobs a flower pot down on them? Who among us wouldn't be tempted? What if the
live entertainment spilling up into apartments begins to wake a sleeping baby or a fragile senior or
Ms. Tess Nguyen
Re: 602-620 PCH
May 22, 2018
Page 3
invalid? No problem. The noise this development would generate within the complex is so
excessive that, according to the MND:
"To meet the City's interior 45 dBA CNEL standard, a "windows closed" condition is
required for all the units within the project site. In addition, all residential windows and
sliding glass doors facing PCH will require a STC (Sound Transmission Class) of 33-34 or
higher. Under a "windows closed" condition, a means of mechanical ventilation is required."
This means residents hoping to reap the healthful benefits of the location would be unable to enjoy
either a nightly sea breeze while slumbering or the bracing sea air during the day. Rather, they
would face the steady, 24/7 drone of mechanical ventilation and all that goes with it.
Almost as bad, commercial interests on the ground floor mean residents of the complex as well as
those nearby would be subject to `noise from loading/unloading and delivery activities, and rooftop
HVAC equipment.' According to the MND, "Loading and delivery activities are expected to take
place adjacent to the alley, approximately 21.5 feet from the nearest residential units. The closest
HVAC units will be approximately 35 feet from the nearest residential units." Both are
unacceptably close to where people will be living.
Assuming loading activities were restricted to daylight hours 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., as the MND
suggests, and assuming a five-minute restriction was placed on engine idling, how would these
restrictions be enforced? Anyone who has had the misfortune to live near a commercial loading area
is all too aware of the all-night blasts of transport truck horns alerting traffic to their presence. This
is but one more reason why mixed-use developments like this one, which set competing interests
against one another, are so fraught.
And while the MND asserts, `The subterranean parking structure is not expected to be a significant
source of noise since it will be underground and shielded from the adjacent uses,' does this mean
there won't be an automatic garage door clanging and juddering up and down all day and night as
people enter and exit the garage? That would be novel indeed.
Still another source of noise would be the "mezzanines, with decks above, on the roof level. These
are to be centrally located on the roof and will not be visible from the street level. Seating,
umbrellas, railings, and glass windbreaks will be located in this area" - somewhere between the
noisy HVAC units, presumably. Nearby residents would probably not welcome the prospect of
sharing second-hand the exclusive rooftop social events such amenities would inevitably promote.
How would they as well as the other residents of the complex be impacted by residents using these
rooftop amenities? The MND doesn't explain. Are there other developments in the vicinity with
similar rooftop amenities? If so, have there been any incidents or complaints either by residents of
the complex or those nearby?
This is all in addition to the estimated 36 months of noisy construction.
Ms. Tess Nguyen
Re: 602-620 PCH
May 22, 2018
Page 4
Mixed-use Challenges
According to the MND, "The project will be required to comply with standard building code
requirements related to exhaust ventilation as well as comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Odors from
restaurant activity and operations are not expected to meet the criteria of being a nuisance. Based on
this information, less than significant impacts would occur." How effective are the standard
building code requirements at ensuring residents at the complex are not adversely impacted by
restaurant cooking odors? Are there similar mixed-use developments in the city available for
purposes of comparison? If so, does proximity to a restaurant pose any other environmental
impacts, such as vermin, and, if so, are there any measures available to mitigate?
That Mysterious' Paseo'
There are no computer-generated images to illustrate the feature described as "a 2,558 sq. ft. `paseo'
that is partially open to the sky" whose purpose is to benefit the commercial/restaurant tenants by
providing a secondary access point. The courtyard/paseo area would feature art work, decorative
lighting, distinctive paving, water features, planter boxes, and seating area, says the MND. How
would this area be secured at night?
That Mysterious Rooftop Drainage Feature
According to the MND, "runoff from the roof would drain into proposed planters" and "flow
through planter by Filterra system" and "be conveyed to the existing catch basin on 7th Street once
treated." This sounds experimental at best and not quite fully conceptualized. Wastewater treatment
and capture is a serious issue in California. A much more detailed explanation is required. How
would this work as a practical matter? Are there examples of developments that use a similar
approach?
Multiple Special Permits
The proposed development would require quite a few special permits, including a permit to increase
the height of the building, which would impede a scenic view of the ocean for many without good
reason. Policy states, `Variances may be granted to resolve practical difficulties or unnecessary
physical hardships that may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of
existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions on the site or
in the immediate vicinity; or from street locations or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity of
the site.' No such hardships exist in this case. This is a near perfect location in almost every way.
There must be at least a million ways to design around any perceived site limitations. Therefore, the
threshold to approve any of the variances sought is unmet.
The Use and Impacts of RAP for the Site Should Be Analyzed Prior to Project Approval.
In certain areas where ground water may be impacted, the use of rammed aggregate piers
(RAP) has been suggested. But there has been no feasibility assessment of RAP for the Project site,
1 Ms. Tess Nguyen
Re: 602-620 PCH
May 22, 2018
Page 5
nor has there been any study of the possible effect RAP may cause potentially
corrosive/toxic/hazardous materials which may be present in the unknown fill to be disbursed and
discharged into the ground water.
For these reasons, and others given prior to and during the hearing by Better Neighborhoods and by
others, we urge you to not to approve the proposed Project.
Sincerely,
�66"
J. Michael Goolsby 7
President and CEO
Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
Wentzel, Linda
From: Wentzel, Linda
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 2:04 PM
To: James, Jane; Nguyen, Tess; Gates, Michael; CITY COUNCIL; Wilson, Fred; Farrell, Lori Ann;
Hopkins, Travis; Handy, Robert; Estanislau, Robin
Cc: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Appeal of May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Decision Mixed Use Development, 602-620
PCH (the "Project")
Attachments: Appeal of May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Decision Mixed Use Development, 602-620
PCH the'the Project'.pdf
The attached Appeal to the City Council relating to the Planning Commission Action approving the PCH Mixed Use
Development, 602-620 PCH (the "Project") filed in the Office of the City Clerk today.
LC+i W e*&i el
Department Services Aide
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
714.536.5227
Linda.wentzel@surfcity-nb.org
1