Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe-Hearing of City Council's Denial of Tentative Tract Map N City of Huntinaton Beach 20001VIAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 lam/} DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Code Enforcement Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714,375.5155 714.536.5241 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION February 19, 2020 Jeff Herbst MCG Architecture 111 Pacifica, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042(ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 APPELLANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 4740 Green River Road, Suite 304, Corona, CA 92880 REQUEST: The City Council will consider the request to demolish an existing liquor store, residence, and portion of a former car wash to permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) DATE OF ACTION: February 19, 2020 On Tuesday, February 19, 2020, the Huntington Beach City Council took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Notice of Action:TTM 18157/CUP 17-042 February 19,2020 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Nicolle Aube, the project planner, at (714) 374-1529 or via email at nicolle.aube@surfcity-hb.org, or the Community Development Department at(714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Ursula Luna-Reynosa Director of Community Development ULR:JJ:NA:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial—TTM 18157/CUP 17-042 c: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042' The City Council finds and determines that the project will have a negative impact to health and safety for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. In light of the evidence in the record and the material information, findings, and opinions offered by the Traffic Expert Report (by Mark Miller dated January 27, 2020) and Fire Code/Life Safety Expert Report (by James McMullen dated February 10, 2020), the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety due to unsafe ingress/egress conditions caused by the project. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Due to the proximity of the project access driveway to the Beach and Ellis intersection, the project will require right turns only in and out of the project site. This would prohibit motorists from exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Avenue. Residents and visitors also cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Avenue without continuing past the project to make a u-turn at Patterson Lane to make a right turn into the project site. The Ellis/Patterson intersection is currently unsignalized. According to the project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a licensed traffic engineering firm, (LLG dated April 16, 2019) the project will generate 222 additional u-turns at the Ellis/Patterson intersection. Based on accident data provided by the Transportation Division of the Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the Ellis/Patterson intersection has experienced an increase in traffic accidents within the last few years, while other intersections and street segments near the project site have had a decrease in accidents. The increase in approximately 222 u-turns at this intersection as a result of the project will exacerbate accident rates at this intersection causing an adverse public safety impact. The Traffic Expert Report also found that the types of collisions at Ellis/Patterson have changed from rear-end/hit object collisions to broadside collisions since the Elan project became operational. Furthermore, the LLG Traffic Impact Analysis discloses that motorists entering and exiting the site may experience significant delays during the PM peak hour due to westbound vehicular queuing along Ellis Avenue. Traffic delays on Ellis Avenue will contribute to motorists attempting to turn left to enter and exit the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends installation of a "STOP" sign and signage restricting outbound movements to right turns only in an effort to improve safe ingress and egress at the site. However, these measures are not adequate enough to improve safety and the study also recommends additional driveway treatments to further regulate the turn restrictions, such as the installation of raised pavement to physically prevent left turns out of the site. This suggests that is a reasonable assumption that motorists will lose patience and attempt left turns out of the site onto Ellis Avenue creating an unsafe condition, particularly during the PM peak hour when the intersection is blocked by westbound traffic on Ellis Avenue 90% of the usable time, as noted by the Traffic Expert Report. Additionally, G:1RCA1NOA1201021820 TTM 18157-CUP 17-042(Ellis Ave Condos) Attachment 1.1 motorists may attempt to avoid making a u-turn at the unsignalized Ellis/Patterson intersection resulting in additional delay due to vehicular queuing on westbound Ellis Avenue. These motorists entering the site from eastbound Ellis Avenue will attempt left turns from a through lane across traffic into the project driveway creating unsafe conditions on both eastbound and westbound sides of Ellis Avenue. 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. The site cannot accommodate an alternative access point or an additional access point to mitigate the negative safety impacts caused by project generated traffic. The project site does not have access to another street or alley. The appellant proposed a raised "porkchop" design at the driveway entrance to prevent left turns out of the project site as recommended by the Traffic Impact Analysis. This could potentially address the adverse health and safety impact to an uncertain degree. However, this design does not meet Fire Department access standards and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements. Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 401 contains minimum standards for fire apparatus access and No. 403 has additional requirements for driveway width when there are multiple lanes of travel with an "island divider", like the proposed driveway with the raised "porkchop" design. Each lane of travel must be a minimum of 14 ft. wide. Two lanes of travel require a minimum 28 ft. wide driveway, without counting additional width required for an "island divider". The proposed project driveway is 24 ft. wide total. Since the proposed raised "porkchop" design would take up a portion of the driveway width, it will result in a driveway that is less than 24 ft. wide. Since the proposed driveway is only 24 ft. wide when there is a 28 ft. minimum width (excluding additional width required for the raised "porkchop"), there is no feasible mitigation available for the adverse health and safety condition resulting from the proposed "porkchop" driveway design. The raised "porkchop" design would impede Fire Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact caused by the project. Therefore, insufficient access to the project site and project generated traffic will have a direct adverse impact to health and safety which cannot be mitigated. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The City Council finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP and would result in a significant health and safety impact as determined by the Traffic Expert Report (by Mark Miller dated .January 27, 2020) and Fire Code/Life Safety Expert Report (by James McMullen dated February 10, 2020). More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow G:\RCA\NOA\20\021820 TTM 18157-CUP 17-042(Ellis Ave Condos) Attachment 1.2 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. According to the material information contained within the Expert Reports, the project will result in significant health and safety impacts and will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a development that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C.' Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC — 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. GARCAINOA1201021820 TTM 18157-CUP 17-042(Ellis Ave Condos) Attachment 1.3 The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. Additionally, the Expert Reports concluded that there are significant project related health and safety impacts and therefore, the development would not be consistent with Circulation Element policies. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, as noted in the Expert Reports, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a u-turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would G;\RCA\NOA\20\021820 TTM 18157-CUP 17-042(Ellis Ave Condos) Attachment 1.4 be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. G:\RCA\NOA\20\021820 TTM 18157-CUP 17-042(Ellis Ave Condos) Attachment 1.5 APPW VED OP7740V City of Huntington Beach File #: 20-1393 MEETING DATE: 2/18/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Subject: City Council's Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Avenue Condos). The matter is re-agendized at the Appellant's request. Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042, a request to permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking (the "Project") located at 8041 Ellis Avenue (the "Site"). Staff recommended approval of the Project with suggested findings and conditions of approval to the Planning Commission. On June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Project. The property owner, Tahir Salim, (the "Appellant") filed a timely appeal, per Section 248.20 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), of the Planning Commission's decision on June 20, 2019. At the August 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the Council opened the public hearing and continued the appeal to the September 3, 2019, meeting at the Appellant's request. At the September 3, 2019 City Council meeting, the Council voted to deny the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's decision. The Appellant, through his attorney, sent a letter to the City Attorney's Office requesting a re-hearing on the Project, or else he would file a lawsuit on the previous denial. The Project is herein presented to City Council for re-hearing at the Appellant's request. Financial Impact: No fiscal impact. Action: The City Council may take one of the following action(s): A) Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings (Attachment No. 1); OR B) Deny Without Prejudice Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17- City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 2/13/2020 powere"Legistar- File #: 20-1393 MEETING DATE: 2/18/2020 042 with findings (Attachment No. 1); OR C) Tentatively Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct Staff to conduct environmental analysis on the new information provided in the Expert Traffic and Fire Code/Life Safety Reports in accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (Attachments No. 2 and 3), and re-agendize for a future meeting. Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 A ellant/Property Owner: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 4740 Green River Road, Suite 304, Corona, CA 92880 Location: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) A comprehensive description of the Project can be found in the May 28, 2019, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 7). The staff report and attachments include the proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, subdivision map, technical studies related to air quality, traffic, hydrology/water quality, and geological/soils, and written communications regarding the project. History of the Planning Commission's decision and subsequent appeal by the property owner can be found in the September 3, 2019 Request for City Council Action (Attachment No. 5). B. BACKGROUND On September 3, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Project. Eleven people spoke during public comments on the Project. Seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the Project, citing traffic issues, Site access issues, small lot size for the proposed density, parking, and the existing supply of apartments within the City. Four members of the public spoke in support of the Project including, the Appellant, a representative from People for Housing OC, and two representatives from Abundant Housing LA. The Appellant spoke in support of the Project describing the benefits of redeveloping the underutilized and dilapidated Site. The organization representatives spoke in support of affordable ownership opportunities and expressed dissatisfaction with the possibility that the Project would be operated as rental units. The City Council then deliberated and expressed concerns; issues were raised regarding the Project's impact on Ellis Avenue traffic, shadows on adjacent properties, unsafe ingress/egress to the Site, increased U-turns at Patterson Lane, the area of the project devoted to commercial use being too small, and marginal public open space. Ultimately, the City Council was unable to make all of the required findings for a CUP and denied the Project. In the denial, the City Council made findings that the Project would result in negative impacts to health and safety because: (1) There is unsafe vehicular ingress and egress to the Site which will result in exacerbated City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 2/13/2020 powereMA,LegistarTI File #: 20-1393 MEETING DATE: 2/18/2020 accident rates, and (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate this adverse impact because there is no alternative or additional access point to the Site. The City Council also found the Project did not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 in that the Project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The Site is located within the Five Points District and the City Council found that the Project does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because: (1) Only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, (2) There is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and (3) The Project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. City Council Action on September 3, 2019 A motion made by Posey, seconded by Semeta, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings, carried by the following vote: AYES: Brenden, Carr, Semeta, Peterson, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSED C. ATTORNEY SUBJECT MATER EXPERT REVIEW The City was sued by Californians for Homeownership on October 28, 2019 in the case Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach. As part of the defense of the lawsuit, the City Attorney's Office retained two experts, a traffic safety expert, and a fire code and safety expert, to review the Project as originally proposed and considered, then denied, by City Council. Initially, the purpose of the expert retainers was to assist in providing a defense to the City in the lawsuit. The experts, Mr. Miller and Mr. McMullen, respectively (collectively, the "Experts"), were asked to review the entire Project as proposed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Both experts have confirmed they did in fact review the entire Project, including scaled plans and reports, before rendering any findings or opinions. The scope/purpose of their review was to analyze everything objectively and offer findings and opinions regarding the proposed project via separate reports (collectively, the "Expert Reports") (Attachments 2 and 3). Such reports are normally kept confidential as "attorney work-product" and used only at a certain time in court for purposes of City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 2/13/2020 powere"Leg i sta r T M File #: 20-1393 MEETING DATE: 2/18/2020 defending a lawsuit. In addition to the pending lawsuit, the Appellant, through his attorney, sent a letter to the City Attorney's Office requesting a re-hearing on the Project, or else the Appellant would file a second lawsuit on the previous denial. To be clear, it is the position of the Appellant and Californians for Homeownership that the Project must be approved. They requested; therefore, a second presentation to City Council on re-hearing in hopes for approval. When the Expert Reports were recently provided to the City Attorney's Office, it was notable that new material information, new material findings, new material perspectives, and new material opinions were being offered by the Experts. With that new information in hand, and in light of the re-hearing on the Project, the City Attorney determined that this information, which includes new findings and opinions, could not remain "confidential." The City Council must have before it all the information available to make an informed decision. Keeping these reports confidential (merely for defense of the lawsuit) and not presenting them (with the new information) to City Council would be improper. To that end, as of the publish date of the February 18, 2020 Agenda, the City Attorney is waiving the "attorney work-product" privilege and sharing these Expert Reports with City Council. The decision to approve or deny the Project is ultimately at the discretion of the City Council via the consideration of the TTM No. 18157 and CUP No. 17-042. Environmental Status: Should the City Council wish to consider approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that they direct staff to conduct further environmental analysis on the new information recently received via the Expert Reports. Strategic Plan Goal: Not Applicable. Attachment(s): 1. Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157/ CUP No. 17-042 2. Traffic Expert Review by Albert Grover & Associates 3. CA Fire Code/Life Safety Expert Review by James F. McMullen 4. Appellant's Request for the Item to be Reagendized 5. Project Plans (see Attachment No. 5 of Attachment No. 7 - May 28, 2019 PC Staff Report) 6. September 3, 2019 Request for City Council Action and Attachments 7. June 11, 2019 Planning Commission NOA of Denial 8. June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments 9. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 2/13/2020 powere41Q7y LegistarTM City Council/ AGENDA February 18, 2020 Public Financing Authority 23. 20 1393 Denied Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Avenue Condos). The matter was re-agendized at the Appellant's request. Recommended Action: The City Council may take one of the following action(s): A) Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings (Attachment No. 1), -QR Ne 17 042 with fin. RgG (AttaGhmen+ NO 1)i P1G ETTerltatively Appreve Tentative Tr;;A+ Map Ne 1@157 -;nr! Use Permit NE) Supplemental Communications (9) Speakers-5 Approved Option "A"7-0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 24. 20-1400 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-13 related to the Joint Exercise of Powers for Membership in the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT), and authorized the City Manager to execute the Orange County Housing Finance Trust Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-13, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Relating to the Joint Exercise of Powers for Membership in the Orange County Housing Finance Trust;"and, B) Authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Joint Powers Agreement to join the Orange County Housing Finance Trust. Approved 6-1 (Peterson-No) Page 6 of 8 ATTACHMENT # 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that the project will have a negative impact to health and safety for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. In light of the evidence in the record and the material information, findings, and opinions offered by the Traffic Expert Report (by Mark Miller dated January 27, 2020) and Fire Code/Life Safety Expert Report (by James McMullen dated February 10, 2020), the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety due to unsafe ingress/egress conditions caused by the project. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Due to the proximity of the project access driveway to the Beach and Ellis intersection, the project will require right turns only in and out of the project site. This would prohibit motorists from exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Avenue. Residents and visitors also cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Avenue without continuing past the project to make a u-turn at Patterson Lane to make a right turn into the project site. The Ellis/Patterson intersection is currently unsignalized. According to the project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a licensed traffic engineering firm, (LLG dated April 16, 2019)the project will generate 222 additional u-turns at the Ellis/Patterson intersection. Based on accident data provided by the Transportation Division of the Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the Ellis/Patterson intersection has experienced an increase in traffic accidents within the last few years, while other intersections and street segments near the project site have had a decrease in accidents. The increase in approximately 222 u-turns at this intersection as a result of the project will exacerbate accident rates at this intersection causing an adverse public safety impact. The Traffic Expert Report also found that the types of collisions at Ellis/Patterson have changed from rear-end/hit object collisions to broadside collisions since the Elan project became operational. Furthermore, the LLG Traffic Impact Analysis discloses that motorists entering and exiting the site may experience significant delays during the PM peak hour due to westbound vehicular queuing along Ellis Avenue. Traffic delays on Ellis Avenue will contribute to motorists attempting to turn left to enter and exit the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends installation of a "STOP" sign and signage restricting outbound movements to right turns only in an effort to improve safe ingress and egress at the site. However, these measures are not adequate enough to improve safety and the study also recommends additional driveway treatments to further regulate the turn restrictions, such as the installation of raised pavement to physically prevent left turns out of the site. This suggests that is a reasonable assumption that motorists will lose patience and attempt left turns out of the site onto Ellis Avenue creating an unsafe condition, particularly during the PM peak hour when the intersection is blocked by westbound traffic on Ellis Avenue 90% of the usable time, as noted by the Traffic Expert Report. Additionally, motorists may attempt to avoid making a u-turn at the unsignalized Ellis/Patterson intersection resulting in additional delay due to vehicular queuing on westbound Ellis Avenue. These motorists entering the site from eastbound Ellis Avenue will attempt left turns from a through lane across traffic into the project driveway creating unsafe conditions on both eastbound and westbound sides of Ellis Avenue. 408 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. The site cannot accommodate an alternative access point or an additional access point to mitigate the negative safety impacts caused by project generated traffic. The project site does not have access to another street or alley. The appellant proposed a raised "porkchop" design at the driveway entrance to prevent left turns out of the project site as recommended by the Traffic Impact Analysis. This could potentially address the adverse health and safety impact to an uncertain degree. However, this design does not meet Fire Department access standards and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements. Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 401 contains minimum standards for fire apparatus access and No. 403 has additional requirements for driveway width when there are multiple lanes of travel with an "island divider", like the proposed driveway with the raised "porkchop" design. Each lane of travel must be a minimum of 14 ft. wide. Two lanes of travel require a minimum 28 ft. wide driveway, without counting additional width required for an "island divider". The proposed project driveway is 24 ft. wide total. Since the proposed raised "porkchop" design would take up a portion of the driveway width, it will result in a driveway that is less than 24 ft. wide. Since the proposed driveway is only 24 ft. wide when there is a 28 ft. minimum width (excluding additional width required for the raised "porkchop"), there is no feasible mitigation available for the adverse health and safety condition resulting from the proposed "porkchop" driveway design. The raised "porkchop" design would impede Fire Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact caused by the project. Therefore, insufficient access to the project site and project generated traffic will have a direct adverse impact to health and safety which cannot be mitigated. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The City Council finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP and would result in a significant health and safety impact as determined by the Traffic Expert Report (by Mark Miller dated January 27, 2020) and Fire Code/Life Safety Expert Report (by James McMullen dated February 10, 2020). More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. According to the material information contained within the Expert Reports, the project will result in significant health and safety impacts and will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 409 3. Approval of the project would result in a development that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c. Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF. Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC— 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. Additionally, the Expert Reports concluded that there are significant project related health and safety impacts and therefore, the development would not be consistent with Circulation Element policies. 410 The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, as noted in the Expert Reports, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a u-turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. 411 ATTACHMENT #2 ALBERT ROVER & SS®CIATES City of Huntington Beach, Declaration Californians for Homeownership v.the City of Huntington Beach DECLARATION OF MARK H. MILLER Date: January 27, 2020 I, Mark H. Miller,declare the following: I obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil/traffic engineering from California Polytechnic University Pomona in 1974. 1 am a Registered Civil Engineer(CE)with the State of California, License#40956. 1 am a Registered Traffic Engineer(TE)with the State of California, License#1575. 1 am also a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer(PTOE), License#233. The PTOE certification is sponsored by the Transportation Professional Certification Board, Inc., and promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The certification process, which has been adopted for professional traffic operations engineers, requires that the holder be a licensed professional engineer if he or she practices in the United States, Canada, or any other country that provides governmental licensing of engineers. This certification process builds on and supports the practice of professional engineering registration.The PTOE is the highest-level licensing available in the field of Traffic Engineering. Currently, there are approximately 3,000 licensed PTOEs within the United States and Canada. While employed by the State of Illinois DOT as State Signing Engineer, I continued my education at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.The course work included, but was not limited to,Traffic& Transportation Engineering, Highway Capacity Workshop, Institute of Transportation Studies, Safety Design and Operational Practices for Streets and Highways,Traffic Signal Equipment&Operations, Urban Street Design, Public Works Inspections, Legal Aspects and Liabilities, and Risk Management and Traffic Safety. I am a member of the following professional associations: American Public Works Association (APWA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), City Traffic Engineers Association (CTE) (former Chairman), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC) and the American League of Cyclists. Filed concurrently herein, is a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae. I joined Mohle, Grover & Associates in 1990 and became co-founder of Albert Grover &Associates, Inc. (AGA) in 1993. 1 serve as President of AGA and provide the firm with 44 years of extensive experience in all elements of Traffic and Transportation Engineering in both governmental and private contexts. Throughout my career, I have worked on various highway projects which include safety of streets and highways, traffic impact analyses, neighborhood traffic calming projects, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) design, signal interconnect and coordination plans, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) installations,traffic signal system design,and street lighting evaluation and design. I have also developed and implemented design standards, and prepared/reviewed plans, specifications and cost estimates Albert Grover&Associates,Inc. 211 Imperial Highway,Suite 208,Fullerton,CA 92835 (714)992-2990 FAX(714)992-2883 E-Mail:aga@albertgrover.com 412 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. Page 2 (PS&E) for traffic signal, communications interconnect, and CCTV projects. I have "hands on" experience programming all models of traffic.signal controllers and have developed numerous traffic signal coordination and timing plans for use with a wide variety of central control and local controller software. Having been employed full time with multiple municipal entities, including the Cities of San Dimas, Pomona, and Pasadena, as well as for the State of Illinois, I know what it takes to get design plans and study documentation approved, projects completed, and invoices paid. In the City of Pasadena, as Assistant Traffic Engineer, 1 prepared and reviewed major transportation studies, assisted in the preparation and implementation of the Rose Bowl/Rose Parade Major Event Traffic Studies, and developed an accident recording system for the City.As City Traffic Engineer for the City of Pomona, I was responsible for a multimillion-dollar Operations and Capital Improvement budget and managed 14 subordinates in the Traffic Engineering Division. As a senior, tenured Traffic/Transportation Engineer at AGA, I have provided on-call, as-needed Traffic Engineering services to the Cities of Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Montclair, Placentia, Torrance, and Victorville, to name a few. I am presently serving as the Contract City Traffic Engineer for the Cities of Fullerton (since 1998) and San Dimas. In this capacity, I give general Traffic Engineering guidance, make presentations to Commissions and Councils, check construction plans and review traffic studies and General Plan circulation elements, and advise in the determination of projects for Capital Improvement Programs (CIP). I have also served as an Expert Witness providing investigative review, giving professional advice, and testifying in the defense of claims and legal actions for a number of governmental agencies. As my professional experiences are significant, my involvement in several professional associations gives me the opportunity to share my depth of knowledge with those outside the field as well as a new generation of Traffic Engineers. While serving as an active member of CTE and as past Chairman, I conduct workshops throughout Southern California to educate Traffic Commissioners and Planning Commission members regarding pertinent traffic and safety issues. As an active member of ITE, I mentor several local student chapters and speak at various workshops and conferences, where I also discuss current innovations and informative topics in the Traffic Engineering industry. The opinions set forth herein are based upon my education, experience, and background in traffic and transportation engineering over the past 45 years, as well as my review of the materials related to this case which were provided to me by the City of Huntington Beach. Those materials include, but are not limited to,the following items: 1. Traffic Impact Analysis of Ellis Avenue Condominiums dated April 16, 2019, by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG). 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157/Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Avenue Condominiums)—Notice of Action—Findings for Denial, dated June 12, 2019. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 28, 2019 with staff recommendation to approve the project with conditions, including all supplemental correspondence. 4. Latest Site Plan, including the ingress and egress access driveway on Ellis Avenue. 5. Huntington Beach Fire Department City Specifications No.401 and No.403. ALBERT e(—'a_RL?VER r.._,i�5 Sf)f'f ATE$ L—� 413 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. Page 3 6. Planning Department Project Implementation Code Requirements dated May 22, 2019 and signed by Nicolle Aube,Associate Planner. 7. Various photographs date stamped November 1,2017 and January 10, 2018. 8. Notice of Appeal, dated June 20,2019, of the Planning Commission Action of June 11, 2019. 9. Video of Planning Commission Meeting held May 28,2019 10. Video of Planning Commission meeting held June 22, 2019 wherein the project was denied. 11. Video of City Council Meeting held August 19, 2019 wherein the project appeal review was continued. 12. Video of City Council Meeting held September 3, 2019 wherein the Planning Commission denial was upheld. 13. Accident Rates Before and After the Elan Development (the existing multi-use project on Ellis Avenue) at various intersections. 14. City calculations wherein it was stated that an increase of 222 U-turns will be generated at the intersection of Patterson Lane and Ellis Avenue in the eastbound-to-westbound direction. However, this is a miscalculation and was corrected in an email from Daniel Chan, dated December 10, 2019,which stated that 111 U-turns is the correct value. 15. Sketch showing a proposed pork-chop median island to prohibit left turns into and out of the project site from Ellis Avenue. 16. Video recordings of traffic operations made on Wednesday, December 4, 2019, for a 24-hour period at the intersection of Patterson Lane and Ellis Avenue. An extensive review was conducted of the 7:00-9:00 AM and the 4:00-6:00 PM periods of the video. 17. Layout of Fire Department apparatus showing turning radii into/out of the proposed driveway. At a City Council meeting held September 3, 2019, Fire Department staff stated they require a 17-foot inside radius and 45-foot outside radius with a 28-foot driveway approach; thus, the Fire Department is not in favor of a pork-chop median island. 18. Traffic issues raised by Planning Commissioners for denial are summarized as follow: • Ellis Avenue traffic congestion both existing and future. • Increased U-turns at Patterson Lane. • Potential vehicle conflicts on Ellis Avenue. • No bicycle connectivity to Beach Boulevard. • Insufficient vehicle access to the project site. • Raised pork-chop median island restriction of Fire Department vehicles. I also visited the site on December 6, 2019 from 7:00-9:00 AM to observe traffic operation, driver behavior, any unusual conditions, and vehicle conflicts. My observations are noted below: • There is limited sight distance looking easterly for vehicles exiting Patterson Lane onto Ellis Avenue, especially when making south to eastbound left turns. • Vehicles exiting the Elan development proceeding westerly occupy the two-way left-turn pocket preventing eastbound left turns onto Patterson Lane. ALBERT i...A'SOLIA'T'f S 1"� 414 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. Page 4 O In one hour of time (7:30-8:30 AM), the westbound signal at Beach Boulevard did not clear through traffic 5 different cycles.Two vehicles in each through lane were left in the queue at the signal at Beach Boulevard. 9 Westbound vehiclesqueued to Patterson-LanefromBeach Boulevard did not clear traffic 5 times - -- during 7:30-8:30 AM. ® Two bicyclists were observed going westbound on Ellis Avenue. ® Two pedestrians crossed Ellis Avenue in the north-south direction at Patterson Lane. The following statements are my professional opinions regarding the Ellis Avenue condominium project based on my review of the documents,field visit, and review of the video recordings. 1. The traffic study conducted by LLG is acceptable per direction given by the City regarding traffic distribution to and from the project, resulting in traffic impacts, and required onsite/offsite mitigations, including ingress/egress to the project site from Ellis Avenue. However,the study did not,in my opinion,satisfactorily address existing orfuture operational deficiencies on Ellis Avenue between Patterson Lane and Beach Boulevard such as collision history,queuing of vehicles in the westbound direction, turning radius required for U-turns of passenger vehicles and Fire Department apparatus, restriction of ingress/egress to the project site, and various health and safety issues on Ellis Avenue resulting from the proposed project. 2. In reviewing the City's Citywide Bicycle Master Plan, Ellis Avenue is not a designated bike lane or bike route in the vicinity of the project; therefore, in my opinion, the project is not required to accommodate bicycle traffic except as provided in the California Vehicle Code (CVC). Bicycles are permitted to use all City streets and must obey all traffic laws according to Sections 21200-21213 and 21650 of the CVC. 3. According to project requirements, the sidewalk frontage provided is sufficient for pedestrian traffic, with an existing 8 foot sidewalk and an additional 4 foot dedication for landscape purposes. 4. Academic/theoretical/"by the book" collision rate calculations do not adequately address potential impacts of the proposed project.According to City calculations,the collision rate at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Patterson Lane (0.11 before the Elan project and 0.15 after the Elan project) are well below the State average of 0.23 for similar types of intersections per the 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways. Intersection collision rates are expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). The formula typically used is: R= 1,000,000 x C 365xNxV Where R=crash rate for the intersection expressed as crashes per MEV C=total number of intersection related crashes in the study period N = number of years of data JJ��,, V=traffic volumes entering the intersection ALBERT zcrvEK, �S SOCIATrS 415 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E.,P.T.O.E. Page 5 The Table 1 shows the City's calculation of the intersection collision (crash) rate at Ellis Avenue and Patterson Lane for 3 years of data before and after the Elan development project. TABLE 1 Accident Rates Before and After Elan Development Accident Rate Accident Rate Location Before Elan After Elan Beach Blvd/Ellis Ave 0.68 0.62 Ellis Ave/Patterson Ln 0.11 0.15 Notes: Intersection accident rate per million entering vehicles. "Before"rates calculated based on 3 years of data prior to development. "After"rates calculated based on 3 years of data after development. Crash rates can be an effective tool to measure the relative safety at a particular intersection. The ratio of crash frequency (crashes per year) to vehicle exposure (number of vehicles entering the intersection) results in a crash rate. Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific intersection compares to the average intersection on the roadway network. As previously stated, the crash rates for both "before" and "after" the Elan development are below the expected crash rates published by Caltrans (2016) for similar types of intersections. However, although the historical crash rates are low,there still needs to be a review of the types of collisions occurring at Ellis Avenue and Patterson Lane intersection. Based on a review of "before" and "after" collisions, there are significantly different types of collisions taking place. According to Huntington Beach Police reports, the two "before" collisions involved one westbound rear-end collision just east of Patterson Avenue and one "hit object" (possibly hit the curb)just west of Patterson Avenue in the westbound direction. The three "after" development collisions are quite different than the"before".They involve one southbound left-turn vehicle and westbound through vehicle (broadside), one eastbound left turning vehicle on Ellis Avenue colliding with a westbound through vehicle (broadside), and one northbound through vehicle (out of Elan project)with an eastbound vehicle on Ellis Avenue (broadside). It should be noted that a collision was observed on the video recording at 7:22 AM between an eastbound through vehicle (pickup truck) and a northbound left turning vehicle entering Ellis Avenue from the Beachview Villas driveway adjacent to the Elan development. Both police and fire departments rolled out to the scene and cleared the roadway within 20 minutes. These types of"after" broadside collisions occur where there are a number of turning movements at uncontrolled full access intersections such as Ellis Avenue and Patterson Lane/Elan project. 5. The proposed driveway on Ellis Avenue will accommodate the City-required fire apparatus for both left and right turns into the project from Ellis Avenue (see Figure 1, attached); however, if a "porkchop" raised island is constructed to restrict left turns into and out of the project driveway, the fire apparatus cannot access the site based on required turning radius. A LBERT ROVER,%- hSSnCIATFS 1'A 416 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. Page 6 6. Figure 1 shows a single unit passenger vehicle turning template for an eastbound to westbound U-turn at the intersection of Patterson Lane and Ellis Avenue. The vehicle must use the entire intersection to negotiate the U-turn as was observed on the videos dated December 4, 2019. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LLG, the project will generate additional U- turns at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Patterson Lane.There will be 3 additional U-turns in the morning peak period, and 11 additional U-turns in the afternoon peak period. Based on a review of existing U-turns at this intersection, there will be a projected total of 4 U- turns in the morning peak period and 18 U-turns in the afternoon peak period. A major concern occurs during the afternoon peak period (when a majority of drivers return home from work) regarding eastbound left and U-turning vehicles which are unable to negotiate their turn due to the queuing of westbound vehicles stopped at the traffic signal red light for Beach Boulevard and backing up through Patterson Lane. A review of the video of the intersection shows westbound vehicles blocking the intersection of Patterson Lane 23 times (Table 2) during the afternoon peak period of 5:00-6:00 pm. The signal cycle length at Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue is set at 140 seconds (by Caltrans).This means that in one hour of time there are 26 (3,600 seconds_ 140 seconds) opportunities for traffic to proceed westbound on Ellis Avenue. If the intersection is blocked by westbound traffic 23 times per hour, this means that vehicles cannot make an eastbound left-turn or U-turn approximately 90%of the usable time under existing conditions. TABLE 2 Video Observations from December 4,2019 Ellis Avenue at Patterson Lane/Elan Development Turning Movements Patterson Lane Backup Elan Development Time Left Out butt Left In U-turn Events Left Out Ou Queue t 7:00-8:00 AM* 3 19 2 0 0 19 34 8:00-9:00 AM** 4 17 5 1 1 30 29 4:00-5:00 PM 6 12 11 6 9 13 6 5:00-6:00 PM*** 3 20 16 7 23 10 15 * Eastbound collision with northbound vehicle exiting driveway adjacent to Elan development at 7.22 AM ** 3 pedestrians crossed south to north on Ellis Avenue at Patterson Lane *** 5 pedestrians crossed south to north on Ellis Avenue at Patterson Lane This condition will be exacerbated with the proposed Ellis condominium project, which will lead to driver frustration and impatience,and could lead to additional collisions at this intersection,as well as east and west from the intersection. It was also observed that left-turning vehicles exiting the Elan development in the morning used the existing two-way left-turn center lane to merge onto Ellis Avenue.This prevented drivers from ALBERT ROVLR fi 'ASSOCIATES 1 417 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. Page 7 turning left or making U-turns at Patterson Lane in the eastbound direction.This movement could lead to potential head-on collisions in the two-way left-turn lane. According to a report published the American Automobile Association (AAA) titled, "Crashes vs. Congestion—What's the Cost to Society", dated November 2001: "At intersections in particular, volume of traffic (especially turning traffic) has a significant relationship to the number of crashes. Higher volumes usually correspond with a larger number of crashes simply because the probability of a crash occurring is greater when more vehicles are present." (Appendix B, page B-4, under"Volume-Related Crashes") 7. Table 2 also shows the various turning movements on Ellis Avenue at the intersection of Patterson Lane/Elan project driveway.This table was developed by reviewing the video,dated December 4, 2019,during the peak periods of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM.The table shows the number of vehicles at the Ellis Avenue and Patterson Lane intersection making left and right turns out, left turns into, and U-turns at Patterson Lane. It also shows how many times Patterson Lane was blocked by westbound vehicles which were queued at Beach Boulevard. Table 2 also shows left and right turns out of the Elan project onto Ellis Avenue. Additionally, it was observed for both morning and afternoon peak periods that southbound vehicles on Patterson Lane desiring to make a left-turn onto Ellis Avenue have a difficult time due to limited sight distance on the northeast corner of the intersection, especially if vehicles are parked on Patterson lane at Ellis Avenue. It is recommended to install at least 15 feet of red curb on both sides of Patterson Lane at Ellis Avenue. 8. Based on a review of the video, a number of pedestrians (3 in the morning, 5 in the afternoon) crossed Ellis Avenue at Patterson Lane in the south-to-north direction during the morning and afternoon peak periods. It is difficult to determine their destination; however, due to this pedestrian activity, traffic on Ellis Avenue slowed down to allow the pedestrians to cross the roadway. Crossing Ellis Avenue at Patterson Lane is legal since the intersection is an unmarked crosswalk according to CVC Section 21950(a). In my opinion, pedestrians should be directed to cross Ellis Avenue at Beach Boulevard in order to avoid potential pedestrian collisions. In summary, it is my professional opinion,that the subject Ellis Avenue condominium project as proposed will significantly negatively impact the existing roadway conditions adjacent to the project on Ellis Avenue and specifically at the intersection of Patterson Lane. Ai.13LKI "�"SOCIA FS �9 418 Declaration of Mark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. Page 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this �-7day of January 2020 at Fullerton, California. ark H. Miller, P.E.,T.E., P.T.O.E. �9 H. N 40956 s� CIV0- qTF Gf CAV TRAFFIC No. 1575 ALB RT {-[zC)vER S; ",-JN SOCIATES 419 �• ti 000lq toot O r � o ` ' t•i o E y i (V 1- N T Y p U 0 c oa c f N P T r LL �HJVI 0 1 �• r t O O 9 f o 4 ' s k J... . 9. 000 O o v o " � V P t O J O O0 � 3rocn c✓ .._, } z,, a �, � 44 Der. "mm� t , IT oir_l / y 1 _ � cGA HciVge "e i'�" •� rt� � *y ' 1a 4 ALBERT Cl ROVER & Mark H. Miller, PE, TE, PTOE v SOCIA.TES AS Executive Vice President Mr. Miller is a co-founder of Albert Grover & Associates, Inc. with over forty years of extensive experience in Traffic and Transportation Engineering in both governmental and private sectors. Throughout his career, he has worked on many projects including ITS, signal interconnect and coordination plans, CCTV installations, traffic signal systems, and street lighting. He has also developed and implemented design standards, and Plans, Specifications & Cost Estimates (PS&E) for traffic signals, interconnect communications, and CCTV projects. He has hands-on experience programming all models of traffic signal controllers and has developed numerous traffic signal coordination and timing plans for a wide variety of central system and local controller software. Having served with multiple municipal entities, including the Cities of Pasadena, Pomona, San Dimas, and Fullerton, as well as the State of Illinois, EDUCATION Mr. Miller knows what it takes to get design plans and studies approved, California Polytechnic University projects completed, and invoices paid. As Assistant Traffic Engineer in the City Pomona,California of Pasadena, he prepared and reviewed major transportation studies, BS Civil/Traffic Engineering, 1974 including the Rose Bowl/Rose Parade major event traffic studies, and Northwestern University developed an accident recording system for the City. As City Traffic Engineer Evanston,Illinois for the City of Pomona, he was responsible for a multimillion-dollar Traffic&Transportation Engineering Operations and Capital Improvement budget, managing 14 subordinates in Highway Capacity Workshop the Traffic Engineering Division. Institute of Transportation Studies Safety Design and Operational Practices As a senior, tenured Traffic/Transportation Engineer, Mr. Miller provides on- for Streets and Highways call, as-needed Traffic Engineering services to the Cities of Montclair, Cerritos, Traffic Signal Equipment&Operations and Laguna Beach, and is presently serving as the Contract City Traffic Urban Street Design Engineer for the Cities of Fullerton and San Dimas. In this capacity, he gives Public Works Inspections general traffic engineering guidance, makes presentations to Planning and Legal Aspects and Liabilities Traffic Commissions and City Councils, checks construction plans, and reviews Risk Management&Traffic Safety traffic studies and General Plan studies. He also advises the determination of PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION projects for Capital Improvement Programs(CIP). CA Registered Civil Engineer—CE#40956 Mr. Miller also serves as an Expert Witness, conducting investigative review, CA Registered Traffic Engineer—TE#1575 providing professional advice, and speaking in the defense of claims and legal Professional Traffic Operations Engineer actions for a number of governmental agencies. —PTOE#233 On top of his significant professional experience, Mr. Miller has long been PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS involved in several professional associations, sharing his depth of knowledge American Public Works Association with those both outside of and newly entering the field of traffic engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers While serving as Chairman of the City Traffic Engineers Association (CTE), he City Traffic Engineers Association conducted workshops throughout Southern California to educate Traffic (former Chairman) Commission and Planning Commission members regarding pertinent traffic Institute of Transportation Engineers and safety issues. (former President) As a former President of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Orange County Traffic Engineering Council American League of Cyclists current member, he mentors several local student chapters, including that at the Fullerton campus of the California State University. He also regularly attends and speaks at workshops and conferences, presenting on innovative and informative topics in the industry. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS 211 Imperial Highway,Suite 208,Fullerton,CA 92835 714-992-2990 421 Mark H. Miller, PE,TE, PTOE Page 2 Relevant Experience Signal Interconnect Analysis, Design and Coordination: Mr. Miller performed these services for the Cities of Bakersfield, Cerritos, Chino, Colton, La Habra, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Montclair, Palm Springs, Pomona, Rialto, San Bernardino, Santa Clarita,Temecula, and Upland. Multijurisdictional Traffic Signal Synchronization SCAQMD and Orange County Growth Management Area No. 6 Multiple Traffic Signal Design, CCTV,Striping&Street Light Design projects for California Cities, Counties, and State entities. Montclair Plaza Traffic Operations Study: Mr. Miller was project leader for this large redevelopment project in the City of Montclair. Roadway Signal Improvements: Cities of Cerritos, Chino, Claremont, Cypress, Ontario, and Upland. School Safety Studies and Development of Safe Route to School Programs: Mr. Miller led the AGA team on important safety studies in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Huntington Beach Expert Witness: Mr. Miller is highly qualified and performs the duties of an Expert Witness for Cities throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Citywide Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey: Mr. Miller has provided consultation for over 50 different municipalities in Southern California City Contract Traffic Engineer: Mr. Miller serves on behalf of AGA for Fullerton, Montclair and San Dimas School Safety Projects: Mr. Miller puts his expertise to work for school districts in Fullerton, Huntington Beach, San Marino, Pomona and Diamond Bar. Identification of High Accident Locations: With years of experience in traffic and transportation engineering, Mr. Miller has helped several municipalities to enhance safety on busy streets and intersections. . Computerized Traffic Accident Record System: Mr. Miller developed the first of such systems during his tenure with the City of Pasadena. Papers/Presentations "Three Year Experience with Flashing Yellow Arrow Display" Presented at ITE Annual Conference,Anaheim, California "Strategies to Recapture Lost Arterial Traffic Carrying Capacities" Presented at ITE Annual Conference, Rapid City, South Dakota "Effectively Slowing Drivers—Speed Feedback Signs" Presented at ITE District 6 Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii "School Area Traffic Safety" Presented at City Traffic Engineers'Traffic Commissioners Workshop "Minimize Delay Maximize Progression with Protected Permissive Lead/Lag Phasing" Presented at ITE Inland Empire Section Technical Workshop "Microwave Traffic Signal Interconnect—A Viable Alternative to Land Lines" Presented at ITE District 6 Annual Meeting, Portland Oregon "Quantifications of Air Quality Benefits Achieved Through Traffic Signal Coordination" Presented at ITE District 6 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah "A Successful Multijurisdictional Traffic Signal Coordination Project" Presented at ITE Annual Conference, Dana Point, California 422 ATTACHMENT #3 Independent Fire and Life Safety Risk Assessment Report The Proposed Ellis Street Condominium Project 8041 Ellis Avenue Huntington Beach, California Prepared For The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington each, California 92647 February 10, 2020 Prepared By James F. McMullen, Forensic Fire Expert The McMullen Company 1260 Lake Blvd., Suite 226 Davis, California 95616 530.757.1291 423 February 10, 2020 Michael Gates, Esquire City of Huntington Beach Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Fire and Life Safety Expert Report Proposed Development— 8041 Ellis Avenue The following information reflects my findings and expert opinions regarding the City of Huntington Beach (City) disapproval of the 8041 Ellis Avenue Condominium project. As a point of information, my opinions are based on over 50 years of experience in fire protection, including serving as the State Fire Marshal of California. In addition, my experience also includes my years in fire training and certifying of fire department personnel and management as well as direct involvement in the development of the California fire and building codes and at the local and state levels as a local and State fire official; and as a State Building Standards Commissioner. I also served as code coordinator for the western fire chiefs association and executive director of the L-ational code services association. See attached curriculum vitae. PREFACE The fire and building standards codes adopted by the California Building Standards Commission(California Building Standards Code/Title 24 California Code Regulations CCR) which includes the California building code part 2 and California fire code part 9. , the codes are minimum requirements for the construction, operation and occupancy of a building.' The City's amendments may only be more restrictive than the minimum state requirements contained in the California Building Standards code (Title 24 CCR). This expert report is based on the minimal information provided, as the portion of the plans made available are incomplete and non-binding making them inadequate for a complete fire protection evaluation. My expert opinion is supported by the Chapter 1,Section 1.1.2 California Building Code and Section 101.3 California Fire Code(2016 ed.) 2 424 disclaimer issued by the architect which states "This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect". A substantial amount of information and specifications are missing which are addressed in this report. It is unknown how much detailed information has actually been provided to the city or if the city's initial comments reflect preliminary or general type requirements. THE SITE The following issues should be resolved prior to approval of this project: (1) The need for the fire department to depend on the use of ground ladders longer than 24 feet, would require the commitment of multiple firefighters to raise them as indicated by the ladder pads shown on the plans on the west side of the structure. (2) An apparent lack of a solution for the use of ground ladders for the portion of the building facing the underground garage ramp; The East side of structure cannot use ladders north. of the turnaround due to the descending driveway into the underground garage. (3) The lack of control of and the suitability for aerial ladder operations on the adjacent properties to the west side of the building include long-term access and availability as well as the east side descending driveway north of the turnaround. (4)In the event that the fire department found the need to place an aerial ladder in the only fire lane, additional operational access problems would most likely arise. (5) At this time the plans do not indicate the installation of an on-site hydrant near the entrance ramp to the parking garage. This absence can lead to congestion of the fire lane due to supply lanes (for hose)being laid in front of street. (6) The plans propose a dead-end corridor inside on the first floor of the northern end of the building. At the north terminus of the corridor, a wet 3 425 standpipe connection is indicated in order to satisfy a deficiency related to the code required allowable distances for hose lines. It is my expert opinion that the installation of the standpipe at the location indicated, fails to meet the criteria under Section 1.11.2.4 (Att.) of the California Fire Code in terms of both the process required and for an equal alternate. Furthermore, the proposed project is a "State-regulated building" under Section 1.1.3.2 of the CFC (Att.). therefore, section 1.11.2.4 should have been cited and not section 104.9. Moreover, that section was not presented with the required alternatives. CONSTRUCTION The current plans indicate that this building is to be of Type 111-A construction which has the potential during construction stages to represent a significant fire threat to adjacent properties if a fire should occur. This is due to the limited setbacks which are not adequate to allow for the dissipation of radiant heat and in some cases direct flame impingement. The plans do not list the type of construction for the underground parking garage nor the fire rated separation required between the parking garage and the at/above ground portions of the building. The level of fire resistive construction for the parking garage and occupying fire separation assembly should be identified as it is imperative that the occupants of the building above are adequately protected from fire and smoke. OCCUPANCY DESIGNATION Currently the plans indicate that the project is designed to be a Group R-2 Occupancy for the condominium portion of the building and a Group M Occupancy for the commercial portion facing Ellis Avenue; however, a portion of the M occupancy could be a public assembly occupancy "A" predicated on the occupant load for public assembly. However, although an underground parking garage is indicted on the plans provided, the plans lack any occupancy classification for this parking garage. It is my opinion that the parking garage is a separate occupancy from the Group R-2 and must meet the requirements for a Group S-2 Occupancy. While it will be up to the Building Official to make a final determination, the current design 416 appears to include some other un-described uses within the parking garage that may not be permitted by the California/City's Building Codes. In addition, the Building Official will also be tasked with insuring that the fire separation between the parking garage and the other occupancies is in place including the protection of the stairwells, a mechanical ventilation system and that an automatic fire sprinkler system is provided as the plans to date do not reflect compliance with any of those items. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS The following assessment on emergency vehicle access is based on the specific measurements on the plans made available and City Specifications No. 401- Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access (1) City Specification No. 401 clearly identified a minimum of a 17-foot inner radius and a 45-foot outer radius of clear and unobstructed access for corners and turns for fire apparatus. Based on the information on the plans, this minimum criterion established has not been met. The proposed turn around design located near the main entrance to the building identifies the outer radius at 32 feet to the finished curb which fails to meet the minimum standard adopted by the fire department. SUMMARY It is my expert opinion, revised plans should address the issues raised in this expert report in order to provide reasLonable fire and life safety for the proposed development at 8041 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach. Respectfully submitted, James F. McMullen, President Forensic Fire Expert 4�7 companyMcMullen e JAMES F. MCMULLEN CURRICULUM VITAE 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226, Davis, CA 95616 (530) 757-1291 / Fax (530) 757-1293 tmc(a-)themcmullencompany com www.themcmullencompany.com Forensic fire expert witness James McMullen is court qualified having testified approximately 150 times in deposition or trial. Chief McMullen has over 50 years of experience in fire service administration, training and certifying, including strategic fire planning and evaluating public fire services. Additionally, he's qualified to testify in the administration of building and fire codes as well as laws, regulations, ordinances and standards, to evaluate fire and life safety. The training/certifying in fire protection of fire professionals is another area of his expertise. He is a leading expert in fire safety roofing and wildland fire safety. Chief McMullen also was the chair of California's Special Arson Task Force and has extensive experience in the investigation of fire origin, cause and spread. Further, he standards and served on the National Safety Council's Window Safety Task Force is a certified NFPA 921 Forensic Fire Investigator. He is a leading expert in window safe. ty as served as codes and He h Executive Director/CEO of the National Code Services Association, Inc., a non the President and Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners of the Vilest P-profit corporation, and lainfield Fire Protection District , Davis, CA. EXPERIENCE Fire Protection Consulting Expert, The McMullen Company, Inc., th b th9privateesent r s cto President of The McMullen Company, Inc., a fire protection consulting firm and government clients. The McMullen Company's services include fire and life safety evaluations; fire and building code development for State and model codes; fire product and code analysis; fire cause investigation and evaluation; fire department management reviews; emergency management planning and training; as well as forensic fire expert witness services. (1992 — 1993 Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc., Senior Fire Protection Consultant.) ® Executive Director, National Code Services Association (2001 —2015) Commissioner/Vice President/President (2002 — Present), Training Officer (1999 — 2002) West Plainfield Fire Protection District, Davis, CA 1985-1992 Chief California State Fire Marshal, Sacramento, CA. Senior Fire Official for the State of California with responsibilities for fire code enforcement, regulations promulgation, legislation, public education, state fire academy/training/certification and fire investigation. 1979-1985 Fire Chief/Emergency Services Director for the City of Campbell, CA. (Santa Clara County.) Responsible for fire suppression, code enforcement, fire investigation, emergency medical services and disaster preparedness/response for the City. 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226 # Davis, CA 9561 - 668 @ (530) 757-1291 & Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tmc@theme ultencomprany.com *wwwAhememullencompany.com %� 4 � EXPERIENCE (Continued) 1977-1979 Fire Marshal/Emergency Services Coordinator—City of San Bernardino, CA. Responsible for fire suppression, code enforcement, disaster preparedness, and fire investigation. 1962-1977 Fire Fighter to Chief Increasingly responsible positions in fire. suppression, code enforcement, fire investigation and emergency medical services. EDUCATION August 1984 Master of Public Administration (MPA)— Golden Gate University (Fire Protection Emphasis) June 1978 Bachelor of Arts (BA)— University of Redlands (Management) (Fire Protection Emphasis) June 1966 Associate of Arts (AA)— Mt. San Antonio College (Fire Science) June 1963 Certificate in Fire Science— Mt. San Antonio College LICENSER /CREDENTIALS 0 Certified Forensic Fire Investigator m Recipient, Robert W. Gain Award, Western Fire Chiefs Association a State ol'California Private Investigator and Qualified Manager/Owner • Qualified Fire Expert Witness ® Commissioned California State Military Reserve « Commissioned Kentucky Colonel • Lifetime California Community College Teaching Credential in Fire Science MAJOR PRnP1=-QQ1fNK1A,L AFFILIATIONS 2005 — Present West Plainfield Fire Protection District — Davis, CA, President, Board of Commissioners. 2005 — Present Office of the State Fire Marshal - Member of the California State Fire Marshal's Stakeholders. 2005—Present Fire Districts Association of California - Member 2003— Present International Code Council—Voting Member 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226 a Davis, CA 95616-5668 • (530) 757-1291 e Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tmc@thememuUencompany.com e i4rWwAhenlemullencompany.com 429 T I MAJOR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Continued 2002—2013 Forensic Expert Witness Association — Member and Former President, Sacramento/Sierra Chapter. 2000 —2015 National Code Services Association, Inc. — Life Charter Voting Member; Former Executive Director/CEO; Former Member: Technical Committee on Codes, Technical Committee on Training and NFPA 921 Fire Investigation Committee. 2004—2012 National Safety Council — Member of Window Safety Task Force; Former Member, Fire Task Group. 2001 —2012 Western Fire Chiefs Association —Code Coordinator 2000 —2008 American College of Forensic Examiners, Inc. — Member 2008 —2009 Jackson Rancheria Fire Safety Committee—Member 2005 State Assemblies For Emergency Response (SAFE)— Member 2000 —2002 California Electrician Certification Advisory Committee — Member. Specialty Panel—Member 2000—2002 California State Department of Housing and Community Development Mobile Home Park Fire Protection Task Force — Members (Northern and Southern Task Forces) 2000—2008 international Association of Arson Investigators — Member. 1989— Present National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) — Founding President and Member Emeritus. 1998 —2002 California Building Standards Commission — Member, 2000 Code Partnership; Member, Technical Task Group. 1981 — 1985 California Building Standards Commission —Commissioner 1994—2001 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)—Past Member, Sub-committee F15.38 —Window Fall Prevention. 1994—2000 international Fire Code Institute (IFCI) — Charter Member 1991 — 1992 Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Operation Urban Wildfire" Task Force—Member. 1990— 1992 National Fire Fighters Joint Apprenticeship Training Program Management sponsor. — 1989— 1992 CAL OSHA Advisory Committee on Personal Protective Clothing And Equipment for Firefighters -- Committee Member. 1260 Lake Boulevard,Suite 226 a Davis, CA 95616-5668 a (530) 757-1291 a Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tmc@themcmullencompany.com a www.themcmuUencompany.com 430 MAJOR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Continued 1989— 1993 California Seismic Safety Commission — Commissioner; Chairman of the Emergency Planning and Response Committee and member of Earthquake Task Force. 1989— 1992 Panel for Fire Research of the National Research Council — Member of panel of National Institute of Standards and Training (NIST) Center for Fire Research. 1986 — 1992 California Chemical Emergency Planning and Response Commission _Member and served on the Hazardous Materials Training Funding Committee. 1985— 1992 California Fire Fighters Joint Apprenticeship sponsor and member of the Board of Drectors Committee — Management 1985— 1992 California Historical Building Safety Board —Advisory Member. 1985—2002 California Rural Fire Association—Member. 1985— 1992 California State Board of Fire Services —Chairman. 1985— 1997 Congressional Fire Services Institute — Senate and Charter Member. Chair of the Western Steering Committee for the Annual Dinner. Served as a member of the Institute's Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. 1985— 1992 Governor's Special Arson Task Force— Chairman. 1979— Present Western Fire Chiefs Association - Life Member. Former Code Coordinator. Representative to California State Building Standards Commission. 1972—Present California Fire Chiefs Association — Life Member; Former Member of Board of Directors. Member and former liaison chief to the Northern California Fire Prevention Officers Section. Life member of the Southern California Fire Training Officers Section. 1972— Present National Fire Protection Association — Member. International Fire Marshals Association, Education, Building Fire Safety Systems and Fire Service Sections. Former Member: Strategic Planning Committee for Public Education, Public Education Advisory Committee, Educational Messages Advisory Committee, Wildland Fire Management Committee. Former Chair. Presidential Advisory Committee, Center for High Risk Outreach; Home Security and Fire Safety Taskforce and Nominating Committee. 1985—2003 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) — Member. East Ba and Sacramento Valley Chapters— Member(1999—2003) y 1985— 1992 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. —Corporate and Fire Council Member. 1979— Present International Association of Fire Chiefs - Life Member. Former Vice Chair of the Operation Life Safety Board of Trustees. 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226 +Davis, CA 95616-5668 o (530) 757-1291 0 Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tmc@themcmullencompany.com m www.thememufencompany.com 431 MAJOR PRn1:=QQ1^9L1A L AFFILIATIONS (g2flqnM241 1962 —Present California State Firefighters, Association— Life Member. PUBLICATIONS iAuthor/Contributor) 2018 "How to- Be Sure Your Fire Extinguisher Really Works. Most Don't!" BOttomline Magazine, February 2018 2013 "Wildfire Prevention and How to Save Your Home" Experts.com, January 2013 2012 "Home Heating Fire Safety," Experts.com, November 2012 2012 "NCSA — A Strong Future Ahead," Western Fire Chiefs Association Daily Dispatch, November 2012 2009 Hermosillo, MX ABC Day Care Fire Analysis and Report by the Supreme Court Of Justice Mexico, June 2009 2009 "Plastic Trash Containers in SFM — Regulated Facilities," The California Fire Service Magazine, May 2009 2004 "Emerging Fire Code Issues Roundtable Report" International Association Fire Chiefs, 2004 of 2003 "2000 Uniform Fire Code: Code Applications Manual," Western Fare Chiefs Association and Uniform Fire Code Association, January' 2003 2001 "Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices With Emergency Escape (Egress) Release Mechanisms,"ASTM F2090-1 a, September 2001 2000 "NFPA 1145 —Standard for the Use of Class A Foams in Manual Fire Fighting," National Fire Protection Association, August 2000 2000 "Standard Safety Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices for Non- Emergency Escape (Egress) and Rescue (Ingress) Windows, ASTM F2006-00, March 2000 1999 "NFPA 1150— Standard on Fire Fighting Foam Chemicals for Class A Fuels in Rural, Suburban and Vegetated Areas," National Fire Protection Association, August 1999 1999 "NFPA 1142 — Standard for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting," National Fire Protection Association, August 1999 1999 "UL Standard 2326 Releasing Systems for Window Bars in R Occupancies," Underwriters Laboratories Inc., December 1999. esidential 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226 0 Davis, CA 95616-5668 9 (530) 757-1291 0 Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tmegthememullencompany.com o www.thememullencompany.com 432 PUB I-ICA noN (continued) 1998 "NFPA 1141 — Standard for Fire Protection in Planned Building Groups," National Fire Protection Association, August 1998 1998 "NFPA 295 — Standard for Wildfire Control," National Fire Protection Association, August 1998 1997 "NFPA 299 — Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire," National Fire Protection Association, August, 1997 1996 "Steel Roofs: A View From The Top" American Fire_Journal, September, 1996, Volume 48, Number 9, Page 20, John A. Ackerman, Publisher 1996 "Firefighting Procedures for Steel Roofs" The California Fire Service, July, 1996, Volume 7, Number 7, Page 24. California State Firefighters'—Association, Publisher 1996 "Marina Point Condominium Complex Fire — Blue Ribbon Committee Report." Commissioned by the Foster City City Council. Presented June 17, 1996 1996 "Steel Roofing: A Technology Whose Time Has Come" Metal Home Digest, May-June, 1996, Page 40 1996 Ibid. Western Metal In Architecture,, March-April, 1996, Page 8. Western Association for Metal In Architecture, Publisher 1995 "Just How Protected are 'Protected' Aboveground Tanks?" American Fire Journal. July 1995, Volume 47, Number 7, Page 28. John A. Ackerman, Publisher 1994—Present Developed numerous code changes for the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), International Code Council (ICC), and Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA) 1994 Arson., Investigation' California District Attorneys Association and California State Fire Marshal 1994 "An Innovative Approach to Fire Protection of Existing Roofing Systems.,, Fire fighter's Gazette, Volume 1, No. 5, November 1994 1992 "NFPA 921 — Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations," National Fire Protection Association, 1992 1992 Report on Oakland Fire Department Operations, California State Operations Emergency Services, during Major Conflagration 1992 "Accelerant Detection Canines," National Fire Service Yearbook 1992 1991 "Oakland/Berkley Hills Fire Investigation," National Fire Protection Association, October 1991 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226 e Davis, CA 95616-5668 e (530) 757-1291 * Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tme(&hememullencompany.com o www.themcmuUencompany.com 433 PUBLICATIONS (Continued) Prior to 1991 Author/Contributor to numerous of other articles. .INSTRUCTIONAL EXPERIENCE ® University ofCalifornia, Davis ® University of Missouri • San Jose City College • Victor Valley College • San Bernardino Valley College ® California Fire Service Training & Education Program • Fire Control 1/2/3/4 ® Basic Emergency Vehicle Operations ® Basic Pump Operations ® Hazmat— Fire Responder Operations California State Office of Emergency Services International City Managers Association New York State Fire Academy California State Fire Academy System Fire/police academies and fire departments Numerous professional fire safety associations (instructor/lecturer) • Emergency Services Insurance Program National Propane Gas Association REFERENCES Available upon request. 1260 Lake Boulevard, Suite 226 e Davis, CA 95616-5668 o (530) 757-1291 Fax (530) 757-1293 Email: tmc*themcmuHeneompany.com 0 vimv-thememu][lencompany.com 434 CHAPTER I SCOPE AND A DMINISTRA TION DIVISION I CALIFORNIA A DMIND TRA TION SECT101V 1.1 GENERAL University, and to the extent permitted nia laws, buildings by Califor- n1-1-1 Title' These regulations shall be known as the Califon- designed and constructed by Zia Building Code the Regents of the to herein as "this. may be Cited as Such and will be referred University of California and Is code.,, The regulated by the Building Standards Commis, — Part 2 of thirteen parts California Building Code is See Sectionsion. cation of the adoption,Of the official compilation and pubil- 1.2jor additional sccpe provisions regulations to the amendment and repeat of building 2, Local detentionfacilities regulated by the Board f a California Code Of Regulations Title 24, State and Community Corrections. See Section 1.3 1�0 referred to as the California Building Sta��a­rjs Code. for additional scope provisions, This Part incorporates by adoption the 2015 International Bui 'ding Code of the International Code Council with neces 3' Barberl"g, cosmetology or electrolysis establish_ sa,y California amendments. Ments,acupuncture Offices,pharmacies, veterinary minimum facilities and structural control locations reg- ulated by the Department Of Consumer Affairs.See and m8e"n"erraequwierjefnentS to safeguard the Public health, safety Section 1.4for additional are Scope provisions. through structural strength, means of 4. Section L-5 reserved for the California Anergy egress facilities, stability, access to persons with disabilities, Commission. sanitation, adequate lighting and ventilation and energy con- < r, 9 gy S'r"t'0n,*`4Vei`Y to life and property omftreandot other ands attributed to from he the Department of Food and Agriculture. See Sec the bull'environment,'and to provide safety -5- Dairiesand Places of meat inspection regulated by operations. n lion L 6jor additional scope provisions. Ire fighters and emergency responders during emergency tof 14.3 Scope, 6- Organized camps, laboratory animal quarter public swimming ptVIS, radiation protection missaries serving mobile odpreparation _, com Jo vehicles 'Onstruction, alteration, movement, Enlargement, replace- and wild animal quarantine facilities regulated by Tfle Provis;Ons Of this code shall apply to the ment, repair., equipment, use and occupancy jocadon,mainte nance, removal and demolition of every bui I laing or structure the Department of public Healt& or any appurtenances connected Or attached to Such buildings for additional-scope Provisions. See Section 1.7 or structures throughout the State of Calif orn,a, Non"We-regulated buildings, structures and 7' Hotels' motels, lodging houses, apartments, dwell- ings' dormitories, condominiums, shelters for applica"Ons- ExcePt as modified by local ordinance pur_ homeless persons, congregate residences, scant to Section 1.1.8,the following standards in the Cali- employee housing,factory-built housing and other fornia Code of Regulations types of dwellings containing sleeping accomw. 6,9, 10 and 11 shall apply ' Title 24, Parts'2, Z 5, 3, 4, 5, lotions with or without common toilets to all occupancies and applica- or cooking tions not regulated by a state agency, facilities- See Section L&2J.] for additional L-1.3.2 State-regfthzted buMWng,,, scope provisions, bores. The model code, structures and appliea- 8. Accommodations for persons State amendments to the model with disabilities in code, and/or state amendments where there are no rele- buildings containing newly constructed covered Van' model mult6family dwellings, new comrnon buildings, structures provisions shall apply to the following use areas ly and applications regulated by state serving existing covered multifamily dwellings, agencies as specified in Sections 1.2 through j.14, except additions to existing buildings -where the addition 1.1.8, when alone "Wets the definition of covered rnulif where modffled by local ordinance pursuant to Section dwellings, multifamily n adopted by a state agency, the provisions 0 and new common-use areas serving new f J ' priate enforcing It this code shall be enforced by the appro covered mu family dwellings, which are regu- agency, but only to the extent of authority granted to such lated by the Department Of Housing and Commu. agency by the state legislature, nity Development, See Section additional scope provisions. for No"-* See "HOW to Distinguish Between Model Code 9� p Language and California Amendments,, in the front of Permanent ftildings o and pennan—eht accessory the code, buildinngs or Structures constructed within mobile- 1. home parks and special occupancy parks regulated State-owned buildings, including buildings con_ by the Department j la e s'rucled by the Trustees of the California rtment Of Housing and Community 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE State 435 INVISION ft ADMINISTRATION PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 2. Existing structures,facilities and conditions not legally SECTION Jol in existence at the time of adoption of this code. 3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions where SCOPE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS required in Chapter 11. Note: Sections adopted or amended by state agencies are ,facilities and conditions that,in the specifically indicated by an agency banner or indicated 4. Existing structur in the Matrix Adoption Table, opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct [A] 101.1 Title.These regulations shall be known as the Fire hazard to life or property. Code Of[NAME OF JURISDICTIONJ hereinafterf [A] 102.2 Administrative, operational and maintenance , referred to , "this code." provisions. The administrative, operational and maintenance [A] 101.2 Scope. This code establishes regulations affecting provisions of this code shall apply to: or relating to structures, processes, Premises and safeguards I- Conditions and operations arising after the adoption of regarding all of the following: this code. 1. The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the stor_ 2, Existing conditions and operations. age,handling or use of structures,materials or devices. [A] 102.3 Change of use or occupancy. Changes shall not 2. Conditions hazardous to life,property or public welfare be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would in the occupancy of structures or pretnises, place the structure in a different division of the same group or occuancy or in a different group of occupancies, less such 3. Fire hazards in the structure of on the premises from structpure is made to comply with the requiremeunnts of this occupancy or operation. code and the California Budding Code. Subject to the 4. Matters related to the Construction, extension, repair, approval of the fire code Official,the use or occupancy of an alteration or removal Of fire Suppression or alarm sys- existing structure shall be allowed to be changed and the tems. structure is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all of the requirements of this 5. Conditions affecting the sa&ty Of fire fighters and code and the California Building Code for those groups,pro- emergency resporid—ers during emergency operations. 0 - - - vided e new or proposed use is [A] 161.2.1 Appendim. Provisions in the appendices and fireth risk,than the existing uses hazardous,based on life shall not apply unless specifically adopted, [A] 1 .4 Applicaon of buildin code. The [A] 101.3 intent. The purpose of this code is to establish the construc02tion of newti structures s comply comply with thedesign Califorand- minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized nia Building Code, and any alterations, additions,changes in good practice for providing a reasonable level of life safety use or changes in structures required by this code, which are and property Protection from the hazards of fire,explosion or within the scope of the California Building Code, shall be dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, struc-tures and Premises,and to provide a reasonable level of safety made in accordance therewith. to fAJ 102.5 Application of residential code.Where structures fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. are designed and constructed in accordance with the Califor- [A] 101.4 Severability. if a section, subsection, sentence, nia Residential Code, the provisions of this code shall apply as clause or phrase of this code is, for any reason, held to be follows: unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of 1. Construction and design provisions of this code per_ the remaining Portions Of this code. taining to the exterior of the structure shall apply including, but not limited to, premises identification, W 101.5 Validity.In the event any part or provision of this fire,apparatus access and water supplies. Where interior code is I held to be illegal or void,this shall not have the effect or exterior systems or devices are installed, construc- of ,making void or illegal any of the Other Parts Or provisions lion Permits required by Section 105.7 of this code hereof, which are determined to be legal; and it shall be pre- shall apply. sumed that this code would have been adopted without such illegal or invalid parts or provisions. 2. Administrative, operational and maintenance provi- sions of this code shall apply. SECTION 102 [A] 102.6 Historic buildings. The provisions of this code APPLICABILITY relating to the construction, alteration, repair, enlargement, (A] 102-1 Construction and design provisions. The con- restoration, relocation Or Oving of-libildings. r structures mandatory stTuction and design provisions Of this code shall apply to: shall not be M o identified an for existing buildings Or structures # ified y the or juris as I. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the historic buildingsd class such such buildstateings orlocal structuresdiction do not adopt-ion Of this code. constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.Fire protection 12 436 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE IMPORTANT NOTICE Act now to keep your code up-to-date. 1' IThe purchase of this code includes a free subscription for all State-issued supplements and errata. To receive these important updates through 2019,You MUST register online www.iccsafe.org/CAL16 2016 CALIFORNIA , FIRE -CODE CALIFORNIA' CODE OF TI TITLE 24, PART 9 Based on the 2015 International Fire Codee California Building 81,?ndards Commission CBSC IPs Effective January I, 2017 a moil r, For Errata and Supplement ee�ctive ~� .- !° ° dates see the History Note Appendix FIRE SER"CE FEATURES SECTION 502 502.1 Deft DEFINITIONS topography, waterways nonnegotiable grades or other similar ble ter 2: nitions. The following terms are defined in Chap- AGENCY. Protection means of conditions, and an fire protection is Provided. "'RE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD. 13, There M not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies, FIRE COMMAND CENTER. 2, Where approved by thef1re code offlcial, FIRE DEPARTMENT MASTE XEy, ratu5 access roads shall be permitted to be fire appa- ll LANE. or modified for solar exempted KEY Box. facilities. photovoltaic Power generation TRAFF'C CALMING DEVICE 44 This section establishes a requirement for a fire ,S. apparatus access road and the 4*Deflnitions Of terms call help in the understanding from buildings or facilities to fire maximum distance and application Of code roads. The Provisions are intended apparatus access to limit the max!. directs the code user to requirements. This section Mum length of hose needed to reach any Point along Chapter 2 for the Proper the exterior of a building or facility from a are depart merit vehicle. Large-area buildings May require a ire ter. Terms may be defined In Chapter 2 or in another apparatus access road on all four Mid es, An access_ application Of the indicated terms used in this chap- 21nternatlonal COde" (I-Codee) as indicaied in Section road is required to extend to within 150 feet (45 720 01.3, Or the dictionary meaning May be all that is mm)of all portions along the exterior wall Of the grade needed (also see the commentary to Sections 201 through 201.4). level story of each new or relocated building [see Commentary Figure 503.1.1(1)1. The 150-fo (45 720 mm) distance Is based on the standard lenotgth of SECTION 603 Preconnected hoses carried on fire apparatus and is FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS not Intended to be measured to any Point Within the "11 Where required.Fire building. Provided and maintained in so apparatus acOcSs roads shall be A long, narrow building may require fire department through 503.1.3, cordance with Sections 503.1.1 access roads On two sides only, if all portions of the exterior of the grade level story are within 150 feet A Ve apparatus access roads serving new and Figure 503.7.1(2)], cated f F d .5 720 mm) Of the access road [see Commentary This section, introduces the requirements for edi- relocated buildings in the jurisdiction. The require- ments are to be established" in coordination with the local fire service to accommodate the jurisdiction,s fire apparatus and equipment. The intent of the A0GMRwD requirements sufficient acce is to Provide the tire ss department with to buildings to enable efficient fire suppression and rescue operations, 503.1.1 lauildings and facilities. approved fire apparatus access roads shall be Provided ratus for every facility, building or Portion of a building hereafter constructed of in' within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatu moved into or 9 comply with the requirements s access road shall feet(45 720 mm)0 S section and shall extend to within 150 f u'rements of this and all portions of the exter,ar waftlasilopf0trhticofnisrstofstDry of the BULMG 1W_J? the facility pprovedmute around the extc- building as measured by an a rior of the building or facility. Exception$: I' The fire code Official is authorized zed to increase the 9 dimension of 15()feet(45 720 following conditions occur. mm)where any of the The building is equipped A0CM5R= approved automatic throughout with an installed in sprinkler sy 903-3.1.1,903.3.1,2 Or 903.3,13. stem accordance With Section For SI: I fOOt=304.8 mm, 1.2.Fire apparatus access roads cannot be Figure installed because of location on Property FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS—LARGE BUILDING ALLIUGHTS TAPty 438 AM 2015INTERNAT�thrmcwiulttnmmpsny to IONAL FIRE CODVCOPAMEN (W.4 p6t�gd DISTM8 IS A VIOLATIOX"ff'CC,No *VV..... Kite Aroiflts�OrEer NumbaoiCeaas2ag an Nerve, Sfrt -rft­4 AMY ATTACHMENT #4 one lip intellectual propertu&entertainment law 4000 MacArthur Boulevard East Tower,Suite 500 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Kenneth Stahl 949.502.2870 Tel (949) 743-8201 Direct Dial 949.258.5081 Fax kstahl@onellp.com www.OneLLP.com November 1.4, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND O VERNIGHT MAIL City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-mail: patrick.brenden@surfcity-hb.org; kim.carr@surfcity-hb.org; barbara.delgleize@surfcity- hb.org;jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org; erik.peterson@surfcity-hb.org; mike.posey@surfcity-hb.org; lyn.semeta@surfcity-hb.org; cfikes@surfcity-hb.org Re: September 3, 2019 Wrongful Denial of Ellis Avenue Condo Project (Case No. 19-910) Dear City Council: I am writing on behalf of the applicants in the above-captioned matter, THDT Investments, Inc. and HB Ellis LLC,as well as the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund ("CaRLA)", a California non-profit housing advocacy organization. On September 3, 2019, the council disapproved the applicant's proposed development on Ellis Avenue that would have provided 48 units of housing. This denial was in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, Gov. Code § 65589.5 ("HAA")because the project complied with all the city's objective land use standards in place at the time, and the city did not identify a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. Violation of the HAA subjects the city to legal penalties including liability for reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred by the applicants and CaRLA,as well as other possible penalties. We would like to give the city the opportunity to resolve this matter without costly litigation. Toward that end,if the council wishes to reconsider its decision, please contact me no later than November 22, 2019. If I have not received your response by that date,we intend to file suit in court challenging the denial of the project. We will request that the court order the project to be approved and award reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. To assist you in making your decision, this letter briefly explains why a court is likely to find the city's denial in violation of the HAA. The HAA generally prohibits cities from denying approval to housing development projects like the present one that complies with "applicable, objective general plan, zoning and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards,in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is deemed complete." Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1). The project must be deemed compliant if there is enough evidence for a "reasonable person to conclude"that the project met the relevant standards. Gov.Code§ Beverly Hills • Newport Beach 9 San Diego 439 City of Huntington Beachlip November 14, 2019 one Page 2 65589.5(f)(4). In this case, there is clearly sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that the relevant standards were met because your city's own professional planning staff determined that the project met all the relevant standards,and on that basis recommended that the project be approved. Therefore, this project must be deemed compliant with all the relevant standards. Because this project is compliant with all the relevant standards,the HAA only permits the city to deny the project if the city makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a"specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,"which is defined as"a significant, quantifiable, direct,and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." Gov. Code§ 65589.50)(1)(A). In the HAA,the legislature has expressed its intent that conditions constituting a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety"arise infrequently." Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) (a)(1)(L)(3). The conditions cited by the city in its findings of denial as evidence that there was a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety are plainly insufficient to meet the city's burden of proof. The findings do not even cite any "identified written public health or safety standards," nor do they make any effort to quantify the project's impact on public health and safety. The findings merely make vague statements about traffic safety that could apply to any project, hardly the specific and "infrequent" conditions that the legislature contemplated. If the city declines to reconsider its decision in this matter, we intend to bring suit for a writ of mandate under C.C.P. Section 1094.5. If we are successful, the HAA entitles both the applicants and CaRLA,as a"housing organization" under the statute, to recover reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. Gov. Code§§ 65589.5(k)(1)(A); (k)(2). In addition,the city could potentially be liable for fines that start at$10,000 for each denied housing unit ($480,000 for this project). Gov. Code§§ 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). I look forward to receiving the city's response to this letter by November 22, 2019. Sincerely, /s/ Kenneth A. Stahl CC: Michael Gates, Esq., City Attorney By e-mail to:michael.gates(a-�,surfcity-hb.org Ursula Luna-Reynosa By e-mail to:ursula.luna-reynosa ,surfcity-hb.org Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner By e-mail to:nicolle.aube(a,surfcity-hb.org 440 ATTACHMENT #5 Attachment 3 - Project Plans See Attachment No. 5 of Attachment No. 4 on the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report 441 ATTACHMENT #6 City of Huntington Beach File #: 19-910 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2019 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Dave Kiff, Interim City Manager PREPARED BY: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Subject: Public Hearing continued Open from August 19, 2019 to consider the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Avenue Condos) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042, a request to permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking located at 8041 Ellis Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the project with suggested findings and conditions of approval to the Planning Commission. On June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to deny the project. The property owner, Tahir Salim, filed a timely appeal, per Section 248.20 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), of the Planning Commission's decision on June 20, 2019. Per Section 248.20(D) "De Novo Hearing", "The reviewing body shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The original applicant has the burden of proof. The reviewing body may act upon the application, either granting it, conditionally granting it or denying it, irrespective of the precise grounds or scope of the appeal. In addition to considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the reviewing body shall consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken." At the August 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the Council opened the public hearing and continued the appeal to the September 3, 2019, meeting at the property owner's request. Financial Impact: No fiscal impact. Action: The City Council may take one of the following action(s): A) Uphold the Planning Commission's Action and Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Attachment No. 1); OR City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 5 Printed on 9/4/2019 powereW LegistarTM File #: 19-910 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2019 B) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457 and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2). Alternative Action: A) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 Appel[ant/Property Owner: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 4740 Green River Road, Suite 304, Corona, CA 92880 Location: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) A comprehensive description of the proposed project as well as a General Plan and Zoning conformance analysis can be found in the May 28, 2019, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 3). The staff report and attachments include the proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, subdivision map, technical studies related to air quality, traffic, hydrology/water quality, and geological/soils, and written communications regarding the project. B. BACKGROUND On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project. Staff had recommended approval with reasons noted in Attachment No. 2. The property owner spoke in support of the project describing the benefits of redeveloping the underutilized and dilapidated site. Two members of the public spoke in opposition due to site access issues, small lot size for the proposed density, parking, traffic, and the existing supply of apartments within the City. The Planning Commission then deliberated and expressed concerns; issues were raised regarding the proposed project's impact on Ellis Avenue traffic, shadows on adjacent properties, unsafe ingress/egress to the project site, increased U-turns at Patterson Lane, the area of the project devoted to commercial use being too small, and marginal public open space. Ultimately, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and directed staff to return with suggested findings for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 11, 2019. A full analysis of the required findings for both the proposed subdivision map and the proposed CUP is contained in the June 11, 2019, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 5). At the June 11 meeting, only one speaker, representing the applicant/property owner, spoke in favor of the project. After deliberations, the Planning Commission denied the project, finding that the City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 5 Printed on 9/4/2019 powered LegistarT^ File #: 19-910 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2019 subdivision design is not consistent with the General Plan or the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP (Attachment No. 6). The Planning Commission also found that development of the proposed project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Avenue and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Boulevard. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission was unable to make all of the required findings for a CUP, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, and denied the project. The Planning Commission found the project did not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project site is located within the Five Points District and the Planning Commission found that the project does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because: (1) Only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, (2) There is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and (3) The project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. Planninq Commission Action on June 11, 2019 A motion was made by Grant, seconded by Kalmick, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings carried by the following vote: AYES: Grant, Kalmick, Mandic, Perkins, Ray, Scandura NOES: Garcia ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSED City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 5 Printed on 9/4/2019 powerE LegistarW File #: 19-910 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2019 C. APPEAL: On June 20, 2019, the property owner, Tahir Salim, appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Attachment No. 7). The appeal letter included the following reasons: 1. The Planning Commission's concerns about the project may instead become conditions of approval. 2. The Planning Commission denied the project for subjective reasons even though the project complied with the applicable development standards of SP14. 3. The project complies with the land use goals and policies including density, consolidation of parcels, and provides a range of housing to meet the needs of the City. The applicant's appeal also includes additional information for City Council consideration to address the Planning Commission's concerns related to project design and access. The applicant provided traffic control measures for right turn exit only, additional shadow analysis, and letters of support. The applicant requests the City Council consider the project and the supplemental information in order to achieve a project design that complies with the applicable General Plan policies and required findings. However, the revised traffic control measures do not meet Fire Department access standards and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements. More importantly, the raised median design would impede Fire Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact caused by the project. D. CONTINUANCE: At the August 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the public hearing was opened. Nine members of the public spoke during public comments. Seven people spoke in opposition of the project, citing concerns related to traffic safety and congestion, parking, conflicts with the Elan project, the intensity of development on the site, insignificant commercial area, the existing supply of apartments in the City, and trucks and noise on Ellis Ave. Two members of the public, one being the property owner, spoke in favor of the project. The property owner discussed the proposed improvements to the project site and the need for additional housing within the City. The other public speaker referenced the Housing Accountability Act and the need for the City Council to make objective and specific findings for denial related to health and safety. City Council Action on August 19, 2019 A motion, made by Posey, seconded by Hardy, to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 to the September 3, 2019, meeting with the public hearing open, carried by the following vote: AYES: Brenden, Carr, Semeta, Peterson, Posey, Hardy NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Delgleize Environmental Status: Pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457, the proposed City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 5 Printed on 9/4/2019 powered LegistarT11, File #: 19-910 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2019 project is covered under the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan adopted Program EIR No. 08 -008. Implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain high quality City services Attachment(s): 1. Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157/ CUP No. 17-042 2. Findings and Conditions of Approval for Approval of TTM No. 18157/ CUP No. 17-042 (as presented to PC on 5/28/19) 3. Project Plans (see Attachment No. 5 of Attachment No. 4 - May 28, 2019 PC Staff Report) 4. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Suggested Findings for Approval and Attachments 5. June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Suggested Findings for Denial and Attachments 6. Notice of Action for TTM No. 18157/CUP No. 17-042 with Findings for Denial dated June 12, 2019 7. Appeal of Planning Commission Project Denial received June 20, 2019 8. Public Comments Regarding Appeal of Planning Commission Denial 9. Appellant's Request for Continuance received and dated August 6, 2019 City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 5 Printed on 9/4/2019 powere44f,Legistar— SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that the project will have a negative impact to health and safety for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. In light of the evidence in the record, the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety due to unsafe ingress/egress conditions caused by the project. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Due to the proximity of the project access driveway to the Beach and Ellis intersection, the project will require right turns only in and out of the project site. This would prohibit motorists from exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Avenue. Residents and visitors also cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Avenue without continuing past the project to make a u-turn at Patterson Lane to make a right turn into the project site. The Ellis/Patterson intersection is currently unsignalized. According to the project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a licensed traffic engineering firm, the project will generate 222 additional u-turns at the Ellis/Patterson intersection. Based on accident data provided by the Transportation Division of the Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the Ellis/Patterson intersection has experienced an increase in traffic accidents within the last few years, while other intersections and street segments near the project site have had a decrease in accidents. The increase in approximately 222 u-turns at this intersection as a result of the project will exacerbate accident rates at this intersection causing an adverse public safety impact. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis discloses that motorists entering and exiting the site may experience significant delays during the PM peak hour due to westbound vehicular queuing along Ellis Avenue. Traffic delays on Ellis Avenue will contribute to motorists attempting to turn left to enter and exit the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends installation of a "STOP" sign and signage restricting outbound movements to right turns only in an effort to improve safe ingress and egress at the site. However, these measures are not adequate enough to improve safety and the study also recommends additional driveway treatments to further regulate the turn restrictions, such as the installation of raised pavement to physically prevent left turns out of the site. This suggests that is a reasonable assumption that motorists will lose patience and attempt left turns out of the site onto Ellis Avenue creating an unsafe condition, particularly during the PM peak hour when there is a long vehicular queue of traffic on Ellis Avenue in front of the project driveway. Additionally, motorists may attempt to avoid having to make a u-turn at the unsignalized Ellis/Patterson intersection resulting in additional delay due to vehicular queuing on westbound Ellis Avenue. These motorists entering the site from eastbound Ellis Avenue will attempt left turns from a through lane across traffic into the project driveway creating unsafe conditions on both eastbound and westbound sides of Ellis Avenue. 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. The site cannot accommodate an alternative access point or an additional access- point to mitigate the negative safety impacts caused by project generated traffic. The project site does not have access to another street or alley. The appellant proposed a raised "porkchop" design at the 447 driveway entrance to prevent left turns out of the project site as recommended by the Traffic Impact Analysis. This could potentially address the adverse health and safety impact to an uncertain degree. However, this design does not meet Fire Department access standards and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements. Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 401 contains minimum standards for fire apparatus access and No. 403 has additional requirements for driveway width when there are multiple lanes of travel with an "island divider", like the proposed driveway with the raised "porkchop" design. Each lane of travel must be a minimum of 14 ft. wide. Two lanes of travel require a minimum 28 ft. wide driveway, without counting additional width required for an "island divider". The proposed project driveway is 24 ft. wide total. Since the proposed raised "porkchop" design would take up a portion of the driveway width, it will result in a driveway that is less than 24 ft. wide. Since the proposed driveway is only 24 ft. wide when there is a 28 ft. minimum width (excluding additional width required for the raised "porkchop"), there is no feasible mitigation available for the adverse health and safety condition resulting from the proposed "porkchop" driveway design. The raised "porkchop" design would impede Fire Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact caused by the project. Therefore, insufficient access to the project site and project generated traffic will have a direct adverse impact to health and safety which cannot be mitigated. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The City Council finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element 448 Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC— 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. 449 The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave.from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a u-turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. 450 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457, because the project is a mixed-use development that conforms with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan for which Program EIR No. 08-008 was adopted and implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental .impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Compliance with all applicable mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan will be required of the project. In light of the whole record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines are present and, therefore, no EIR or MND is required. The Project, located on the north side of Ellis Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Patterson Lane, consists of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences with on- site public and private open space, a three level subterranean parking structure and 891 square feet of commercial space. The development site is located within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) area. The City certified Program EIR No. 08-008 on December 8, 2009 and adopted the BECSP on March 1, 2010. In 2015, the City Council amended the BECSP to reduce the Maximum Amount of New Development to 2,100 total new dwelling units including 725 units on Beach Boulevard. There are 200 undeveloped units remaining within the MAND on Beach Boulevard. The 48 units contemplated by the project is within the total new dwelling units permitted on Beach Boulevard under the approved BECSP. The project conforms to all standards and regulations of the BECSP development code. Accordingly, no changes requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR are proposed as part of the project, nor have any circumstances changed requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR. In addition, no new information identifies that implementation of the BECSP, including the project, will have significant effects that were not discussed in the previously certified Program EIR or that the significant effects identified in the certified Program EIR will be substantially more severe than determined in the Program EIR. Nor is there new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives not previously adopted would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for the consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre parcel is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on the subject property. The project complies with all applicable code provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The project will result in the demolition of an existing commercial building, one dwelling unit, and a portion of a former car wash and facilitate the development of a mixed-use building permitted by code. The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development. 451 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development in that the project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation, and drainage perspective. The site is located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, which permits mixed-use buildings and residential uses within close proximity of commercial uses. The specific plan is a form-based code that does not rely on density to limit development, but rather the building form to create an attractive public experience appealing to pedestrians. By merging the three existing lots into one, the site will function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the growing urban Beach Boulevard corridor. 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 because the site has been previously used as a car wash, one dwelling unit, and a convenience store. The site does not contain any significant habitat for wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The project will comply with applicable mitigation measures pursuant to Program EIR No. 08- 008. 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. Vehicular access is provided via a driveway along Ellis Avenue. The subdivision will provide all necessary street, sidewalk, and utility easements to serve the new subdivision. The project will dedicate four feet of land to widen the existing sidewalk (public right-of-way) along Ellis Avenue. The project will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements 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 because as conditioned, the project will result in less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences. Existing multi-family residences adjacent to the east will be buffered from the project by an approximately 33 ft. 7 in. setback on the east side of the project site consisting of landscaping and a driveway. Residents of the project and the general public, including nearby residents, will benefit from the new commercial portion of the building and the public plaza. Based upon the conditions of approval and BECSP mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts onto adjacent properties in that the project complies with setbacks, onsite parking requirements, and allowable building height. The project is a four-story building that is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP. The proposed mixed-use development will be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and commercial uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. With the conditions of 452 approval imposed, the project's grading and drainage pattern will result in compatible finished grades between adjacent properties. 2. The proposed project will comply with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) because the project complies with all other setback standards, building height, top and base architectural element requirements, and parking. 3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently M-sp (Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay). Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-IA: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. Policy LU-1B: Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources. Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well maintained and protected. Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs. Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit. 453 Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. The proposed development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major fagade offsets, and fagade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The fagade skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP. Housing Element Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability. Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations. Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability: Incorporate transit and other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops. The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 would ensure that the project is developed in accordance with the proposed project narrative and guarantee that the project provides 5 onsite affordable housing 454 units. The project represents new housing in the City that will help to fulfill the City's share of the regional housing need. The proposed project would accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment of the population. Circulation Element Goal C/RC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions. Goal C/RC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to- day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities. Policy CIRC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the infrastructure. The proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the subterranean parking structure to accommodate alternative methods of transportation. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for consolidation of three existing parcels into a one-lot subdivision for a mixed-use 48 unit residential and 891 square feet commercial development received and dated April 23, 2019, shall be the approved layout, including the following: a. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be 455 quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. 2. The Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 shall not be approved by the City Council until Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 is approved and in effect. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and at least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Tract Map (HBZSO 230.84 (A) & 253.10 (K)) (PW): a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) shall be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Economic Development identifying three on-site units for- sale as affordable for persons and families of moderate income and two on-site units for- sale as affordable for persons and families of low income pursuant to Section 230.14 of the HBZSO. The AHA shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable for persons and families of low income in the event the project is operated as rental apartment units. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council and shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The Agreement shall comply with HBZSO Sections 230.14 and 230.26 and include: i. A detailed description of the type, size and location of the five affordable housing for- sale units on-site. The mix of designated affordable one bedroom and two bedroom units shall be determined in the Agreement. ii. There shall be three on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of moderate income (up to 120% of the Orange County median income). There shall be two on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of low income (up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income is adjusted for appropriate household size. iii. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, the Agreement shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable to persons and families of low income (up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income is adjusted for appropriate household size. iv. Continuous affordability provisions for a period of 45 years (for-sale units) and 55 years (rental units). Any required for-sale affordable units shall be owner-occupied (not rented or leased). 456 v. Provisions for the affordable units to be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project. Phasing and availability of the affordable units shall be concurrent with final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit(s), or contingent upon evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion of the affordable units. 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the Final Map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify: a. The common driveway access easements b. Maintenance of all walls, common landscape areas, and refuse management by the Homeowners' Association c. Management of the BMPs per the approved WQMP by the Homeowners' Association d. Management of the revised Parking Management Plan pursuant to CUP No. 17- 042 Condition No. 2 to ensure the ongoing control and availability of on-site parking. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO Section 253.12.H) 7. Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 conditions of approval. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 23, 2019 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Depict the controlled access entry, gate to the subterranean parking garage discussed in the Parking Management Plan. b. The proposed 10 ft. high perimeter block wall shall be revised to a maximum of 8 ft. high, including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall in accordance with Condition of Approval No. 6.a. 2. The Parking Management Plan dated April 22, 2019 shall be revised to include the following: a. Required parking shall be assigned to and reserved for each unit. Each unit shall be assigned two reserved parking spaces. b. The assigned residential parking spaces shall be provided with the rental of a dwelling unit without any additional cost. (HBZSO 231.18 (D)(2)) 3. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Ellis Ave. Condos. 4. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. 457 Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct up to an eight (8') foot tall wall (including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall) located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line. The plans shall include some mechanism to close and secure any gaps. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Plans shall depict any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls and sidewalls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 5. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed: a. The proposed drainage pattern and system shall be reevaluated to reduce potential grading impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and west by incorporating localized collection points and result in a maximum two ft. grade differential and maximum two ft. high retaining wall. The retaining wall may be topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall. b. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. (PW) c. The existing 20-foot easement over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building. (PW) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The property owner/developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. All design and construction shall be per the City Standard codes and street configuration and specifications of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the "Neighborhood Streets" configuration. 458 f. A lighting plan depicting the boulevard-scale street lighting and pedestrian-scale street lighting along Ellis Ave. shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Division and Public Works Department. 7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Community Development Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). d. One set of project plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 and one 8 '/2 inch by 11 inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette, revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be submitted for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning Division. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 to Republic Services for review. Proof of Republic Services approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Community Development Department. c. A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following: i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type; ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale; iii. Fire hydrant locations, public and private; iv. FDC locations; v. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving; vi. FACP locations; vii. Knox box and knox switch locations; viii. Gate locations, and opticoms if required; 459 ix. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and circles/cu I-dee-sacs; x. Fire lane signage and striping. xi. The conceptual Alternative Materials and Methods Strategy shall be finalized to demonstrate compliance with exterior hose pull distance requirements. (FD) 9. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the following shall be completed: a. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84) b. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, furniture and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public right-of-way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with the maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. (PW) c. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project's Ellis Avenue frontage shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If require, easements shall be quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies. (PW) 10. The use shall comply with the following: a. All ground floor entry points to residences shall be monitored by secured FOB type entries. (PD) 11. The developer or developer's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 12. CUP No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 13. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program 460 certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplaVPage.aspx?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/preen-building= guidelines-rating). 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. 461 Attachment 3 - Project Plans See Attachment No. 5 of Attachment No. 4 on the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report 462 a @Gx 1 _ City of Huntington Beach 4 Ry, g Ita1 � File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director BY: Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) REQUEST: To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project exempt from CEQA. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd.and Patterson Ln.) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92882 BUSINESS OWNER: N/A STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's adopted land use regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan)? City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 poweredMy LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit? 3. Has the appropriate level of environmental analysis appropriately identified all environmental impacts with appropriate mitigation? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission take the following actions: A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457. B) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): A) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct staff to return with findings for denial. B) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04 and direct staff accordingly. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The project site is approximately 0.95 acres and consists of three parcels with two existing buildings - a liquor store and a residence. The existing buildings will be demolished in order to construct the proposed four-story building with three levels of subterranean parking. The north side of the project site was formerly utilized as part of the Metro Car Wash located at 18400 Beach Boulevard. Metro Car Wash has ceased operations and the owner of 18400 Beach Boulevard is currently constructing a new car wash on the property. The proposed condominium project and new car wash do not have any overlapping elements and are entirely separate projects. According to the Applicant's narrative (Attachment No. 3), the project owner intends for the units to be sold to individual buyers as condominiums so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building maintenance, regular up-keep, and cleaning will be handled by the HOA management team via contracts with local services. The project owner proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in order to comply with the Affordable Housing requirement. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, five on-site units will be designated as rentals affordable to low income households. Background: 1. In 2010, the City adopted the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14). The goal of City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere"Legistar— File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 SP14 was to transform the current development of commercial strip centers lined with surface parking lots and generally low-rise commercial buildings to a pattern of centers and segments characterized with clusters of shops and activity of varying intensity. These new active areas would include a mix of residential, offices, and commercial uses oriented to alternative modes of transportation including walking and bicycling. Along the Beach Boulevard corridor near Ellis Avenue, the development of a "Town-Center Neighborhood" segment would feature the City's widest range of contemporary housing types and possibly a wide mixture of uses. 2. In 2015, the City Council amended SP14 to decrease the total number of residential units allowed from 4,500 to 2,100, increase setbacks, increase minimum parking standards, require upper story setbacks, require a commercial component in all residential buildings, and permit residential subject to approval of a CUP. Other amendments related to auto dealers and civic and cultural uses were also approved. Out of the 2,100 Maximum Amount of New Development (MAND) units currently permitted, approximately 1,900 have been constructed leaving a balance of 200 units. Study Session: The Planning Commission held a Study Session on May 14, 2019 and discussed the following issues: General Solar panels on adjacent properties The Planning Commission discussed the potential impact of the project on adjacent properties to the east that have rooftop solar panels. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis exhibit (Attachment No. 6). Per the exhibit, the adjacent buildings to the east may experience shade/shadow beginning at approximately 6:00 PM during the summer months, approximately 4:00 PM during the fall months, and approximately 3:30 PM during the winter months. Distance of the project site from the intersection The proposed project site is approximately 96 ft. from the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. Pets At this time, the applicant has not provided information regarding pets at the property. Comparable projects The Planning Commission requested a list of comparable projects. Staff has prepared an exhibit of comparable completed projects within SP14 (Attachment No. 7). Revised site plan for clarity The Planning Commission requested a revised site plan exhibit which removes the utilities and other layers in order to depict the property lines, setbacks, etc. more clearly. The applicant has prepared a revised site plan to fulfill this request (Attachment No. 8). Environmental Artifacts on the project site Since the project site has been previously disturbed and developed, it is not likely that construction of City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere4f4 LegistarT1 File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 the proposed project will result in discovery of cultural resources. Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 08-008 for BECSP included a Cultural and Paleontological Resources survey of the entire SP14 area. Two archeological sites were identified within the SP14 area and are labeled as CA-ORA-296 and CA-ORA-358. CA-ORA-296 is located on the west side of Newland Ave. between Slater Ave. and Talbert Ave. CA-ORA-358 is located on the corner of Indianapolis Ave. and Beach Blvd. Neither of these sites are within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Although there are no archeological sites near the project, the project will comply with BECSP MM 4.4 regarding Cultural and Paleontological Resources. For example, in the event that native soil is disturbed, an archeology professional will be retained to determine if a substantial adverse change would occur to an archeological resource. Acoustic study The Planning Commission asked why the Acoustic Study is not required to be submitted prior to project approval. The BECSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes Mitigation Measure 4.9-5 which requires an acoustic study to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The acoustic study will present an analysis of the potential noise impacts of the surrounding environment on exterior (ex: patios and balconies) and interior components of the proposed project. MM 4.9-5 includes a provision that requires final project design to incorporate special design measures in the construction of the proposed residential units, if necessary. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14) Zoning Pre-2010 Prior to the 2010 adoption of SP14, the property had a General Plan Land Use designation of CG - F2 - d (Commercial General - Flood Overlay - design overlay) and a Zoning designation of CG (General Commercial). Did SP14 envision narrow lot development or unconsolidated development? SP14 divides the Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. corridors into five general areas or segments. The overall vision for SP14 is to develop primarily residential and neighborhood retail uses in the southern portion of Beach Boulevard, transitioning to mixed uses in the middle segment of Beach Boulevard, then to a more dense "town center" adjacent to and at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, and extending along Edinger Avenue. Geographically, the intention is to intensify land uses as one travels north along Beach Boulevard from the southern boundary of the SP area. The project site is within the Five Points district of SP14, which is envisioned to enable investment in a visible, mixed-use cluster at this central location. SP14 discusses infill development on underutilized properties responding to the broad framework of the Specific Plan which will contribute to an emerging pattern of coherent arrangements of buildings, streets, and blocks. Although it might be ideal for clusters of small properties to consolidate and propose a unified project, it is not always possible due to market conditions and the interests of individual property owners. This is contemplated in the SP14 Development Concept which states that the common purpose of development within the Specific Plan is the realization of a vision of the future that is sufficiently specific to meet the revitalization goals, yet loose enough to respond to opportunities and changes in the marketplace that will inevitably arise. City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 power LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 Traffic Impacts, Traffic Improvements, and Grading Required Dedications The Public Works Department has indicated that the only dedication the project requires is a four foot dedication along Ellis Ave. Traffic Mitigation The Public Works Department has indicated that payment of fair share traffic fees and implementation of a right in, right out only driveway along with on-street striping and driveway improvements to supplement the right in/out only movements are the required traffic mitigations. The project does not result in other traffic related impacts requiring mitigation. Also, the Planning Commission requested information regarding Level of Service (LOS) in the project vicinity. LOS is a method of describing the delays experienced by drivers at a particular intersection or roadway. If a project is determined to create a significant traffic delay, it may impact and downgrade the LOS rating. The Traffic Impact Analysis finds that the proposed project driveway is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2020 traffic conditions. LOS B is defined as 0.61 - 0.70 seconds of delay and is described as a very good traffic condition with short delays. It must be noted that although the level of service calculation indicates LOS B operations at the project driveway, residents of the project may experience delays entering/exiting the project site due to vehicle queueing on Ellis Ave. The Public Works Department has prepared a summary of volume to capacity ratio at AM/PM Peak Hours in the project vicinity (Attachment No. 11). Will payment of fees at "full buildout"of SP14 cover all needs for traffic? The Public Works Department has indicated that collection of the fair share payment is sufficient to mitigate all the identified intersection improvements of the Specific Plan. Description of all traffic requirements for the project The Public Works Department has indicated that the following items are required related to traffic and street improvements: BECSP EIR Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measures (by payment of fair share traffic impact fees), BECSP Streetscape Improvement Development Standards (four ft. dedication), CP Circulation Element and PW standards (with implementation of right,in/out driveway, on-street striping, and driveway improvements). North side grading The preliminary grading plan (Attachment No. 12) depicts the subject site with a grade of approximately 6.6 ft. for drainage purposes with a 6.6 ft. high retaining wall. The six ft. grade is proposed as the highest point with a gradual reduction in grade to approximately three to four ft. near the subterranean garage entrance. Staff recommends a condition of approval (Attachment No. 1) to require the proposed drainage pattern and system to be revised prior to issuance of a grading permit to reduce retaining wall and grade differential impacts to adjacent properties to the north, east, and west. Staff recommends a maximum two ft. retaining wall may be constructed and topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall. What (if any) grading or construction activities can occur outside of 10 AM - 4 PM? What time can City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powereW Legistar— File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 they start grading? Public Works Code Requirements for the project limit the hours of hauling trucks at the site from 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday - Friday only. The BECSP Mitigation Measures limit high noise-producing activities to the hours of 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Fire Access Ladder pads Per the Huntington Beach Fire Department, all bedroom windows are required to be accessible from ground ladders. The applicant has provided HBFD with plans that show the ladder pads for ground ladder access to egress windows. Elan Statistics on increased accidents due to Elan The Public Works Department has provided information regarding accident rates at three intersections in the project vicinity three years prior to occupancy of the Elan building and three years after the occupancy of the Elan building (Attachment No. 9). The analysis concludes that accidents after the occupancy of Elan have decreased compared to the rate of accidents prior to the occupancy of Elan. Comparison of the proposed project to Elan On May 15, 2012 the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 12-001 (Elan) to develop a mixed use project consisting of 274 residential units including six live-work units, 8,500 square feet of commercial space, an internal 430 space parking garage and 54,546 sf of private and public open space on a 2.74 acre site. The Planning Commission requested a comparison chart of the proposed project to Elan. It must be noted that Elan was approved prior to the 2015 BECSP Amendments which included the following revisions to topics relevant to Elan and the proposed project: • Reduce the residential Maximum Amount of Net New Development (MAND) from 4,500 units to 2,100 units • Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all residential and mixed use (residential/commercial) projects • Increase the residential parking requirements • Increase front yard setbacks on all public streets • Limit maximum building height to four stories • Create an upper-story setback above the third floor • Require all residential projects to include retail/commercial uses at the street level Provision Elan Proposed Project Number of Units 274 48 Density 100 units per acre 50 units per acre Height Ellis Ave.: ranges from 4-6 stories 4 stories 46 ft. to the highest point 4th story: 43 ft. high 6th story: 63 ft. 6 in. high City of Huntington Beach Page 6 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere4034,LegistarW File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 Setbacks Ellis Ave.: 0 ft. 2 in. Ellis Ave.: 30 ft. Upper story setback: 11 ft. 1 in. setback along front and sides of building for a depth of 101 ft. 10 in. on the 4tn floor Parking 1-2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit The Planning Commission also asked for information regarding trip generation rates for the proposed project compared to Elan. The Public Works Department has prepared a trip generation analysis comparison for both projects (Attachment No. 10). ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Sub"ect Propertv And Surroundinq General Plan Desi nations Zoninq And Land Uses: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Convenience store Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) and one residence North of Subject M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Hotel and commercial Property: Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) shopping center East of Subject RM (Residential RM (Residential Medium Multi-family housing Property: Medium Density) Density) South of Subject M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Mixed-use retail and Property: Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) multi-family housing (Elan) West of Subject M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Drive-through Property: Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) restaurant and car wash (under construction) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-IA: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. Policy LU-IB. Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources. City of Huntington Beach Page 7 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere4614,LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 Policy LU-1 C. Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Goal LU-4._ A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well maintained and protected. Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs. Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit. Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major facade offsets, and facade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The facade skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP. B. Housing Element Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability. Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and City of Huntington Beach Page 8 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere47dq LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations. Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Polic'y 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability, Incorporate transit and other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops. The project includes six one-bedroom units and forty-two two-bedroom units that would accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. The units range from 645 - 880 sf. The proposed project will help to fulfill the City's share of the regional housing need by providing smaller dwelling units which will be more financially attainable by virtue of size. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment of the population. C. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions. Goal CIRC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities. Policy CIRC-6(C) Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the infrastructure. Although the site is relatively narrow, the proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the underground parking structure to accommodate alternative methods of transportation. Zoning Compliance: The proposed project is located within Specific Plan No. 14 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and complies with the requirements of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment. The purpose City of Huntington Beach Page 9 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerA7b1 LegistarT° File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 of the BECSP is to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. Future development would transform existing commercial strips, which are predominantly lined with large expanses of pavement or underperforming uses, to a pattern of centers and segments generating increased activity and greater interaction between developments. As previously mentioned, the project site is located in the Town Center Neighborhood segment of the Five Points District within the BECSP. The Five Points District is designated as a potential City center characterized by convenience and urban vitality. Development within the Town Center Neighborhood segment is encouraged to be revitalized through infill development on underutilized properties. This segment is envisioned to have greater development intensity than surrounding segments, including new apartments or condominiums with shopfronts and parking areas screened from view. Development is to be more compact in this segment in order to provide the activity expected in a vibrant urban district. The table below shows an overview of the project's conformance to the significant development standards of the BECSP. In addition, a list of City Code Requirements of the applicable provisions of the BECSP and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal Code has been provided to the applicant and attached to this report (Attachment No. 19) for informational purposes only. Provision Town Center Proposed Project Neighborhood 2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residential 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1 Commercial one bedroom units 891 sf commercial retail 2.2.2 Special Retail n/a n/a Configuration 2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of the 5 affordable units to be proposed 48 units 4.8 units constructed on-site required 2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 stories 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling Ground floor retail - 14 ft. 450 slope complies min. floor to ceiling Adjacent to housing 2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft. 54 ft. max 2.3.4 Special Building Limited mid-block building - 54 ft. Length max. 80 ft. 2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1 L:3H to Complies with massing 3L:1 H range 2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to Ellis Ave. City of Huntington Beach Page 10 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere472j LegistarT° File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types including Ellis Ave. elevation: shopfront, corner entry, Shopfront - 24 ft. long common lobby, etc. Internal elevation: Common Lobby Entry 2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft. 30 ft. 41h floor: 11 ft. 1 in. Upper story setback - 10 ft. setback for a depth of 101 ft. along front and sides of a 10 in. building for a depth of minimum 100 ft. for structures above the 3rd floor 2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows West side: 10 ft. East side: - loft. 33 ft. 7 in. 2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft. 15 ft. 7 in. 2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a 2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a 2.4.8 Space Between n/a n/a Buildings 2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a 2.5.1 Improvements to Neighborhood Streets 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter Existing Streets required - 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide sidewalk including 6 ft. wide planter and 6 ft. wide sidewalk 2.5.2 Provision of New n/a n/a Streets 2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a 2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a 2.5.5 Required East-West n/a n/a Street Connection 2.5.6 Residential n/a n/a Transition-Boundary Street 2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a 2.6.1 Provision of Public Residential - min.50 sf. per 2,703 sf. Open Space unit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min. 50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf. 2,444.5 sf. required 2.6.2 Special Public Open n/a n/a Space City of Huntington Beach Page 11 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powereVq LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2.6.3 Provision of Private Residential - 60 sf. per unit 4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) _ Open Space x 48 total units = 2,880 sf. 2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281 sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor units excluded from private open space calculation due to noncompliant porch type) 2.6.4 Public Open Space Provide either: Park, Linear Plaza Types Green, Square, Plaza, Mid- Block Green, Courtyard Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or Pocket Park/Playground 2.6.5 Private Open Space Provide either: Courtyard, 1st floor units - noncompliant Types Private Yard, Rooftop Deck porch (excluded from private or Garden, or Balcony open space calculations) 2 nd - 4th floor units - balconies 4th floor - rooftop deck 2.6.6 Stormwater Best Management Practices Provided - WQMP required Management required to ensure compliance 2.6.7 Stormwater BMP Source Control BMPs, Site Provided - WQMP required Types Design BMPs, Treatment to ensure compliance Control BMPs 2.6.8 Open Space Required Public plaza furniture Landscaping Decorative stamped concrete paving treatment 2.6.9 Setback Area Perimeter Block Setback Sidewalk extension Landscaping Types Area -Sidewalk extension provided : decorative required with Shopfront: stamped concrete paving to paving material consistent provide continuity with the public right-of-way w/sidewalk Side and rear Interior Block Setback Area -yards landscaped with Groundcover required: covershrubs, trees, and side and rear yard areas groundcover with landscaping or other pervious surfaces 2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2 Residential: 1 bedroom = 12 min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12 spaces provided 2 bedroom required) 2 bedroom @ 2 = 84 spaces provided Guest min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84 = 24 spaces provided Retail required) Guest = 0.5 min/1 = 5 spaces provided Total: units (48 units x 0.5 = 24 125 spaces required 128 required) Retail: 5/1000 sf. spaces provided (891 sf. proposed) x (5/1000) = 4 spaces required City of Huntington Beach Page 12 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere474 LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot: Three level Underground rear Structure: wrapped Structure proposed ground level, wrapped all levels, partially submerged podium, underground structure 2.8.1 Facade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and varied roofline Base: brick veneer at retail and residential frontages BECSP Conformance The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Town Center Neighborhood segment of the BECSP as stated above and overall objective of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing 48 residential units to support the commercial opportunities existing and anticipated in the vicinity. The project also includes 891 sf. of commercial space to serve residents of the project and nearby neighborhoods. The project site is also within close proximity to other key developments including Five Points Plaza and Elan, which provide the commercial and public services that the proposed development will support. The urban environment will further form when there is sufficient supporting residential uses to accommodate the growing commercial uses. Alternate modes of travel such as walking and bicycling become more appealing when enhanced larger walkways are provided and integrated between developments. Proposed site improvements will provide wider pedestrian sidewalks throughout the project and an open public plaza. As discussed under the Zoning Conformance section of this report, the project complies with the BECSP development code and does not include any requests to deviate from the development standards. Adequate emergency access is provided in and around the site with the driveway from Ellis Ave., also functioning as the fire lane. Sufficient parking (exceeds code requirements) for the residential and commercial portion of the project is incorporated in a subterranean parking structure which supports the BECSP vision for quality urban spaces. The project is within the allowable MAND in the BECSP. As of the 2015 BECSP amendment, the Beach Boulevard corridor has 525 dwelling units approved of which 325 dwelling units have been constructed. There is a remaining capacity of 200 units in the Beach Boulevard corridor. The Beach Boulevard corridor also has a MAND of 532,000 sf. for retail development. The proposed project includes 891 sf. of retail space and 48 dwelling units, which do not exceed the Beach Boulevard corridor MAND. Building Massing and Scale The BECSP relies on massing and scale to dictate the desired building form and interaction with the public experience. As the building expands horizontally, the height of the building is vertically proportioned for orientation to the pedestrian environment. The flat plane of the fagade is then City of Huntington Beach Page 13 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere474 Legistar TM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 separated into volumes accented with insets, offsets, notches, material and colors changes. For the proposed design, the building facades incorporate a variety of attractive elements. The dominant treatment along the exterior base involves brick veneer as well as the placement of metal trellises and canopies on the ground floor building entrances. The top element of the facades applies cornices and varied rooflines. Inset balconies and intermittent setbacks combine with rich landscaping to beautify the street frontages creating an inviting pedestrian and public space. The maximum allowable height for the subject site is four stories. The proposed building is four stories high and 46 ft. tall at the highest point of the building cornice. As seen along the Ellis Ave. frontage, the height is articulated from the pedestrian scale featuring a 20 ft. high retail portion of the building and a notch at the residential entrance. The facades facing Beach Blvd. (west) and Patterson Ln. (east) are further articulated with the addition of metal trellises and open railings on third and fourth floor balconies. The pedestrian bridge provides architectural relief and reduces visual massing via transmission of light and air through the building frontage. Land Use Compatibility The proposed four-story mixed-use development is compatible with existing and anticipated land uses in the immediate vicinity. This includes the mixed-use Elan building which ranges in height from 4-6 stories on Ellis Ave. and is also composed of a mixture of commercial and residential land uses. The project will be served by the existing commercial uses to the north, west, and south (Elan) of the project site. Existing multi-family residential uses are located east of the site and existing single family residential uses are located further east, beyond Patterson Ln. The project will not significantly impact existing residential uses because the proposed building is located approximately 260 feet away from the nearest single family residential building. Existing multi-family residences are buffered from the proposed commercial use through perimeter setback areas of landscaping, sidewalks, and a driveway. Interior noise would be minimized through noise attenuation features. Development of the site would enhance the visual image of the Beach Boulevard corridor and expand the vision of the specific plan. Site Layout & Circulation Access Vehicular access to the project site is proposed via one primary entry point on Ellis Avenue. There are no improvements necessary to the existing street or medians to accommodate vehicular access to the project site. The driveway on Ellis Ave. is designed with two-way travel lanes which provide entrance into the subterranean parking structure. The project will enhance the pedestrian experience on Ellis Ave. by dedicating four ft. of property to provide a 12 ft. wide public right-of-way. Pedestrian access to the project site will feature a six ft. wide planter along the street frontage which buffers the adjacent six ft. wide sidewalk. The sidewalk along Ellis Ave. is also adjacent to the proposed public plaza. The building is oriented towards the street which connects the sidewalk to the shopfront retail entrance and the common lobby residential entrance along Ellis Ave. Interior corridors connect the residential units to the parking garage and roof deck via stairs/elevators. The sidewalk connects to a pathway which provides access to the ground floor residential entrance and pedestrian security gates. The security gates will enclose the residential area from the public open space through controlled access scan cards. City of Huntington Beach Page 14 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere474 LegistarM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 The project's access points have been designed to comply with the requirements of the BECSP and respond to the Fire Department's request for emergency access. The site includes a fire truck turnabout and marked fire lanes. The project has proposed an Alternate Means & Methods (AM&M) strategy to satisfy exterior hose pull distance requirements. The AM&M has been reviewed and conceptually approved by the HBFD. Open Space The 2,703 sf. public open space plaza is accessible via the public sidewalk on Ellis Ave. and visible along the street frontage. The plaza includes seating areas for public use and decorative stamped concrete pathways which encourages public use from the sidewalk. The inclusion of these improvements creates an inviting pedestrian experience for both visitors and residents. The project proposes porches as private open space for the ground floor residential units. Although each of the ground floor residents will benefit from the enjoyment of open space accessible directly from their unit, the porch type private open space is noncompliant with the Town Center Neighborhood segment of BECSP. For this reason, the ground floor porches are excluded from private open space calculations for the project. All residents will have access to the fourth floor roof deck common area. Units on the fourth floor also have private balconies which are separate from the common area. Parkinq The 2015 amendments to the BECSP increased the parking ratio requirements from the original 2010 adoption of the BECSP. The proposed project meets and exceeds the minimum amount of required vehicle parking based on the current BECSP. A total of 125 parking spaces are required for the project and a total of 128 parking spaces are provided. The project provides 120 parking spaces for residences, including 24 spaces reserved for guests, and 5 spaces reserved for the retail tenant. The subterranean parking structure will provide access to all 128 parking spaces. According to the Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. 13), the parking garage will remain open between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM and require a scan card for gate access outside these hours. Affordable Housing As required per the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 230.26 - Affordable Housing, 10% of the proposed units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. Thus, 4.8 of the proposed 48 units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. The applicant proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in order to comply with the Affordable Housing requirement. Three of the affordable units will be made available to moderate income households and two affordable units will be available to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section 230.26(B)(3). In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, five on-site units will be designated as rentals affordable to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section 230.26(B) (2). In addition, there are requirements for a 45-year affordability period (for-sale units) and 55-year affordability period (rental units) and the timing for which the affordable units shall be constructed. The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 stipulates these requirements to be recorded in an Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: City of Huntington Beach Page 15 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerA'Ny LegistarTIO File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. A detailed discussion of the project's design is provided in the Analysis section of this staff report. Environmental Status: On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 08-008 for the proposed Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. EIR No. 08-008 concluded that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems, which would remain significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission certified EIR No. 08-008 as adequate and complete with modified mitigation measures, findings of fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to action on the GPA, ZMA, and ZTA on March 1, 2010. The project applicant has completed Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary Hydrology Report/WQMP, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and a Geotechnical Investigation (Attachments No. 17) to ensure the project will comply with the BECSP Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. All potentially significant effects of the project have been analyzed pursuant to the BECSP Program EIR and can be mitigated pursuant to applicable mitigation measures adopted for the BECSP Program EIR (Attachment No. 15). Therefore, pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is covered under the program EIR and no further environmental analysis is required. Coastal Status: Not Applicable. Design Review Board: Not Applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not Applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building, Economic Development, and Police have reviewed the proposed development project. Recommended conditions from the Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building and Police are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval and code requirements have also been identified. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on May 16, 2019, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department's Notification Matrix), and applicant. Written communications received prior to the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration (Attachment No. 16). Application Processing Dates: City of Huntington Beach Page 16 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere474 LegistarTI File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 1, 2019 June 1, 2019 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following: - Consistent with the M-sp (Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay) Land Use Designation of the General Plan and the SP 14 - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan zoning designation. - Implements the objectives of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach Boulevard corridor. - Provides a mixed-use development that is consistent with the BECSP development code and compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land uses. - Creates an environment that supports pedestrian and bicycle activity and increases housing. - The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision,Map Act. - The project contributes to the City's housing stock, including affordable housing as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Narrative received and dated May 1, 2019 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 received March 7, 2019 5. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations received April 23, 2019 6. Shadow Analysis 7. BECSP Completed Comparable Projects 8. Site Plan Revised for Clarity 9. Accident Rates in the Project Vicinity 10. Proposed Project and Elan Trip Generation Comparison 11. Summary of Volume/Capacity Ratio in Project Vicinity 12. Preliminary Grading Plan 13. Parking Management Plan received and dated April 22, 2019 14. Sustainability Narrative received and dated September 21, 2018 15. BECSP Mitigation Monitoring Checklist 16. Email Public Comment Received May 17, 2019 17. Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Draft Water Quality Management Plan, Phase 1 ESA, Geotech Investigation (not attached - see May 14, 2019 PC Study Session Staff Report) 18. Republic Will-Service Letter 19. Code Requirements Letter City of Huntington Beach Page 17 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere a LegistarTM SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457, because the project is a mixed-use development that conforms with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan for which Program EIR No. 08-008 was adopted and implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Compliance with all applicable mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan will be required of the project. In light of the whole record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines are present and, therefore, no EIR or MND is required. The Project, located on the north side of Ellis Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Patterson Lane, consists of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences with on- site public and private open space, a three level subterranean parking structure and 891 square feet of commercial space. The development site is located within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) area. The City certified Program EIR No. 08-008 on December 8, 2009 and adopted the BECSP on March 1, 2010. In 2015, the City Council amended the BECSP to reduce the Maximum Amount of New Development to 2,100 total new dwelling units including 725 units on Beach Boulevard. There are 200 undeveloped units remaining within the MAND on Beach Boulevard. The 48 units contemplated by the project is within the total new dwelling units permitted on Beach Boulevard under the approved BECSP. The project conforms to all standards and regulations of the BECSP development code. Accordingly, no changes requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR are proposed as part of the project, nor have any circumstances changed requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR. In addition, no new information identifies that implementation of the BECSP, including the project, will have significant effects that were not discussed in the previously certified Program EIR or that the significant effects identified in the certified Program EIR will be substantially more severe than determined in the Program EIR. Nor is there new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives not previously adopted would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for the consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre parcel is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on the subject property. The project complies with all applicable code provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The project will result in the demolition of an existing commercial building, one dwelling unit, and a portion of a former car wash and facilitate the development of a mixed-use building permitted by code. The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development. 480 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development in that the project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation, and drainage perspective. The site is located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, which permits mixed-use buildings and residential uses within close proximity of commercial uses. The specific plan is a form-based code that does not rely on density to limit development, but rather the building form to create an attractive public experience appealing to pedestrians. By merging the three existing lots into one, the site will function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the growing urban Beach Boulevard corridor. 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 because the site has been previously used as a car wash, one dwelling unit, and a convenience store. The site does not contain any significant habitat for wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The project will comply with applicable mitigation measures pursuant to Program EIR No. 08- 008. 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. Vehicular access is provided via a driveway along Ellis Avenue. The subdivision will provide all necessary street, sidewalk, and utility easements to serve the new subdivision. The project will dedicate four feet of land to widen the existing sidewalk (public right-of-way) along Ellis Avenue. The project will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements 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 because as conditioned, the project will result in less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences. Existing multi-family residences adjacent to the east will be buffered from the project by an approximately 33 ft. 7 in. setback on the east side of the project site consisting of landscaping and a driveway. Residents of the project and the general public, including nearby residents, will benefit from the new commercial portion of the building and the public plaza. Based upon the conditions of approval and BECSP mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts onto adjacent properties in that the project complies with setbacks, onsite parking requirements, and allowable building height. The project is a four-story building that is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP. The proposed mixed-use development will be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and commercial uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. With the conditions of 481 approval imposed, the project's grading and drainage pattern will result in compatible finished grades between adjacent properties. 2. The proposed project will comply with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) because the project complies with all other setback standards, building height, top and base architectural element requirements, and parking. 3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently M-sp (Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay). Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. Policy LU-18: Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources. Policy LU-IC: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well maintained and protected. Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs. Policy LU-48: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit. 482 Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. The proposed development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major facade offsets, and facade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The facade skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP. Housing Element Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability. Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations. Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability: Incorporate transit and other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops. The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 would ensure that the project is developed in accordance with the proposed project narrative and guarantee that the project provides 5 onsite affordable housing 483 units. The project represents new housing in the City that will help to fulfill the City's share of the regional housing need. The proposed project would accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing _ requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment of the population. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions. Goal CIRC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to- day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities. Policy CIRC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the infrastructure. The proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the subterranean parking structure to accommodate alternative methods of transportation. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for consolidation of three existing parcels into a one-lot subdivision for a mixed-use 48 unit residential and 891 square feet commercial development received and dated April 23, 2019, shall be the approved layout, including the following: a. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be 484 quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. 2. The Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 shall not be approved by the City Council until Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 is approved and in effect. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and at least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Tract Map (HBZSO 230.84 (A) & 253.10 (K)) (PW): a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) shall be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Economic Development identifying three on-site units for- sale as affordable for persons and families of moderate income and two on-site units for- sale as affordable for persons and families of low income pursuant to Section 230.14 of the HBZSO. The AHA shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable for persons and families of low income in the event the project is operated as rental apartment units. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council and shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The Agreement shall comply with HBZSO Sections 230.14 and 230.26 and include: i. A detailed description of the type, size and location of the five affordable housing for- sale units on-site. The mix of designated affordable one bedroom and two bedroom units shall be determined in the Agreement. ii. There shall be three on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of moderate income (up to 120% of the Orange County median income). There shall be two on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of low income (up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income is adjusted for appropriate household size. iii. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, the Agreement shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable to persons and families of low income (up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income is adjusted for appropriate household size. iv. Continuous affordability provisions for a period of 45 years (for-sale units) and 55 years (rental units). Any required for-sale affordable units shall be owner-occupied (not rented or leased). 485 v. Provisions for the affordable units to be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project. Phasing and availability of the affordable units shall be concurrent with final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit(s), or contingent upon evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion of the affordable units. 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the Final Map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify: a. The common driveway access easements b. Maintenance of all walls, common landscape areas, and refuse management by the Homeowners' Association c. Management of the BMPs per the approved WQMP by the Homeowners' Association d. Management of the revised Parking Management Plan pursuant to CUP No. 17- 042 Condition No. 2 to ensure the ongoing control and availability of on-site parking. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO Section 253.12.H) 7. Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 conditions of approval. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 23, 2019 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Depict the controlled access entry gate to the subterranean parking garage discussed in the Parking Management Plan. b. The proposed 10 ft. high perimeter block wall shall be revised to a maximum of 8 ft. high, including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall in accordance with Condition of Approval No. 6.a. 2. The Parking Management Plan dated April 22, 2019 shall be revised to include the following: a. Required parking shall be assigned to and reserved for each unit. Each unit shall be assigned two reserved parking spaces. b. The assigned residential parking spaces shall be provided with the rental of a dwelling unit without any additional cost. (HBZSO 231.18 (D)(2)) 3. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Ellis Ave. Condos. 4. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. 486 Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct up to an eight (8') foot tall wall (including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall) located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line. The plans shall include some mechanism to close and secure any gaps. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Plans shall depict any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls and sidewalls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 5.. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed: a. The proposed drainage pattern and system shall be reevaluated to reduce potential grading impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and west by incorporating localized collection points and result in a maximum two ft. grade differential and maximum two ft. high retaining wall. The retaining wall may be topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall. b. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. (PW) c. The existing 20-foot easement over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building. (PW) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The property owner/developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. All design and construction shall be per the City Standard codes and street configuration and specifications of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the "Neighborhood Streets" configuration. 487 f. A lighting plan depicting the boulevard-scale street lighting and pedestrian-scale street lighting along Ellis Ave. shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Division and Public Works Department. 7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Community Development Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). d. One set of project plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 and one 8 '/2 inch by 11 inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette, revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be submitted for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning Division. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 to Republic Services for review. Proof of Republic Services approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Community Development Department. c. A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following: i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type; ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale; iii. Fire hydrant locations, public and private; iv. FDC locations; v. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving; vi. FACP locations; vii. Knox box and knox switch locations; viii. Gate locations, and opticoms if required; 488 ix. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and circles/cu I-d ee-sacs; x. Fire lane signage and striping. xi. The conceptual Alternative Materials and Methods Strategy shall be finalized to demonstrate compliance with exterior hose pull distance requirements. (FD) 9. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the following shall be completed: a. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84) b. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, furniture and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public right-of-way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with the maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. (PW) c. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project's Ellis Avenue frontage shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If require, easements shall be quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies. (PW) 10. The use shall comply with the following: a. All ground floor entry points to residences shall be monitored by secured FOB type entries. (PD) 11. The developer or developer's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 12. CUP No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 13. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program 489 certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org//green-building- guidelines-rating). 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. 490 9 B AY yc rAM ar ■a } Y EDDKWX {YAYNIII \ \ SLATM A \ . TAiSIXr \ ILLM \ .C ya-m rT s, YOIXTOWN AD&M HAMUV . � cmun+rous anvusoN n r610"G t r • d• Project 1 I n VICINITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-004/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001 IL- (ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS) 491 [u e g arch i t e c t u r e May 1, 2019 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 R E G A R D I N G Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach MCG Project No. 17.359.05 To whom it may concern: Our client, THDT Investment, Inc. is proposing to redevelop 3-existing lots (totaling approximately 41,200 s.f.) near the north-east corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard within the Huntington Beach - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The new development will demolish the existing liquor store at 8041 Ellis Avenue, the single family residence behind the liquor store and part of the lot adjacent to the Metro car wash at 18400 Beach Boulevard to build a new four story mixed use building with an approximately 891 s.f. retail use on the ground floor along Ellis Avenue and a combination of single and two bedroom condominium units throughout the remainder of the approximately 79,000 s.f. building. The proposed unit mix would be 42- 2 bedroom units - approximately 880 s.f. ea. and 6 single bedroom units - approximately 645 s.f. ea. for a total of 48 units overall. The City of Huntington Beach Business Development staff provided the total number of required affordable housing units to be 4.8. The developer is seeking to provide 5-affordable units overall. Parking to serve the development will consist of three sub-grade levels for a total of 128 parking stalls. The intention is for the units to be sold to individual buyers so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building maintenance and regular up-keep and cleaning will be handled by the owners management team via contracts with local services. This new development will be an enhancement to the community by adding a modern environmentally friendly& small scale mixed use complex with unit pricing sized to suit the average consumer. The location allows owners to visit amenities such as Helme Park, medical, dental and eye care centers as well as local markets all within a short walking distance. Public transportation is close by as well via the existing bus stop on Beach Boulevard in front of the Metro Car Wash. Owners on the upper floors of the south and west side units will be afforded serene ocean views and breezes to help enhance their lifestyles. Retail.Entertainment.Rospitalitp.Dttice CLEVELAND • DENVER - GLENDORA • 1RVINE • SAN FRANCISCO 492 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach m c g a r c h i t e c t u r e May 1, 2019 Page 2 Yours truly, MCG ARCHITECTURE Jeff Herbst, Project Director XXX:xx Enclosures CC Retail-Entedainment.Hospitality.Ottice CLEVELAND . DENVER GLENDORA IRVINE, - SAN FRANCISCO 493 vJ — U- VJ Lr O v/ Lr v/ VJ � � W WV�d v coW QwQ QOw Qp < c) Z Wz wLL, LIJ Uir Uw0 O U- F- zCO N zJ0 zww zw zQ0 zQ z � O0 ? D v LU Q � z om = o � oo L� �M LL LL a a a a O 0 Z LO OC) LO w N M `7 to Q LO J 0- coG U CL U of W Y 10 0 a% OU ^ ^ ^ i I L—f .00'ZZV 3AkS8 .00N �. 1 I U) >0 ° 00 w ox o0 � w J � �� 00> \ � w C z0 mw \' y Q � p�lwp m f m w p W X � f w3> I < 1-4 w � w _Z� Jw F- \ N X w © w --- - - - - -- - 00'ZZV 3..9k86o00N A2JVGNf o9,-A- i dO dbdb ti ti EO 6'(YVA771709 HOP99 - - - - - - - - - - - it N I U) w w cr = H cnz J Z 0FZ 2 cn w X cn 0 w ZG m L cr Z) I C/) 0 :] Z 0E- 2U) w X 0 w I �I I \ w U 0 Z w w_ _ 0 U) -J w0 LU Z � cn m �\ w 0 w w cr v) 0 J Z w 0 �z w Q gD c wX _ ~ c=nc7 Dw .J Z J Z O 0i— gc~i) m w x w W w 0 w 0 2 C7 ~ CUD C31I CL 4JL I z I I I Zo � ° CO z ui — J J } _ I °DcD 02 LL: ui co `m U M I JO � � � Q � LL o z Ce p ; � cv = w O\ Qw o w II zocco � � \ oZ w0 CO 00wI I C I< o O ui O - `O w o _jM o o IQI III z a �� - z z I 0 lol II o = II o" Q w 4 �- z M Q ` w Cr CC T � I O O _ Cl) ( HSVHi r 0 O Zl co w w 0 T 0 coI z 0-con D w � i m cr wv Z ' -- °� W oc Q - w m O 0 Q - N Ow LL T I ❑ — — ❑ 06eluad alenud C3 w O adAi Aggo�uowwoo _ Q U 0 cl- w LL QCL _ _ � mwQ 0 1 00 Qz � _ � I z cr O = - LL � LU mU O Cl) I l p U) O m 0 IL 0 m T L m I � D - ZTW - - } YLL r \ F Q I ¢ z co z � ❑ p O OJ m zQ I M p - z Co ,0-,0 L 0- l tz Cl) z El LL qD > m (O J m M fi W ° _ = I Cl) < CL a. W N CD I W tl z 00 W Z Z � O J o mI w 0 LO o m m ? mo 0 o CV I = W U Z W = W W U cn QI � � W � T cn � U cx H Co HSVHi M O ) z W r CY) CY) z D r I ❑ I p GE W � p J - cr) C? !z Cl) c h z C ID zo ") Cl ❑ � N H Z D r 0 J J 0 � 0 w U) Uoo p J � � OZ o F j m U) U) ooUZ Q d ¢ p � — O J D U) 0 QO > O _ c r- _ �J 0 � o Z = m F— Z J w IL > Hsdal o - - - � LL O O IL ¢ O w r� CL ol L E,0-,6 9-191 Y O w - - - W U � ¢ o IL w LU O ¢ O Ir c? w F- co O w w � N 0— LL O O Ir cr w 0 � 0 � I I I I 10 U I 00 lrye � J \ %5 %�G� w \ \ -�J� NMOa d tff I ��fLZ l-SSG ' 0 Z/ / O O � N CD LO = � mop W W C�7 �o I I c�� U� U � cJQn COw�v) OO �0 > w/ n N c=~COs N U) c�LO C, z 0 o� Y N T cco W� w cn r W > W U) W wl oLU Iw J NY W U � O 0 � Ycr IL Z cr O � w Cl) Y_ U) 0 m w I � I " U) Q w w I � I I I N I I I I O o I I IIll1 � Il pit I J i I J - Q N N J W W J Lf 0 N z - O +I N rr n� I M T N Cl) J J LU W LU O J J Ljj J O LL z_ LL Z LL _Z LL F j LL Y LL Y LL Y LL � o QO Qo Qo IL O IL O 0- O CL O r N M I I -1w I in in MEMNON _j 0 in II■ I�_ ,IMEEMEMMEEM ,;I 11A I I IIII L. i hL Anoint III �- sl Ila ����IIIINII loll VYI III illlal�llpll� II�IINIII� OMEN Mall hall �IIIII �IS oOMEN I MEN IIII wf �0lfl II IIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIII I I III I IIIII IIII IIII II mo OL LEM-2.8-1-1 ME LM Iti -CAO FF- I I 0 II-��IIII 111111�111111 �� III I I�I liIIIIII�II�III r � (13S=1=1O %0 G) III IIII IIII 1 I I 0 I � Fo Q o r O Q I � o III Ip}jl n A �fl TAII 0 o� 1101-10£ 0 rn H Q CU LLJ Rco I COOT Flflz a c� 0 v) ? Iw a. a. W -- � J Y LUOO OJI— aI j OCDt I ti w0 U) aw. a_ W c� � Z Q QU ~ rr, LU - i N (� p U U J ' p W p 0 a J < z 0 ED w per ( II W Q p p Z Z ° UJ U) O °� ¢ U QO ° wU QpL Q Q � C� p U) U JZ U) i J w Q Q a w p � o z z U O z w W ° m Q J J Q J W W p ° Q Q p w m O L i W W W W Q Q > J J w ° I w U) U) W w O cn � wU) ° J � Z � Jw a OW Op _ O W p = 0Q Z ) a � LN ( J LU Y Q H w a Q ? 00p ww :) U) W W ~ Z_ O W pW Q ° Q 2 W p W _ L IY U) a Q > W w ~ � 0 ui 0 O w W Z Z Lu J Z Q Z a _ U) w (D w W U) U) p a- Z w O Z W LLI F— W Z Z W N 0 O a U) w Da.. a. (D (D Q LLLJ W Q � O a � U) i U) U) Z Z p p > Q p 2 U W Z Z w O Z O co Li Li W W Q LL W Q U p p I a a Q Q p w O w > W W Z U) O LLB Z EE CO p ¢ ° I doh' coo °U w w w U a Z } p m U z U N N m Z Z W U) O Z ~ 0 ° w w W p ° ° p p zc Yw OLL z CDa W z z LL a Q a Q � aM Qo z Z : C) p p ° WO W H J ~ p ° w U w Q ~ cli C6 } a. O O mO z z < U) J Cep LLI LO � w w ? ? U p `� m LU � U CO I p � w Z O O 0 W W wCO> J a. U) Q Z W N W W z ! a W w U) w Q Q Z p Q a' p p J � Q w W Q W W � LLB O z p p p Y p a. a w O O O m p 0 IY z O a w a. ° a z d 00 o OD T7 T N r T— T— T7 cY) d Ln 00 (3) N N N M N T- N N (° �O � cfl O O O ~ ° ao Oo co I N N N N N N U) U) U1 N U) N N N m m m m 2 2 2 2 .,I .I =A +1 Q w J }- tt O Y LU w L m - - LU Q W S > J � iW w :i > L W o 0 J z o 0 w W z oLU W � a rr i w L LU �a N CA c fib p T f 4 g� u > . 4 ' r l �.e r ; r = Rap 1 f Ij W i 11 �Q O yam! O o 0 �1 N b L by r CY) t a [� r i 1 r I " 1 � 1 • o a ta o i 1 Al f � � Y � ■ i r f` 4� G xo- t a h �. lei Ilk r t ■ Il I�r m �.r i i ■ t T k S r • so�' 1 " f / 1 r o l t s 417e , E, n Oft JW MEMO } 4 t' � 4 t � y r m A-er A e. ----- . BECSP Residential Projects — Completed 5/2019 dinuer We. tEdin E 1. Name: Avalon (3.8 acres/mixed use) - - Address: 7302-7400 Center Avenue " # Units: 378 units -_ "- 2. Name: Boardwalk (12.5 acres/mixed use) Address: 7441 Edinger Ave. # Units: 487 units _.i0, 3. Name: Luce (8.5 acres/MFR) Address: 7262, 7266, 7280 Edinger Ave. 16001, 17091 Gothard Street # Units: 510 units 4. Name: Oceana (2 acres/MFR) " -Sty___AY Address: 18151 Beach Blvd. # Units: 78 units . -- 5. Name: Elan (2.7 acres/mixed use) Address: 18502, 18508-18552 Beach Blvd. SaLt�et#iAV - # Units: 274 units - E 6. Name: Beach & Ocean (3.2 acres/MFR) cc Address: 19891 Beach Blvd. Cr __ ...._ # Units: 173 units e. � LS__Av — ! Total Residential Units — 1,900 Ave- i tOVyrl- V@ - 1 0 � N 3 i d ` NTS 515 i � < zQ m U Q v a OJ H U Y D m Q 102 H � m .6 -1 z w � rJ o � ❑ I I 01 J ❑ Q I IEL W m Q D m /7 11 w / 0 � 0LL, � 2 o > w = i n II = a: o � o " u Iwl I ui o � o cr Q IP < v wo I _j E J rr ° a_ w � 0 I I ` Z z II 1 D _ I I 0 U II �II J � J W II v YD � � II Cl) \ Do � m ~ z O ` Ir a: D Cl) L OHSvHl o g � 1 T w —O I J z a D w Z J � w U I J m W m Q W N mCI 5 m OO I ❑ O W u_ ❑ a6sivaJ a;snug CDO I adl1 Aggo�uowwoo Q W m mwtL CDwr CL J _ � Ca W O Q 1 F o J Q z z m o = — �- -1 w m U) '0 0 0 In D a w � I m om J D Q U I z m Q QZ z ❑ 0- O J = = m zQ :'Accident Rates Before,and After Elan Development Accident Rate Accident Rate Location Before After Elan Development Elan Development Beach Blvd/Ellis Ave* 0.68 0.62 Ellis Ave/Patterson Ln* 0.11 0.15 Beach Blvd (Ellis Ave - Graziadio Dr)** 7.5 6.4 Ellis Ave (Beach Blvd - Goodwin Ln)** 12.7 12.4 *intersection accident rate per million entering vehicles **street segment accident rate per million vehicle miles traveled Before rates calculated based on 3 years of data prior to development After rates calculated based on 3 years of data after development 517 LO c 0 M L /� V Q r .L I I •— Q Q N L L N L L Q r > ,C1 L Q ^` ^l ^W ^^W LL I — W Q d 4- c N E _O O N C cB W O N L cu Q C: E 0 0 U L c 0 o C m N O Q N r— L� I N (D U Q Q •L r f L L a_ M O _0 _ _ O C: -,�e Y U �— a) N cn , a- a- W Q a- Intersection - Level"T Service(LOS) _ Analysis*;u y Volume/Capacity Ratio Existing Existing PM Acceptable Remaining at Acceptable AM Peak Peak Hour LOS per City LOS (D) with Project (AM Intersection Hour LOS* LOS* Policy Peak Hour/ PM Peak Hour) Beach Boulevard / Talbert Avenue B D D 0.31 / 0.10 Beach Boulevard / Garfield Avenue B C D 0.25 / 0.18 Beach Boulevard / Ellis Avenue A B D 0.37 / 0.29 * Intersection Capacity Utilization Methodology (ICU) 519 I r t pF a 3 IA Q (cO Qt:: LQ cr- LL LL rd LQ CIO Ii —7(9 .. Q L.Lj 1 f / s h � 1 � wa 1 1S ? w cp U LQ �Jz CL cr- Cl- 13) �� O ° f ' a �`s a I . ^� LIJ_ 04 � j ,. �.. L J � �'f LL x ® m c g architecture April 16, 2019 RECEIVED APR �?2 201 City of Huntington Beach Dept Q`commm!'m"O"OpmeRt Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REGARDING Parking Management Plan Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis &Beach CUP#17-042 To whom it may concern: The proposed development will provide for 128 total off street parking spaces.As currently designed all parking will be underground with 53 total parking spaces on the first sub-grade level, 53 parking spaces on the second sub-grade level and 22 parking spaces on the third sub- grade level. Vehicular Access to the parking area will be from a new 24'-0"wide drive aisle adjacent to the building extending north from Ellis Avenue approximately 295', then ramping down to the first sub-grade level. Each of the ramps that connect the levels to one another will not exceed 10% in slope. Also, ramps will not project into the required maneuvering spaces for vehicles as they enter/leave parking spaces. Residents &patrons may access the parking levels from within the building via the elevator or one of the 3-stairways provided. Parking stalls shall be designed and striped in accordance with City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance Chapter 231.The surface of the parking facility will be paved with non-slip concrete. Parking level one consists of 31 standard stalls for residences, 3 accessible parking stalls, 2 stalls designated for clean air vehicles, 5 stalls to serve the retail component and 12 stalls reserved for tenant guest parking-totaling 53. Parking level two consists of 36 standard stalls for residences, 3 accessible parking stalls, 2 stalls designated for clean air vehicles and 12 stalls reserved for tenant guest parking-totaling 53. Parking level three consists of 17 standard stalls for residences, 3 accessible parking stalls and 2 stalls designated for clean air vehicles - totaling 22. Parking levels one and two also provide for short term bicycle parking, storage for long term bicycle parking and a separate storage room with reserved lockers for tenants. Retail.Entertainment.Hospitality.Office CLEVELAND • DENVER • GLENDORA • IRVINE • SAN FRANCISCO 521 Or 949.553.1117 (D 949.474,7058 111 Pacifica,Suite 280 Irvine,CA 92618 Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. Page 2 As provided the parking accommodates the 2 required stalls per residential unit, .5 stalls per unit for guest parking and 5 stalls for the proposed retail tenant- totaling 125 required and 128 provided stalls. While there are no assigned/reserved parking stalls, other than those designated for Retail, Guest Parking and as required by law, the parking garage will only remain open between the hours of 9am to 9pm. Beyond those hours the only access will be provided to tenants via a scan card used at the gate for entry/exit. In each level there will be sufficient lighting and security cameras to provide for a safe environment as tenants and guests transition to/from the parking levels. Yours truly, MCG ARCHITECTURE Jeff Herbst, Project Director cc File FILE: Metnen12(204-1.5) 522 ���tvt1�ED mcg architecture ��ppi Comm'�n{ Davelapme�l September 13, 2018 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REGARDING Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis &Beach Sustainability Narrative MCG Project No. 17.359.05 To whom it may concern: The project as depicted in the submitted exhibits is to be designed in compliance with the 2016 California Green Building Residential Mandatory Measures. Components will include at a minimum the following; 1. Minimal site disturbance wherever possible(with the intention to maintain existing slopes). 2. Storm water/erosion control measures during construction. 3. Provisions for future EV charging stations/parking stalls. 4. Drought tolerant landscaping and irrigation in compliance with MWELO Ordinance. 5. Water conserving plumbing fixtures (water closets, faucets, shower heads). 6. Construction waste management plan in harmony with waste stream reduction goal to achieve less than 2 lbs./per square foot of building area in alignment for 65% reduction. 7. Prepare building maintenance/operation manuals for both tenants and building owner. 8. Trash recycle area for tenants. 9. Providing building materials to comply with VOC limits within code. 10. Manually operable windows with screens for natural ventilation as an aid to indoor air quality and environmental comfort beyond that provided by mechanical means. Beyond the Mandatory Measures, this project has/will be designed to align with specific Voluntary Measures as follows; 1. Site selection consistent with City of Huntington Beach General Plan and regional public transportation to further comply with environmental sustainability. Retail.Entertainment.Hospitality,Office CLEVELAND • DENVER - GLENDORA • IRVINE • SAN FRANCISCO 523 (T) 949,553,1117 O 949.474,7056 111 Pacifica,Suite 280 Irvine,CA 92618 Page 2 2. Strive to comply as a Transit Priority Project in conjunction with SCAG requirements. Site is located to maintain community connectivity with residents and local basic services (to include banks, churches, parks, grocery stores, retail, dental,vision, healthcare)all within 1/4 mile of project. 3. Reduction of heat island affect at parking areas by locating tenant and retail parking below grade. 4. We propose to use high albedo materials at the patio surfaces to align with cool roof requirements. S. Outdoor lighting is proposed to be in compliance with light pollution reduction. The above measures listed are merely an overview of those proposed. The projects construction documents will define the complete compliance measures. Yours truly, MCG ARCHITECTURE Jeff Herbst, Project Director cc File FILE: D=ment2(264-1.5) 524 ns ms o as CL :3 cnO C cn E 'j in cn LO CN C a) a) c 0 U T'� a) C cd C C 0 co CU co cd ca o.nF o i a)U nzs c 0� a) Ll , to cu _,. w caCD -CL....... cn - E [ C7 C7 C7 ....,,..:::. O �., _...a-,..a{z_:%':;.•,: a) w U u) a) v) j a) - o ro .war::..:..:.. fII co .r-. C Q.U .n .� *' _ a) m to � � � a'� 3 aci rn 3 3 3 0 ca'i E� � a)Co 'N ai U o cl ai cYi O ?r 0 co yO O cD.� ro O O � > -p N 0 _--- Z U Z U Z U �\'i i 2019 :t = cn -- o o o Y o o c o E c C° E - G m c4 E c m l6 O yy11 .� N .� N O) ca .0 yO1 a.N m a O_ O_.�3 .O a O_ a U) ca a d R N ca R d a.�2 � '~' im N 10 ca ca m 00 .0 y O tr a7 Q� 0 p c�CG1 =:;c: - s•cOq �Sw,d$0 p oo m a) uj ca 0 (/to O U •c .0 N N C O N 4W _V a) co '•f'� O CU cn co L N cu U R— o ¢ a) j _ 0 =3 c c U a � C� rn � � 0 C E c a• c0 c� E L R a) m j 'a U +-.'� o °� c 3 a) c [ ^ N ai cn � o o N o ay � L. n � m c"� m o fO :<:r;r: 3 cr a) c a w c4 cn •- m cn m o U rn c o c cv r� o a> c ?u—0 2 m Q c 5.=t:;; a �i ur •� rn a) t e ry � a) o m o y n °.o N E c— �rna c v; _ :�ca `man (ocpp a) a a°j E u) a - _ ¢� a) a p� G N "• — X BI ca U 0 ca ti O U a c3 p .� ca ca t o a) fa o al o N `E � - $ U _ c o f m cn L n a) E o` a) a U a) v .� o a s = a) m r n a) a) cn E o o rn _O .G G V� '�'' Q7 L''17 p N b 'y O —.. — a a C _N a b = 4�_ C aU5 C -� +... O CL b = b N N -S R C cn O } :C y C' — N p L-' U O p G O �.� �'' �..`�-. C fun} a) 'V a b - .._. b •w m la N•cG d y0 ;A a f6 O)— V is c C a) Q7 CD — U t� m rn c o a) a) U O c a� m a) ca c U 0 apt w a`ct'`:,'E:c � _':5•'. .b •— " O p R �g.i� E a U a7 Ul ` �.' U Q1 a) ��un �+' w- b ` U C C_5?^<:�+``tsF'j_.''-4:;Y ar':r=::_=_:'-`=._c__i:_:...:•,:,<:::.;_':;*;:r:>:`'?:`:.:::r°':_:,_._.__`a:<'::t::}.:`;' LLpN.C. ov.a�o�)i l cC�oy�' cb Ra EOcN3 wiyu CacEa�i cca~oO a I-- a) 'a m a) osy a n ¢ �•e ca = �MmZ0 � 2- 0 o am . Opp m ' a U a r EC mu r� II N m wa) t Cu y U3) CD L'iL�C0 ca m no� osr ` � a cn j o o en o E 4 -ca =c o a) — ca 0 to _ NUd C a E ° 4 oco n ai a) a E b 000 nb ' Ia) N cn v) -o o IN LO rn ca p nca ca u c�n 0o ca 0 cn 0 3 0 o m a a ac o E � ac y a) w Ncn V m a U co o o R -0a E > �' O oE N O pC 'V LO a Co caom 9 C NN -4- — U b aC N O E NQ) 3 U P )N M aR t mC mE O Ua a) ca o .a � y QO- m of R c ) a£ ca) o Ql c a °ul o ' 2 LEC1 CP E? a) U "" cn d O �U b O O_ w- cn d c O_ N N fn cO� p d p O .0 G L N b - :: i II. aUj II1 N �i y -i5 °a b C, a) a r: -u — DSO 0 O) O) O U G N G N T E v) p — ;C?1• a) = o._ v �di' 8 b ay a) ',,. r firf i}i: 0• O Q) U — b to a) r o c o a cu c a c t o a o o 0 M oc o - Qt. o . a 'w o = m a o a a m 0 1L cn ::Q; a _ c a crj on a v) N m U Ci m cz c a aCL o m 01 D1 O) O) 0I N C C C C C _ b b t) b b V cn y ca m9 ca C d a_ d FL � bp i}'=s 0) O) O) C O C C_ t: CC-11 c� O L O O O p p < � O zas of � b � _ a) a) ?.: U U a) V .O-. U u) Y Z cLi Z v Z c) Z L) Z v U = U w cxi `o o cYi `o o U o o m m cv rn a) m _o ob 9 .. rn CDm .= V) U) w m .= y o ca n a O-.y CO n EL rL co n a- O_.y ca fl. 0. n (u vs rn rn o 0 0 0 -0 c c 0) m tm ca 2 := 01 o c m e m e m e c m m o o U m U O m w rn C to cn CL U m o_ C) (U ya U [a 5, U (a a C �N s ..4. O m O _0t •C O a) 3 a.. _ LO O� N O co �^' Q) C a) .y cn 0 O a) 5 -0 cu v a) -0 cn E = o L t U' p o t 7 r ca C L C c = ra _ •c= �aa 6 o o 4:3c vi t c°i U c -- U p _ Q - U C U 's a) p C U m C cj O - b O != U U O } a) y cn cn N c>9 > y !� d N L O s t__ U a) aa)i :_' _ aa)) d oc °' iu a�. �' .7 c c) m 3 c) U w U E cn U m m m` m `o 0 0 c m vni a�i s vi .m O ,? O N O U a) ca N > > U ur c O Q c c) a m t rn R u' O E c d u' d Ca o o m o o C 6 a) c � E o oc m-0 T� m w y .0 �' 0 -0 a w' c CO T c w E a CO o rmn L - aEi co E o m m U a`� c c ami E ' o o c 8 N m a) U /n y d m 0 a L L a) c - O -U d N 'm a) a) O m O G L p C) U O -0 E 'O O- m a) c� O) o C'J m E E a) E E .y m n E w m c a) rn a) E o' m .c m n c j p > LO cu a) cn m c n (n L s m a) a c o o d 0 a) m m o m v, *a m w 5 Eo c °3 c) 'n E rL C L n 'D a) ,U :c L n O U) m a`) n 0 a) O aJ U O' O fa U ca p y p cr y U > E C > n. t U c7 cLi) .S CO � c a)c c ca 0 `z o �i tgly� o c " n o p a� u� . E o n °) '' [C y •a d `n /y/] m U U) ''••' c U =3 o S N U rn y o c Urn s o c m > m s �i "' o '� _°) _o m a) L w m E m .o m rn y m >.L �° L m p o 'o N t71 cn Cl m a o O 3 rn .c" E •L' (n rn Z n C c o 3 c— c to —_ m a m y �i a) y c o m E ° c n a) a c 8 m •c o cv o o3 — o E S a) 2 a) a) U m In rn m _ " ' d w E a) o c� cr a) O m o a) a) m Uf _' O .5 a) a x L r0+ -� m •D w m cn •O_ a} ai C E O O O. '.'. E cu m m E m y vmi m y E o a) 'in (° a 3 c m � on o cn ° y .S 'n Q > m o (D a) > c i m y N n ycfCa� ca o n o f U U cn U a) ..--. O) U U) CrL a) 4- — O O O E m 'D m i0 O "' N y J �-• C cn O O a•� C O - y O_ C m O O m v) — L .-- a) V y.r- a) q) O_ E s cn a) a) m 0 'D O 'p O a) O 7 Grp. L m 'tp� q1 4) O C vl O C j L •� �i no O -� ..L_. O n'��- u) o o co 0 0 ¢ '' rn coa d cf°i Y 'c E c a o > — CL con °- o m �) c c n a p .S.a �' .N " d "n a) rn Q U a) in a°)i > m m p a) v ccn p n j vi x? b s N ? L cv m rn .c n m o a) o O m o c •a) N 2 m c m > h 2 S N cn o m U v a`) c .� Q C3 U 2 n cn '> U L 0 in �j y c o o U c c m c C E c m g to c•c o c L o a O s co O a) a) o 0 0 o a) a) o m m — u > E > ._ m Ci m coi c4 co U c) -0o o m �k m o Q ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ a) c n p C C U) =p M _ •7 '? y C r En cyu U') p Q- ra cz r r :. a a .. _ 0 cz co cz may_ c� _ ... a) C cz Z U Z v Z U Z Z a Z a m rntm aoi a) rn �i a) rn coi QQ�t C L U C ,G U C r C) tm may` O t U _ U -0 U �.Oi. C -(OQ.'-' U C "a U .r0.• C c _ U C U C •O :C ?iM:- •� .O C C O � 4-. E C 0 E C U C O C p v7 a7 0) R _C Vl m � R 0 0)•O N = R R •G - 0 R 'C y N a s Q.y R Q a d a.N R Q L2 Q N R .0 a 3 a) a_ Q.�,. R n• a.y (a Q =YT Yys is 01,0 II) O O p O y 0) R RCM f2 ' N 0)— a) c � rn c � 0) c r y c 0)U 0) N 0k O S O (Oj tm O c0i c c S V 3 Wv -cu v+ � - 3 to o rno `° is `-° Ln -r-F .� ca - n R O R o a3 o R kc= c rn u) c rn <n 5 o o o c c U) U1 C y y U C C � C C C C C O N R O C O C co to O a3 O R 0-CL U R oR L n U R Q.CL o .�°� c U R co n U a n 'C c c o 0 a; - -0 R 0 0 a) -o >. tuAm o o ro o$ � $Ec i f9 > O� - 0 0 y co cu co U oyc ? a) cty 0 >o do UO CoL O U O S OC CO a) U :G O a N S S O U y U O U O R a) C C O O l6 V) Q Qf C ?v U t oL (�pp O {Q N C Ln m 0) y y m a) �... a) aj U S $ O n%, ` O fa G C R 0 R a) S y a o a) > o o s_ E Co R d c° a c aoi cfOi '7 c ;sue- a) m d� m_ J3 n. Q 0) •L'o �' Q R c ,,pp t7] N C g•m c C O O. d) �r. vi Q O r9' c _. C t!) U O C y N p O C U1 t a) U 27 C E � `S' ' O > R ..y. � a) E C y y U y U O & ,� c f3Wi 'gi 4 c i� c a) cu m (a E Q S 2 0 c v Q e) u) Coo ccaa c E o R `� m a3i U `"�=5=`_'``+- c c6 3 `•- O ti v- c C:p 0) a) �. Y3 a) y C U m c .j 'S ram: c a) uoi o O +S S 0 S o 0 0 c o 0 0 .0 c c 0 _ o W 0 -0 O g 0 . 0 U U O Q 0 ,0 } p. }, N.� •p 3 ` O .O ` C U O "O C a) O O ?. _ .`� :L O O 0' V �' p N O >,L 0 >, Q o y R w E 6 o E in - �o >, a o c >,�i n Q U E aU o aU a) c aU rn o n c o o Li y — N y 4 N ++ ,g •C C y C L C a) i U C O R a=.ti N y y a) 0 Q a) c N .o ca y a) co 'i o a) ti c12 c) o a) '0 ' a) `o a) - c 0 t'i r cg a) c t E y c �) g a) s �;�'.v �rC T •a '0 QI ?. C +� >. .'�.- O O C •p_ Q) m (a « I y 7 C ,!� y O o r c E b' rn n rn'f4 U 0 a) rn•� a a) c = m e o .- c c c `m E in `c - < c E m 0 a �a 7r o .- c o E '0 m a) - o o o 0 H ca c R o a o 0 - •� :� c p es $ rs o > > Rc a a) E r �a m o a r a E c R ui E c o 'ca -' U 0-0 0. cn a) m 'n Q o c a) E 0 _� o m - o U y a._ d O O Q R O Q y 7 Q 0 (� th O C U R y C ti '0 a) U O R v) c Tj co c.) c c o a) R w •� a) - N a) c = =aLs = .• ea e 3 c u� e U) q) o o $ o r e n Q Q e . N a) US a) R o a) rn = �i VLCKSy�• R • cu Qo 's •a :n l.V.. U R_�,in U N v E w v U aF�i o O 14 QCp vQ O ul �_ L •Q N .� Q C y. .L y U y w O +Z C CL C en a--' f1— (6 O a) Q— -0 C CO R t7 p R y R p p (6 ,.Cy R R a) Q) R y V1 tR!) O d O O o U 1p6 O R U )17 2 2 R N U '� f�lf U N .w N U •C C O R U U R S C U Cj n• O" U O U ol C O N a3 O '0 y •C b Q) 2 s EE ' R a) 0 o fE 0 m E n 2 o o a) r L� c c c d O E a) c ,N p c c c 0 cul = U et1 .(C) ❑. O :D + G '- r'E O .ey-.� -0 cu L O C U °) C O 0 0'a a) m e ca +� fyp ct1 U d R R a) r R '� N i N R c�� O 'in O U $ $ U N .c'C •O ti" y N V O Q7 F� U N .6 O a G ,C •� R v)'� i O_ i fa 0 r d] oc �« E +`! S'� ciE v= E ryvoa � � om �' � -o �v � � � t`! •c . ` U 7 d' t17 cu J ._ N 'C) 7 a) R C O .E •C Q a-) 0 y a � R U 7 a3 � a) C a) U c) ca a) U c m U w N c� 0 E - o u) w o 0 o a) 0 p 75 S c9 'o o) "00 Q N'00 S 0_ 0 a) :rs ;L a y ro y 0 0 y 0 is �+ 0 2 $ R E rn U U c) .-c,. > .S 2 � E a) o.� x _` - ai CA a o co c o c _ CL CD o `? in CD a 3 O a dd N CL N > U E CO z-0 0 70 _ - U 70 --cY; - LLJ 70 x o - o o Y o m >iS y o 0 �° c `o trod E° E c * fO c m O O 01 m 7 C tCO O y N IL o_.t? co n. 0. a m a 0o a. CL rn a -01 N v m 00 m o aiEn o m u U A aNvc ,oCoEf 'Uo o c� II S oID 0 c > `0 mC = U Vi C ccN oo a� a� a +C>4--)•+` ooC > Cam 7 W r oaca aD o$ UN =3 CD o mo -0 > m c_amcoc_� to zt= �o Im a) C1N a)> E a •O N o U o m rnU c) a rnva a. � -0 c bc�7 3 E - ; :; f c _ c o� o -o U c a a� t o m m a1 - U U N C p a) O O C to :p o U rn m m c -a v o m m E v = to @ ` o y v' m :v 3 c 9 �° IL 0 C Q C c to al c t��9 L, c u� = CD m c O C 't) ••v .... lia E CO a � g � aln . = m �• 7w � � c cv _�_ m � C O c f!J O Q N ��., y y m V7 C m p C N y O N m '� a m .�c a a) t7 nC m — cr m C c`. o s a� m a3 v v' a� a aEi a"i t`c o c m N o 0 o c o `� c c a� n a v c _a o o - - a g 0 c o � o E � a�'i $ � a� v m a� o > m O 'c o a o a•.- a) c b E a� �n j a ui m L oa � ' C7N cc� a cmi a� a � LL g p al m ••- Q v v u� a > .- a > r-0 ch o c w .E Q � y L a`� o a� y .c o cv to cco E m n a� °'c o zs o >+a� UL � � 0 v O � a'u -COI) c W � m �' �� m �� r$ •- m a� m rn y �`.e -0 u_ m c .0 �' o mCu E o is p O O Iq U O ,y O O N Z5 C ,� •C a.1 _ N c ,O — a� c �1 a) ,a� L L O p a) H CO o COL c c C E CL N .� 'B m N n7� CD d N CC] O aJ O U C N•C N p O C C U' [Ua U O f6 4) C G > c E m c N _.>`. U U m O 0 0 Q7 0 C m O o C] Zo5 d cm_i c 'mod c 0 � m co ? a� as o - rn.y CO c a f::.;:, m p c o a� $ c 0 c m E c u� o 0 -0m CoL n s"Y s='`:%` E :: z 0 (ii M C E CD LL m is °: o o a� o o ny Co m t� 8 . � '� N a o U a� 0 aD o m .L•. eft a a� U U a) to cz ms 0; R � $ a� E Qo _ � z ioco M m _ m � Q 'y > Q op Q�yy }} c U L U L x/y U M N 1] F N O O a7 7 CA O •i-•: N Q•U o :E ::..G1 �' c N r.� c is v� c o t= '3 o a o Q •o w m pp w 3 0 �: m 0 o en cti pO 0 s v o rn - 0 v rn ,- m 0 N to m .: d O)"'w N U y m O N N C v a� o vi c itp:: Z $ o >• % c>c 0 >, « -o c a� o v ' m c c ' S aCL p ;'tii Q rn w to c m o L m o a 'S c c v t3� �.o D o m a� 7 C [4 T b I dl E CV d O O a C F m H •� E °?.� •0 c o 0 0 - o � = aR 2 a 0 0 E CA `o w = fj t9 a> oa a� c '`o_ a - - v ...••.:•:::.: Q.•0 p .�: a m m In M G to N 0 C 00 U O :� U- 0 m �G O U 1] 0 Ll a .., +/ tN mn y w 3 o _� L„ Z a a Z 2 (7 N cu f9 _Gj O U 1 O Q C N ca a o �� a n V rL (D c o y O - i v c a - E _ 49 o m 3 c cam.) 3 cca Ern O? co ¢ U - .� cm � c ti Q) �°? c q.r o �-� = o o rn o > N 3 ca � U a rn om a� G cDE = — (� C1 c c v r=y °� n a�i � o Ua� E0U E � � � E o m °i E 0 .0� ca , a o X ao0 — a) o ) nEv i O "O s-. .G O •v O F, .N. tl c O "O QS y C U •_ [L' o aEi y a E c ,s rn a o c 0 3 0 3 0 2 o a go ca N ^ O m O O O C Q)L y C a -0 N L '� Ql O C .. C' �. Ql cU •p •N O N -6 y y G U a t6 �y,;, 7 0 CO c .0 9 � Q) O O C V7 O o ¢ r c c 3 >o c co a y m o x r "m o uoi �° c y o m Eco 1�>;c- ^- LLI C . C O O 0 L C 26 ,p Sy y ID D) O] y "C -0 O N O N N ? r w U o ,O w y E c9 c V' o . c o O c 0 t U � ycu � O 7C < U c� U E a) c .0 o 'o ' o N CD o cni cca •E .3 T E m °) y y a> CO �.- � � C - �" .0 N N •C LL � C O +� "'.' '� � y s ,w - o a� c ca �, a�i $ c o a d c o a� G a o rn E w c o O U Q E yo $ y = n .� c c> �+ a� o U O n is as c c o o E o rz c U U' >-O 2 .--:•p ,.- C fp CT 2 c rn "O > C O O U "= E - a� U U m c o rn n o a N y cCC °� ca ai aZi y •o �-� o_ o g E c y a� °� a m R 0 "- me E�_ n m � cad °� � _� ryn af°i � t � � w +'-:�`"•Mo:.�_ Q(Oj co O C ?� .a O ?' w y •t O �] a.. N a c •�--• y V7 O O fang E is d h �' rn� ccu 3 a)ca 3 yo w `o is vi U �a > o o •� o in o Q o m cu G a �' c LU LU 0_ N :9 o o _ c 0) coi Zr tII - c A = ..-- rn - cn 2 rn o o cu �.X c � $ 0 ro co 'R c9 oc o � L oar ca is o ca) o � � E c o m o r CO C U Q) 7 - .�'`. L .O A :a G w- C -.L-. O fn d y 0 G N w c o E o a5i o e t io y c = > rn TC m rn o c o eii a�i € y c m E=° o p - a3 y (O :7 t9 C O to _ Ql(G C ip U G O L [9 .0 •0 .0 '6 "O D_ a 0)y""+-- 5 O O R ax< o o cc c- c a a� E w c a� a> > c o o c a� 3 o - a O m m n o a� rn t- m 2 o as E E o � o�•r E co � C1 m a y �. W 3 ¢ E .S ,a o co c N co a�i °± E "ai °� m v� q�i o c E U . c m _ CO ca 0 -0 F- ID cv n 3 y o 0 3 o_E Qi E as E 3 0 4 ■ ■ o co c.i _ = Ln - - cn E Y - N m y U 7 3 2 U U co cn v o O CD0 N .0 a) N N M U CL - U LU N O G > S2 C ya 0 O. Q] O d a. O �..• „.'. (U i d o O d > • 22 O L N U VK\_ Ecp � cm cu 'vl En (D U f CD N O N O C L Ry G7 O N _ y G O N y •N d fn U R O O O � C Oo . -0 L m E "_' C -O 1 ':s `o `o a o II »- (D o > cn o CU � E °� > 'p o E � en O N 7 ?.t v) L" N -C -c vai -0 C N C E N U O € ro O L O O -c o O y 2 �+ cC O O 'C rJ y U U [U y U p_ O O 'n `o .c U ai -� 'c o o U E o f c c E co . o N >•,t o Vi c ocu — ra Lo (n = CD ,c � o c m n, u) 0 o o Z' aci iv �roji D o E Y o m s USE ur w 0 aNi c E O CopCo o N E a E CD �i o m co L Q1 ?+ O 9 d 0 ..O d C ji:fi '• 0. N W •r =+ V N U N'� l -0 -O 7 = -0 [n •6 C/t O c0 f1J o N V O �p O U to Cq �++ o CL E m o U W .D v� aL� c� c m c E L U o iv E m _ Z-L ,a �'� -�ys C c 2 m -0 O > •ro f cm `n O CD CZy.Cn 0 o E n a E o fn y,c E E 'r'•.:;»;; ::sue'' o c EL o ccLa `n ` is 'v) U ? t7 8 Ri", >;: f` o a� c N ro v "' ..°� m is ul > o cD E E o E o ` m o CL �o o w C� f6 U 'a7 U t� CU C" ` U V) fa O N G. 0 ' u �O a o E E o 2 oo fII m c o.c C LO m m . o o > E c r • o.� a C7 3 c co to= a E CDE o a +� H m P? may,,> > _. :;:..._ -0 Q N L C Q U Q Q (d a a N m .o Ca 0 E a, c� c R t L CU S o .r. 0 O C � O N F l4 L lCC C rn _ --'"`T �O lrU a C O -0 00 tS O L R CDO R CL b N U R R O E N i C •O "O' c U L U OO R_ f a 'oOL- �aN' CO CCto LLrO +R CL OO �' O -0O E d y coZ5 C O a)Oo ZO .0 C% 6R OC.)ia o p c9- � 6� �4) � CU c (aa Rc c � m 0) oEca 0) a E o 00 o co > o co CO E C w r: o)=- a . t a U co OE R m c ?o ►� zt- y aU? 0 co cn F= EIn _ Ow oo OC -s7 > N s O O `v"°D ¢ i o f � 3o U) " = aca rn a `UE ? Z >4O- aca O— U a j-v.: ro 'a E f° C ` •� ` p '� ,U rn o C Nv O E R L =_ N > c D O o C N N u'j _ N 'O O O 11ln� ca ro u Q. Lb O t tiCR-. a 0 M E 'a � a G-.� .� .La+ .N :0 C U � M C .�- O � O U C � � :i •- a� cn cOi> y U Q `o R E m ca E o E 0 Q' L -5 a a o c e L � n o 'n ED _ 0 N O p ,0 -a U Q co Q `7 C (o (a L L j d O coK1 �` r'_'__i._:ji;i'-_.'s:f;-aj.`'y..;=%-5'.`:cy�=,-:.c.=�as;•`^_;==am,`''c:;;: voaCRR wcuCaO CCR mCmc `aS� Eyv•=aopE 'oaC�NNa w •a� ta ro�° R/ jc-wRp ••a U•cCn cnc Lccnn aEm 4cy'- UcE=0� an �OEOya cN O CEO .LC aC 0. �NN3V =0 NO c a` ao QO rnO j z �QC U ` •O a o �0- o_ m u tUvR ca C (n OoO- C a -QE0-- Ra -iLMqim R m VCL V O R a Cj a) covo- R y N Z3 0 ca E pU c a .c CO o � a s cc) acLmy cOa enrna a -0 - a o a a NCN$� CD wECC oo � � Co UL4COE�J 'i;:::_:\;.':�s':•:`, vg .ci- • cU9m :-+ o oc " r�C U S =o cv _ � .a� •ion aca�uo o ca m -o ca M Q ca ` c > � U a ocU p� c m � � �� � aN;am c a en in C OZ E U f rns Q , ,z v P 0 NCC � E D7O - ZSco cOO c vi a E c a - cn �mw t5 o ' n p a^? '' U c U o E wac ac v o o `I •cEa R c c ._ .� c @o LWNCQJ r-L a m R o cn 0 Ln cn a) NV o_ U D d o CNO O m _ is f is N co .0 O M N � Ca � O_ _ N C C = 0 :3 Lo 3 � � mma� N Q `� 3 `o - y o E 3 ca Qm 'SCCL o u 3fla) tea) `fa) oQ `a O CD y s o ro o f L o w aoi cc�0 En c D c cmai a) °m � v o in co a) yo_ o o coy = aso QoCd C �� c � � � rnm2 ¢ 3 Q� � U Q -0W Q � as _ `o = - U w D -. 0 C p U 0 0 le ca o U `` c 0 ca 6j2 O E cm _ — :z O C fnCL Q) a) t U a> — o -tm lu oso — o rn � •— = o c m a> d o c Q u o c lz a> ca rn b b rn (a }' b O . fa Q. d -0 to ca _ fII ab N R Lp ?+d a) Vl b C�-'' N'� C fa a) a) cn c: �"' N N N N �•' — %yr ,8 v � (�ni cca c � � � w `o � � �o •m � .� b � 2 Q Z � o Cr � � � � �� v �'' :ii•'" N O ^ N Ql� N �. M 7 a] a "' _O= 0) cu— N = N.0 a) = b N -C b `> = N N a a� c o o a o € > a a� a) Q o c, E "' cca o cca c ? •y O p C d C C U O C C s __ C (a (a N ra a; a� c c - _ N a ccu c L m d N N C b �.-p .O E -o Q) x O m Z "" C pp E p O O p 0 R O o v fa c ca y a> m E 0 a o c y ,E c f1 E E b c a N v c— A ca c = ?� N o ,o b_ c Go c a> E a> _ = O CL pp s N u) .rnCr_ Q v�•`—`—' a"oi o o �_ �a c°3 rn o -i .$ E c' i ECD b u; N b 7 L C O ld �'v N Ql N b = f'q' U N N L CL) a7 O b C _' d O O C O b bo N 7 `o U . .o. .y Ca ec c ai °' o 'c mc: cn � E m ui 2 U a a� o E C fO = S c ' 'j"j`�\"L� _� •� N d !b U y U .Q �. 'q 0 = 0.1 b = 1... d C d 0 � d.N t � G p> ca C O!W- d 67 N p _'� w -rn c c a) �' O G .0 c o a> (a N N C p 0 .b.. y o fa ca N y E c cn N O) O 3 N _ C .na) U b 'S-- bI(a •?_.`yL-. C y 'O7 Ia C Uf a) co �_ C O L O O co c C �,t y tz� o O.'..C—.. .� U O •_• O O a) •� d� Q) of L i to U :7 O = O O E O N U T R C �..- a d O c 'Y c"3 a> N s c o m a> o a> c _�s c s y cco = o � .� CL N C C U b b Q) C D m fa a) L-. .�b� .� E E O O Ll U Q7 0 '.t= O O N ca a) C U la U y l6 Cl. b W ac N o p 0 N U y CO d:: y U v > m -Zoe a`� �= c E a� o al c i5 S c = c'3 U m o N o a c as = co m 'U O U �c�+ _�_n � "C,� N •o N •U d o i '"' c0.) b ,`n Q) N .Q cu ._. ` e fl- .N y •(a �' G � C.)t � N _rr-- U ,a,� 0 � '^ � L � C N .... i o U O E d U m C O N ~' O O j G Q N c a) `c3? E �' �_•r,,.?i ' y� p: r: U1 0] O U . � `O = O_ N >`� ._G = C o o00E . ZLo- � — v� o mcao is Nvw22 N N t� N O a> c ?. U d C O a> O d Q> C (a m N -0 -0 E .2 N N � � m o � �° � �° � � c T a� ;i b ��_ E _ M � N rn - a) N N Q] w C N a) .c .0 O +•� C — C d cn 0 �O+ N = = fa D O> E _m N �a> fa = S b ¢) e G N .� p G'O b foil N N U N L JZ O N '<?- m a> N a> o o — a — b ca E a ca d o E = c O b Ia Ca f`a = C-. O d O N Q) p b 1_ p fa -_S_'`iti=:';F_„"'=`r_`.: ceemiat[ sion .GC_l�O=S c .ao0Ui b. L�No •QOc) O'O] bfa'h b. (n CsN .mo��C., bO S"Oa E8 O C p co a) c Ub CL a> U0ca 0 (D ECE > a � .' fCVa -c ` � 'o .0 ca 3 � y= C �� m c =� v c>> a � ca � o E b Eo -2o " � o UC .bUC7om Eoai � � a 02 ` c �R z ac — cn Z Q a> rn ovrnT � 3 S c zL N _ M a�i m E m ° m w� o • Y O Q ^ 'moms + 3U 4 p ._ ca o 'c w IN co � aci oavi z C CD:x 40 c O :3 6� T^ ca� c6 ccuE 01. to -OWN I - r�'� s c cn o o c „_s , o` E rn o` = f° E c E cL� <Y a a.9 -0 a o 3 o a) _ a o y ca a d CL o` L 3 sw ca O CO s C .y O O N 'C c a) O O _O cu N y Q7 C c � y" p O I �m c N cv E 'm a �: a uoi °' -0 L U N c b 'O �:c wry E cv w L c d O c a- O_ d N U ro _ Z al IL - -o ro L � m C 25 2 rn `m o 0 o m a� �;=Cs`cv-•g O d C C N L = ,7 cOn C � Of N -: y Ei N ,.L m _ - 3 aci c t o o uQj p to 7 Q) N •.- N .0 N as 7 • }--' O 7 L 4) C a. C N c c = 3 N s Q :� o = N N N >. 0 4J y + N U O7 U a) c ro N .y - y O N +�- ^ - N " C C C ,_., a� a> j rn c a>— a o ro o ro c w -0 >. m m _ c�` `� a o in aci °� d ca c m fO t0/i cp n W E N c _ pO G� E o $ o "v,•�` ytti ,N iC "O C m U N a) L O U e 1JJC O U N L1 = 'O Sb C `�_ N C y`cry;y_(�=E^^='aY�:; `^ CCU7 4=O eyGe tD5_ •�' T/1 _OO `7 -O 'O �y C P 41 Od �p Ucn cy°CD rC--• 0. �r7?s'+'`c•:,4.`:v:aSs''3s��:v=+.5'-`--s.z-•aux y,:='.s'^r:�e•.°:`:-5-.camry..'_.:.`:: rOOn_bC'cUa.�•�ao_p cod 47.i p G U aa)) c ti7_ N am�'' '_ ai Da N Ne EOvi ' ; •3?UN (p L y `° pam a) .•�fcNoa o n o CL a� - o cOEo m rnO � C O) m ro 5 aa O i EN 2acU-Av-y' CU IO e CLprn 0- d O 0 coIm O_ cD ° p� o a vi co c m cm N w -0 E ai ON0 Oto O N OZ � NE C O 'M - wrn;%:�,-s — o J : p o CNiwaE m ` U -10 o ayi m a� v O 3 N c c m N caw E c ca is cj D o E ro N r:' :^ ;.,s p . c c ca cn •`� N -c7 a� z -o O ca a is _ _ y Sa� o . E c wm as� xa rn - -D -ca ccNN ro Em Coro a aa. . L-No w a ro IILCD U ai o o m e :w j o y 3 a� :iN:. m o ai a 7 N N N C ca a� a) a) ri ca a� a> c� o a� N p C O U N :': N N O cc - L o C o a to ' E m U a> c x m a G C O c a n m E t� d ro 'i3'. o o O E o m %' [n ca c a ro rn - c o L p ° m a n c c - r#:M,4 m -. c� c as a> o p 3 N c y ? ='= ?; n' E is (a E 8 T y — N d vi O 7 O ' O_ ro ro .G C O .n :! ': O fa ,.., a L U E �`'^' N _c i y �'- c c!J v a n N a :_;Ni m e N D en c a v w N y ro o o a� o (� E C O •p ro E N C C •D_..p (U a :` l'•: L!7 E E O7 �O L Q) '�5: T• •ro U C m Q V7 N O L O 'O C C Ia E E C E U N Q),. :-:L:: ep a) L O yti d o E E ¢ U o O U ro O p `� E N Ell Q E E D o E n m c ,tR': N c o a E o c c m i w ui ui a� y a :':"y• g Q m p_ m ca .S._ E ;r3;: U S a N ro ti ro '- ■ CD Q a) E y N U N C y C cz U) V N o a) o a) a7 aJ 0 O:3 d a 9 d O a) a) a) c o ' _. o 0 o n m cz ;-"- EE Ecz CZ No c � oQN rnL B U cr a) U d cn 4-C, CO CL L O a) N S U w cr. cn 01 O cu C w o 0 0 = o O O T •C c E o ca oU m p o E a) E N d CL ca a'� U cpi E (mil d .y iCC N0 cco ~ [p E: m to C cn Qi L71 m = co CO a a N cn a z E '•`"'X.:4f tZ5 Z5c Y to b N .a) co 0 o -vs j'~,�._�;�N`r„„-�F":';`:"<%ti::=`:.r:3,»+a.a"s;"2-4?w_.`s xv.`''';;c:+r.:r!.>`:",:_':.;.r'r':.`i:y'.:n.s,-':;=_>=A.:c:vw:x;c3-q:'•:�'::w'wRcgcaEctnno�� EacooamppUmc) acmyd�a).�.•wCoccc� .Dy Cptrnnc�0' '=aQ?) _•'QtWOU� a) io O tNv y(Nn mc�t_ ON y am. =_c,sCc •'+Cm.•-. vc 'a) co v�Cd, fafl) �ai'YOm iiOo oOf IIp ,E 'CGp +cop ¢ ' x„:,v b U O N , o .NUO co 0 U N Od C O - � C O CL> «c dhy oao) )z C-• maoo) wo_ co m N a m m m ETE a m m W EaO- c ycr v E aa.co c a o Ca)n m 10 CD O > y a Noa6Oa)— o QoE o -0� co0 p c O U c u co o o c� co i U OL a) w U UQ d ~C OL O N U U Co ccQ-0 y d p '— o Q sC i ' N y En O -0 0 7 S n > d•` o0 0 • N L) OL O D_Cl N 4 > 8 a cc a Ei O EE cOo aN N a C a a)n c y uO y 0aEw C) Q to C o. Nac 0 0 o oa cu a)o U a oa c o f $ a i c E )c1_ - '• c o=_:=vi_.''"-s~;y^�__)/''-"`•^"�>:µ=..i=x�N..L"zh=^..;3.:3,:''.:"°'c...'C�opNOa7i' aimao) .c■cEmga) oaca a) E` p :mE �■aCi _'•�3 wZa) ■`a) c qi >€m sW� _ccmi c �[c$a cn tNa) Cc L.oO U0a No cLoT1.�cy o .°c.)) Qc),tv Ny co a a) p oa N E o U o �ayC�U�go q�OcE` ymcaaon) A dO: [O Oa co y€ ` m � .— a a) O D_ tO U0 U w a OOyU cn = •ccCEO_Ea ov) c .o m � ) O) x .a: a) O O y ` -S = Q a) C U m p Coc � ic O ' a) a) s aaUc O m ) pCca a0 m ) c O o y c c 6 E A �' E -0� � 'u m c ` o dcm U � `E = Ca o 0 o aa.- N o o m E a m o W a) cEc c m E L EaE m UM m a oacn E) y c .4 a co m m y oad c� l • o t Q Ed t c c — va � —�O m om m > a m a) Eo o aJ c -0mD)wcn � s a-,a co 8 E c as a n -E 8c�Dcan) o a) v v o `n 1y�z,ry c'; v c E Za V 0- Yti3 � 010CF> -0 ca 0 a_ - .4 — `� ::::. :. � c d 0a�cn o o a� rn Im CD E � 0 uic� c r .. am O =`z= o nco 3EFoy3 o 'erU > a) : o EL EE 0 Q m ?' z �r oa) 6 Raa� w% cn 0 0 c � � cam Q cn n _ 0) a �7 �7_ (D ` �, o C a) CT.� L-0 u d m rn.ca n o (1)i a a 0) a Lm yto co d N z., ea � 0 U E Im c _ 0--oCTJ o O v, o v� CD is s m cca m � � on a� o.� v� �s C�n n— a� CS k• N = o E E rn y cs U c 0 a_ nD -0 o`_ c m m E m c U O r. _" >. 3 a� E a� c m 0—M > rn a� rn m y, O Ql >, � C1� � c L 0 Q) >. as ,•'t^ ca o ae m co 0 � ° m d -0 Q 0- a coa a 3 e L C7 m 6 � � = 8 � a� d n O .0 aJ a7 m O U WU >.d O O C tC U N :C t9 O �P. O.. U m c c �'Y 'S U Q- U) a;i✓i; cu N L L U O - U � - G G U a) O C — a.G N Ci — A= _,. 0 m c� > m � Tc •v T-i n ty7 nm 92 rn Qw oc 0 c cG FL-y Q� •�a c c G c v a� o` o m E E c a°' �' o` ¢ o y d m " w cu Q ,E d _. > o a' d rn a> = m c `a'� .y. a? d c T . > m E ch S U fn In R U m �O N Q O O O •� Ca (17 d O p.� ca �}` m a1 a E E c — o t is G E 3 m CF ca o a L r� a� _ U cu � y m Z• = a� mE a3 a � nm � _� o m . 0 N C fU QI N N - C U t� 0° .. _ca .o c m ci m T c L o • -o m m > -0 d > E 0 U a� ,m R. c Ca w n a� E a o — m i� >o a`� o a aoi m m m ca n 0 a E c o .0 m s o .E m °� N = c 3 o E en E �_ Q a .m n o p y .Lip a r .� rn m o m aci o o 3 is a) O fa y O p— o G F— c G! C c;� of C ca ` C a) p m u c V o` y c �is .. 5 CU - :`: o d m b a o m E m co a o 0 '0 c = j y U o L U aJ O_5 O O L o C -0 I.L p� U Z L E y i LJ) U c O U R .D o o O C O 0 0 -- E o en - o a, S C6 O N Q) — a) = aJ Ll, r -0 o E u>i arny > aa � m �. ^0w� ' tnv '� Em yam = y > � b o. a — � -o m �+ cis " m o m 63 m m m m (� Ql .L., O -��— 07 a C ! ca U ti t0: Q Q. = O F1 U C •�Q 0 m a�7 = m O D � m N Q) L _� O "�7:i. G Y7 � o d c�L W O m O a7 m �S ? �' Ql rn > m Er-0 o N aoi c _ o b -0 E -0 cam . m �- - v 5 m is Lv E o m Cif: fir' w — O G U 7 7 U m y a O E' O ::::1�:-: C O.'� O �cQ Q3 to C%1 p1�r C .F1 +r7 C _...-._ �+�'•-O C m O rn rn y a) Q) [�=1 Ol O ':d; Q. m U .� (� m y �_ o .�: .- z m c d c� '0 U m a ,..:. a Q o L R rn v m c m .. ti:ems m 3 O v G m m m m _:•,. e c t7 C7 rn e -- 0 E 0 �- m a� 0 w -0 — C O 0- `7 to U : N L C = Cm m p m aI U -C C U C al U O O = _ a� o f cmi = m — o E c Y ^v m 0�' ;';fir X ui d m c N n. -o a) cg .c m a> > u� �i m U m =� m m a) ai L +n .. _ m •.�-. 171'ci O v0j a7 •y a m O .; .;: Q m rn c•E o m 0 is m e L c3 — ai o o m v Ce;, o q 0. Cl) E d 3 —e �i n — U (] v a w. c o o Ei °' > m m r,� t W a aj a Q �. o > .E p a> a) a� � w 0 m � bo m G c � Q � � m E en � ga; � � Q (A � u c� CCL v m c a m`= m • o `a`� c o a� r5 o x c ca .n 8 - cn ua u .L. UJ •O cm o o ca m as > t 0.- a>j ;.;.`� a� U m •a w a m S CD en E •� a `p 6 =u m m v a� a m m > o c O ':':�= .- E m c ,o �- n E = E rn.c _ ` o c N ca > a3 -� c us 0 c '0:_: 0- 2 m a� 8 cr) 2 � o.. c � � � m o c o � d m m ,0 E U p v c .n m 3 _ _ �.; o m E 3 rn W o E _p 0i = a c m G m e in = <a:. a� p c _tn a� — X y y € a� 2 RS O CO Q) g O a) C ,5M O y_ d °:'� �2cu $ V] d Cn a) a) L m Q-� QI .0 Q) = L 0 v� aT E 0 ii is E o y m o o :T'. a U 0. m 'Co ^I .y 1 Z Q -0 w E o 0 0 CL a) L U O U U c o o o N ILa ai Q-o a c cc C t w a a) -O U Q O O E i N E CEn C i 0 O N d ca N L '� O O O a C -CD 7N000 C Om 6O L Y E J -0O u •C — a) o m � 0r U) w o _ O O O L O Ca O a) rn a o o U E '� 3 E tv NEn roc m — > c ioQ' mCD e C� o ro a� o d co o - a) a Z a Z , fn O U I— co k— `o M U = _ ?: CL - - U ` ?? LU U — ^':<`+`r cu 0 eno a� cC O rip N .-�• 4] O p ` [tl C Q�-- N .Q .�^ N (�6 C O t0A N ':i z✓=�; = a ul '" Cal c °' a ¢ o pC c n: .'C.� �«- .Z o co -p N �• m o p .,.J_. N fC VNi U U U O N N ��„ U N a1 N 'C "O L N p� O p N cOi y`j`„— p a� a> co o N d 70 m tL ,... C U 3 f0 (o °� U "' _ U p o � •� o t E o cOi o o v 0 CL E CY °1 c m � � -0 E o `o U p o 0 N a o c Q N c a� p `m m 'S a (� o -0 •� " �i � > o M m N c p >y ?� a r c' c>CL > aU�� o E o o rn C N O d co co C O N d C N O N N CL O p NCL cn 'y E — fN/7 y0 �O -C N cn 0 C U N 'ND C U -p O O N — ro 0 N N -Op O L N N C m 3 E E co m Q' — ra m cO o o m rn 3 a� C a7 0 d p Q 'C1 'O U C U•N 0 7 C +r7- C O L N C N O > O = s a U o y N c (D m roil — v E — vi c b O _� � a) -'N C O C V7 ca (fl O C co O C N O N -0 n:r t a; z cn-0 — o c E is -m � c E c N a) o ai m o en 0 o w m m � � � CC o x m d N d > N O tC9 R OU O. en N D y N j O d 7 N 4 N p •N N N Z Q� cm C o E Q c a m —u aa) c a� Ncd i .rn —y .N aci 1� E •c > a� g Q7 a� E —_ w io o m - o is -0 m o w d m a�Ni c �, c a G a m E a a"i ca a'i '' o m a 3 0 E v cn cca ran E o c 0 o 3 z c c •o cpi E o cn N o 7 CO r4 U .a- >i U C N C C1 — U S C a a).c o � o f �" c O LL 2 0 o N o c is °� m o a.d: F` a� y o 'a C7 a� o 0 0 — c — u _ d Q o a o issue m o _ c b o 0 O p• Q� O- - L O O .p C -0 O aL.-. O O .3 U N -N N O � C rNl) ON � � N O ` = O � p = c N c C o o — d o L 0? �' rn f9 " c t col ca y o E cn m S o a� ? 0 in c> aNi o :� 'ry `o m ayi OD N N sT ? N N -U > L o o m o ra E m o ai � rn r"-a 2 y p o m a� •c a m Q o b e O c o o v is o _ Q o N S p F� c -0 m � v o c 0 -0 .8 H d o rC -0 C7 0 ._� CA n w ca 5 o m o L O O U 4) N "L7 .N c -p �G in N d N Kam' N U U _ N C O C O d >, ca fd C tC o_ E >_ o •� o N m G E m c is c c = � ca p cv a� - �-' N i. QI G U? N U O KOr •C d a1 p N C �- C C .O p1 C fn i C E cL a� en is v� rn v a ra cn m E <5en o en a� a� 0 ran 0 m c E v c� N G a> > d M Ca si d a� € m o 'i a) > U u' c o o •y c `� U 0 N . � N :. — . '` � m o r� U ? o r� m m p o a rn a� axt W a) � Q m Q -0 u W v o m ca in o = -0 W > >, 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ �y`• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ _ c c Q y caLo a, CD a) coO 'a O fn t!1 p ,7��1 d? Id N 7 C c/7 r. ��-,._. aj d C 0 -0 dZI O U = 'r`ti U N -6 G C cz IL = a IL � m Nk ga l ` . 2: - �. 'o +c'' rn 10 o o �nm 2U ' � E Cm m oN3 c L _ ;ai4M e� MC p a fa cc u E y E c m L0 coL �' m o ¢ mn ¢ w m — C)" ' cn aOO= )s=.�,�_,�_;=-`:Y��y..'=c''>::•_Oacccn) `Cia°) cmi cn a: aa) flE v c i � m E r.c..) ` nccv7 N c O w ca L0 � a03co6 �Rp•b� rmN� .C�C 4iNgn ° n Co a m U ccs �C cE.9ng oC om +� ous aaaE c vm ao N o E � ED CD E E a) 2 a a `nCE -6 mm ) ) (6 C _ Co Vf9 U a o.3:` a O a .0 cc ¢ � t no0 �i a) O a) o U } 'C N O na - Cyd . N O A c O � p N cm- QO CL � E E — c O 4 0 Z} pccc E m oU pc E wyan N ) a ac ) UO iOUNC ccti a da)q U Q O U ny cn ca -0 . E M, Q - E o o R 'n a) p c yrn.v p ao -0 ) o c 0c a) c � cn aby`cu a) E B Co a o o E E o E 2 aa ) E a Qc C tc0) mC- cC -n a + fn —O N m � cuCL om E g7 Qa Eo s C C cy m o a r`vw cCa y an y fn Co L a) o Q c Q r y = E R L �c Q t� $�? uj 'Lid -0a) m E � � — c c cn a) cn E cTcd ' m c° C3 c an o E c o�fl c E o cn a s a Qi p D v .N a) Z' m e E c ,c m > c c) a) o �° o o m 8aC c U• cn c LI) c a) �CC v._...... a a] N L a Q) a) N m -O O ¢ -0 m m ca L f0 ro E a) e O d 4: O m a) •S C x t� U a1 vi a) cn n. .c E U a) N c E m m v� Q c a c Cj o N 0 61 >ID C lC G aa -ayya) V3 2v}. a vOm Qaa a1 u3 C� uOm o ? �na-) Ccn fo v ma CD 2 ac o v asX co S= ma) tic 1 mc apo i OE U aLca ru d C op a Q aDO cL o a o� c O UQ E o a) =- o 0 a En N En a ooUO s w EEncm 3 0�r [t5 tM fl"l o E CD O - '� E cCr °: c � CD o cC N L o Y o U 0 0 o d N fll C (U 7 C O U fN� - _ U w 70 U to _ ✓'>' '<•:�3'. f'i:. fn N aJ — •p •c Q) ca C C'p m C D_ Co a m E CD U m c ¢ ._ y c o rn a ;<r r '� °) as c E E s� cn c_ m U - o y o w a c a> > U o y E a c c a N n -Q a> _ > oa� n m c a c m 0 0 '6 � t; 0 +-' m C O .N C c O C.Y U C c m C c O cn C U d G O .O O cu — CD t/1 N N f� a E E o u — E c ' C� L m co i N u a� o m o m c u '•'; ,; ' > rn y - m a _ c Ca 'c 'cu f° t° �' w h U t° a�i o in E o� > = N � � _c '� o rn- c� w a U S E o y a u Ca to E E -E cai vi m y a CD m rn N tQ c N O E `� c c rn y p " (a o cam.• V 4 m Q (� a> o ¢ E `o c m a> > m c m e E W n is w E m c ; m > u a) is G , Cl. E 3 o m c o _ - y W Q -C V� U _� �- y _G m cf LO "p G .p+ -u O_ ,Q in 2A O N O d•C O Y iss E a > _� a M CD o.�- m a m v o c n occ E a> m E c a�i m o a c CO K CO v a� m Q E E c c y a� o vi V m c cM a_ E � cu c _o C O p� C -C m N N m �,.+ y in p y d O r'7- by 'a m 2 .0 � C m C m p fr r. c Co m CO CO (D 4? .c Q? � N N : Um a s ` .� c a� m c `° U y E m u a o o C E E a roc i m >. E -0 U 19 Q Q (D L9 b Ccd t"r s t c 3 Cn a) a CO c E - Ca o c_ co a to v� v� cn y 0 - c t� y b y ro c H ,o O0,.. co = � N a Cn E '_ Q G J CD � � d O 2 CM N C cV O N � a1 N E E a.N C m m a CU O 2 E d N E m U a u C E • an d m ca ;�, m ca v C m >'•' rn .c - -E 0 d .� n -a o (D o a o a c c� m c m n D � c c'`vu o t to a '_c E cw, m E m rn o `' o c to C o m m S a o t� E a c a� a = o c (D h E rn .•;;Cw > m e a� a - y o a, COY o :° d > C= c Cn o m w c ¢ a C- i m o coi c m v a w a a� a� c o:° �cl) o E >, Ca c oc a 'iv f4 en a`� E aci� oU o c � vv yo >o a vai n � iv iu n rn E c m .Q' c is a� E m o y CD a m to -m a a� II rn 3 E o ¢ E o m o a E ai CQ : -o m m vi E 3 `t t r- o L rn E -:: _M U) C _. d CD - N a1 O "O tU d CD to a to c m N uy o o ¢ a E m 4m-' Cc°� iu y E y y o p a� o ._rn G o m o Q a y O C h u d ,_. m 'c U.0 N CJ� in N �' "a C y to co = •G d-O N C m y u E o ca a) `v CD a> C74 a� m cmi c � a) C m a m ui M (D ai .= x a a� a c m c Ll c c 'U 0.} fl- m C C m O aj a [0 m N C O -0 C O 2 C_6 co 'c p yy iv U p �[ m N fD Cv m m �- m t u CD E c •C o .� j ...+ N to rn O_ N ¢ al.'�,.,_d CU N aI U ' N O en � -n N �_ O n c7 C1 co [� @ O a1 d u •c N Q N C9 E o U' o 0 oo m c a> tt •```' ^:'` C -= t tto o CD c p o c U O aI � p) _ �� a'rn N � � �. N N -�T7 � r✓ o ,' cap E o a Q Can � a- m c m N w rn UJ S a n Cv n 3 c/) a s d m w ~- LO Cl) In - yeti' sr, 67 C O r d a a m tiaTN Y_ _ N a CL azF d -0_ n. CL ^y_ tx CO X . 5 L L 0CD o o co yap c o c o o ,._:-•. :"�: O_ L ;p ` a3 •C C9 N 14. ca a, C s t.�:i� z c w E y W C U N C. c3 a�i c E Q d 0 co o c w Q c ca c o = '> o m E a o E ca o ca d o -se i� � • m m c y Q Z N U'°' m is a o ami co c a� •� n U 1O -M E g c@ vi c as 3i a w > 0 0 Tv c CD c o ') ca cv o c man a� a m w d CL 61 .� O m :.?w n :o c a to Cn c0 sn O.•� }- W . d C (p O G U C LC] X S 'O C d •C U T z— cr °) o Q a"+ c s' m is E o a c o o Q � o $ 'S °' rn 3 ,c U 0- 0 � � Q y o_ c o Q o � Q. � m u� o d5 d � o � � � a> , a) _c y c0 v, 0 Cn � W E O a c �,,, :o p c c Q f y o a) .o .� c a, o c �,. o c o E Z' ktJ o c o >, o t -v a as a� as c o c� m o _� $ c o y E v o .� Cl) c of c b E p E�?� M p a3 y o �n o S w _c > c° cn '� �n � o a } E y rn 3 � O = _ N c o c c cr c ? y E c a� o - _ .� c 3 o E o E c c mom uc°i pE c Ep E a �' O Vin O cm aa O c° Ca c V y p to co i o m n m ` o .gs..c m o w N ^ 0 N f c Sco . Uf OO E a) o � macu Ecmao gn o c p 't N•cuj aj N "� y $ ai .L c UD— I 3 c a"E o W m O cv c U o cd mW c cv a oO m cn - a tt _ _' � w a s o c Z a � � o v co U a� o a a�i � >' a3i O �^F Ra a T'�} a� L m a� y c 3 y R c . t E c a� m e a, 0 3 o a c y p iv a� �' *3 vi o U a a0i i p w 3 o E c.m F O .s .o a> y °� d iT p y -(, Cl) c o_S o �" a 9 aci .m.� in �'�° -1 c°3 5 0 3 ~✓ 4l o' c cn a� m o c c °: a� o p m o in w CV O h s m m $ m 'O in c L O O 41 to O c �- 'OO ti •� Q) Q c c Lo [1 w o O 3 � p o C7 sf y L c«�a (n c-1=3 cot mO_= mma :E5 (D Q _ t ) a C O Y Q cif 3 O 5:. a f' Q U p O U O CL >2 ;'• 65 c U Q p - = U Lu -e C: U N -- o c' c o 00 J _ c o � CD cn V w cnca en CL LL .y w M d LL m w N C d Id an d C w a 65 1 co r, d > 0 m D w O o (`a .6 v1 Ma ro is EL o � 'ca � c .c c 0 ="- $ '�' cvccaa o c :° �� m ^ c`C ?? in ~ wo E o _ c ~ a t a"i a� w o w a c� i� N m E U ro o " _ ro w ro o D tr o c cr a) Ls _ a y : p a =_ a a�i a c ro c 3 rLi� c o a a' m n coa co o a� 'm c s aci ro ro E 2 ro .- c a� o ro p a E ca o _in a '� a� Z (D . c c� a ro `o a a m c c aD o C ai 0tm Q) C x ro ro 01 E C ro C `� 8 -0 2 D o as +'�- c .L.. O D O C m ow 3 a) a) C w 'O E ' N N O 2 C C CD O C a) d- CD E is m E o o oo a>i a� �' cP a� E c c o a s p m y cwa a N Ca o_ a� r c Da wU x 4. a� a� .o ro c =a La m >.�at a c'ca ai c E E a a € a`i .- E o �%. T c as QNi L) o w ca H ro a� a� o a.3 tv 'i a._ rn a m a� .S o w E > CD (Do m rn o c.- w m ro o o �c"� E c o a� c c _ a) Qo ; , - ' -k p� CWM(a F- D m C C a) �" o C D -P, N T .�' O w vJ y - w O ro a) :� C co •� a (D c c c a c E U a� cLn O a� a a - 0 en = g a E V 3 0 'x co .y y t '=- m c o cO a) .� roc o •c aEi ra __ c°c a m m a� w C w o m m a o c E w o w E S='= w �a� y �, a a w a� c o to w ¢ at m p w v ro .3 c c c :<:_.,:._ cn > c ro > of �, o cu c� c� 3 - CO ro ra E c Q U % a v E a� E o o ca c-Na w aroi .y Q ai ai w "= c '� o a T oa ro w m E w w ro `o cn o E _ o T c m m c w a ro a� a ro a c` a E rn c`d w a•3 m q c� - c c .c o a� E o cL aD E - via v o a 2 .roa aEi � m y c.- m ii o E a� c a) = rn m a. D c o rn L cn W e $ fn o_ c o ._ "`s Cn E 7�' - » :. `� aI �a E c o E o a ai m rD.= a) 7 Q ro w U d C C o "y T"O w rn T O D D D 'C] •a a € U a) : 0 a a' 0 a � m c w Eo o � � o � a o c o, >, a� � y ro E 3 E `� C Q1 lIS 7 w N — a 7 `7 •C C_ a) C C -p U Ecu ro Q) w N ..w. '� = .0-. «- c « N m rn L o a Q? m ,� _ �° ca w �3 o c a� c rn y a� N y m o d o v_ d.� s w a t N =� c� 4? a a� ro o o = ro 'N o c E ro `o w o = y E o c c c > c o c p c� CO _ a� o av 0 w ro c _o c E aD a O r m " w m ro o o a� 0 a.o E w ro o 0 o ro c c o`� ro v Q E is o Z 'ro > E •�' �= _T � ro �o ai o =cn aci Va u�i c° Z w o �c6- ai o2 '� � `n aci R a ( a v' E �� •� U -a c a in Q a� o o Q �, ro U ro o o c = o f E ro 2 a m =_ o .� 0 0 0CU o v c a c s m b ro p m E c c� awi E a� m a p E + f o o rn rn c E a ro m T Z 'c .E aci o m U �. E oo m o E ui o .o °: a y a as eh ca o rn m v E 5 ai cn z a a a� m Y a ai c a`Di 5 a) o a= o a c y rn a O` D cz �_` a E c 16 a o c a w T o c O Q c >+ E E E c E o 0 0 •c m ap '� d Q E o P' r. E ca c E O E ' c rn E o m a � ro ^ 'c c� a� r7— ca U Cn S O LL U a� D co c a� > w v D a a o > �i E a� o_ o o o 'R x O ?^ 3 c ro aD o ro a ff ca = ■ ■ ■ ■ m a w d w E a o a� ro c� v ro a 0 c� o ro ............. _ cLO 3 o' `p _ h ^C)' U C al o• t/7 yY f o of '- 1 o Q g a`ai inc mE •.: a7 x� ,O yco � a3u = a) O 4 c L tiM U CO fII O ma ti L L G 8 b a� c o m es a; b _ 0 c�b c � - .4% o O O o Z' m O Q yy CL O n' C f!1 N' N C y-+ �6 C C p N D v p •Q ¢ rn c� Q coo m u °D v C m o a5 a� s m o as [6 Qa n E cn .- o o to E _ U n w o v o f - o 0 8 5 a� T n E v� c rn %^ c y, o a, a a o p $ o � o m tu" c otj co °� n c o _ c ai c o ai c E cr a a� ' �3 a o o c C N N C O 47 16 _ _ U C d O !] N .0 ;C L,!„ U O O N C fU Cl. a� d c o m a> a o o a� c o n m c > c c Z,c p 2 m E - rn > n o. c� � a y as rn y - c C a� l!1 ca O O G tq 7 >• O O n .�-. [1 C CSC a) tU a�i E E ai fO a .� OL � m 2 c c Ea mw c c � e az c o a3 a) cpi o V to m +L �0 w ra c c T C c 0 . t �•0 o n ai+- F -- U U O N - C U Q) U •� U 8 a) Q7 p �t/�y U 'd CD n C .0 _ Q1 +J O _ y(� C 7 T m L C to C C � y a1 (9 y•C 7 C - U N O ai L O .Q ai Q_� ,tit p, LA y 'L7 a •d �� Q ca 3F 0 o to U y >, EO w uD rn cL x to c o c - uj m •yy a N N >- _C to U 0 O — _ _ n. N N n O 7 y p O G} .•�0. to 4 0 ` n c T iq N 5 C -O ri �v c In rr' to _ d c p E c 3 c toh > �yy a� o c�i E a n �a O O R O y -- .� N C CD CO U +� a O m U N O y y C O_ >, C O _ A."'' .: G-� N �O-• to -- aLCU �i N o c to �I g 'c� > �a •� p •a) C _ ro y E O to y > as Y �._ m c �_ g rn 2 �.0 E o o o Ar 2 2 O a) c U ai o - Co E a o rl U v= a� d a) `� }o - = m e E S G c o- c o E 4 0 n m ' E o a> c `o ^ V- t7.n •C I9 pp } _ L O O U d a) O y CD O p� 0"- C O O •�+' C UO - O p .0 a to c = - C in coi �o. y c o c c r� n c c d y o E V E C M E c�� a coi o o to'a n 2 e� �L° to d"'� o ut°jLU t�ioa t� N "� Co y d to LU N C (n '� C N = D_ C 7 ` 41 O u"".� -O c 3 C p = O .t017 V i f0 l6 O p j C -� D 0 —w _ E m o m > o =__ _� o 3 aci c m a) to L rn ¢ a o _= s n to o iv C i� ? o o c _o _rn n o E e to Bi c ?� e ' uci i� 4 CS O y O [d U O O N O •c U _ U N C 0 2 n � _U a) t6 O O tO N tll N a1 O Y O a7 41 t C� O O C O O C O U yh a N w a� o o E _ '2 c �j tv u� ' 'o T°»° aci g c'i i� aci w E t� n c •> y U - c rn� o � a n = a o m � rn d �' c rn � N o E °? E E 7 p Q Co th - - U U (j _ U -B `o .p n m ;, r n ' a y .S ¢ n �n a� d y 0 n. w p t�i� y o n N o V•� c .0 _C 7 ,Q; c C -OO to �q� o o a•'�-' C y � O o y p f9 = fY] =_ to o 5 L o - co ':iN 3 o F- E 'in m g W .S d CA 00 C E t� a� U E U _d$ v, 0 U _E 00 I-Z: 0 tin n_U = ::. o T ■ R R ■ ■ • ■ ■ V U < s [d C.a y c6 �[ E ) N� t5 = c 3 n mCL U cn a� E c aroi ' to y j O O O G U a) Im m cz O w -�- o E al Q7 70;.; lE y c O Y/Y`KV m -0 U m [d s +� (D O c` ro CD - -- _ E - � oai 3 .0 3 ca p O row a' E oy � C U s a '3 � � aE Qm ctl — 0 U = Ca U sF. E ;c._.. LU O cb tm - -_- p U C p U C O U C U C7f y O Q1 N _ O Cam - CU C 'Q ,yr 9 CC +_ U � m m E o` Ca '� E m m E . c� v m O 7 •� 7 L- L 0 7 •0 -�y O 7 .7 a) U m a CL .N m Q CE .N (a OL d .y .fl O_ C .y L o. C cn O U y- r -1 Q _ r >, Ca Z3 cn C •U C fn C C CIS — m O z _ m o co o �c o N 'm i 5 c vi J-- c en c CL U m o. U m a ¢ m E 2 a � o o rn E —r w E a� a� v� — — o c m -- cn a� = L m m E 7 o s H : m W ' _.,.>. a c E c cn c m is 'a w 0 7 2 a 3 •� r cc —' a—� c cn d 'a m � _-_ — cm-� m m m •o M m °rA' ._ 7 o .o.o L 1D v c� c L 7 CD c� t v w — ..,. cLi a rn � U c.) m m p a) cm 0 N U O U C R-0 -0 N a) m ca .� — O N CL c CD a) m - co C m v0.i C _.,.., cn CL a) •� ItiU N C C V N .0 CO vi OL — O •�j O CCl dt .. ;= n •� v E E ri E E m f—n o a^ o c' avi aL —y p m a) �p 7 y m a m to C p O �•� .4 rn Q rri O U O y Cn C p 7 is U a - - c n cn _ c� L L E " -- = m Q p c O c o m N m m .r o a3 m m «. fl. _ - m 7 E O O L O.. a7 C C_ N Cl. _= ai coi o U c c U 3 h p a� 7 o c . �`v U Q' :S y E 4D U m o `% cn rn c p -0 a� o p� > _ c U L a7 — o a--- m a�- cn o a� 3 N cn m 'cn -p � cn — m — vP � — .m w 7 yo N c 'o Q a� o aNi U o CU m > O V V N p V E 0 a N-v L N ao � E m o ` $ c _ rn m m _ ca CD c n. — cn p a� c� c O c rn v) w CO p `7 o y m m v4i UO rn Co a .a d C rn m d rn tca N « m 'O_^ h L•C y O O �►- ` Q) O E y 'y N NL. m — .� co v CO .� AD car m oc a� c Q m c v Z a+ cn oa `� c .9 x = m m y p m E _ o "<c U m E 'y"V 3 E f) 'o W �i rn c ram. n c> >, o ro cU _ o _ = m a� m m a� c m c v 7 cn oo v N °� U E >:'t�;' E m .3 N U `O_'in p .b M. vl o 2 ,2 U �-. C m O O 4'1 d y •� h a7 a7 :` :' O.�. Q ?'r M1�r d 0_ O N CL C1 7 U V/ O "A In U) ca fA 7 U} N O_ Q7 cn O a N C N D_T7 y Q O rq > L.1 a7 :'i.': p m .0 o p .�" m Y pp C m N m �- m �; ro a) N C m L c LL• U w U c cn Lm. U i v m 7 y 'y ¢ o> °Q E a� d :i W:; 'Y rn O -� 7o c ca p 0) a) -c O .«.. O 7 a7 to -0 7 rn ;:t9;: m c .� c al ':1D: c a> > C C c `o O is�:� c c .o a m m c :..;' m > E c c 3 >, �- v in 'o•— a�Ei m c cn $ rn c o c i E E °� ''''tCt'> Loi. �' Q n •' cz p o a- o n IL m a o [L o m CL C ^ . a� ca qJ% U o aei a is e7 0 '- �` > cfi la a� a� m p $o fl a� m 00 v w w o cn m _ CIO c r cn ":: M m m E v, a; >- o .Q o� U s rn . n ai d tJ:2: r c y =af::: <- }� m e = s cn m -4 w -4% c a> v '� Q mi ¢ c� v E a v 7 — '52. — a'v o (D m LZ - _> o o a> > in o Y > m $ m x o t vi > cn c a) '::' ':: eai m - _ -: o U a� 'n L n CT S w cn m w u) ::. mID ::F :; CL cn m 0 Z'~` co LO ci ' 3 N O 3 O 7 (7 O m ca co m co caa CD a) E E E E E E E E -T •y y y y y y U) y L L .,ems ._--• .��, ... ,t'C., .. ..- :..� - .!s 7F- AF .. co m co co cd -0_ o o70 O O x O O O O O O O -0 _0 C G co m yS:44SJIf��� O 0 CD UC tJ dI U N Cm O O UOm Q OUm n N fC6 O$C Nm Ocd CcUD! (CU6 o + K Om U IL Q m m _ 0 R m p •C iJ O O = a O O O O O O O O 7 O -C y d U o O 8 0 0. r8 0 c� o CL .L c� o a O m m m m m cc m m m O Y cn N y V c e L O O O O C� O O O E O O E O O O O F-: O E O E 0 2 �u e m cTu 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 7m+ 2 m 2 m n- o. IL n. ❑. a. M a. IL v. a CL IL n ❑. n. a., 0- 0 ��z ,- „-;,,�=- m •$amc' ooa) "aocs E m m a) a m ca�) m c(�)'0m ca Er�c) a x[za�i iva5U) m Ccmmo _=a b om� O) c d ca a ( cu c y N\ m d cO `' cam aa o (! � o � L_ a - v ' ) En m � � c m � mgg gg- Ca 0 ca ca CC IIC_D r _ m m mpaR m m u ca" o _n fF w a) a- o o a- o o a IS- "� Ur w2:0N r2 ma p s $ dO oc p ai (D O a) CO m M d O d O � E CL L7. p p C p a p C �cn o o p a> U O ,a U) '6 (1) = c (1, 75 j CDC a) 7 C y 7 C y :a<,.. c 0 — m = c a s✓s,ue:G,.'y--..:?p�s, O U ' ELO L`m .Oc 3OLa) _d°--' O n � uL 8 rL cc t • Qv � � co 8 MnL c ca '� ca M 0 to y°m) xm m .!L W m � a) mc •m-• Yma) 9cm 0 CC9 E o � o o oo . i oo co Ua) 0 ca _,� L m ca m57 ; m ¢ °) > a o L m31 m m m ca m o m a) CL)a _L ,Lm LOna) Lm p ad) LE.'c o fLE cm o— rnOddm D_ m O m Lto Crn) Em LCU My� d y M. "� m o -y a) a m O 15 m C � C ` C C C O C 7 > > m o a L y �q O a m o m a y lV y o c o a) o c� `o �° o o c o o 0 `o o 0 m O L � L C L- > lL- L C 1L - L c LL •O c �y m > u m > .a L,y U Q n L a) n Q CL m CL. a) n m n Q n ¢ o n.-c%.. ¢ Q O ::...'..•._•. [Y a. o o- eh n. > v o_ y ua n. cn n. y > n CL 7 00 0^o y o� n. o rn r' O_ m Q) m -D m o ¢ m �° ¢ m ¢ m m m o y E s+) y c) a) ?r M E E c m `- �° m v' i V' i a) i m m r m m ar a) :E v a) m o a) v m �L v a) v a) a`) ¢ a a�i Q a °) c �-0 � 'o m Q � ,o n .o a s -.p a ^a � .o� . o > a b m :` z, a o C o ¢ n y io n Q ¢ a ¢ n ¢ o o m a 0o a u 1 U N N aj a) a) a) ai N U 7 7 7 7 7 ca � O �N N co co ca co E E E E E E E o r fn fn N N N to U) C a a a a a a a a O _0 a _0 'o O I toro N cad -0 cad D1 v _0 a ^r:: - m Cz C C C C C C U m ro fd M (Z cz "Z J ) LUY1%;• p<_'�_•'. o y Tca `o a a '� b a OOO (p m o OC (Up OT OO OO O T C Caa O aU 'o -0 U U CU c U y ro_, ro o r + fu lo UN a, U 8 U U 8Cy`o a � o O Cl) n- U o 0 O .NNU TmU m U a m ro .� L L m 94 N y N Cl)L .lip C L C C '+•' C `� C C C `0 o � o y _l o f o o f o o f o f o f o m o o co 2 > Tma a a [ 0- a (l a a [l a m d m d (D a d aD `a -a co ro a� m E a� co a %'1.•'�?'"%.•. N +D m I-- oCl, d c ti... c le O a) O> O > O a) O (D m - 0 m := O m Ca ca O ca "c Om aO) 03 -Ufa (CO NO S tCa N L m o a N U c c v C -0 O C 0 a3 a o m o m L m a c m m c m m L o Ca ro L o f. ``, tL m 3 m m 3 tL a� a s a a a� m a m 3 0. 0 3 _ ` m C m C !._ m i_ m C - O !�' Ql 4= m ct m C a� 0 ( o o E Qom d �i o f 0 c 0 CD o _z aa) o f a p E ac E ac c c E ac a0 ac ac a) ac a CA ,O 6 UJ ,O O j w •O o al U) •0 0 > Cn O U) O O CA O q > U) O Cp > a c e o a� � c a > - o a -0 m a -�7S -0 c a ' a U n dc c w E c c D c is c E c y _E O d t O c s O 'N :� O N _ p _2 to -�- oC d m a� u' 3 "' 'n E Z 3 m o Q 3 aUi °3 aUi 3 0 m e c`9 > > c`o •E �- m ` ro O > > ro o a U L �... U L O O U S a1 L O ct y C = U L a �•�- L C O U L C U V) a 0 U 17) Q a U N 0 N a U i m U to c3 to >- U to O E a a ;� o. p i CL a Q c9 :II C O cC w C •s is '� E � is 2 p m a = wm. coc !v 2 c Z9 m ro L m `-° m a`s s m a� m m m 3 m ro m `-° aci a� m "ca'i `� aci c m E Cl) m o�m �i Y x aEi c cn x E aEi c a �a aci m _ E a> c m a) E • as m - a� m Q'E o R Q E E r aEi L in E 3 E E *' a o U) c p E E E E N a QI d a�0 •c aa) am N ais c> E a Cv CLm cm `a t9 •�' m y i cn 2 E iJ y C �} y .0 Lw LO m y O N -U O L O N$ Jy0 0 � — u^I .�� •.O+ C c p •.O� " c c �"O '•'s O O d v c O y C 7 U y Ca U 'O Q) O N 3 a) 4' j ? �._. C L C O Q) 7 C O C b. C Z a L > w.-. O > o m c c o o ro mU 1`o c� o o — >_':_: z. al c� o o a � ca v aci a u �? a �i . o m o c ti a c U W c U U W O LL U Qo QCL .Q ¢ add caa -gr •a N tz in `o c cn a •Q N c co 'a c Coa� u� m m y m o N m o r a v m �" a m o ., a v� c c$ v c c M _ a e%� ¢ r m a) co ro i m d m rn N o�E �i o m `_ .� c r m ro vmi °ni ' ° U (D c E t _m nm ..� a7 aD t� •a# a) d a) m � v m v m sF a) 0— i>i o � o a m o y m i9 `o a m 'o m 'o c`a 'o a m 'o cz a ca LO Ca ca .-.... _ ca t � l is M, ro a as tl o , tl Cl. a . 1aa ._ 73 U 42 u' U -:: _...�: -- c a) c a) -0 -0 rri o ro rn E c as co y y c 0 fa o `o ai a) -0 o 0 4= `... ro � � c ? uj (a c• of N 2 =� C to y 10 V O L ro O fU '� -0 fs f3 y yr-- ��.— c g v 3 o c c ca ro c y fa E E ca 0 o a E tl tl m a a� W ca a> la oT .Q c y a? ro C 'i n. c) y fs f1 fn y O O a� 2 f1 ro E d += 4 D y: = ro ns o `o > o a�co c CO E o L ca c in a 3 0 3 c wo N in o a s °� c_ + 0 4W Z rn { fed fa ro rn m e �i E y U y c c c rn fU c o c a E a c' o fa �, E y c W en o c O a� a� fo �° m rtv y ay y a� 3 as -o t3 c as .y fa L1J o E $ y U O ) N Ca y ro 2 y c c) c) 0 -p Q (a ca c ca - ro C O (� •C Y al i �',• s...�J y C Its d �i E ca -� o m O3 c 5 is y '' E `a m �' � ca o y m `aN ca E p O :O (a ro CL ,mod, 'en aL--. V a7 -�ry d � co E a 2 3 E CD n o a L� M W N a) ro c o w caro cn .Ou O O U fa U) Vj 3 O 0 V7 y O V Cr i r= o c U a ro c to y � a� c 0 3 fa .c o 'b � ro `In Tl c a) `-c � '•'--?v U7 C p y d a7 4 p7 d N CD t •�-� Oi y -6 's •U _o fa. .c ro E E o a� E y c c m ro 4V a� c c ro y y � — _m fay C o fa a� o ro o ro O fn fU •a c ro y ro '' rn . c) c fZ fa e c CD y a C o o a-0 y E 3 y a� y E o y C . 0 cram, c 3 a) o E 3 is U U 'In a� LU O N.V O LU d C d ,' 4 y Cr d 'U p •3 fn � ry "C O O E y 7� ?. !n L d d 'O O O •�-. `�' tl m tl- (a L O to d d O o o c o o cg = a E L in c 3 U — y rn - 3 c ti � rn ca p o _r� c' C y E:9 E o a� �a y co m y 0 3 y o Y �` a`� v c E cr3 fn y -0 s c rj d ro fu y fs c &n r'ro E ro y b cn c c fv U o fa > y c y tl .� E o a 3 E 2 =Cl-te Co a> c `n Z c ro o a� `� fv L a� 3 ro ro o o ro 3 a ro a) o D V O N -O U C (a y N y' (n ` -0 `3 C. CD d "O fa� G Q� c m c o c c0 y c cod w a4i c °b-' c En aa) o y 3 a 3 > b m _0 o fn w 8 U n rL c) Q fv GZ . U�� � � � fz f`a Q � �� . Q t/) t/) a� fn n. fca w d n ■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■ in CL >- aim o `'z>= a CD � N d n - - U -r -M•-..- V p rn Lo c c y`J^ `p a a s;fir arL Cl) =a n :(41�j U Vj i O is ram, O a) °� rM's o 0 p O E 'ca a H 0 3 u `mCL >,,> rn c c o n m w o °f m c of cw ¢ 0 m E o cv Oaf U rn � of c o �, o_ �° m — .t � -O R L O O 7 tU m Vy O cu C U U of . m C O L F N :xK _0 co � -o �n p O c� G� E O N C - vw_t;= � o v E m m w in a of o �' c `—� of of E y O E m O d O C grg�� p U C 9 ~ O pJ R ca �, �i of `cd m �_ �. E m ,n c y 3 in o �a of of c 0 0 m e c N :EFen a`� a'o c a) 0 = v a m of m a; m � In _ o o c t of Y R m ."_' L a p p`� a� `m n c °ti v L y U a, 3 '�" �_ N c d o` N E $ E y Cl) ° "' m U ca fi m rn 'O mm n. N D u7 i� O_�, m E C C cif O_ en (D L U N in .c C -O U C 7 iU 0 d 0 N Oct, �f p a' °) U "' p �° a� t° 3 a� E of Fn of of c cn aXi o > m c °' ca of m q o O CV m e �, E 3 y _ N C y N 'C {3A U P.+ H L b C'L 4f 10 L U fU yr a) N O W 4 m E `f CD t y D N O p 5 O B o U ca p N C U '0 -' E EL F- c c t •c x m t E m_— m o •- �v of E m min d C O C 7 U y m Gf f!7 a .Ri �+ p O •L O 'D H N m U '� �+.�-• y 7 y N 1<;_:x• - :. 0 E c is E c� o c of 3 U c E �. U 0 O m O R C 5 C U O O R � -�_' V7 p R mo •p-' N d U U C a m �a of cu o O o fn o en o _ ?� R aEi o in °� c O E v R u' c c° n_ y y E2 Ql 5 a Ul .0 O G U C C en .� p c O. •g N C E > a+: C L. N C •r. U, of (n C o •� v O ca E O a) O v) 3- o �n of g '� '�.`I of d E _uf , U o u� c m R ca c�a of o a-3 m m o a E f E c o -0 m E y a c aTi cpi c +-0 L'_ m cm o �'m of 3 a�'i o E y ar v c0i �f= �n m m $ of cca }r +- c a� E of N � a: of m I In Q id E o m m CL ty•} iS 3 E rn � L a� a0i c II" � y I m o c -° O c 3 '� m a'�i rn E L y p �° �fa v c of ami of i (D E o c o c� 3 = "vUi i� - .- o 'c o m c a2 4 �a cn 'n m y = a'� " = E1O c`a voi �° coic of m a.<:: ca c m o t c Y rn c m -:A....t � ti � � y 0 y m a�i m � v � v � ca E � 8 a � .0 `� � °' � = 0 °Of c o of � � m � t`t '�''fi p uJ O U d N u7 Q m r N y Cl '�j ' w F- � Q O LOU OG a 5 w 0 } c 'ca'v C 0 Gf O 'tlO = S > m "D p. 's y; _i= ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ w cz a o.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ m ind -� 1L- v°�i = ', U O U O U00 �c c •� c •` c c .o o m N x co o Z3 w m � al ': v Qv Qv aoLO aD a� aD zVi a) c °' c m c CD ZI c c �a� Y=: ca O 0 O C C 0 C ::::=::::: L o .:.......:. _ ....... QCUd ca U S].0 QU f6 Q U ca o U Q O O a) O O a) O O N U Q cn U Q 6 U Q U Q p 'O a) to (n 0 O Z) a) O Z7 Q) Q) N a) N O 0 CD y ca Ca 0U '0 � Ua_ Z Qc0 p p C) n Z 0- cti Z Q ca Z e m :M _- ME = " CD 13 A? -5iiAT: C m R ' C ` m c C U w0. CmC ;C O U b . ��`.• •T"' �_?`` d a N m . .� . _ 3 — O C Ohp) m o inm 1a7 m U . adamao. a7 ao 4 a N Q) m c� __.✓,..cam•_-y _ o t7),y0� bi oCD z m c° m y ca ca m [2 b carn b U O Uca p U p C C C C C) C O L .d.• C C � ..O-. C m �" d � N C m N C O O b m T O m N C ��_` � ._"�Y�E- O b m C b N N C b C C b C C C b C O_ C]. U m 8 g G m m O C m O rgggg� `o car a) v c a) E m a) c o o c µ b L y U N m a >a 7 n a7 u� a) t — U D ;,' '� m rn 'O O O m to O N _ '� N CO c Q O c - r- m U cbn L) a�i ai °) C m > a) N c c Oo otD U D �S r p tT o m c . .= m - m Q._ a) �i o.� n m 90 y `- :- O VJ U b y y m i.T �'-ti,; m m a) Fa > U ca m a m c ,o c -o y c is o b a) _4' b_ .c? �,E m U c 07— - cv coi `o a' c m o °' c a) o a) f� m D b C yam; m s , ami E n' p m 3'c ' c o a? 3 vim) o > O () > o c °� cm a) a) m c Co w u cnn O - C) d to a✓ m U �° is a) rn E E s S n rn o o n ca a� Z o Q_ U ^-`= �ecc...0 a) n. U w m co ci � c3 t� �,u1 .� m 0 m 4=. T = CD r-L__ �= G m a) > N o o m o O �i C c 3 a c c V yc a m fu c is o' o m Um u°)i . �j o � � a`) a 3 0 �� Caa a) n _ :xw o n m c m m k �) - sa N c o c E m U m c e Us c m = b' c) c a ai 0 m o E -'s s r 8 g' = n' O aCD �3 m m o m n > n � vni Ns r. v m U o =Y - �, �) 2 o � n A E A w 0 D U 'ca cca � -0 � � �� "� a) n E U c n ca m a) p � — v) 0 3 O KEE, 2 2 _ U(tgS7 • ) min bo - o cn �> b80 ` cacD a ID enS- o° UE t -0 a) m C O) o. = C n ';.' , a) a) a) —_ m E p a) L 1 $ sam o o o m topoLU aci F9 E 43 y b 8 U b o C c _ a) c aU cn C� a c ' a) ii o U E r� E N p U c o m U U m m m a`� m a o cLi d E::..• :s' L7' �' _ y a Q a) s a) O m a) a) .m � N C O. ..fir...�..,.. ,= Q U 7 m o o Or- ? cn 3 L a) U c F e o F a) a) a) ) _'`.-_�'.`•w e' �a :; a) ' .p y O Y ~ > j c -o ~ a= m m C C C m U _.;..._. h: .0 d;:41.xa b 0 •� Sa 0 'D C "6 a) to U �' •� O O N Lh cw m 2 i a n ym E T n sf c 00 a o p o a) Zc:cnaa) oCO U 8rn b m c) a c) a U O U U Y - = or =-0 O D D C - -0 .3 ctS y to O N O Ed cctl C C. O o=:; o 0 O � � ,°n a _ ca 70 L7 fA a) U1 N CL o o p o 0 o U a - Z z Z: CL ak U == = u ,111-1-_:.may_,, a O w xF o `o rn O rs 0 d he u (D a) y 0m U. C 'O U C 'O .+-+ U U III co . r.::. d EL E' (6 a LL 4. IV 4 0_ SE co 4 d.N U O (D • cm a ccEOy j 4) vn () tCCo a) to _c 'r C O d a Q :... pp 0 0 t—CV O O m 0 0 c_cv O N o U -. fn py� to _- CAS +�+ C �] -._� •U U U Y U :3rF O (O (V O = CO "O O C C v Ea c� cn $ c� <9U cam $ �° S � CL) o ,0 o 75min cca w 'ti x s m 5 7 c o m r o c .S U c m MN w o O n� CM $ E o Q) -0 vi � Co �' c c� E E c� = c a) al y 'v E w v- N•p CO 0 c '' $ 'S o n.c 0 S E v rn¢ 3.� o E 40 06Eo � 6- 0 Eo0 O C U � U p p E o E.c w e o °' a a� a y �^sg';'r= 'Ci O "_ 6 v a) co N ' C]. -O cu O! 3 N O 3 �' c o 0 3 0 Y M.Z2 Er E 3 v .� rn $ a a> o $ m c y -a O N -�- t0 O f9 C •p ,N (O O a7 0 co ca to -FO CD r cm C5 cn 'S w co � .6 ia � c - LO, (D tm rn � 0to M iC N d j L O .A ffl In 0'ca y C d a�l 'a C O d U A y_. _ CD o y V m t 'r' V 3 -0 }L o_ Z as y CDca F a t _ - c o IS �- rn -0uS- c 1- rL� aj �rqe at AA aD U o O -cw E y c) 1 c >, CD CD 5� n$ ? E rn42 0 u N 0 Aube, Nicolle From: Pamela Mccay<pmccay85@g mail.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 2:19 PM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: Ellis Ave Condos Hi Nicolle, I will unfortunately not be able to make it to the city council meeting as I am a nightshift RN and work that night. I'm hoping that my email is as sufficient at voicing my concerns for this complex. I am born and raised in Huntington Beach and I currently live at 18311 Patterson Ave, #2.This is my third time living on this street in the last ten years and I have currently been in my apartment for 4 years. My neighborhood, which is directly behind this proposed site, already has horrendous parking due to the entire neighborhood being fourplexes. We have been having a problem with Elan parking on our street because they do not want to pay for the monthly parking fee to park there on top of their astronomical rent. I have actually spoken to residents while they park in front of my house. They also told me that they tell their guest to park on our street as well. We see people every day walking to and from their cars and Elan. (And no, they are not using the crosswalk on beach) I have been petitioning to get our neighborhood permit parking and all of the residents are in favor of this. On top of the terrible parking, getting in and out of the neighborhood is horrendous. I can't even come out on my own street because the traffic is often backed up all the way to the next exit. Sometimes I can't even get out on that street(Goodwin). This intersection is already a dangerous area and I was almost t- boned coming into my tract on Monday morning on my way home from work. Adding even more traffic and congestion to this intersection will be a disservice to the city and increase the amount of accidents that already occur here. I personally know someone who was side swiped due to someone making a left turn out of the DK/jack in the box parking lot, which is I'm sure the proposed driveway for this complex. I know these complexes are all about making money for the developers, who have already greased the palms of numerous council members to push this through. Our residents do not want this! Most of these complexes have rent so high that most people can't even afford it. I really hope this email helps keep this eye sore off this corner and keep traffic and accidents to a minimum and safety as the highest priority. Thank you for your time, Pamela McCay, BSN, RN i 549 VJ REPUBL/C �� SERVICES April 4, 2018 Ref: MCG Architecture Re:Will serve letter for Ellis Ave Condos Please be advised that we have reviewed the proposed plans of the trash enclosures for Ellis Ave Condos. I have found the planning proposed to be accessibly to meet our requirements for providing refuse/recycling collection services to the proposed project. Thank you, Gus Sanchez Hauling Operations Manager 17121 Nichols Lane e sanchezg@republicservices.com o 657-845-6137 c 805-432-5957 w www.RepublicServices.com qj q� REPUBLIC 44 sFRvleFs handle it tr m here." 550 �dCity Of Huntington t3each _ 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Code Enforcement Division Building Division 714/536-5271 714/375-5155 714/536-5241 May 22, 2019 Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture 111 Pacifica, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) 8041 ELLIS AVE., 92646 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Herbst: In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation. It should be noted this requirement list is in addition to any "conditions of approval' adopted by the Planning Commission. Please note that if the design of your project or if site conditions change, the list may also change based upon modifications to your project and the applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at Nicol lo/tube-@.9 rtii -bka.org or (714) 374-1529 and/or contact the respective source department (contact person listed below). Sincerely, 14?& . lioc, Nicolle Aube Associate Planner Enclosures c: Khoa Duong, Building Division—(714)989-0213 Steve Eros, Fire Department—(714)536-5531 Jan Thomas, Police Department—(949)290-1604 Steve Bogart, Public Works Department—(714)374-1692 Jane James, Planning Manager Project File 551 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: APRIL 24, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION N.O. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 1-8-001 DATE OF PLANS: APRIL 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, P.E TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 989-0213/khoa@csgengr.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION: *'`'`INCLUDES UPDATED PLANS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN*** REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE, AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed.project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which-must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval_ If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer, I. REQUIREMENT: 1. Development Impact Fees will be required for new construction and commercial/industrial additions. 2. Submit separate plans for all disciplines; Building 3 sets, MEP 2 sets each. 3. Landscape plan is a separate submittal for irrigation and plants only. No accessory structures or flat work will be reviewed on the landscape plans. 4. All site work for accessibility will be reviewed and inspected based on the approved architectural plans. 5. All accessory and minor accessory structures including site MEP will be on separate permits. 552 Page 2of4 II. CODE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PLANS & DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adopted by the city at the time of permit application submittal. Currently they are 2016 California Building Code (CBC), 2016 California Mechanical Code, 2016 California Plumbing Code, 2016 California Electrical Code, 2016 California Energy Code, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC). Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide all project implementation code requirements and conditions of approval on the approved building plans. 3. Provide building code analysis including type of construction, allowable area and height, occupancy group requirements, exterior wall ratings (per chapter 5 and 7), and means of egress per the 2016 CBC. 4. For mixed use and occupancy, please see-Sections 508 and 509 of CBC.for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. 5. For parking garages please see Section 406 of CBC for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. 6. Provide complete Site plan to show: • The setback between building and property line. • The length of projections from the exterior walls. • Each -Floor level, please show the setback between exterior walls (both above ground and underground structures) and property line. 7. Provide "Project Data"to show: • Type of building constructions • Occupancy groups • Building area for each type of occupancy within the building • Floor areas/building areas • Number of stories • Building with fire sprinkler system 8. Provide compliance to disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11A and/or 11 B of the 2016 CBC. Including an accessible path of travel to the public way. • Please indicate on Site plan the accessible paths of travel from public sidewalk to building entrances. • Show location of all curb ramps/truncated domes within the accessible paths of travel. • All areas/units must be accessible to disable persons. • Parking garage must be accessible to disable persons. • For van accessible parking stall(s), the unloading zone must be located on the passenger side. Please identify the location of Van accessible parking stall(s) on Floor plans. 9. Residential Unit— • Please review kitchen layout plans to comply with Section 1133A. • Please review bathroom layout plans to comply with Section 1134A. 553 Page 3 of 4 • Please check required light and ventilation for all residential units to comply with Section 1203 and 1205 of 2016 CBC. • Emergency escape and rescue must comply with Section 1029 of 2016 CBC. 10. Provide egress analysis. Please review the exit system serving all levels. • Show the occupant load-in each area/room/floor along with occupant load factors. • Identify on floor plans location of all fire rated corridors, stairway shafts, and extension of fire rated shafts. • All interior stairways shall be enclosed per Section 1022 of CBC. 11. For elevators please see Section 708.14 and Chapter 30 of CBC. • Elevator enclosures shall comply with Section 708. • Provide elevator lobby per Section 708.14. 12. Review and provide compliance with Title 17 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Building and Construction. This document can be found online on the city's website. 13. For projects that will include multiple licensed professions in multiple disciplines, i.e. Architect ,and professional engineers for specific disciplines, a Design Professional in Responsible Charge will be requested per the 2016 CBC, Section 107.3.4. 14. In addition to all of the code requirements of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, specifically address Construction Waste Management per Sections 4.408.2, 4.408.3, 4.408.4, 5A08.1.1, 5.408.1-.2, 5.408.1.3 and Building Maintenance and Operation, Section 5.410. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the permitee will be required to describe how they will comply with the sections described above. Prior to Building Final Approval, the city will require a Waste Diversion Report per Sections 4.408.5 and 5.408.1.4. 15. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, including Sections 4.106.4.1 for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction, and 5.106.5.3-Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging. 16.Trash enclosure will require a drain, vent and trap primer connected to the building sewer system. Rain water is not permitted in the building sewer so a cover will be required. III. COMMENTS: 1. Planning and Building Department encourage the use-of pre-submittal building plan check meetings. 2. Separate Building, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Permits will be required for all exterior accessory elements of the project, including but not limited to: fireplaces, fountains, sculptures, light poles, walls and fences over 42" high, retaining walls over 2' high, detached trellises/patio covers, gas piping, water service, backflow anti-siphon, electrical, meter pedestals/electrical panels, swimming pools, storage racks for industrial/commercial projects. It will be the design professional in charge, responsibility to coordinate and submit the documents for the work described above. 3. Provide on all plan submittals for building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits, the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements that are associated with the project through the entitlement process. If there is a WQMP, it is required to be attached to the plumbing plans for plan check. 4. Mandatory requirements for solar ready buildings; single-family residential, low-rise residential, hotel/ motel occupancies and high-rise multifamily buildings, all other nonresidential buildings, CALGREEN Section 110.10 554 Page 4 of 4 5. Provide on all plan submittals for building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits, the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements that are associated with the project through the entitlement process. If there is a WQMP, it is required to be attached to the plumbing plans for plan check. 6. Mandatory requirements for solar ready buildings; single-family residential, low-rise residential, hotel/ motel occupancies and high-rise multifamily buildings, all other nonresidential buildings, CALGREEN Section 110.10 555 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH H FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH- DATE: APRIL 23, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001 DATE OF PLANS: MARCH 7, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE EROS, FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5531 Steve.ErosAsurfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ***UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, LANDSCAPING, HYDROLOGY, WQMP, TRAFFIC STUDY, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND GRADING*** REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, -LIQUOR STORE, AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above_. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Overall note: The project has proposed a conceptual Alternate Means & Methods (AM&M) strategy to satisfy the exterior hose pull distance requirements. The AM&M has been reviewed and approved by the HBFD. The AM&M will not be formally approved and accepted until the project has received their entitlements. 556 Page 2 of 12 1. Fire Master Plan The Fire Master Plan shall be completed and approved prior to precise grading plan or building plan approval. A separate Fire Master Plan is required for submittal to the HBFD. It shall be a site plan reflecting all the following fire department related items: ➢ Fire hydrant locations, public and private. ➢ FDC locations. ➢ Dimensions from FDC's to hydrants. ➢ DCDA locations. ➢ Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving. ➢ FACP locations. ➢ Knox box and Knox switch locations. ➢ Gate locations, and Opticoms if required. ➢ Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and circles/cul- de-sacs. ➢ Fire lane signage and striping. (Option 1, 2, or 3 per City Spec. #415) ➢ Property dimensions or accurate scale. ➢ Building locations and heights. ➢ Building addresses and suite addresses. (FD) -2. Environmental The following items shall be completed prior to rough or precise grading plan approval. Environmental Methane Mitigation Requirements Due to the proposed location of construction, soil gas testing for methane gas is required. A methane sample plan shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval, prior to the commencement of sampling. 557 Page 3 of 12 (Methane Mitigation Requirements cont.) If methane gas is discovered in the soil, the following City Specification would be applicable and the grading, building, and methane plans must reference that a sub-slab methane barrier and vent system will be installed per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements prior to plan approval. Additional methane mitigation measures may be required by the fire department. Methane safety measures per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements shall be detailed on a separate sheet titled "METHANE PLAN" and two copies submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. (FD) City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards testing is required. Based on site characteristics, suspected soil contamination, proximity to a prod ucinglabandoned oil well, or Phase i, II, or III Site Audit, soil testing conforming to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards is required. All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building plans shall reference that "All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards" in the plan notes. Prior to the issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the following is required to demonstrate compliance with City Specifications#429 and # 431-92: 1) Soil Sampling Work Plan: Render the services of a qualified environmental consultant to prepare and submit a soil sampling work plan to the HBFD for review and approval. Once the HBFD reviews and approves the submitted work plan, the sampling may commence. Note:Soil shall not be exported to other City of Huntington Beach locations without first being demonstrated to comply with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean Up Standards. Also, any soil proposed far import to the site shall first be demonstrated to comply with City Specification #431- 92. 2) Soil Sampling Lab Results: Conduct the soil sampling in accordance with the HBFD approved work plan. After the sampling is conducted, the lab results (along with the Environmental Consultants summary report) for methane and #431-92 testing shall be submitted to the HBFD for review. 3) Remediation Action Plan: If contamination is identified, provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification #431-92, Soil Cleanup Standard. All soils shall conform to City Specification #431- 92 Soil Clean-Up Standards prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. (FD) Discovery of soil contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and an approved remedial work plan submitted. (FD) 558 Page 4 of 12 Remediation Action Plan. if soil contamination is identified, the applicant must provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification #431-92, Soil Cleanup Standard. Upon remediation action plan approval, a rough grading permit may be issued. (FD) Imported Soil Plan. All imported soil shall meet City Specification #431-92, Sal Cleanup Standards. An "Imported Soil Work Plan" must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to importing any soil from off site. Once approved, the soil source can be sampled per the approved work plan, then results sent to the HBFD for review. No rough grade will be approved prior to the actual soil source approval. Multiple soil sources requ►red separate sampling as_per the approved work plan, with no soil being imported until each source has been verified to meet the CS #431-92 requirements. (FD) 3. Fire Apparatus Access The following items shall be completed prior to rough or precise grading plan approval. Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification#401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. Driving area shall be capable of supporting a fire apparatus (75,000 lbs and 12,000 lb point load). Minimum fire access road width is twenty-four feet (24') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance. Fire access roads fronting commercial buildings shall be a minimum width of twenty-six feet (26') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the.plans. (FD) This review adequately addresses the following HBFD comments: • Information on the `bulb' in the center of the proposed department access road turnaround. • Initially proposed arch at the vehicle entry to the site is not present. ,Maximum Grade For.Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not exceed 10%. (FD) This review adequately addresses the following HBFD comments: • Ramp to the subterranean parking area is not intended to be part of the fire department access lane. Continued next page 559 Page 5 of 12 Hose Pull Lengths --The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of Section 503.1.1 of the Huntington Beach Fire Code. All access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or-facility- NOTE: The north side of the building exceeds the 150-foot hose pull requirement required in Section 503.1.1. The applicant has submitted a conceptual Alternate Materials & Methods proposal that has been accepted by the HBFD. The following alternates will be added for this project. • An addition standpipe hose connection on the north side of the building. • Graphic Annunciator • All in-unit smoke alarms will be upgraded to smoke detectors that are tied into the fire alarm system. • An upgraded sprinkler system to provide an increased sprinkler density. No Parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification # 415 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) Fire Lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both-in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification # 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) Continued next page Emergency Escape and Rescue openings shall be required per CBC and CFC Section 1029. Demonstrate compliance with these code sections on the plans. 560 Page 6 of 12 This review adequately addresses the following HBFD comments: • Ground ladder access to Emergency Escape and Rescue openings on the west side of the building Remaining-Note not Addressed: • Ground ladder access compliant with the dimensions and angles found at the following link needs to demonstrated for the following units. This area of the building is adjacent to the sloped vehicle ramp serving the subterranean parking area and may present challenges to meet the specified dimensions and angles. • Units 2E, 2F, 2G, 3F, 3G & 3H. • Link: Details on these requirements can be found on in Attachment 5, on page 65 of the following link: https://www,ocfa.org/Uploads/CommunityRiskReduction/OCFA Guide- E04-Architectural Review.pdf 4. Fire Suppression Systems The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and-located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification #424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) Fire Alarm System is required. A building fire alarm system is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with CFC Chapter 9 and NFPA 72 on the plans. A C-10 electrical contractor, certified in fire alarm-systems,.must certify the system is operational annually. (FD) Continued next page Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required. NFPA13 Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per Huntington Beach Fire Code for new buildings with "fire areas" 5000 561 Page 7of12 square feet or more or for buildings 10,000 square feet or more. An addition of square footage to an existing building also triggers this requirement. Separate plans (two sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval. Automatic fire sprinkler systems must be maintained operational at all times, with maintenance inspections performed quarterly and the system serviced every five years by a state licensed C-16 Fire Protection Contractor. For Fire Department approval, reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with the California Fire Code, NFPA 13, and City Specification #420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the plan notes. NOTE: When buildings under construction are more than one (1) story in height and required to have automatic fire sprinklers, the fire sprinkler system shall be installed and operational to protect all floors lower than the floor currently under construction. Fire sprinkler systems for the current floor under construction shall be installed, in-service, inspected and approved prior to beginning construction on the next floor above. Exception: Buildings entirely of Type 1 or Type 2 construction. (FD) Fire Department Connections (FDQ to the automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be located to the front of the building, at least 10 feet from and no farther than 100 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant. (FD) Class 1 Standpipes (2 Y2" NFH connections) are required at each stairway. The standpipe system in stairwells cannot protrude into, impede, or compromise the CBC "Exit Width" requirements. For FireDepartment approval, reference and portray Class 1 standpipes at each stairway in the plan notes. (FD) Smoke alarms and Carbon Monoxide alarms are required per CBC and CFC Sections 907.2.11 and 915, respectively. 5. Fire Hydrants and Water Systems The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fire Hydrants are required. Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrant and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2016 Edition, California Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification#407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. Plans shall be submitted to Public Works and approved by the Public Works and Fire Departments for connection to street main and DCDA. For Fire Department (Fire Hydrants cont.) 562 Page 8 of 22 approval of all piping downstream of the DCDA and the private hydrant, submit a separate plan to the HBFD reflecting the fire hydrant location and meeting all requirements of the 2016 CFC, NFPA 13 and 24, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards. Reference this in the plan notes. (FD) Private Fire Hydrants are required. City Specification#407 requires an onsite Fire Hydrants when portions of the building are further than 150 feet from an approved fire apparatus access road. Fire Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2016 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and-City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Private fire hydrants shall not be pressurized by Fire Department Connections to the sprinkler system. The system design shall ensure that recirculation of pressurized water from the hydrant, thru the FDC and back through the sprinkler system supply to the hydrant does not occur. Installation of the private fire service main, including fire department connections, shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2016 Edition requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. The maintenance of private fire hydrants is the responsibility of the owner or facility association. Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. For Fire Department approval, portray the fire hydrants and reference compliance with City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards in the plan notes. (FD) Private Fire Service Connection to the Public Water Supply- Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing the connection, piping, valves and back-flow prevention assembly (DDCA) for approval and permits. Approval by Public Works and the Fire Department must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. The dedicated private fire water service off-site improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. (FD) 6. Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOX@ Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates &-Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification #403 - KNOX@ Fire Department Access-in the building plan notes. (FD) Roof Access is required. At least one stair-shall extend to the roof from grade level and have an exterior door available for fire fighter access. (FD) Exterior doors and openings required by the CBC or CFC (see CFC Section 504.1 and 504.2) shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided. (FD) 563 Page 9 of 12 Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX& Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum interior dimensions are 7 feet (84") wide by 4 feet 3 inches (51") deep. Minimum door opening dimensions are 3 feet 6 inches (42")wide right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 4 feet 6 inches (5.4") width. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance on the building plans. (FD) 7. Addressing and Street Names The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Structure or Building Address Assignments. The Planning Department shall review and make address assignments. The individual dwelling units shall be identified with numbers per City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process in the plan notes. (FD)- Residential(SFD) Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428, Premise Identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high with one and one half inch (Y2") brush stroke.. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #428, Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray-the address location on the building. (FD) Individual Units Addresses. Individual units shall be identified and numbered per City Specification#409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process through the Planning Department. Unit address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches (4") affixed to the units front door in a contrasting color. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, in the plan notes and portray the address and unit number of the individual occupancy area. (FD) 8. GIS Mapping Information The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements. Minimum submittals shall include the following: 564 Page 10 of 12 ➢ Site plot plan showing the building footprint. ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs. ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any. ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access. ➢ Street name and address. Final site plot plan shall be submitted in the following digital format and shall include the following: ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD rom to the Fire Department. ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ➢ File format shall.be in .shp, AutoCAD, AUTOCAD MAP (latest possible release ) drawing file - .DWG (preferred) or Drawing Interchange File - .DXF. ➢ Data should be in NAD83 State Plane, Zone 6, Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet. In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen colors, and layering convention. and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification # 409— Street Naming and Addressing. For specific GIS technical requirements, contact the Huntington Beach GIS Department at (714) 536-5574. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes. (FD) 9. Building Construction, Fire Safety and Egress Components The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Setback and Exterior Fire-Resistance Rating requirements are reflected in CA Building Code Tables 601 and 602. (FD) -Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is required throughout all-portions of the structure(s) as per Chapter 5 of the CFC. A separate plan must be submitted to the HBFD for method of addressing this requirement. System must be tested, certified and then inspected once building construction is primarily complete but before the certificate of occupancy will be issued. (FD) Stairwell Required Minimum Widths. Standpipe systems in stairwell areas shall not impede code required minimum widths. (FD) 565 Page 11 of 12 Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Gates and Barriers shall be able to open without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Gates and barriers in a means of egress shall not be locked, chained, bolted, barred, latched or otherwise rendered unable to open at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied, and shall swing in the direction of travel when required by the Building Code for exit doors. (FD) Posting Of Room Occupancy is required. Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for assembly purposes, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit per CFC Chapter 10. (FD) Egress Illumination/Emergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power is required. Provide means of egress illumination as required by the CBC and CFC.(FD) Recreational or Decorative Fire Pits shall be fueled by domestic gas only and shall comply with the Huntington Beach Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and Huntington Beach Fire Department Guidelines for Recreational Fire Pits. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION: a. HBFD approval must be obtained before lumber or other combustible building materials are brought onsite. The project will be required to demonstrate onsite roadways comply with fire access road requirements including all weather paving and load bearing performance, as well as hose pull distance. Water supply for fire suppression operations, namely fire hydrants, shall also be operable and demonstrate compliance. (FD) b. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with CFC Chapter 33, Fire Safety during Construction and Demolition. (FD) OTHER: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines-, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) b. Outside City Consultants: The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council 566 Page 12 0£12 approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) C. HBFD review and approval associated with any healthcare licensing processes must be completed before building occupancy. (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 511'floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at http://www.hunt!ngtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/Fire/fire prevention code enforce ment/fire dept city specifications.cfm If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at (714) 536-5411. 567 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT CPTED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: MARCH 28,2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APP#: 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CUP#17-042 DATE OF PLANS: MARCH 7, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVE. (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVE., EAST OF BEACH BLVD.) ASSIGNED PLANNER: JESSICA BUI,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: JAN THOMAS, CPTED CONSULTANT-HBPD TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (949) 290-1604/icktliomasg.cox.net PROJECT DESCRIPTION: *Updated architectural plans, landscaping, hydrology, WQMP, tentative tract map, and grading. To demolish a single family residence, liquor store, and a portion of an existing carwash to construct a four-story 48-unit condominium development with 891 SF of ground floor commercial and three levels of subterranean parking on a 0.955 acre site. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements,which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any,will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. No further concerns. December 23, 2019 comments: No concerns regarding revised plans. 568 Access control doors were added to the first floor residential hallway, as requested at our meeting with the developer. A cony of past comments is included below for reference: ENTRANCE Use enhanced paving at the driveway entrance to the project. WINDOW TO FRONT OF RESIDENCE Ideally, give each resident an opportunity to personalize,to a limited extent,the exterior of their unit. Each unit shows a kitchen facing the exterior walkway. Consider a design to incorporate a shelfing or display area in each kitchen window to allow each resident to personalize(take ownership)over the outward appearance of their individual unit. RADIO TRANSNIISSION Ensure radio transmission works in this three-level subterranean parking. Public Safety radios might not transmit well in the lower levels.It is imperative that an effective antenna be installed so that emergency personnel can receive and transmit in the parking structure. Install a system conducive to public safety radio transmission. Contact Orange County Communications at(714) 704-7919 for specifics, if there are questions. POLICE ACCESS Concern: Is there a Knox-Box?Police must have access. Recommend: If there is a Knox-Box on the property, install a"duel"Knox-Box to ensure police officers, as well as firefighters, have access to the property. SURVEILLANCE Install surveillance cameras throughout the property and parking areas. Include elevators, stairwells, storage, courtyard, entrances and exits. 569 Concern: Is this access-controlled parking? How will guest parking he regulated?Guest parking is shown in the parking structure. Is there controlled access into the structure? If so, how do the guests park in the structure? It is recommended that 24n security personnel, as well as surveillance cameras(recorded)be positioned in the parking area,as well as in and around the property. Concern: Private storage area in the parking area should be equipped with a motion sensor light inside. Ideally,the door leading to the storage should contain a security window so residents can see into the storage area before entering. Panic hardware is recommended to be used inside the door. Storage door is shown to swing inward. Advise that the door swing outward,and equipped with emergency hardware, in case someone in the storage room needs to exit quickly to avoid a potential assault, etc. Concern: Lighting in parking area should be concentrated between the vehicles. Since most parking garage crime occurs between the vehicles, this area is especially important to light well. PRIVATE PATIO AND ROOF DECK: The roof deck will be used by residents from other units, as well as the residents who actually own a patio deck on that roof. There is a potential conflict between public(residents)use of the roof deck, and the semi-private patios owned by the residents that share that roof deck. This topic should be explored. For example,post roof deck hours. Even posting hours may not avoid a conflict of use in this area. 570 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: MAY 22, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 1 B-001 DATE OF PLANS: APRIL 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE(NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BE,4CH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692 /SBOGART(aSURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ''UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, LANDSCAPING, HYDROLOGY, WQMP, TRAFFIC STUDY, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND GRADING... REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE,AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY,48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code(HBMC),Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book),the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. 571 9041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 2 of 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. BONDING MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT: 1. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Tract Map. (ZSO 230.84A & 253.10K) a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 2. A Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary . drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analyses shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (ZSO 230.84) The study shall also justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements and City Standard Plan No. 300. (ZSO 255,04) 3. Confirmation from the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD), to accept the-discharge from the new development into the existing OCSD sewer, shall be obtained. A copy shall be provided to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. 4. A qualified, Licensed Engineer- shall prepare a detailed soils and geotechnical analysis. This analysis shall provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, foundations, landscaping, dewatering, ground water, retaining walls, pavement sections and utilities. (ZSO 251.06 &253,12) 5. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The study shall include, but not limited to, analysis of site access from Ellis Avenue. Site access shall be limited to right-turn in/right-turn out only. 6. The grading and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255.16C & f�rAC 17.06) 7. A Homeowners'Associations) (HOA)shall be formed and described in the CC&R's to manage the following for the total project area: a. Best Management Practices (BMP's as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). 8. A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. 572 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rgmts 4-25-19) Page 3 of 9 9. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: a. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. 10. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: a. Design Specification: i. Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ii. Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits). iii. Digital data shall have units in US FEET. iv. A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. V. Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. vi. Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. b. File Format and Media Specification: vii. Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats (AutoCAD DWG format preferred): • AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4) drawing file: _.DWG • Drawing Interchange file: DXF viii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: CD Recordable (CD-R) 650 Megabytes 11.All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney, if it is desired to record the final map or obtain building permits before completion of the required improvements. 12.A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 13. If the Final Tract.map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement and accompanying bonds may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) 14.All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Fees shall be calculated based on the currently approved rate at the time of payment unless otherwise stated. (ZSO 250.16) 15.A drainage fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of $14,497 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments. This project consists of 1.045 gross acres (including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages) for a total required drainage fee of$15,149, City records indicate the previous use on 573 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 4 of 9 this property never paid this required fee. Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one-time fee shall be paid for all subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1. A Legal Description and Plat of the dedications to City to be prepared by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The dedication shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (ZSO 230.084A) a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 3. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05fZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ellis Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207. (ZSO 230.84) b. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84) c. The existing driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter-, and sidewalk per Public Works Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207. (ZSO 230,84) d. Frontage improvements along Ellis Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to City standard cedes, specifications, and the required street configuration and specifications of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, Town Center Neighborhood segment. The required frontage improvements shall include new curb, gutter, sidewalk, parkway landscaping and irrigation, street pavement, street trees, street lighting, benches and trash receptacles. (BECSP, ZSO 230-84.D). e. New street lights shall be constructed pursuant to City Standard codes and specifications, and the required street configuration and-specifications of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. (BECSP, ZSO 230-84,D). f, A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in Ellis Avenue. if the new sewer lateral is not constructed at the same location as the existing lateral, then the existing lateral -shall-be severed-and capped at the main or chimney. (ZSO 230.84) g. Any existing on-site public water pipeline (including removal of water appurtenances) impacted by the proposed structures, curbs, planters, parking facilities-, trees, walls, etc. shall be abandoned per Water Division Standards. (State of California Administrative Code; Title 17) h. Two (2) new domestic water master meters, one for the residential component and a second for the commercial portion, shall be installed per Water Division Standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC) i. Where a separate use (i.e. retail) is placed on the same parcel of property as the residential portion and the retail is conducting a separately established business, separate water services 574 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 5 of 9 and meters shall be installed per Water Division Standards and sized to meet the minimum requirements-set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). j. The existing domestic water service currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Water Inspector. If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service, any non-conforming water service, meter, and backflow protection device shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. k. A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 232) (MC 14.52) 1. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for domestic, irrigation and fire water services, and shall be screened from view. (Resolution 5921 and State of California Administrative Code, Title 17) m. The existing domestic water service and meter,if not being used, shall be abandoned per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) n. The fire sprinkler system that is required by the Fire Department for the proposed development shall have a separate dedicated fire service line installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) o. Any on-site fire hydrants that are required by the Fire Department to serve the proposed development shall become private fire hydrants that are served by private fire water services. These private fire water services shall be separated from the public water mains in Ellis Avenue by construction of a double check detector assembly. The double check detector assembly shall be constructed per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 618, and shall be sized to provide adequate fire flow protection for the private on-site fire hydrant(s). The double check detector assembly shall be located within landscape planter area or other area and screened from view by landscaping or other method as approved by the Department of Public Works, The on-going maintenance of this private fire water service and private fire hydrants shall be the responsibility of the development owner(s). (Resolution 5921, State of California Administrative Code, Title 17) 4. The developer shall submit for approval by the Fire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water analysis to ensure that fire service connection from the point of connection to City water main to the backflow protection device satisfies Water Division standard requirements. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (BECSP), the developer shall be required to mitigate the impacts to the public sanitary sewer system resulting from the increase in flow anticipated by this project,as a result of the allowed increase in development density. Payment of an in lieu fee allows the City to implement system-wide public sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements. The amount of this in-lieu fee is $296,000, which represents a proportional fair share-payment to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the City's public sanitary sewer system. (BECSP Mitigation Measure 4.14-2) 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land,the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) [General Construction Permit] by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State of California Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National 575 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqints 4-25-19) Page 6 of 9 Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City. (DAMP) 7. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the Cou-nty of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030) [MS4 Permit] prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address Section XII of the MS4 Permit and all current surface water quality issues. 8. The project WQMP shall include the following: a. Low Impact Development. b. Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable). c. Addresses Site Design BMPs(as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. d. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. (DAMP) e. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. f. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. g. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. I. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. j. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance. After acceptance, two copies of the final repot shall be returned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: i. The 11" by 17" Site Plan in .TIFF format (400 by 400 dpi minimum). ii. The remainder of the complete WQMP in.PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner's certification sheet, Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility -sheet, appendices, attachments and all educational material. k. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file. 9. Indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP. The WQMP shall follow the City of Huntington Beach; Project Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2008. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 10. A suitable location, as approved by the City, shall be depicted on the grading plan for the necessary trash enclosure(s). The area shall be paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run- on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, and screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. The trash enclosure 576 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 7 of 9 area shall be covered or roofed with a solid, impervious material. Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited. If feasible, the trash enclosure area shall be connected into the sanitary sewer. (DAMP) 11. A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site.soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide .detailed recommendations for grading, over excavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (MC 17.05,150) 12. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (AQMD Rule 403) 13. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. 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. 14. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 15. An Encroachment Permit from the City Depart of Public Works is required for all work within City's right-of-way. 16. The developer shall-.coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05,210) 17. 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. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Wind Erosion WE-1) 18, All haul trucks shall arrive at the-site no earlier than 8:00 a-m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shalt be limited to Monday through Friday only. (MC 17.05) 19. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-1/MC 17.05) 20. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1) (DAMP) 21. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (DAMP) 577 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rgmts 4-25-19) Page 8 of 9 22. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (DAMP) 23. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (AQMD Rule 403) 24. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (DAIAP) 25. All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. (DAMP) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 26. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. (MC 17.05) 27. The applicable Orange County Sanitation District Capital Facility Capacity Charge shall be paid to the City Department of Public Works. (Ordinance OCSD-40) THE FOLLOWING-DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 28. Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a- Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 29. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 30. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) 31. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the city web site at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/public works/fee schedule.pdf. (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) 32. Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) for the proposed-project shall be paid prior to:building permit issuance for retail use and prior to final occupancy for the residential use. The current rate for residential condominium use is $1,364.01/unit, and for retail use is $4,175.67. The rates are subject to annual fee adjustments. (MC 17.65) 33. Prior to grading or building permit7 close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the applicant-shall: a. Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. b. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed. 578 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 9 of 9 c. Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. d. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN: 34. The finished floor elevations indicated on the Conceptual Grading Plan are lower than the surrounding landscape planter areas and landscape swale at the northerly portion of the site. As a prudent design the swale flowline elevations should be lower than finished floor elevations to allow positive drainage away from the building foundations. 35. Section C-C shall include a cross section of the proposed underground detention basin,, including width and depth dimensions and distance from the new public right-of-way line. The proposed underground detention basin shall be located a minimum distance of 10 feet from the new public right-of-way line. 36. Section D-D indicates a swale flowline lower than the new finished floor elevation. However-, the plan view above shows spot elevations of a swale (and area drain) higher than the new finished floor. 37. Section D-D indicates building setback dimension of 11 feet from the northerly property line, whereas the plan view above shows a setback dimension of 15 feet. 579 H61B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: MAY 22, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001 DATE OF PLANS: APRIL 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/ SBOGART(a?SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ***UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, LANDSCAPING, HYDROLOGY, WQMP, TRAFFIC STUDY, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND GRADING*** REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE,AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT -CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated March 7, 2019 shall be the conditionally approved layout, including the following: a. The existing 6-foot easement(along the subject site's westerly property line)for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. 580 8041 Ellis Avenue—PW Suggested Conditions of Approval(4/25/19) Page 2 of 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 1. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting,furniture, and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public right of way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. 2. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project's Ellis Avenue frontage shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE)aerial distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If required, easements shall be quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies. 581 i �1 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: May 21, 2019 PROJECT NAME: Ellis Avenue Condos PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2017-205 ENTITLEMENTS: Conditional Use Permit No.17-042 Environmental Assessment No. 18-001 Tentative Tract Map No. 18-004 DATE OF PLANS: April 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (north side of Ellis Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard) PLAN REVIEWER: Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-1529/Nicolle.Aube@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE, AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided should final project approval be received. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230.14 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. (HBZSO Section 230.14) a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners'Association.The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO Section 253.12.1-1) 582 Page 2 of b. Final tract map review fees shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (HBZSO Section 254.16) 3. A minimum of 14 days prior to submittal for building permits, an application for address assignment, along with the corresponding application processing fee and applicable plans (as specified. in the address assignment application form), shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (City Specification No. 409) 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. (HBZSO Section 253.22) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Community Development Department pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Fee Schedule) 6. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code including the Noise Ordinance shall be adhered to. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday — Saturday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 7. The Departments of Comm unity.Development, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Community Development Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in-writing if any changes to the tract map are proposed during the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Community Development 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 may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 241.10) 8. Tentative Tract No. 18147 shall not become effective until the ten (10) calendar day appeal period has elapsed from Planning Commission action. (HBZSO Section 251.12) 9. Tentative Tract Map No. 18147 and Conditional Use Permit No. 16-031 shall become null and void unless exercised within two(2)years of the date of final approval.An-extension of time may be granted by the Director of Community Development pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 251.14 and 251.16) 10.The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter, Article V) 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 12.The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $2,280.75 for the posting of a Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Community Development Department within two (2)days of the Planning Commission's action. (California Code Section 15094) 583 Page 3 of 5 13. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas,check with Community Development Department and Public Works for code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator. (HBZSO Section 232.04) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design: a. Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 23, California Administrative Code. (HBZSO Chapter 231) b. The site plan shall include all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (HBZSO Section 230.76) c. The site plan and elevations shall include the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. (HBZSO Section 230.76) d. All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed- so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a-time-clock or photo-sensor system. (HBZSO 231.18.C) e. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 231.20—Bicycle Parking. (HBZSO Section 231.20)- 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A-Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04) b. "Smart irrigation controllers"and/or_other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 232.04.13) c. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (HBZSO Chapter.232) d. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232.04.BECSP 2.6.9) e. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (HBZSO Section 232.06.A) 584 Page 4 of 5 f. A Consulting Arborist (approved by the City'Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees. Said Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution No. 4545) 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A minimum of 14 days prior to submittal for building permits,an application for address assignment, along with the corresponding application processing fee and applicable plans (as specified in the address assignment application form), shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (City Specification No. 409) 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan fee shall be paid. (Resolution No. 2010-80) b. All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, except for mobile home parks, shall pay a park fee, pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.20—Payment of Park Fee. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution. (City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Fee Schedule) 5. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 6. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Community-Development Department. (HBMC 17.04.036) b. Signage shall be reviewed and approved under separate permits. (HBZSO Chapter 233) c. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. (HBMC 17.05) d. All trees shall be maintained or planted in accordance to the requirements of Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan No. 14. (HBZSO Chapter 232) e. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (HBZSO Section 232.04.D) f. The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMC 14.52) 585 Page 5of5 7. The use shall comply with the following: a. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pick-up, shall be subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit. (HBZSO Section 230.74) 8. The Development Services Departments (Community Development, Fire, Police, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Community Development Director's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Director of Community Development may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. (HBZSO Section 241.18) 9. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final approval, or as modified by condition of approval.An extension of time may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 241.16.A) 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 shall not become effective until the appeal period following the approval of the entitlement has elapsed. ((HBZSO Section 241.14) 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (HBZSO Section 241.16.13) 12.The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Community Development Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter,ArticleV) 13. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 14. The applicant shall submit checks in the amount of$50 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The checks shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Community Development Department within two (2) days of the Community Development Director's approval of entitlements. (California Code Section 15094) 15.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Community Development and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) 16.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Community Development Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. (HBZSO Chapter 233 586 City of Huntington Beach fi• �t>3yf # � aV File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director BY: Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) REQUEST: To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project exempt from CEQA. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92882 BUSINESS OWNER: N/A STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's adopted land use regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powereW LegistarTI File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 Corridors Specific Plan)? 2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission take the following action: A) Consider the suggested findings for denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 as directed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2019. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Background: On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the project proposal to consolidate three parcels for a one-lot condominium map and development of a 48 unit mixed-use project as described in the May 28, 2019 staff report (Attachment No. 2). The requested permits to allow such development included 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered public testimony, deliberated on the project and expressed concerns related to the required findings, and directed staff to return with suggested findings for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2019 (Attachment No. 1). Tentative Tract Map: Per Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 251.08(F), the Planning Commission shall deny approval of a tentative subdivision map if it determines that approval will result in any of the conditions as described in Government Code Section 66474. The conditions described in Government Code Section 66474 are as follows: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement are likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed concerns relating to conditions (b), (c), and (d) listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission expressed concerns that approval of the project would result in the following conditions for the reasons specified: City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powere5$4 LegistarTM File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 • Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. • Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. • Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project does not further the following General Plan and BECSP goals and policies: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC - 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 power LegistarT" File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two- story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. Per Section 251.08(F) of the HBZSO if the Planning Commission determines that any of the conditions listed in Government Code Section 66474 (and listed in this staff report for reference) would result as a consequence of approval of the project, the Planning Commission shall deny approval of the tentative subdivision map. These findings are reflected in Attachment No. 1. Conditional Use Permit: Per HBZSO Section 241.10, related to required findings for conditional use permits and variances, subsection C requires the Planning Commission to deny a conditional use permit if it cannot make all of the required findings under subsection A, which are as follows: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powere5q LegistarTM File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. 3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed concerns relating to finding 3 listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission expressed concerns that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. Per Section 241.10, subsection C of the HBZSO, if the Planning Commission cannot make all of the required findings under subsection A (listed in this staff report for reference) the Planning Commission is required to deny the conditional use permit. These findings are reflected in Attachment No. 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157 and CUP No. 17-042 2. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powere595l LegistarT" SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The Planning Commission finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. 592 Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC— 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U- Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. 593 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The Planning Commission finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property 594 ! e : e Bd un i n Beach Planning Commission 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION June 12, 2019 Jeff Herbst MCG Architecture 111 Pacifica, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 181571CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92882 REQUEST: To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project exempt from CEQA. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) DATE OF ACTION: June 11, 2019 On Tuesday, June 11, 2019, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of Two Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars ($2,353.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy-Eight Dollars ($3,778.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is Friday, June 21, 2019, at 5:00 PM. Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org Notice of Action:TTM 18157 and CUP 17-042 June 11,2019 Page 2 Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Govemment Code §66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Nicolle Aube, the project planner, at (714) 374-1529 or via email at nicolle.aube@surfcity-hb.org, or the Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Secretary Planning Commission By: r llt .Lt°, . ' �r... . Jar�� Jamey Planning Manager ULR:JJ:NA:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial —TTM 18157 and CUP 17-042 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Dave Kiff, City Manager Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Dave McBride, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Mike Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Eric Haghani, Building Manager Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File 596 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The Planning Commission finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-IQ Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. G:\PCINOA119\061119 TTM 18157_CUP 17-042 (Ellis Condos) Attachment 1.1 597 Policy LU-2B: Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context-sensitive, creative, complementary of the city's beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Policy LU-12B: Encourage renovation and revitalization of deteriorating and struggling nonresidential areas and corridors, particularly commercial locations. Circulation Element Goal C1RC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-1F. Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC — 1 G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one- story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. GAPMNOXM061119 TfM 18157_CUP 17-042 (Ellis Condos) Attachment 1.2 598 The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The Planning Commission finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property G:\PC\NOA\19\061119 TTM 18157_CUP 17-042 (Ellis Condos) Attachment 1.3 599 Ulty of Huntington Beach - m 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 0 www.huntingtonbeachea.gov r FFB 77 1904 P�� � Office ®f the City Clerk o Robin Estanislau, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COIM AUSSION ACTION ON JUNE 11,2019 TO: Project Planner Community Development Director DATE: ^June 20,2019 City Attorney City Manager City Council Public Works Director FILED BY: THDT Investment, Inc. Tahir Salim 1307 West 6"' Street, Ste. 202 Corona CA 92882 (951) 893-1900 REGARDING: Appeal of Action taken by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2019 to Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157; Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042. Copy of Appeal Letter attached. t&4V11'&0 Robin Estanislau, City Clerk X5227 Fee Collected: $3,778.00 Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan Waitakere, New Zealand 600 Before the City of Huntington Beach City Council In re: ) Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 ) Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 ) Notice of Appeal $3,778 Filing Fee Project: Ellis Avenue Condominiums ) Project Location: 80.41 Ellis Avenue ) Appeal from Action of the Planning Commision Denying Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Submitted to: City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: (714) 536-5227 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Appellant: THDT Investment, Inc. N 0 Attn: Tahir Salim 1307 West 6th Street Suite 202 Corona, CA 92882 : . . 951-893-1900 - ° A After June 30, 2019: 4740 Green River Road Suite 304 Corona, CA 92880 Appeal fi in Denial Action of the 00,of Hwilington Beach Planting Commission-2019-06-12 Page I of 5 601 Introduction THDT Investment, Inc. (the "Applicant"), appeals from the action of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission (the "PIanning Commission"), denying Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (the "Denial Action"). The Denial Action occurred at the Planning Commission's Regular Meeting, held on June 11, 2019. Applicable Rules This appeal is governed, in significant part, by the Zoning and Subdivision Code of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Zoning Cade"). The Zoning Code, in pertinent part provides as follows: A. Timing. "The time for appeal from a decision by ... the Planning Commission shall be filed within 10 calendar days after the date of the decision." Section 248.16. B. City Council to Hear Appeal. "The City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. The decision of the City Council is final ...." Section 248.18. C. Notice of Appeal. "A person desiring to appeal a decision shall file a written notice of appeal ...; an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision shall be filed with the City Cleric." Section 248.20A. D. Form of Notice. "The notice of appeal shall contain the name and address of the person appealing the action, the decision appealed fi•om and the grounds for the appeal." Section 248.20B. E. Action by City Clerk on Appeal. "The ... City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the reviewing body and shall give notice of the hearing on the appeal in the time and manner set forth in Sections 248.02 and 248.04."Section 248.20C. F. City Council Review. "The reviewing body shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The original applicant has the burden of proof. The reviewing body may act upon the application, either granting it, conditionally granting it or denying it, irrespective of the precise grounds or scope of the appeal. In addition to considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the reviewing body shall consider-all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken." Section 248.20D. "The reviewing body may reverse or affirni in whole or in part, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination that is being appealed." Section 248.20E. Statement of the Matter 1. On or about March 7, 2019, the Applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 associated with a request Appeal fi•an Denial Action of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission-2019-06-12 Page 2 of S 602 to demolish a liquor store and construct a 4-story mixed use development (48 condominium units and 891 sf of retail space) with three levels of subterranean parking on a 0.955 acre site (the "Project"). 2. Prior to submitting its application, the Applicant devoted substantial time, effort, thought and expense in acquiring the subject property and developing the Project as proposed. After receiving the initial comments based on the entitlement submittal on November 1, 2017, the applicant and their consultants began extensive correspondence back and forth with planning staff to obtain compliance with the Beach Edinger Specific Plan. The applicant met hi person with city staff on at least four separate occasions, again to further align the project with the specific plan. The entitlement exhibits were submitted and subsequently reviewed by city staff a minimum of five separate occasions. All of the documents were scrutinized by planning staff and thus providing the applicant with a draft list of conditions on May 22, 2019 stating that planning staff felt the project was in compliance with the Beach Edinger Specific Plan (BECSP). Further stating that the proposed mixed use development "will be compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP". The conditions also stated "the project will result in less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences". 3. On or about March 7, 2019, various divisions of the City of Huntington Beach issued Project Implementation Code Requirements and conditions for approval in connection with the Project, including the Fire Department Fire Prevention staff, the Public Works Department,the Planning and Building Department, and the Police Department. 4. On or about April 1, 2019, City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development issued a Notice of Filing Status, indicating that the Applicant's application was complete, accepted for processing, and scheduled for review with the Planning Commission. The Notice listed a number of items to resolve in advance of the public hearing. 5. On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission considered the Project at its regularly scheduled hearing, pursuant to notice. At the hearing, the conunissioners discussed the Project, and a few of the commissioners began to express a general sentiment that, although the Project fully complied with the code requirements, the Project seemed unacceptable. The commissioners struggled to articulate the bases for their views and asked the Planning Department staff to provide bases for denial of the Project. The Planning Department staff reminded the commissioners that it was thew responsibility to articulate the bases for denial of the Project, whereupon the commissioners began to endeavor to articulate bases for denial. The commissioners thereupon asked the Planning Department staff to compile the bases as articulated by the commissioners as suggested findings for denial of the Project at the hearing on June 11, 2019. 6. At the regularly scheduled hearing of the Planning Commission on June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission considered the suggested findings for denial. A representative of the Applicant was permitted to speak and expressed the Applicant's view that substantial money, Appeal fi onr Denial Action of the Cit.),of Huntington Beach Planning Commission-2019-06-12 Page 3 of 5 603 a effort, time and thought went into developing a Project that fully complied with all requirements of the Zoning Code only to have the Project rejected at the final hearing stage on the basis of considerations expressed by the commissioners that seemed subjective and difficult to articulate. The representative indicated that the rejection seemed akin to the famous historical moment when Emperor Joseph II said to Mozart, following the premier of"The Marriage of Figaro," that the work had "too many notes."' The representative stated that developers will be reluctant to develop real estate in the City of Huntington Beach if they can't know whether compliance with the Zoning Code would be enough, given the need to satisfy the additional, subjective concerns of the commissioners. After further discussion regarding the Project, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Project. Only the Chairman of the Planning Commission voted in favor of the Project, expressing his view that the bases propounded by the other commissioners in opposition to the Project were too subjective. 7. The Applicant accordingly filed this appeal. 8. The City Council should reverse the Denial Action of the Planning Commission and approve the Project. The City Council can conform any reasonable stated bases for denial of the Project as expressed by the Planning Commission into conditions of approval that must be cleared before the Project progresses. There simply is no reasonable basis to deny the Project outright as the Planning Commission did. 9. The Project is an important development for the City of Huntington Beach. The Project replaces a liquor store, vacant land and a portion of a car wash. The Project provides 48 new condominium residences and 891 sf of commercial space on the North side of Ellis Avenue, between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Lane. The Project will also provide for 5 affordable housing units as part of the overall 48 which the city will benefit from as part of state mandated compliance. The Project provides for enhanced parking beyond what the city code requires which will allow the development to sustain its own demands and not create spill over parking onto adjacent properties as has been experienced on some other projects. The smaller footprint and enhanced contemporary architecture of the Project will provide a substantial benefit to the community by improving an otherwise blighted plot of land which has been subject to many instances of vagrants and homeless people loitering on the property. While the buildings overall mass is four floors the upper most floor is substantially reduced in its setback from the street and width in relation to the overall building to reduce its impact on adjacent properties. 10. There is substantial evidence to support the City Council's action to approve the Project. The Project fully complies with the objective standards expressed in the Zoning Code. Moreover, the Project goes beyond the minimum standards to provide for both public and private open spaces welt exceeding those base levels. The Project complies with the land use goals and policies including density, consolidation of parcels and provides a range of housing to meet the needs of the city. Further the fact that all of the parking is sub-grade will substantially reduce the potential solar heat gain as is typical for grade level parking lots. We believe that, because the 1 in the movie, Antadetts, the Emperor further stales: "Cut a few [of the notes] and it will be perfect"--to which Mozart aptly replies: "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?" The inquiry highlights the frustration of talented persons in trying to respond to and satisfy capricious standards. Appeal fivin Denial Action ofthe City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission-2019-06-12 Page 4 of 5 604 City Council's approval of the Project is supported by substantial evidence, its decision would not be contested by any party and would otherwise be upheld on any appeal. See Kutzke a City of San Diego (4th Dist. 2017), 11 Cal.App.5th 1034. For these reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the action taken by the Planning Commission and approve the Project. Respectfully submitted, Tahir Salim President Appeal fi•onr Delrial Action of the City ofHuntingtar Beach Planning Commission-2019-06-12 Page S of 5 605 a Appeal fi onr Denial Action of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission-2019-06-12 Page 5 of 5 606 i � P qq r oI lip 40 s U L AI 44W iw r # 4� 7 P, n '{. A# t r � F x. amp r e + �, i� •• tn t L i i too � II if t. V } � 1 1 'vx Jr e 'Z, r As T it ♦ i F. Iir � l t I I t �i e Q. p9fr s Av Ae 0 "� I�•! Ili 1 t t�f a f 5` f g I r pe t .x ,Y jqw lot 4"1 oil" G i ' Y 4 t.. F t � i E 4 Of �r,4 i E wro r W � ■ S y c . I a a r r I � a � r 4 t3 x r,. i, T'A x � ! r rr t `y u ► 4 � +-� nt 4 , r E � 4 fA V it sj 't 4 fi. 3 ki 711 I i� .74 Ali Oil Al d t � 6 f r' a } *� 'r a �' A N Bf E � t( ; 1 1 � M r� ^L^ � U ! 4� 1 �a tROy �� �1 �J s Al .i� di �o t yk is at� �� � t 1 � � � � ' I (�I � ;�{ /; � � ,, �;r / , ` ' � s i � `'. � � j` ( 1 � ��$ �. � � ' r f � ✓ � ''�� + 1 M � } � Y. � �� �, � � ' � ' � � �� � � T F - � ' � � � �. �� 1 _ �� '.• - � A .,�� ��� ; � � aj , . 4 � � � 4 r� eve,1 �,� Huntington Beach, California 92648 June )7 2019 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Phone: (714) 536-5227 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Re: Ellis Avenue Condominium Project(the "Project") 8041 Ellis Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Dear City Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, situated at the address noted above, and as you can see from my address, I live near the proposed Project. I have been shown the site plan for the Project, blueprints for this Project, a rendering of the Project and some of the considerations of the developer in developing this Project. I also have been informed that the Planning Commission denied the Project, citing various considerations, and I know that the developer is planning to appeal that denial to the City Council for further review. Considering this information, and knowing that you will be considering the Project on appeal, I want to let you know that I favor the Project. I believe that it will improve the neighborhood and hopefully the property values as well. I believe that the City Council can impose reasonable conditions as necessary to resolve any of the concerns of the Planning Commission. I hope that you take such action as will be necessary to approve the Project so that the developer can proceed. Thank-you so much for giving me the opportunity to provide this information to you. Sincerely, 1 ID� Z - C9_00 LAJ1P� � C %�91�6 Huntington Beach, California 92648 June e, 2019 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Phone: (714) 536-5227 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Re: Ellis Avenue Condominium Project(the"Project") 8041 Ellis Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Dear City Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, situated at the address noted above, and as you can see from my address, I live near the proposed Project. I have been shown the site plan for the Project, blueprints for this Project, a rendering of the Project and some of the considerations of the developer in developing this Project. I also have been informed that the Planning Commission denied the Project, citing various considerations, and I know that the developer is planning to appeal that denial to the City Council for further review. Considering this information, and knowing that you will be considering the Project on appeal, I want to let you know that I favor the Project. I believe that it will improve the neighborhood and hopefully the property values as well. I believe that the City Council can impose reasonable conditions as necessary to resolve any of the concerns of the Planning Commission. I hope that you take such action as will be necessary to approve the Project so that the developer can proceed. Thank-you so much for giving me the opportunity to provide this information to you. Sincerely, rn(� P ' 620 Huntington Beach, California 92648 June /, 2019 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Phone: (714) 536-5227 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Re: Ellis Avenue Condominium Project(the"Project") 8041 Ellis Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Dear City Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, situated at the address noted above, and as you can see from my address, I live near the proposed Project. I have been shown the site plan for the Project, blueprints for this Project, a rendering of the Project and some of the considerations of the developer in developing this Project. I also have been informed that the Planning Commission denied the Project, citing various considerations, and I know that the developer is planning to appeal that denial to the City Council for further review. Considering this information, and knowing that you will be considering the Project on appeal, I want to let you know that I favor the Project. I believe that it will improve the neighborhood and hopefully the property values as well. I believe that the City Council can impose reasonable conditions as necessary to resolve any of the concerns of the Planning Commission. I hope that you take such action as will be necessary to approve the Project so that the developer can proceed. Thank-you so much for giving me the opportunity to provide this information to you. Sincerely, 621 Huntington Beach, California 92648 June 2019 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Phone: (714) 536-5227 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Re: Ellis Avenue Condominium Project(the"Project") 8041 Ellis Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Dear City Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, situated at the address noted above, and as you can see from my address, I live near the proposed Project. I have been shown the site plan for the Project, blueprints for this Project, a rendering of the Project and some of the considerations of the developer in developing this Project. I also have been informed that the Planning Commission denied the Project, citing various considerations, and I know that the developer is planning to appeal that denial to the City Council for further review. Considering this information, and knowing that you will be considering the Project on appeal, I want to let you know that I favor the Project. I believe that it will improve the neighborhood and hopefully the property values as well. I believe that the City Council can impose reasonable conditions as necessary to resolve any of the concerns of the Planning Commission. I hope that you take such action as will be necessary to approve the Project so that the developer can proceed. Thank-you so much for giving me the opportunity to provide this information to you. Sincerely, Z019 ZaV,Aal rs2r � 2.5 2— 1)Q v­\ C, C- rc, CA q Z 2 L�L - 622 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Junel9 2019 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Phone: (714) 536-5227 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Re: Ellis Avenue Condominium Project(the"Project") 8041 Ellis Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Dear City Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Beach, situated at the address noted above, and as you can see from my address, I live near the proposed Project. I have been shown the site plan for the Project, blueprints for this Project, a rendering of the Project and some of the considerations of the developer in developing this Project. I also have been informed that the Planning Commission denied the Project, citing various considerations, and I know that the developer is planning to appeal that denial to the City Council for further review. Considering this information, and knowing that you will be considering the Project on appeal, I want to let you know that I favor the Project. I believe that it will improve the neighborhood and hopefully the property values as well. I believe that the City Council can impose reasonable conditions as necessary to resolve any of the concerns of the Planning Commission. I hope that you take such action as will be necessary to approve the Project so that the developer can proceed. Thank-you so much for giving me the opportunity to provide this information to you. fF Sincerely, 623 ` « ry i MP veriz9n .r 12 IF x j f lot .S+ ti ' ,Z1' `••plo 4 _ 14 - r � �y t•�w • 10 wz- 41, IV lkk \' PW � . t 1 T• _ )i F + y. vN Aw OF - 4k. j .ar do r s' , r r ;;��< �, _ '� C ,-:F•. ��"��•�1'f- I, *. f :-- � ,�( "!� yid � Y• •, r.:. °f�'r' m w w W n LL U LL W r W ¢ �Nt7 Q r W W O LUI p U¢ IN-ON Q K U O Jui W Q Q W W W U Z J�y W ¢�j r m y Zam FfOvm ¢ Y1- Q W�J"J D ¢ W W> Y LL > J L'n OLL O K Z W Z.N UU W >W W Y O Y r m rm°' W N U ZD WJ U O ¢ JJ WJ 2 O ¢U Wp U m y Q z rQ Q QO Q JoWW W (� OOO d ¢ - t7 W 2 Q W W r 4 W�Ue W ZZUa{� O m m a rz rZJO Z ZZZ W -O O II ¢ p >> >�D gym= QULLU rr O ¢ W J J W J nV- ¢ ZMr WSJ N m OOZ O WO¢p Q Y YYY Q m W r°- Q 7 Q U Z WFi 01m UQQ Ws'm N N aZOO� i-w20 O 4 «¢ O D FZO p Q6z aQ� zpn¢"'J a�az�w S O Um LL mmr¢ r a o_aa F- Z to N¢ r 6 J j 0U Or`'OUm W 12-�j y o = m / a E w� - \ \ ^ Ds ea=3NnALtl3d°dd � w2� AS"88+3N11 A1L3dOfld Slmm"J OI "HE I e I 6 n i tl — — I f _ J If- I t �� f �, � °I = �J I m Iw �J �'N vl I d� - r-. ZA I � 3.�c I I � �o��--L I � I I o,l I i z ti 1.o-.� ww12 I I j �J M —1 12 al m II m4 �. w I II l o°,31 w u Z. 1. 9J T 0 00 Im IIIIw��`' wl m N a) ai (¢ A. 5 0¢` Q W Q it LU + u`z6 t I II ♦ P °° ( 16wN LLI \J W En > C.) LLIL I j I ------' -I g I I LU W 0 I I' ° I t V' z ; co T� I Q z 1 t I d• ) Z T I i of I W JI CD co z=1 8 a w �m i t .�o e 8 N ,g g l I < I �° I owi °lwI I Q LL. O '. 3Nn NProe135 ns { Q z 1 a l ®I g gOf� z I - §a 10 o c Z a Be ve 3Mt 3d°tld�d7 S = Ntl Al d d NOI bPlP3° J W I i nS'Se+3 3dPtld 13) m 9`3 YM3°I � _ i X1bM3aIS � (ram LLI / pAL� I u .G',ll A.1Z Av ,tr,b2 w IL w O e I 3Nn tl3h'35 Y _I - - cv m v —1 3Nn tl31bMR___ 3. .... _. .. _.. ui� � O s=`O w F2 wi* w O W 1 In N ~ W U U �� �Qo t�w�s-�^. W ® m2�5 Aube, Nicolle From: James, Jane Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:11 PM To: Luna-Reynosa, Ursula; Villasenor, Jennifer; Aube, Nicolle Subject: FW: ©MyHB-#175843 City Council [06637] FYI Jane James I Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 714.536.5596 1 jiames@surfcity-hb.org From: Esparza, Patty<PEsparza@surfcity-hb.org> Sent: Wednesday,July 24, 2019 12:58 PM To:James,Jane <jjames@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: FW:®MyHB-#175843 City Council [06637] Communication received on the Ellis Ave. condo project being appealed. Patty Esparza, CwIC Assistant City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5260 From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 24, 2019 11:10 AM To: Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org>; Switzer, Donna <Donna.Switzer@surfcity-hb.org>; Esparza, Patty<PEsparza@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:®MyHB-#175843 City Council [06637] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#175843 Workorder#175843 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda & Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #175843 Issue Type City Council 1 628 Subtype All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Donna Switzer,Patty Esparza Notes Mayor and City Council Members, I am urging you to deny the appeal of the Developers of Ellis Ave. Condos.Your Planning Commission denied their request to build these condos after a lengthy discussion of the many reasons this building is not a good fit nor intended to fit with the BECP. I am sure you are aware of the many issues why the Planning Commission denied their request. Issues such as entry and exit of the apartments,the shade study which the developers presented was found to be completely flawed,the"coffee shop"which does not fit with the intent of the BECP,just too big of a building for such a small narrow space. I could go on, but I think you are all aware of how this project is NOT a good fit for this area. In the event you have not driven down Ellis in the morning or afternoon,give it a try during "rush hour". Quite often westbound traffic is backed up to Goodwin Ln and sometimes as far back as Chapel Ln.To throw in an apartment entrance and exit on Ellis would do nothing but increase this traffic and subject the area to more accidents by people trying to make a U turn on Ellis to come back and make the"right turn only" entrance into this proposed building.As a long time resident of Huntington Beach,this is not a good idea. As I mentioned earlier,your Planning Commission denied the project by a 6-1 vote. I am asking you to deny the Developers appeal of this project. Thank you, Steve Farnsworth 18401 Goodwin Ln. Huntington Beach CA 92646 View the Report Reporter Name Steve Farnsworth Email hazmn54(cDgmail.com Phone 714-975-1038 Report Submitted JUL 23, 2019 -5:01 PM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Please do not change subject line when responding. 2 629 California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund 126o Mission St San Francisco, CA 94103 T hi@a carlaef.org aRLA 7/19/2019 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Robin Estanislau, City Clerk, Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org; Erik Peterson, Mayor, erik.peterson@surfcity-hb.org; Lyn Semeta, Mayor Pro Tempore, Lyn.Semeta@surfcity-hb.org; Patrick Brenden, Council Member, Patrick.Brenden a@surfcity-hb.org; Kim Carr, Council Member, Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org; Barbara Delgleize, Council Member, barbara.delgleize a@surfcity-hb.org; Jill Hardy, Council Member, jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org; Mike Posey, Council Member, mike.poseyna surfcity-hb.org; Via Email Re: 8041 Ellis Avenue Case No. 19-545 Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform you that the Huntington Beach City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act. California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding 630 the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. The Applicant proposes to construct a 48-unit, 4-story mixed use building on a 0.95 acre site within the Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (SP 14). The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. In their denial of the project, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission failed to provide objective criteria that the project violates. Instead the Planning Commission made subjective assertions about the project's conformity with the Specific Plan (SP 14) that do not constitute valid conditions for denial and contradict the actual content of the Specific Plan. CaRLA is a 501(03 non-profit corporation whose mission is to restore a legal environment in which California builds housing equal to its needs, which we pursue through public impact litigation and providing educational programs to California city officials and their staff. Sincerely, A"��Ch�� Sonja Trauss Co-Executive Director California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org 126o Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103 631 California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org 126o Mission St, San Francisco,CA 94103 632 Aube, Nicolle From: Lisa Kemp <lisakemp@verizon.net> Sent: Saturday,August 10, 2019 9:05 PM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: Beach Ellis condonproject I would like to voice my opposition to another high density complex up for reconsideration at Beach and Ellis.The planning commission has already recommended against this development.The people have also already spoken against it.The city counsel is there for the people of the city,not special interest groups. Lisa Kemp 221 22nd St Sent from my Whone 1 633 Aube, Nicolle From: Kathleen Brown <heykathybrown@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday,August 11, 2019 12:54 AM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: HDD Please continue to prevent High Density Development in our fair city,specifically the Ellis one that should be DEAD already! Thank you, Kathleen Brown Sent from my Whone i 634 Aube, Nicolle From: Jeannie Bird <seabird214@cloud.com> Sent: Sunday,August 11,2019 7:32 AM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: STOP the Ellis Ave Project ! ! ! ! Please DO NOT build this project! Huntington Beach is already adversely impacted by the obnoxious high density apartment complexes(think Bella Terra area-Gothard/Edinger/Center). Traffic all over town is already bad enough. Adding 48 condos in a tight area is beyond ridiculous! The City Council must be in bed with these greedy developers. Disgraceful! Jeanne &Michael Bird 4371 Waimea Drive HB 92649 1 635 Aube, Nicolle From: Tahir Salim <salimtheone@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 2:53 PM To: Aube, Nicolle Cc: Scott Yorkison Subject: Continuance of the meeting Nicole, Based on our conversation regarding 2 members being absent on the 19th, please move my hearing date to the September 3rd. Please confirm my email. Thanks Tahir i 636 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 4:01 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW:Aug. 19th Agenda AGENDA COMMENT From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday,August 15, 2019 3:59 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Aug. 19th Agenda I ask the city council to Deny Item 19. 19-758, continue the public comments and make the vote without Barbara Delgleize present its done all the time. This developer has requested this delay to game the system. Barbara is a HDD supporter and the developer is counting on her support. STOP THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH DENSITY AT ALL COSTS, The BECSP was a bad plan and still is, the community was fooled into believing this was about a Remodel of the Huntington Center/Bella Terra that was needed . I have a Question. When the Agenda is published how and why does the city staff get the option to place"Word Qualifiers"after the item number like "Adopt, Approve, Recommended Actions"this wording sways the vote and unduly adds support. Why are they not stated as"Action Item"who is deciding that we use these Biased Statements and Words of Support? Each Agenda Item is the council decision, are we relying on this same staff who recommended the Shelter Purchase ? and the recommended Contractor who Stole the Sports Center Money ?Take back your Local Control and stop this appalling language in the Agenda Items. BUFFED WNTAL COMMUNICATION Mee"Date: •- Agenda hem No.* i 637 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 11:37 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty Subject: ®MyHB-#181710 City Council [07457] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#181710 Workorder#181710 issue type changed from City Council to Agenda& Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting, Status Change issue type Work Order SUPPLEMENTAL #181710 COMMUNICATION Issue Type MeOng Date. —,.� Q City Council Subtype Agenda ftem No.; Zo All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Donna Switzer,Patty Esparza Notes Please I urge you to deny the appeal to the Ellis Avenue condo/apartments. 1 reside in the neighborhood behind the proposed units.As the left hand turn Lanes from Beach boulevard on to Ellis Avenue are limited,there is already a significant amount of traffic that speeds through our neighborhood as a shortcut to Ellis. I believe this poorly-planned apartment building will increase this traffic because of the limited entrance. Residents will be forced to cut through my neighborhood from Beach boulevard to exit onto Ellis so they can make a right into the development. I already fear for my children's safety to play in the neighborhood and I only worry that this will make it more dangerous.This is also very crowded intersection,with Ellis being a small street,and this poorly planned development will make traffic worse.Thank you for your time. Image 0 0. l View the Report Reporter Name Carlee Okerman Email carleerae@hotmail.com 638 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 11:37 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty Subject: ®MyHB-#181829 City Council [07470] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#181829 Workorder#181829 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda& Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order SUPPLEMENTAL #181829 COMMUNICATION Issue Type MeWAN " Date: City Council Subtype Agenda Item No.' AQ All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Donna Switzer,Patty Esparza Notes Opposition of Ellis Avenue Condos/Apartments File#19-666 We have been residents of Huntington Beach since 1989 and owners of our property in Huntington Viewpoint since mid 1990's. I have also served on Our Home Owner's Association for coming up to ten year's cumulative. I am in opposition to adding more residents to this already congested area.Accidents have increased at that intersection and Newland/Ellis and even extending into the side streets. My daughter when coming to visit with her two small children was a victim of one of those accidents when she veered to avoid a head on collision and was broadsided.Street parking has increased from overflow from Demion and Elan onto Patterson and Chapel,etc.Across from this proprosed is an SRO and not that much difference in square footage to those units.This is not inline with revitalization of the Beach/Edinger City's Master Plan to renovate, revitalize Beach Blvd. Instead, if approved,we will go backwards to contribute to future blight....Run down hotel and strip center,Jack in the Box and Car wash with an SRO and over populated Demion. Five Points, Pacific Center and Bella Terra offer good choices for shopping; but,we need more high end choices and upgraded Town Centers to serve the increased population.Please deny this project in line with the Staff and Planning Commissions recommendations/vote and support the residents instead of this developer.You were elected to support the residents including tax payers of Huntington Beach.This project, if approved,will affect your residents quality of life and there is no community support for this project.We are counting on you to represent us.Thank you. View the Report Reporter Name Kris Carroll Email kcrissie7@gmail.com Phone 714-356-1580 639 Opened: Closed: Work Order: #182061 08/17/2019 08/19/201 9 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Email SUB TYPE Phone City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None Fx1 COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES Re the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No.18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042,8-20-19 Council meeting.(Ellis Ave.Condos)Please deny the appeal.I agree with the Planning Commission's reasoning in its June 12,2019 Notice of Action in denying the project.While I generally support higher density development where appropriate,such development must include enhanced traffic,bike and pedestrian flows.As the NOC states,the proposed project fails in this regard.Indeed,HB needs to improve bikeways and walkability citywide;there are too many bike and pedestrian fatalities currently, and I personally no longer ride a bike on City streets as it is too dangerous.Sincerely,Dan Jamieson Huntington Beach Status Changed:08119/2019 7:40 AM Donna Switzer Work Order#182061 status has changed from new to resolved. Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to this City Council agenda item. Share with Citizen;YES SUIPPMENL M COMMUNILE C A TAMIM Medng Date:_ S-//q//e)- Agenda hem No.- 02c) 640 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo,Johanna Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 7:45 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW:The Ellis Condo Development Importance: High AGENDA COMMENT From: Gary Tarkington <garytarkington@msn.com> Sent: Sunday,August 18, 2019 5:19 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:The Ellis Condo Development Importance: High To the HB city council, In am sending this in the hopes that you will listen to the citizens of HB. The Ellis Condo Development is a horrible idea for many reasons! It is way to large for the lot, THE CONGESTION THERE IS ALREADY AWFUL, and has had many serious accidents,the ingress outgress there IS ONLY ONE (what are the people going to do in case of a major disaster fire/earthquake)!! Having to make a uturn on Beach Blvd. is insane, AND IT WAS ALREADY DENIED!! WE DON'T WANT or NEED this catastrophe!! Please deny this again. We need some sanity while driving in this area. Ann Tarkington Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 511 g// Agenda item No.: 1 641 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 7:45 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW:Agenda item of city council meeting of 8/19/2019 AGENDA COMMENT SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From: Mike Mengel <mjmengel@mindspring.com> Sent:Sunday,August 18, 2019 3:31 PM Ong Date: j To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item of city council meeting of 8/19/2019 Aged Item No.,.. Esteemed members of council, This letter is written to urge you to vote against agenda item 19-758, which is on the agenda of the August 19, 2019 city council meeting. I also recommend that you do not continue this item to the September 3, 2019 council meeting. This item is the proposed Ellis Avenue condos project, which has already been denied for specific reasons. The specific reasons are: 1. The consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre parcel is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The project does not comply with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan due to land use and circulation impacts. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the project. 4. The site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of SP14 by merging three existing lots into a single 0.95 acre parcel. 5. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site. 6. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public vehicular traffic. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. The project will not allow motorists exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be required to make a U-turn at Patterson Ln. to access the site. Residents and visitors cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. without continuing past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-turn into the project site. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave. only, motorists who do not abide by this restriction due to 1 642 frequent queuing on Ellis Ave. can create conflicts with eastbound Ellis Ave. traffic. 8. the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will 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. 9. The project is a four-story building that is incompatible with surrounding developments, including two-story older multi-family residences to the east and a car wash and restaurant to the west. 10. The proposed project is not consistent with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which supports the use of the Five Points Center as a community retail center. The proposed project does not encourage the restructuring and revitalization of surrounding properties to enhance the market appeal of the Five Points District of the BECSP. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the Five Points District because only one percent of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. 11. The granting of the CUP for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not consistent with various specifically enumerated objectives and policies of the General Plan. 12. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the adjacent residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. 13. The project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site. 14. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the Five Points District because only one percent of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. Thank you for your time. Michael Mengel 16581 Grunion Lane #304 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 mlmengell@verizon.net (714) 846-7196 2 643 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo,Johanna Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 7:49 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Please vote no AGENDA COMMENT From: plara2@verizon.net<plara2@verizon.net> Sent:Saturday,August 17, 2019 3:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Please vote no Please vote no on agenda item 19-758. We live in that neighborhood. Turns on and off Taylor Drive as well as Ellis Ave will be a nightmare. It is already bad enough. People were killed in a car crash on Taylor Drive a few weeks ago. The dealerships are there. Vehicles and car carriers need easy uncongested access to the car dealerships. The car carriers are painful as they stop in the middle of the street. There is no room for more traffic there. This is the absolute worst spot for condos or apartments. We need more restaurants and businesses. No more apartments or condos in this area please. All around us on Beach Blvd apartments have been built. It needs to stop please. Thank you! Pat and Carol Lara SUPPLEMENTAL AL COMMUNICATION Mee,g Dom: Agenda Item No.- 644 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo,Johanna Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 7:49 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW:Agenda item 19-758 AGENDA COMMENT From: krica256@aol.com<krica256@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 11:56 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item 19-758 Dear City Council, I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the this item regarding the proposed HDD on Ellis avenue. That corner is already very busy as is. We don't need more HDD right there. Thank you, Christina Silva-Salgado (714)307-7101 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Medng Date F//':�/,/1C-� Agenda Item No.• 645 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo,Johanna Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 7:49 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Ellis Ave. Condos (#20 on Agenda of Aug. 19, 2019;5UPPLSMENTAL COMMUNICATION AGENDA COMMENT Date: /m/Ltq From:Gino J. Bruno <gbruno@socal.rr.com> Agenda Item PIO.; t 1q^ z5 � Sent:Saturday,August 17, 2019 5:38 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Kiff, Dave<dave.kiff@surfcity-hb.org>; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula <ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Ellis Ave. Condos(#20 on Agenda of Aug. 19, 2019) Council Members: The proposed Ellis Ave. Condos (Item #20 on Monday's Agenda) should be DENIED when it comes before you for vote on September 31. Listen carefully to the majority of your Planning Commissioners who voted AGAINST it. The proposed development violates the letter . . . and the spirit . . . of the Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Simply put: IT DOESN'T FIT.!! At its meeting on June 11th, the Planning Commission DENIED the project, with Findings For Denial that included (if you're interested): 1. The consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre parcel is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The project does not comply with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan due to land use and circulation impacts. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the project. 4. The site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of SP14 by merging three existing lots into a single 0.95 acre parcel. 5. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site. 6. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public vehicular traffic. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. The project will not allow motorists exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound 1 646 Ellis Ave. will be required to make a U-turn at Patterson Ln. to access the site. Residents and visitors cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. without continuing past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-turn into the project site. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave. only (and U-turns at Beach are not permitted), motorists who do not abide by this restriction due to frequent queuing on Ellis Ave. can create conflicts with eastbound Ellis Ave. traffic. 8. The development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will 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. 9. The project is a four-story building that is incompatible with surrounding developments, including two-story older multi-family residences to the east and a car wash and fast-food restaurant to the west. 10. The proposed project is not consistent with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which supports the use of the Five Points Center as a community retail center. The proposed project does not encourage the restructuring and revitalization of surrounding properties to enhance the market appeal of the Five Points District of the BECSP. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the Five Points District because only one percent of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. 11. The granting of the CUP for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not consistent with various specifically enumerated objectives and policies of the General Plan. 12. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the adjacent residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. 13. The project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site. 14. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the Five Points District because only one percent of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. Please vote to support the majority of your Planning Commissions. They got it right! Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach z 647 Switzer, Donna From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:50 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items AGENDA COMMENT Subject Agenda Item#20 -Support for Appeal - HB Planning Commission was WRONG! Name Steven C Shepherd Email steve@shepherdarchitects.com Comments The Planning Commission should have pproved this project the first time and now I'm asking you to overturn their inappropriate and incorrect ruling. The reasons for my support of the applicant's appeal for very simple: 1.The Project complies with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. 23he Project is similar in use to surrounding properties. 3.The Project updates and modernizes an outdated, underutilized, and visually decrepit property. 43he Project provides new and much needed housing units for our Huntington Beach community. These are the simple facts related to this project as researched and listed by Huntington Beach Planning Dept. staff in their original Findings and Conditions of Approval document. These findings and original recommendation to the Planning Commission were clear: approve the project. Where the Planning Commission failed our community the first time, you are now being asked as our elected officials to put right their short-sighted failure. APPROVE THIS PROJECT! SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION (1e#ng . S Agenda Item No. i 648 Aube, Nicolle From: Pamela Mccay<pmccay85@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,August 17, 2019 3:19 PM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: Stop the Ellis Ave Condos Hi Nicolle, I will actually be able to make it to the meeting on Monday but I wanted to send my email again from the previous vote as all of my concerns remain the same. I am born and raised in Huntington Beach and I currently live at 18311-Patterson Ave,92.This is my third time living on this street in the last ten years and I have currently been in my apartment for 4 years. My neighborhood,which is directly behind this proposed site, already has horrendous parking due to the entire neighborhood being fourplexes. We have been having a problem with Elan parking on our street because they do not want to pay for the monthly parking fee to park there on top of their astronomical rent. I have actually spoken to residents while they park in front of my house. They also told me that they tell their guest to park on our street as well. We see people every day walking to and from their cars and Elan. (And no,they are not using the crosswalk on beach) I have been petitioning to get our neighborhood permit parking and all of the residents are in favor of this. On top of the terrible parking, getting in and out of the neighborhood is horrendous. I can't even come out on my own street because the traffic is often backed up all the way to the next exit. Sometimes I can't even get out on that street(Goodwin). This intersection is already a dangerous area and I was almost t- boned coming into my tract on Monday morning on my way home from work. Adding even more traffic and congestion to this intersection will be a disservice to the city and increase the amount of accidents that already occur here. I personally know someone who was side swiped due to someone making a left turn out of the DK/jack in the box parking lot, which is where the developer confirmed the exit would be when he came knocking on all of our doors trying to get his petition signed to start the project again. I know these complexes are all about making money for the developers, who have already greased the palms of numerous council members to push this through. Our residents do not want this! Most of these complexes have rent so high that most people can't even afford it. I really hope this email helps keep this eye sore off this corner and keep traffic and accidents to a minimum and safety as the highest priority. Thank you for your time, Pamela McCay, BSN, RN SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: /f 13 Agenda Item No.,, °�I f ?Sq i 649 Aube, Nicolle From: Carol Ballard<carol.ballard.hb.ca@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,August 17, 2019 8:32 PM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: BeachlEllis development I'm not sure if you guys are absolutely crazy or what, but there is no way more congestion would be a good idea on the corner of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. I live near there, and it's horrible. People pull out of the Elan apts at about 5 mph as it is and slows down the traffic to a near stop.Adding another building on the other side is ridiculous. I say no to this, a HUGE RESOUNDING NO!!! Carol Ballard SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION MeatIng Date: 9-1 Agenda Item No.: c)O i 650 Aube, Nicolle From: Kathy McHale <kathymchale@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 7:26 AM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: Ellis Avenue Condo Complex I am writing this email in opposition to the proposed Ellis Avenue Condo Complex. As it is, the intersection of Beach and Ellis/Main is one of the worse in the city. Adding more traffic to an already congested intersection is totally irresponsible and presents a significant safety hazard. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Medng Date:, Agenda Item No.- i 651 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 1:12 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: AGENDA COMMENT From: EVENT EXPOS<eventexpos@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 12:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members, I am writing to Oppose Agenda Item 20.... the denial of Planning Commission Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Ave. Condos). was the correct decision. My opposition to this project is strongly motivated by the ridiculously dangerous traffic situation that already exist in this area. I would rather travel the 405 at rush hour than cross Beach Blvd at Ellis anytime of the day, adding more density in this area is a slap in the face to the residents of Huntington Beach... Everyone of you campaigned against high density development.....Show the people of Huntington Beach you can keep those promises... Thank you Yvonne Mauro SUPPL NTAL COMMUNICATION ION MeAng Date: �r'//,;7 lIq Agenda ftm No.: t 652 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo,Johanna Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 12:46 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: broadband AGENDA COMMENT From: Doug Silver Summit Financial<doug@silversummitfinancial.com> Sent: Monday,August 19, 2019 11:58 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: broadband SUPPLEMENTAL ERIK PETERSON, Mayor COMMUNICATION LYN SEMETA, Mayor Pro Tern PATRICK BRENDEN, Councilmember Meting Date: KIM CARR, Councilmember BARBARA DELGLEIZE, Councilmember Agenda item fro, JILL HARDY, Councilmember MIKE POSEY, Councilmember RE: Broadband, Wireless, and Transportation Infrastructure Technology Ad-Hoc Committee—SUPPORT Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers, 1 am in support of this idea and agree with the language below. I live in a part of the city that did not get FIGS and never will because there are not plans by Frontier to improve their infrastructure, they are too debt laden. So the only option is Spectrum which has an essential monopoly and give poor service,slow speeds and high cost to both business and residential customers. Huntington Beach needs to be a 21st century city and can only do this by investing in our community. Technology Infrastructure is the backbone of any 215t Century City.When we started our modern cities,we installed clean water pipes and sewer pipes due to advances in public health. In the 1900s we oiled the dirt roads for the coming technology of the automobile; we installed copper lines to support electric lighting and then telephones. Fiber optic infrastructure is the next leap for City Infrastructure. Studying how the City can augment technological infrastructure for businesses,wireless providers and transportation infrastructure will help create economic prosperity just as previous infrastructure improvements have. With that, I support the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for your body to form an Ad Hoc Committee to study the proposals outlined within the recommendations transmitted by the Planning Commission. I support an "all of the above" approach to review what Government, local businesses and residents need.The Ad Hoc Committee should be tasked with pulling together the disparate studies the City has undertaken in the past few years and identifying the open needs of the community and then to create recommendations to the Council for further study and action. Taking this action in conjunction with the creation of the Research and Technology Zone will signal that Huntington Beach is once again, "open for business." Please vote to support the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Broadband, Wireless and Transportation Infrastructure Technology. Douglas Gahn i 653 Switzer, Donna From: Dombo,Johanna Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 12:41 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy;CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: OPPOSE AGENDA Item 20 AGENDA COMMENT From: Cari Swan <cswanie@aol.com> Sent: Monday,August 19,2019 12:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:OPPOSE AGENDA Item 20 Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members, I am writing to Oppose Agenda Item 20 that seeks the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Ave. Condos). I oppose the project on the grounds that it is simply UNSAFE and presents DANGEROUS traffic hazards to an already burdened inter-section in our city. As someone who used to shop and frequent the Five Points Shopping Center, I no longer frequent this center and generally avoid it due to the traffic challenges that emmerged after the opening of The Elan high density apartment complex along with additional high density projects on Beach Blvd. It used to be very simple access from SE HB by traveling either Newland to Ellis or even up Beach Blvd. but both are now over-burdened. It's much easier to find other places to shop (Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley). I can only imagine the challenges faces the residents in the immediate area of the proposed project who do not have other choices for accessing Ellis and Beach and it troubles me that this happens time and time again to residents who have invested their entire lives in H.B. and are continually thrown under the bus by the latest and greatest development whim. I think it's also worth mentioning that I am not a person that considers myself"anti-development"; quite the contrary. I do believe our development must to SAFE and COMPATIBLE with the surround community. I urge you to reject this proposal and not subject the community to further traffic and safety hazards. Respectfully, Cari Swan SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Medng pate W//' //2 Agenda Item No:c 7"s- 9) 654 ���*�� � -8� ���uwm_u _n������m� r , Nwwu / A L Doue1asGahn Financial and Retirement Advisor Insurance 714.454J719 714.963.3468fax Helping families and individuals to Retire Happy and Worry Free ' 2 Opened: Closed: Work Order: #182214 08/18/2019 08/19/201 9 By Lynn Unger Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email Lynnungerhb@gmail.co m SUB TYPE Phone 714-960-0082 City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Agen(W Item No., 7 COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES NO ON 19!NO TO DEVELOPERS...NO TO MORE TRAFFIC...NO TO MORE APT/CONDOS AT THAT INTERSECTION....IT IS ALREADY A HAZARD Status Changed:08119/2019 9:33 AM Donna Switzer Work Order#182214 status has changed from referred to resolved. Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to this City Council agenda item. Share with Citizen:YES Assigned Support Worker:08/19/2019 9:21 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182214 has been assigned to Patty Esparza Share with Citizen:NO Status Changed:08/1.9/2019 9:20 AM Antonia Graham Work Order#182214 status has changed from new to referred. Share with Citizen:YES 656 Assigned Worker:08/19/2019 9:20 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182214 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed: 08/19/2019 9:20 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182214 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO 657 Opened: Closed: Work Order: #182237 08/18/2019 08/19/201 9 By Roger g Smith Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email reslrgsdds@gmail.com SUB TYPE Phone City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None Fx1 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION MedN Date: Agenda Item No.: COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NO—YES Beach and Ellis property up for review Please stand with our Planning Commission decision! Thanks,RogerG.Smith,DD S BaezaCircleHB 92648 Status Changed:08/19/2019 9:35 AM Donna Switzer Work Order#182237 status has changed from referred to resolved. Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to this City Council agenda item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:08/19/2019 9:20 AM Antonia Graham Work Order#182237 status has changed from new to referred. Share with Citizen:YES Assigned Worker:08/19/2019 9:20 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182237 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau. Share with Citizen:NO 658 Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/19/2019 9:20 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182237 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO 659 Opened: Closed: Work Order: #182087 08/17/2019 08/19/201 9 Agenda & Public Hearing Coinments By Janene Acosta Email acofam@verizon.net SUB TYPE Phone City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meelft Date: COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES Agenda Item No. Tahir Salim's project at 8041 Ellis Ave. Status Changed:08/1912019 9:31 AM Donna Switzer Work Order#182087 status has changed from assigned to resolved. Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to this City Council agenda item. Share with Citizen:YES Assigned Support Worker:08/19/2019 9:24 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182087 has been assigned to Patty Esparza Share with Citizen:NO Status Changed:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Work Order#182087 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:YES 660 Assigned Worker:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182087 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182087 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO 661 Work Order: #182143 Opened: 8 17//2019 Closed:/ 01 9 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Sharon Tower Email sgtower66@gmail.com SUB TYPE Phone 714-962-1909 City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted None SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: — Agenda enda Item No.,-- COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES � Ellis Ave.proposed Condo/Apartments Please deny the proposed Condo/Apartment complex on Ellis and Beach.HB is already strained by the traffic on our over crowed streets. Status Changed:08/19/2019 9:32 AM Donna Switzer Work Order#182143 status has changed from assigned to resolved. Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to this City Council agenda item, Share with Citizen:YES Assigned Support Worker:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182143 has been assigned to Patty Esparta Share with Citizen:NO Status Changed:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Work Order#182143 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen:YES 662 Assigned Worker:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182143 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau. Share with Citizen:NO Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/19/2019 9:23 AM Antonia Graham Workorder#182143 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO 663 Opened: Closed: Work Order: #182474 08119/2019 08/19/201 9 By Kathy Moro Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email kathy_moro@yahoo.co ru SUB TYPE Phone City Council Meeting Device STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted 0None SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mwbng pate: Agenda Item INO, COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES Re The reconsideration of the proposal to develop the corner of Ellis and BeachBlvd.,I again write you in opposition to this development.I sincerely hope that you will turn down the developers request as his proposal is not an appropriate use of the space at that intersection.It will greatly increase traffic and contribute to the problem of high density development in our city. Status Changed:08/19/2019 1:05 PM Donna Switzer Work Order#182474 status has changed from assigned to resolved. Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to this City Council agenda item. Share with Citizen:YES Status Changed:08/19/2019 12:49 PM Johanna Domho Work Order#182474 status has changed from new to assigned. Share with Citizen;YES Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/1912019 1249 PM Johanna Dornbo Workorder#182474 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and 664 subtype City Council Meeting. Share with Citizen:NO 665 Esparza, Patty From: Estanislau, Robin Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:14 PM To: Kristen Romo Cc: Esparza, Patty; Aube, Nicolle Subject: RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Hello, Kristen. I will include your comments to the record--the Huntington Beach City Council will consider this item on September 3. Robin Estanislau, CIVIC, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 714-536-5405 Please consider the HB City Clerk's office for your passport needs! -----Original Message----- From: Kristen Romo <kcromo7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,August 22, 2019 2:38 PM To: Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Hello, I am a Fountain Valley resident living near the corner of Newland and Ellis and have become aware of the proposed project to add the 48 unit condo on Beach and Ellis. I realize that as a non HB resident my voice may have zero impact on a decision in Huntington Beach, but still wanted to be counted among those who are opposed to this project. Having lived at this corner for the past 23 years (my home backs to Ellis), I can attest to the traffic, noise, dirt, and countless accidents that have only increased since the addition of the two high density building that are already on the corner at Beach and Ellis. Has there been an environmental impact study? Is there a study on'on file? When there is a collision in the intersection of Newland and Ellis, which cities emergency services are called? The decision to add an additional 48 units, and the additional occupants at one of the busiest Huntington Beach intersections as well as the overflow streets seems to be very short sighted. I am asking for this project proposal to be rejected. I thank you for your time. Kristen Romo 1 666 Estanislau, Robin From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:11 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Beach and Ellis condo project AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Kellie Newman <knewman48@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,August 23, 2019 12:37 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Beach and Ellis condo project I understand there is a vote coming up in regards to a proposed condo project on the busy intersection of Beach and Ellis. I would very much like to let the council know I greatly oppose such a large scale project in a small already congested space. Thank you for listening, Concerned neighbor and Life long resident of HB 1 667 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7:48 PM To: Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty; Estanislau, Robin Subject: R MyHB-#182946 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments [07631] MyHB New Report Submitted -#182946 Status new Work Order #182946 Issue Type Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Subtype City Council Meeting Notes Apartments at Beach and Ellis. I urge you to vote NO for this project.I live on Hartlund and Magic.All overflow traffic cuts thru our tract and speeds there now. The lot the building is designated for is not level so when done the project will exceed the allotted 4 stories casting an even greater shadow on the current residents.Without a second entry and exit the project just doesn't work from a traffic and safety point of view. I understand that Sacramento says to build however,when we strip away all the politics and just look at this project in it's most simple form,it is being forced into a small space. Please continue to stand up for what is right for Huntington Beach as our spokespersons and reject this project. View the Report Reporter Name jay howard Email jhoward250@aol.com Phone 714-261-9922 Report Submitted AUG 20,2019-7:47 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 668 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 8:44 AM To: Estanislau, Robin; Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty Subject: ®MyHB-#184634 City Council [07879] MyHB Issue Type/Subtype Changed -#184634 Workorder#184634 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda & Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting. Status Change issue type Work Order #184634 Issue Type City Council Subtype All Council Members Staff Member(s) Robin Estanislau,Donna Switzer,Patty Esparza Notes I am opposed to the building of more apartmenticondos at Beach and Ellis(old Car Wash). Since allowing the project across the street my vehicle has been sideswipe by people cutting through the neighborhood to avoid traffic and my Grand Daughter and Great Grand Daughter were hit by a resident running a red light at Beach and Elis.Their car was totaled.You are putting far too much traffic at Beach and Elis and accidents have increased substantially. The double traffic lights across from Denny's and the second light at Beach are too close together in my opinion as well causing confusion. People are rushing to make the lights in heavy traffic with many running the lights. View the Report Reporter Name Michael Nelson Email mikenelson@socal.rr.com Phone 714-791-4713 Report Submitted AUG 27,2019-8:00 PM --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 669 Robin Estanislau, City Clerk 8/21/2019 Huntington Beach City Hall 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Conditional Use Permit No 17-042 Council Members We agree with the Planning Commission denial of this permit. They have done a complete study of the environmental concerns of this project and have concluded that there will be an adverse impact to the community. Already there are multiple parking issues with the apartment building on the southside of this project with many of the overflow parking drifting into the residential adjacent residential community.Approval of this project would only add to the current problem. We are residents of Fountain Valley just a half mile east of this proposed project. We have lived here over 30 years and have witnessed a dramatic rise in the flow of traffic eastward on Ellis. This increased flow has caused many accidents at the intersection of Ellis and Newland. and. Please review the accident reports at this intersection. Both Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach have refused to address the dangerous condition of this intersection which is caused by topography of the intersection where there two blind downhill streets come together. This project will just make this intersection more dangerous. Affordable housing is a concern to most coastal Cities in California but this project is not the correct the solution due to adverse impact on the community. If the developer were to increase the affordable units to 50% and increase the parking allocations to ensure that there would be minimum impact to the surrounding community then maybe the Planning Commission could re-review the project and weigh environmental impacts versus the benefits to adding 24 affordable units to the community. We urge the City Council to reject this current proposal. [Ave j 8521 Ostrich Circle Fountain Valley, Ga027,08 714-873-5588 670 Robin Estaniduu, City Clerk Huntington Beach City Hall D1� 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, [A9264O Re: Conditional Use Permit No17-0WI ' Sirs: We are residents of West Fountain Valley, in particular just northeast of Newland and Ellis at the address stated below. This permit referenced above outlines the development ofa new 48 unit condo and commercial building essentially at the corner of Beach and Ellis (in place of a liquor store, part of a car wash and some level of current residential housing, basically leaving the existing Jack In The Box restaurant in place). Acopy of the notice of Public Hearing isattached. This is to express our strong opinion that the development outlined in this permit would result in an extreme negative traffic effect along Ellis far east of the development and other areas. There balready such a negative traffic effect in this area as a direct result of the construction of such an already completed development directly south across Ellis from this proposed one. There are two entrances to our housing tract, one being Santa Isadora from Ellis just east of Newland which provides entrance to ours north of Ellis and another housing tract south ofEllis. The traffic now is such that itis often backed up so far east of the Ellis/Newland traffic light that it's difficult and increasingly dangerous to exit our tract (even when it's not backed up). Also, traffic approaching Beach from the east along Ellis isa nightmare often requiring multiple light changes to get through the intersection. This is due mainly to that already completed development and would be made further worse by this new development. Another traffic issue that is becoming more congested and dangerous is the intersection of Ellis and Newland itself. As there is downhill approach to this intersection from both Ellis heading east from these developments and south onNewland. Drivers seem to speed down these streets and meet atthat intersection with the resultant numerous serious accidents, including fatal ones, other injury crashes and significant property damage. This is further amplified by the lack of left turn signals atthe intersection, which has seemingly shown a significant increase since the construct of the already completed multi unit complex at Beach and Ellis. This will only get worse with the construction of this new development outlined in this proposal. We urge the Huntington Beach City Council to reject this proposal for the sake of public safety and overall permanent negative effect on quality of life in this area as, we understand, the City Planning Commission has already done. Thank -- � o ����7*�1�d � ; ���u� ^r»� , e71 - Mh� ^_ � ok-'vvl-ou-A cl� 672 AT TAC H M E N T #7 J Huntington each Planning Commission ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION June 12, 2019 Jeff Herbst MCG Architecture 111 Pacifica, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 181571CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92882 REQUEST: To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project exempt from CEQA. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) DATE OF ACTION: June 11, 2019 On Tuesday, June 11, 2019, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of Two Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars ($2,353.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy-Eight Dollars ($3,778.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is Friday, June 21, 2019, at 5:00 PM. Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org Notice of Action:TTM 18157 and CUP 17-042 June 11,2019 Page 2 Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Nicolle Aube, the project planner, at (714) 374-1529 or via email at nicolle.aube@surfcity-hb.org, or the Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Secretary Planning Commission By: Jane James, Planning Manager ULR:JJ:NA:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial —TTM 18157 and CUP 17-042 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Dave Kiff, City Manager Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Dave McBride, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Mike Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Eric Haghani, Building Manager Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File 674 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The Planning Commission finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. G:\PC\NOA\19\061119TTMI8157—CUP17-042 (Ellis Condos) Attachment 1.1 675 Policy LU-2B: Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context-sensitive, creative, complementary of the city's beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Policy LU-12B: Encourage renovation and revitalization of deteriorating and struggling nonresidential areas and corridors, particularly commercial locations. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-1F: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC — 1 G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one- story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. G:\PC\NOA\19\061119 TTM 18157_CUP 17-042 (Ellis Condos) Attachment 1.2 676 The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents.and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The Planning Commission finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage, of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property G:\PC\NOA\19\061119 TTM 18157_CUP 17-042 (Ellis Condos) Attachment 1.3 677 ATTACHMENT #8 r _ City of Huntington Beach N1 File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director BY: Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) REQUEST: To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project exempt from CEQA. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92882 BUSINESS OWNER: N/A STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's adopted land use regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powerEB74 LegistarT°^ File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 Corridors Specific Plan)? 2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission take the following action: A) Consider the suggested findings for denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 as directed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2019. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Background: On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the project proposal to consolidate three parcels for a one-lot condominium map and development of a 48 unit mixed-use project as described in the May 28, 2019 staff report (Attachment No. 2). The requested permits to allow such development included 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered public testimony, deliberated on the project and expressed concerns related to the required findings, and directed staff to return with suggested findings for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2019 (Attachment No. 1). Tentative Tract Map: Per Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 251.08(F), the Planning Commission shall deny approval of a tentative subdivision map if it determines that approval will result in any of the conditions as described in Government Code Section 66474. The conditions described in Government Code Section 66474 are as follows: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement are likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed concerns relating to conditions (b), (c), and (d) listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission expressed concerns that approval of the project would result in the following conditions for the reasons specified: City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powereVA L_egistarTM File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 • Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. • Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. • Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project does not further the following General Plan and BECSP goals and policies: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy_ LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy_CIRC - 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powerE6a%LegistarW File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two- story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. Per Section 251.08(F) of the HBZSO if the Planning Commission determines that any of the conditions listed in Government Code Section 66474 (and listed in this staff report for reference) would result as a consequence of approval of the project, the Planning Commission shall deny approval of the tentative subdivision map. These findings are reflected in Attachment No. 1. Conditional Use Permit: Per HBZSO Section 241.10, related to required findings for conditional use permits and variances, subsection C requires the Planning Commission to deny a conditional use permit if it cannot make all of the required findings under subsection A, which are as follows: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powerEfty Legistar— File #: 19-666 MEETING DATE: 6/11/2019 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. 3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed concerns relating to finding 3 listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission expressed concerns that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. Per Section 241.10, subsection C of the HBZSO, if the Planning Commission cannot make all of the required findings under subsection A (listed in this staff report for reference) the Planning Commission is required to deny the conditional use permit. These findings are reflected in Attachment No. 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157 and CUP No. 17-042 2. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 5 Printed on 6/6/2019 powereW LegistarT°^ SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The Planning Commission finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. 683 Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC— 1 G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U- Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. 684 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The Planning Commission finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property 685 ATTACHMENT #9 t City of Huntington Beach File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director BY: Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) REQUEST: To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project exempt from CEQA. LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) APPLICANT: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 61h Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92882 BUSINESS OWNER: N/A STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's adopted land use regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan)? City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 power LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit? 3. Has the appropriate level of environmental analysis appropriately identified all environmental impacts with appropriate mitigation? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission take the following actions: A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457. B) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): A) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct staff to return with findings for denial. B) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04 and direct staff accordingly. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The project site is approximately 0.95 acres and consists of three parcels with two existing buildings - a liquor store and a residence. The existing buildings will be demolished in order to construct the proposed four-story building with three levels of subterranean parking. The north side of the project site was formerly utilized as part of the Metro Car Wash located at 18400 Beach Boulevard. Metro Car Wash has ceased operations and the owner of 18400 Beach Boulevard is currently constructing a new car wash on the property. The proposed condominium project and new car wash do not have any overlapping elements and are entirely separate projects. According to the Applicant's narrative (Attachment No. 3), the project owner intends for the units to be sold to individual buyers as condominiums so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building maintenance, regular up-keep, and cleaning will be handled by the HOA management team via contracts with local services. The project owner proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in order to comply with the Affordable Housing requirement. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, five on-site units will be designated as rentals affordable to low income households. Background: 1. In 2010, the City adopted the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14). The goal of City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerEWy LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 SP14 was to transform the current development of commercial strip centers lined with surface parking lots and generally low-rise commercial buildings to a pattern of centers and segments characterized with clusters of shops and activity of varying intensity. These new active areas would include a mix of residential, offices, and commercial uses oriented to alternative modes of transportation including walking and bicycling. Along the Beach Boulevard corridor near Ellis Avenue, the development of a "Town-Center Neighborhood" segment would feature the City's widest range of contemporary housing types and possibly a wide mixture of uses. 2. In 2015, the City Council amended SP14 to decrease the total number of residential units allowed from 4,500 to 2,100, increase setbacks, increase minimum parking standards, require upper story setbacks, require a commercial component in all residential buildings, and permit residential subject to approval of a CUP. Other amendments related to auto dealers and civic and cultural uses were also approved. Out of the 2,100 Maximum Amount of New Development (MAND) units currently permitted, approximately 1,900 have been constructed leaving a balance of 200 units. Study Session: The Planning Commission held a Study Session on May 14, 2019 and discussed the following issues: General Solar panels on adjacent properties The Planning Commission discussed the potential impact of the project on adjacent properties to the east that have rooftop solar panels. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis exhibit (Attachment No. 6). Per the exhibit, the adjacent buildings to the east may experience shade/shadow beginning at approximately 6:00 PM during the summer months, approximately 4:00 PM during the fall months, and approximately 3:30 PM during the winter months. Distance of the project site from the intersection The proposed project site is approximately 96 ft. from the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. Pets At this time, the applicant has not provided information regarding pets at the property. Comparable projects The Planning Commission requested a list of comparable projects. Staff has prepared an exhibit of comparable completed projects within SP14 (Attachment No. 7). Revised site plan for clarity The Planning Commission requested a revised site plan exhibit which removes the utilities and other layers in order to depict the property lines, setbacks, etc. more clearly. The applicant has prepared a revised site plan to fulfill this request (Attachment No. 8). Environmental Artifacts on the project site Since the project site has been previously disturbed and developed, it is not likely that construction of City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere6E4 LegistarT" File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 the proposed project will result in discovery of cultural resources. Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 08-008 for BECSP included a Cultural and Paleontological Resources survey of the entire SP14 area. Two archeological sites were identified within the SP14 area and are labeled as CA-ORA-296 and CA-ORA-358. CA-ORA-296 is located on the west side of Newland Ave. between Slater Ave. and Talbert Ave. CA-ORA-358 is located on the corner of Indianapolis Ave. and Beach Blvd. Neither of these sites are within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Although there are no archeological sites near the project, the project will comply with BECSP MM 4.4 regarding Cultural and Paleontological Resources. For example, in the event that native soil is disturbed, an archeology professional will be retained to determine if a substantial adverse change would occur to an archeological resource. Acoustic study The Planning Commission asked why the Acoustic Study is not required to be submitted prior to project approval. The BECSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes Mitigation Measure 4.9-5 which requires an acoustic study to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The acoustic study will present an analysis of the potential noise impacts of the surrounding environment on exterior (ex: patios and balconies) and interior components of the proposed project. MM 4.9-5 includes a provision that requires final project design to incorporate special design measures in the construction of the proposed residential units, if necessary. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14) Zoning Pre-2010 Prior to the 2010 adoption of SP14, the property had a General Plan Land Use designation of CG - F2 - d (Commercial General - Flood Overlay - design overlay) and a Zoning designation of CG (General Commercial). Did SP14 envision narrow lot development or unconsolidated development? SP14 divides the Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. corridors into five general areas or segments. The overall vision for SP14 is to develop primarily residential and neighborhood retail uses in the southern portion of Beach Boulevard, transitioning to mixed uses in the middle segment of Beach Boulevard, then to a more dense "town center" adjacent to and at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, and extending along Edinger Avenue. Geographically, the intention is to intensify land uses as one travels north along Beach Boulevard from the southern boundary of the SP area. The project site is within the Five Points district of SP14, which is envisioned to enable investment in a visible, mixed-use cluster at this central location. SP14 discusses infill development on underutilized properties responding to the broad framework of the Specific Plan which will contribute to an emerging pattern of coherent arrangements of buildings, streets, and blocks. Although it might be ideal for clusters of small properties to consolidate and propose a unified project, it is not always possible due to market conditions and the interests of individual property owners. This is contemplated in the SP14 Development Concept which states that the common purpose of development within the Specific Plan is the realization of a vision of the future that is sufficiently specific to meet the revitalization goals, yet loose enough to respond to opportunities and changes in the marketplace that will inevitably arise. City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerE6$9j LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 Traffic Impacts, Traffic Improvements, and Grading Required Dedications The Public Works Department has indicated that the only dedication the project requires is a four foot dedication along Ellis Ave. Traffic Mitigation The Public Works Department has indicated that payment of fair share traffic fees and implementation of a right in, right out only driveway along with on-street striping and driveway improvements to supplement the right in/out only movements are the required traffic mitigations. The project does not result in other traffic related impacts requiring mitigation. Also, the Planning Commission requested information regarding Level of Service (LOS) in the project vicinity. LOS is a method of describing the delays experienced by drivers at a particular intersection or roadway. If a project is determined to create a significant traffic delay, it may impact and downgrade the LOS rating. The Traffic Impact Analysis finds that the proposed project driveway is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2020 traffic conditions. LOS B is defined as 0.61 - 0.70 seconds of delay and is described as a very good traffic condition with short delays. It must be noted that although the level of service calculation indicates LOS B operations at the project driveway, residents of the project may experience delays entering/exiting the project site due to vehicle queueing on Ellis Ave. The Public Works Department has prepared a summary of volume to capacity ratio at AM/PM Peak Hours in the project vicinity (Attachment No. 11). Will payment of fees at "full buildout"of SP14 cover all needs for traffic? The Public Works Department has indicated that collection of the fair share payment is sufficient to mitigate all the identified intersection improvements of the Specific Plan. Description of all traffic requirements for the project The Public Works Department has indicated that the following items are required related to traffic and street improvements: BECSP EIR Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measures (by payment of fair share traffic impact fees), BECSP Streetscape Improvement Development Standards (four ft. dedication), CP Circulation Element and PW standards (with implementation of right in/out driveway, on-street striping, and driveway improvements). North side grading The preliminary grading plan (Attachment No. 12) depicts the subject site with a grade of approximately 6.6 ft. for drainage purposes with a 6.6 ft. high retaining wall. The six ft. grade is proposed as the highest point with a gradual reduction in grade to approximately three to four ft. near the subterranean garage entrance. Staff recommends a condition of approval (Attachment No. 1) to require the proposed drainage pattern and system to be revised prior to issuance of a grading permit to reduce retaining wall and grade differential impacts to adjacent properties to the north, east, and west. Staff recommends a maximum two ft. retaining wall may be constructed and topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall. What (if any) grading or construction activities can occur outside of 10 AM - 4 PM? What time can City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerd694 Legistarl" File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 they start grading? Public Works Code Requirements for the project limit the hours of hauling trucks at the site from 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday - Friday only. The BECSP Mitigation Measures limit high noise-producing activities to the hours of 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Fire Access Ladder pads Per the Huntington Beach Fire Department, all bedroom windows are required to be accessible from ground ladders. The applicant has provided HBFD with plans that show the ladder pads for ground ladder access to egress windows. Elan Statistics on increased accidents due to Elan The Public Works Department has provided information regarding accident rates at three intersections in the project vicinity three years prior to occupancy of the Elan building and three years after the occupancy of the Elan building (Attachment No. 9). The analysis concludes that accidents after the occupancy of Elan have decreased compared to the rate of accidents prior to the occupancy of Elan. Comparison of the proposed project to Elan On May 15, 2012 the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 12-001 (Elan) to develop a mixed use project consisting of 274 residential units including six live-work units, 8,500 square feet of commercial space, an internal 430 space parking garage and 54,546 sf of private and public open space on a 2.74 acre site. The Planning Commission requested a comparison chart of the proposed project to Elan. It must be noted that Elan was approved prior to the 2015 BECSP Amendments which included the following revisions to topics relevant to Elan and the proposed project: • Reduce the residential Maximum Amount of Net New Development (MAND) from 4,500 units to 2,100 units • Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all residential and mixed use (residential/commercial) projects • Increase the residential parking requirements • Increase front yard setbacks on all public streets • Limit maximum building height to four stories • Create an upper-story setback above the third floor • Require all residential projects to include retail/commercial uses at the street level Provision Elan Proposed Project Number of Units 274 48 Density 100 units per acre 50 units per acre Height Ellis Ave.: ranges from 4-6 stories 4 stories 46 ft. to the highest point 4th story: 43 ft. high 6th story: 63 ft. 6 in. high City of Huntington Beach Page 6 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 poweAR�LegistarT'1 File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 Setbacks Ellis Ave.: 0 ft. 2 in. Ellis Ave.: 30 ft. Upper story setback: 11 ft. 1 in. setback along front and sides of building for a depth of 101 ft. 10 in. on the 41h floor Parking 1-2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit The Planning Commission also asked for information regarding trip generation rates for the proposed project compared to Elan. The Public Works Department has prepared a trip generation analysis comparison for both projects (Attachment No. 10). ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Sub"ect Proi3ertv And Surrounding General Plan Desi nations Zoning And Land Uses: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Convenience store Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) and one residence North of Subject M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Hotel and commercial Property: Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) shopping center East of Subject RM (Residential RM (Residential Medium Multi-family housing Property: Medium Density) Density) South of Subject M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Mixed-use retail and Property: Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) multi-family housing (Elan) West of Subject M-sp (Mixed-Use - SP14 (Beach Edinger Drive-through Property: Specific Plan Overlay) Corridor Specific Plan) restaurant and car wash (under construction) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Polic'y LU-IA: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. Policy LU-1B: Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources. City of Huntington Beach Page 7 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powereGR2y LegistarT"' File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 Policy LU-IC: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-ID: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well maintained and protected. Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs. Policy LU-48: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit. Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major facade offsets, and fagade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The fagade skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP. B. Housing Element Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability. Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and City of Huntington Beach Page 8 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerE694 Legistarl" File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations. Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability_: Incorporate transit and other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops. The project includes six one-bedroom units and forty-two two-bedroom units that would accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. The units range from 645 - 880 sf. The proposed project will help to fulfill the City's share of the regional housing need by providing smaller dwelling units which will be more financially attainable by virtue of size. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment of the population. C. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions. Goal CIRC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities. Policy CIRC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the infrastructure. Although the site is relatively narrow, the proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the underground parking structure to accommodate alternative methods of transportation. Zoning Compliance: The proposed project is located within Specific Plan No. 14 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and complies with the requirements of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment. The purpose City of Huntington Beach Page 9 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powers LegistarTM File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 of the BECSP is to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. Future development would transform existing commercial strips, which are predominantly lined with large expanses of pavement or underperforming uses, to a pattern of centers and segments generating increased activity and greater interaction between developments. As previously mentioned, the project site is located in the Town Center Neighborhood segment of the Five Points District within the BECSP. The Five Points District is designated as a potential City center characterized by convenience and urban vitality. Development within the Town Center Neighborhood segment is encouraged to be revitalized through infill development on underutilized properties. This segment is envisioned to have greater development intensity than surrounding segments, including new apartments or condominiums with shopfronts and parking areas screened from view. Development is to be more compact in this segment in order to provide the activity expected in a vibrant urban district. The table below shows an overview of the project's conformance to the significant development standards of the BECSP. In addition, a list of City Code Requirements of the applicable provisions of the BECSP and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal Code has been provided to the applicant and attached to this report (Attachment No. 19) for informational purposes only. Provision Town Center Proposed Project Neighborhood 2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residential 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1 Commercial one bedroom units 891 sf commercial retail 2.2.2 Special Retail n/a n/a Configuration 2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of the 5 affordable units to be proposed 48 units 4.8 units constructed on-site required 2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 stories 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling Ground floor retail - 14 ft. 451 slope complies min. floor to ceiling Adjacent to housing 2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft. 54 ft. max 2.3.4 Special Building Limited mid-block building - 54 ft. Length max. 80 ft. 2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1 L:3H to Complies with massing 3L:1 H range 2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to Ellis Ave. City of Huntington Beach Page 10 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powereS94 LegistarTA° File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types including Ellis Ave. elevation: shopfront, corner entry, Shopfront - 24 ft. long common lobby, etc. Internal elevation: Common Lobby Entry 2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft. 30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in. Upper story setback - 10 ft. setback for a depth of 101 ft. along front and sides of a 10 in. building for a depth of minimum 100 ft. for structures above the 3rd floor 2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows West side: 10 ft. East side: - loft. 33 ft. 7 in. 2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft. 15 ft. 7 in. 2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a 2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a 2.4.8 Space Between n/a n/a Buildings 2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a 2.5.1 Improvements to Neighborhood Streets 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter Existing Streets required - 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide sidewalk including 6 ft. wide planter and 6 ft. wide sidewalk 2.5.2 Provision of New n/a n/a Streets 2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a 2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a 2.5.5 Required East-West n/a n/a Street Connection 2.5.6 Residential n/a n/a Transition-Boundary Street 2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a 2.6.1 Provision of Public Residential - min.50 sf. per 2,703 sf. Open Space unit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min. 50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf. 2,444.5 sf. required 2.6.2 Special Public Open n/a n/a Space City of Huntington Beach Page 11 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 power LegistarT" File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2.6.3 Provision of Private Residential - 60 sf. per unit 4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) _ Open Space x 48 total units = 2,880 sf. 2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281 sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor units excluded from private open space calculation due to noncompliant porch type) 2.6.4 Public Open Space Provide either: Park, Linear Plaza Types Green, Square, Plaza, Mid- Block Green, Courtyard Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or Pocket Park/Playground 2.6.5 Private Open Space Provide either: Courtyard, 1 st floor units - noncompliant Types Private Yard, Rooftop Deck porch (excluded from private or Garden, or Balcony open space calculations) 2 nd - 4th floor units - balconies 4t' floor - rooftop deck 2.6.6 Stormwater Best Management Practices Provided - WQMP required Management required to ensure compliance 2.6.7 Stormwater BMP Source Control BMPs, Site Provided - WQMP required Types Design BMPs, Treatment to ensure compliance Control BMPs 2.6.8 Open Space Required Public plaza furniture Landscaping Decorative stamped concrete paving treatment 2.6.9 Setback Area Perimeter Block Setback Sidewalk extension Landscaping Types Area -Sidewalk extension provided : decorative required with Shopfront: stamped concrete paving to paving material consistent provide continuity with the public right-of-way w/sidewalk Side and rear Interior Block Setback Area -yards landscaped with Groundcover required: cove shrubs, trees, and side and rear yard areas groundcover with landscaping or other pervious surfaces 2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2 Residential: 1 bedroom = 12 min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12 spaces provided 2 bedroom required) 2 bedroom @ 2 = 84 spaces provided Guest min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84 = 24 spaces provided Retail required) Guest = 0.5 min/1 = 5 spaces provided Total: units (48 units x 0.5 = 24 125 spaces required 128 required) Retail: 5/1000 sf. spaces provided (891 sf. proposed) x (5/1000) = 4 spaces required City of Huntington Beach Page 12 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerEGWy LegistarT' File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot: Three level Underground rear Structure: wrapped Structure proposed ground level, wrapped all levels, partially submerged podium, underground structure 2.8.1 Facade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and varied roofline Base: brick veneer at retail and residential frontages BECSP Conformance The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Town Center Neighborhood segment of the BECSP as stated above and overall objective of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing 48 residential units to support the commercial opportunities existing and anticipated in the vicinity. The project also includes 891 sf. of commercial space to serve residents of the project and nearby neighborhoods. The project site is also within close proximity to other key developments including Five Points Plaza and Elan, which provide the commercial and public services that the proposed development will support. The urban environment will further form when there is sufficient supporting residential uses to accommodate the growing commercial uses. Alternate modes of travel such as walking and bicycling become more appealing when enhanced larger walkways are provided and integrated between developments. Proposed site improvements will provide wider pedestrian sidewalks throughout the project and an open public plaza. As discussed under the Zoning Conformance section of this report, the project complies with the BECSP development code and does not include any requests to deviate from the development standards. Adequate emergency access is provided in and around the site with the driveway from Ellis Ave., also functioning as the fire lane. Sufficient parking (exceeds code requirements) for the residential and commercial portion of the project is incorporated in a subterranean parking structure which supports the BECSP vision for quality urban spaces. The project is within the allowable MAND in the BECSP. As of the 2015 BECSP amendment, the Beach Boulevard corridor has 525 dwelling units approved of which 325 dwelling units have been constructed. There is a remaining capacity of 200 units in the Beach Boulevard corridor. The Beach Boulevard corridor also has a MAND of 532,000 sf. for retail development. The proposed project includes 891 sf. of retail space and 48 dwelling units, which do not exceed the Beach Boulevard corridor MAND. Building Massing and Scale The BECSP relies on massing and scale to dictate the desired building form and interaction with the public experience. As the building expands horizontally, the height of the building is vertically proportioned for orientation to the pedestrian environment. The flat plane of the fagade is then City of Huntington Beach Page 13 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 poweree9$y LegistarT" File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 separated into volumes accented with insets, offsets, notches, material and colors changes. For the proposed design, the building facades incorporate a variety of attractive elements. The dominant treatment along the exterior base involves brick veneer as well as the placement of metal trellises and canopies on the ground floor building entrances. The top element of the facades applies cornices and varied rooflines. Inset balconies and intermittent setbacks combine with rich landscaping to beautify the street frontages creating an inviting pedestrian and public space. The maximum allowable height for the subject site is four stories. The proposed building is four stories high and 46 ft. tall at the highest point of the building cornice. As seen along the Ellis Ave. frontage, the height is articulated from the pedestrian scale featuring a 20 ft. high retail portion of the building and a notch at the residential entrance. The facades facing Beach Blvd. (west) and Patterson Ln. (east) are further articulated with the addition of metal trellises and open railings on third and fourth floor balconies. The pedestrian bridge provides architectural relief and reduces visual massing via transmission of light and air through the building frontage. Land Use Compatibility The proposed four-story mixed-use development is compatible with existing and anticipated land uses in the immediate vicinity. This includes the mixed-use Elan building which ranges in height from 4-6 stories on Ellis Ave. and is also composed of a mixture of commercial and residential land uses. The project will be served by the existing commercial uses to the north, west, and south (Elan) of the project site. Existing multi-family residential uses are located east of the site and existing single family residential uses are located further east, beyond Patterson Ln. The project will not significantly impact existing residential uses because the proposed building is located approximately 260 feet away from the nearest single family residential building. Existing multi-family residences are buffered from the proposed commercial use through perimeter setback areas of landscaping, sidewalks, and a driveway. Interior noise would be minimized through noise attenuation features. Development of the site would enhance the visual image of the Beach Boulevard corridor and expand the vision of the specific plan. Site Layout & Circulation Access Vehicular access to the project site is proposed via one primary entry point on Ellis Avenue. There are no improvements necessary to the existing street or medians to accommodate vehicular access to the project site. The driveway on Ellis Ave. is designed with two-way travel lanes which provide entrance into the subterranean parking structure. The project will enhance the pedestrian experience on Ellis Ave. by dedicating four ft. of property to provide a 12 ft. wide public right-of-way. Pedestrian access to the project site will feature a six ft. wide planter along the street frontage which buffers the adjacent six ft. wide sidewalk. The sidewalk along Ellis Ave. is also adjacent to the proposed public plaza. The building is oriented towards the street which connects the sidewalk to the shopfront retail entrance and the common lobby residential entrance along Ellis Ave. Interior corridors connect the residential units to the parking garage and roof deck via stairs/elevators. The sidewalk connects to a pathway which provides access to the ground floor residential entrance and pedestrian security gates. The security gates will enclose the residential area from the public open space through controlled access scan cards. City of Huntington Beach Page 14 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 power LegistarT" File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 The project's access points have been designed to comply with the requirements of the BECSP and respond to the Fire Department's request for emergency access. The site includes a fire truck turnabout and marked fire lanes. The project has proposed an Alternate Means & Methods (AM&M) strategy to satisfy exterior hose pull distance requirements. The AM&M has been reviewed and conceptually approved by the HBFD. Open Space The 2,703 sf. public open space plaza is accessible via the public sidewalk on Ellis Ave. and visible along the street frontage. The plaza includes seating areas for public use and decorative stamped concrete pathways which encourages public use from the sidewalk. The inclusion of these improvements creates an inviting pedestrian experience for both visitors and residents. The project proposes porches as private open space for the ground floor residential units. Although each of the ground floor residents will benefit from the enjoyment of open space accessible directly from their unit, the porch type private open space is noncompliant with the Town Center Neighborhood segment of BECSP. For this reason, the ground floor porches are excluded from private open space calculations for the project. All residents will have access to the fourth floor roof deck common area. Units on the fourth floor also have private balconies which are separate from the common area. Parking The 2015 amendments to the BECSP increased the parking ratio requirements from the original 2010 adoption of the BECSP. The proposed project meets and exceeds the minimum amount of required vehicle parking based on the current BECSP. A total of 125 parking spaces are required for the project and a total of 128 parking spaces are provided. The project provides 120 parking spaces for residences, including 24 spaces reserved for guests, and 5 spaces reserved for the retail tenant. The subterranean parking structure will provide access to all 128 parking spaces. According to the Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. 13), the parking garage will remain open between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM and require a scan card for gate access outside these hours. Affordable Housing As required per the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 230.26 - Affordable Housing, 10% of the proposed units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. Thus, 4.8 of the proposed 48 units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. The applicant proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in order to comply with the Affordable Housing requirement. Three of the affordable units will be made available to moderate income households and two affordable units will be available to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section 230.26(B)(3). In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, five on-site units will be designated as rentals affordable to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section 230.26(B) (2). In addition, there are requirements for a 45-year affordability period (for-sale units) and 55-year affordability period (rental units) and the timing for which the affordable units shall be constructed. The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 stipulates these requirements to be recorded in an Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: City of Huntington Beach Page 15 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powerOlq LegistarT, File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. A detailed discussion of the project's design is provided in the Analysis section of this staff report. Environmental Status: On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 08-008 for the proposed Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. EIR No. 08-008 concluded that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems, which would remain significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission certified EIR No. 08-008 as adequate and complete with modified mitigation measures, findings of fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to action on the GPA, ZMA, and ZTA on March 1, 2010. The project applicant has completed Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary Hydrology Report/WQMP, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and a Geotechnical Investigation (Attachments No. 17) to ensure the project will comply with the BECSP Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. All potentially significant effects of the project have been analyzed pursuant to the BECSP Program EIR and can be mitigated pursuant to applicable mitigation measures adopted for the BECSP Program EIR (Attachment No. 15). Therefore, pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is covered under the program EIR and no further environmental analysis is required. Coastal Status: Not Applicable. Design Review Board: Not Applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not Applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building, Economic Development, and Police have reviewed the proposed development project. Recommended conditions from the Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building and Police are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval and code requirements have also been identified. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on May 16, 2019, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department's Notification Matrix), and applicant. Written communications received prior to the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration (Attachment No. 16). Application Processin_g Dates: City of Huntington Beach Page 16 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powere&4 Legistarlm File #: 19-545 MEETING DATE: 5/28/2019 DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 1, 2019 June 1, 2019 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following: - Consistent with the M-sp (Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay) Land Use Designation of the General Plan and the SP 14 - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan zoning designation. - Implements the objectives of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach Boulevard corridor. - Provides a mixed-use development that is consistent with the BECSP development code and compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land uses. - Creates an environment that supports pedestrian and bicycle activity and increases housing. - The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. - The project contributes to the City's housing stock, including affordable housing as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Narrative received and dated May 1, 2019 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 received March 7, 2019 5. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations received April 23, 2019 6. Shadow Analysis 7. BECSP Completed Comparable Projects 8. Site Plan Revised for Clarity 9. Accident Rates in the Project Vicinity 10. Proposed Project and Elan Trip Generation Comparison 11. Summary of Volume/Capacity Ratio in Project Vicinity 12, Preliminary Grading Plan 13. Parking Management Plan received and dated April 22, 2019 14. Sustainability Narrative received and dated September 21, 2018 15. BECSP Mitigation Monitoring Checklist 16. Email Public Comment Received May 17, 2019 17. Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Draft Water Quality Management Plan, Phase 1 ESA, Geotech Investigation (not attached - see May 14, 2019 PC Study Session Staff Report) 18. Republic Will-Service Letter 19. Code Requirements Letter City of Huntington Beach Page 17 of 17 Printed on 5/29/2019 powered LegistarTM SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457, because the project is a mixed-use development that conforms with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan for which Program EIR No. 08-008 was adopted and implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Compliance with all applicable mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan will be required of the project. In light of the whole record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines are present and, therefore, no EIR or MND is required. The Project, located on the north side of Ellis Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Patterson Lane, consists of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences with on- site public and private open space, a three level subterranean parking structure and 891 square feet of commercial space. The development site is located within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) area. The City certified Program EIR No. 08-008 on. December 8, 2009 and adopted the BECSP on March 1, 2010. In 2015, the City Council amended the BECSP to reduce the Maximum Amount of New Development to 2,100 total new dwelling units including 725 units on Beach Boulevard. There are 200 undeveloped units remaining within the MAND on Beach Boulevard. The 48 units contemplated by the project is within the total new dwelling units permitted on Beach Boulevard under the approved BECSP. The project conforms to all standards and regulations of the BECSP development code. Accordingly, no changes requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR are proposed as part of the project, nor have any circumstances changed requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR. In addition, no new information identifies that implementation of the BECSP, including the project, will have significant effects that were not discussed in the previously certified Program EIR or that the significant effects identified in the certified Program EIR will be substantially more severe than determined in the Program EIR. Nor is there new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives not previously adopted would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for the consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre parcel is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on the subject property. The project complies with all applicable code provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The project will result in the demolition of an existing commercial building, one dwelling unit, and a portion of a former car wash and facilitate the development of a mixed-use building permitted by code. The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development. 703 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development in that the project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation, and drainage perspective. The site is located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, which permits mixed-use buildings and residential uses within close proximity of commercial uses. The specific plan is a form-based code that does not rely on density to limit development, but rather the building form to create an attractive public experience appealing to pedestrians. By merging the three existing lots into one, the site will function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the growing urban Beach Boulevard corridor. 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 because the site has been previously used as a car wash, one dwelling unit, and a convenience store. The site does not contain any significant habitat for wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The project will comply with applicable mitigation measures pursuant to Program EIR No. 08- 008. 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. Vehicular access is provided via a driveway along Ellis Avenue. The subdivision will provide all necessary street, sidewalk, and utility easements to serve the new subdivision. The project will dedicate four feet of land to widen the existing sidewalk (public right-of-way) along Ellis Avenue. The project will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements 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 because as conditioned, the project will result in less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences. Existing multi-family residences adjacent to the east will be buffered from the project by an approximately 33 ft. 7 in. setback on the east side of the project site consisting of landscaping and a driveway. Residents of the project and the general public, including nearby residents, will benefit from the new commercial portion of the building and the public plaza. Based upon the conditions of approval and BECSP mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts onto adjacent properties in that the project complies with setbacks, onsite parking requirements, and allowable building height. The project is a four-story building that is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP. The proposed mixed-use development will be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and commercial uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. With the conditions of 704 approval imposed, the project's grading and drainage pattern will result in compatible finished grades between adjacent properties. 2. The proposed project will comply with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) because the project complies with all other setback standards, building height, top and base architectural element requirements, and parking. 3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently M-sp (Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay). Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-IA: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. Policy LU-18: Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources. Policy LU-IC: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. . Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well maintained and protected. Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs. Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit. 705 Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. The proposed development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major fagade offsets, and fagade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The fagade skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP. Housinq Element Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability. Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations. Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability: Incorporate transit and other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops. The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 would ensure that the project is developed in accordance with the proposed project narrative and guarantee that the project provides 5 onsite affordable housing 706 units. The project represents new housing in the City that will help to fulfill the City's share of the regional housing need. The proposed project would accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment of the population. Circulation Element Goal C/RC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions. Goal C/RC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to- day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities. Policy C/RC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the infrastructure. The proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the subterranean parking structure to accommodate alternative methods of transportation. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for consolidation of three existing parcels into a one-lot subdivision for a mixed-use 48 unit residential and 891 square feet commercial development received and dated April 23, 2019, shall be the approved layout, including the following: a. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be 707 quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. 2. The Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 shall not be approved by the City Council until Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 is approved and in effect. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and at least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Tract Map (HBZSO 230.84 (A) & 253.10 (K)) (PW): a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) shall be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Economic Development identifying three on-site units for- sale as affordable for persons and families of moderate income and two on-site units for- sale as affordable for persons and families of low income pursuant to Section 230.14 of the HBZSO. The AHA shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable for persons and families of low income in the event the project is operated as rental apartment units. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council and shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The Agreement shall comply with HBZSO Sections 230.14 and 230.26 and include: i. A detailed description of the type, size and location of the five affordable housing for- sale units on-site. The mix of designated affordable one bedroom and two bedroom units shall be determined in the Agreement. ii. There shall be three on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of moderate income (up to 120% of the Orange County median income). There shall be two on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of low income (up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income is adjusted for appropriate household size. iii. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, the Agreement shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable to persons and families of low income (up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income is adjusted for appropriate household size. iv. Continuous affordability provisions for a period of 45 years (for-sale units) and 55 years (rental units). Any required for-sale affordable units shall be owner-occupied (not rented or leased). 708 v. Provisions for the affordable units to be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project. Phasing and availability of the affordable units shall be concurrent with final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit(s), or contingent upon evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion of the affordable units. 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the Final Map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify: a. The common driveway access easements b. Maintenance of all walls, common landscape areas, and refuse management by the Homeowners' Association c. Management of the BMPs per the approved WQMP by the Homeowners' Association d. Management of the revised Parking Management Plan pursuant to CUP No. 17- 042 Condition No. 2 to ensure the ongoing control and availability of on-site parking. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO Section 253.12.H) 7. Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 conditions of approval. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 23, 2019 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Depict the controlled access entry gate to the subterranean parking garage discussed in the Parking Management Plan. b. The proposed 10 ft. high perimeter block wall shall be revised to a maximum of 8 ft. high, including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall in accordance with Condition of Approval No. 6.a. 2. The Parking Management Plan dated April 22, 2019 shall be revised to include the following: a. Required parking shall be assigned to and reserved for each unit. Each unit shall be assigned two reserved parking spaces. b. The assigned residential parking spaces shall be provided with the rental of a dwelling unit without any additional cost. (HBZSO 231.18 (D)(2)) 3. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Ellis Ave. Condos. 4. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. 709 Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct up to an eight (8') foot tall wall (including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall) located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line. The plans shall include some mechanism to close and secure any gaps. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Plans shall depict any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls and sidewalls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 5. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed: a. The proposed drainage pattern and system shall be reevaluated to reduce potential grading impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and west by incorporating localized collection points and result in a maximum two ft. grade differential and maximum two ft. high retaining wall. The retaining wall may be topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall. b. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. (PW) c. The existing 20-foot easement over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building. (PW) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The property owner/developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. All design and construction shall be per the City Standard codes and street configuration and specifications of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the "Neighborhood Streets" configuration. 710 f. A lighting plan depicting the boulevard-scale street lighting and pedestrian-scale street lighting along Ellis Ave. shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Division and Public Works Department. 7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Community Development Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). d. One set of project plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 and one 8 '/2 inch by 11 inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette, revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be submitted for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning Division. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 to Republic Services for review. Proof of Republic Services approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Community Development Department. c. A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following: i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type; ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale; iii. Fire hydrant locations, public and private; iv. FDC locations; v. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving; vi. FACP locations; vii. Knox box and knox switch locations; viii. Gate locations, and opticoms if required; 711 ix. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and circles/cu I-d ee-sacs; x. Fire lane signage and striping. xi. The conceptual Alternative Materials and Methods Strategy shall be finalized to demonstrate compliance with exterior hose pull distance requirements. (FD) 9. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the following shall be completed: a. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84) b. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, furniture and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public right-of-way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with the maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. (PW) c. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project's Ellis Avenue frontage shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If require, easements shall be quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies. (PW) 10. The use shall comply with the following: a. All ground floor entry points to residences shall be monitored by secured FOB type entries. (PD) 11. The developer or developer's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 12. CUP No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 13. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program 712 certification (_http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorVID=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/green-building- guidelines-rating). 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. 713 ONEIMMENSIMEN - S `., .. mmmmmmm MEMO®� MEN . a� _ OWN SOME 0 St�ai�ightflnn MEN ,4 0 P E IIS A la akna Dr La Palma Or ndo Project � I Site m t 'Jack i ,4 3 � p.K E� � _.w EII Ilia ve li ve VICINITY . • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11 NO. 18157/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 11 AVENUE CONDOS) m c ; a r c h i t e c t o re May 1, 2019 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REGARDING Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach MCG Project No. 17.359.05 To whom it may concern: Our client, THDT Investment, Inc. is proposing to redevelop 3-existing lots (totaling approximately 41,200 s.f.) near the north-east corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard within the Huntington Beach - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The new development will demolish the existing liquor store at 8041 Ellis Avenue, the single family residence behind the liquor store and part of the lot adjacent to the Metro car wash at 18400 Beach Boulevard to build a new four story mixed use building with an approximately 891 s.f. retail use on the ground floor along Ellis Avenue and a combination of single and two bedroom condominium units throughout the remainder of the approximately 79,000 s.f. building. The proposed unit mix would be 42- 2 bedroom units - approximately 880 s.f. ea. and 6 single bedroom units - approximately 645 s.f. ea. for a total of 48 units overall. The City of Huntington Beach Business Development staff provided the total number of required affordable housing units to be 4.8. The developer is seeking to provide 5-affordable units overall. Parking to serve the development will consist of three sub-grade levels for a total of 128 parking stalls. The intention is for the units to be sold to individual buyers so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building maintenance and regular up-keep and cleaning will be handled by the owners management team via contracts with local services. This new development will be an enhancement to the community by adding a modern environmentally friendly& small scale mixed use complex with unit pricing sized to suit the average consumer. The location allows owners to visit amenities such as Helme Park, medical, dental and eye care centers as well as local markets all within a short walking distance. Public transportation is close by as well via the existing bus stop on Beach Boulevard in front of the Metro Car Wash. Owners on the upper floors of the south and west side units will be afforded serene ocean views and breezes to help enhance their lifestyles. Retail.Entertainment.Hospitality.011iee CLEVELAND • DENVER - GLENDORA - IRVINE • SAN ERANCISCO 715 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis &Beach m c tr architecture May 1, 2019 .-, Page 2 Yours truly, MCG ARCHITECTURE Jeff Herbst, Project Director XXX:xx Enclosures CC Retail.Entertainment.Hospitality.Office CLEVELAND • DENVER GLENDORA IRVINE - SAN FRANCISCO 716 vi - LL.. v� Lr O vi CL vi �+ vi W V Z W w v < C� m W < J < < p w < p < �' Y < �' U f ) " Q Z< („) 2 Q - Q O Z �- U r WJ ~ WUCL' WU W WO WO f— (n O J rLL ~ z � zC/) w Ur EL N z � 0 ZWW ZW z < O z < � JO ? � J � o z ZOz � U a a a a a rl- < < < J < J U O d' r Z W r N M L n Q 'r J 0- U) G U 0- U [if W Y � 0 O ^ ^ ^ I I ^ ^ � I f h ^ Lf \\�\ R Q .00'ZZtb 3,,86,8�o00N ------------------ 11 1 0 ❑ F-v> >OZ :2 O o w 0 ❑ _ -0� -_ - z 0 00 I- w -J, U O> ❑ ` O0 W C z0 w `C � OIo co ui EsX m m ❑ �O� J W'> W I < m co X t- IR LIJ n' X w 0w \\\ ` .007 3,3A k9 Go00N A2JVGNnO9 Ald3dO2t w —-- � t t t bo Co 6'(YVA77/709 HOP99 it I = 1 N m W W Ll 2 ~ � J z O � W X 0-ZL cn 0 w m cc D C/) � J Z O f= 2m W X 0 W I I 1 I� I w Z w W_ 2 0 � -J w0 fr Z 0 1 H W � Co � w o W W cn 0 J Z w O H w ¢ 2 cn c=i» U) � ow J Z J Z O — 2U) m � m w w 0 w O W c, � < ZQ cn I I v p l a Y I ° � „o � ° LUDo I p J - J LU I Q (� I _ J 0 U w�— — — — — ">`t �3 2 o -,`,l wQ 2 � I L" J / C7\ g /�i Q LU S n 11 L�J c� w z y 2 j or J O °ti \ U II / ZD U) o 0 w z w o c) Q l � (D LUN LF) CLOv7 J�, oU) z < [ �w o-�, z z I(DI II \ o z I III / o LI II < w < C5 IIR�, Z) m rr - o ~ z C I Q ` w � O `'� I HSt/dl LL I U. r o 0 zl uj w ° 0 co I J z a 2 w " I T Z J I � WC) cr ¢ 0Q0 _ Nr- I ❑ o LLJ LL W — — ❑ a6sluaJ a;snug CW') W O adA_L Agqo-I uOWWOO Q U 0 W LL Q 2 = W I I 2 jm JJ - - J LL Q � I LZ z O � Q ° � 0 2 — LL co D w cc U) 0 p 0 0 r I j w 0cx \ I JIr Q 0 � } Y � z CO \ 1 z ❑ p IL OJ m z ¢ ILI Cl) Q z ,0-,0 � M I Z _ _N� co MM CO J m W _ U) < LL = I ~ a_ W N C3 � W +I z m I Z W z Z m O LU o 0 0 0 crp CDa- m O m m m m O ? �1 Z O N I acr U Z W cr = W ILC.) '� - < o � rl-Cl) w � Q � � � T � � ac HSVHl CO I O ~ I M rrW M z M D T I ❑ W ❑ El W ❑ Cl) `? co z o M I — L z � Z) T " coco I_ Q Cl) Z ❑ D D � = coN z no - - - J I F Q w ( J m 0 Z w W W Z p J cn U O z o m U) U) M0 0 Q a Q 0 > U j F- F= < O ( J Z0 ¢ or :DCnZ0 00 0 ( _ I (J (� Er o co Z J w > Hsdal LL 0 0 IL a 0 w Ir co ,,0-,6 9-19 11 1 Y O 0 w Q 0 IL w 0 Q 0 E co L 0 Q I _ w N Ir d LL 0 0 — (� Cc cc w 3: F rl� �o i � I I I I I U I M -j \ cios I�ioo G;io% w \ \ w / INMOa dI"VI ol O r ) o / J - Z/ / L 0 0 Qc- Q CD LO CO LLJ �< W ' o � 0 DU) ELcn cn �— � w U) w VJ^ :4w � 000 < / Q ~ ~ N I �� NLU LO —4 (D U) z w a> Y N � TN. � v~i 1 ' 1 p W NN C, III U > w w I � W wl CD J z W J NCl) U w 0 Y Er Ir Z IL O < w W _ CL Y_ Lu U) 0 mY � m Cl) I � I U) Q LLJ CD n W I � I I N m LO I I I O o j I I N > � 1 � I I 0 LO o � i I J Q C!) CV LO W > W N z o _ o N n� I M r N C7 J J J LU W W Ir > 0 -� J LLI J LPL Z U- Z U- Z U- Y Y Y LL E o Q o Q o Q o L o C o CL o a- o r N I I I Isla S ;a 1 a 9 E � LA ;7 1�■■■■■■■■■ ����� I�Ii€ Iill{!(Ifll9lll � ��� 1�■■■■■�■■■ i:'� 1I� ■. 1■■■■■■■■■■ jj alb �I � a f BD ■ ■ IfmgIn Im p JIM INS I low IS 1�1 IMMEMINOMMUM ME mn��■ ��■■�■ice■■s■ I�NIIIIIIIIEIIVIlO � - I� I�I II�II IIIIIIIIIIIII1111HHill Will 111111Hill 111111111111111111Hill mol LEM." 1�s m v 1---_1 LO -_ m I� == ° ll ,� L i i _ I i (13S=IA0 %0ol L) !III z I Q o r O � � o AVIIII C 'x: {;x 141�n fflE I I O — Q i I I I ,o-,sv 0 m ,o G-Io£ o 0) ,,9-,b£ w U O 9 ¢ wo W a LLJ Ir Ell ID cm 0 0 Q a \� a 0 i uj Ij a a W Y � 00 O � � aW OC� t ' o LL O w w w � � o Q 0 Q � U - wW � -- Z oz f� Cj Q Q W c� 0 a z a J ¢ O � WzW Way N J w D a w J z Co Q w II C U) U) 0 Zp W O 06QD N � OLL QpL W Q p p Z 0 (A � V U Q 0 t Q J W Q Q as o w � � � 00 � ww OZc I i � -i -j Q J W W 0 0QQ � f- LU Obi j a W > W W W > > � Q � �U) LLQ > a J J W 0 w � (n (n w W O U) W U) O J Z J LL U) a U) J � � w I- W � O U � w o C� _ � O _U00 ' Q Y N U U) 0- � � J � 2 wp i Z Lu WOUz � = Q a > 0 Q O Q = w z_ 0 WW = 2 0 � Q w200 O LL CO w z z -i z Q z a _ U) � 0 IY w u U) o a z 0 LU w 0 z j p 0 Z �n O W LL1 Z z < W N O z a (A W U U Q Q (D } 0 J J W Q U) O Q a Q Q a i (A C/) Z Z C) > 2E Q U w Z z o o ? w 0 z 0U) LL LL. W p Q W �Z D a 0 � > W W O LL Z U) 0 Q p I o ono W W W U Q W m U ~ j 1 N N CO > Z Z w Cn O Z `r' O LL W W D � p p 0 0 0 Y W O� z C� a_ Lu z z LL a LL Q Q ¢ Z) Q M Q O Z) z z D U ' O O 2 2 W o F- 0 H J O Ix OW U 1 W � IX m Q - J W �- Q F- Q LL W j uj } LL Ow O z � H w W O � i ~ Z Z � � m U � � _ w 0 � < I 0 0 0 w z W W O- F OW U) CK 1 > > J J a J a U) in Q Z W F- U Y - U O H H } N W W z a w w U) w Q Q Z Q a o o J Q w w Q w w > w O � z 0 0 I- Y Q a_ a W > > > m O p ate. z z O a - 00 0 00 N M 00 d) N N N M N N N i CO CO CO CD (6 6 fl- 00 00 00 I N N N N N N O O O N 0 N N N m m m m 2 = 2 2 J C O N J dN' Q +i Q w / � m c; C m O LU w .`1 I L _ > J � � W w LLI L LJ O o Z z O Q w W o z L ' =1 W a ,I W W tLLLI m° J' C.' r1 Vr� r1 Ci m r— CA c o L w i i7 y �7 1 4Nk - 4 K9Mi� p s e� Y "lot O , • ca S � � r • i `` t l e' N F I a4 t � f t a F� L 1 , l )f { - • x a • fi • O M 1 � f r A t �{ s ■ t T t AW 410 -O 4 t t } � .. a x t � � � � � �� � E #, � � _ � f a <. „ " ��w � �a ,_ � �� 1 !'� a r f �� ,,,. l t �� � � � � M �� • 3j. , �� M # F • • ,r. �. �� �� �� . �� � F � � . � � 4 t ; t � ' .... �" � ..r �, � 5 • . f� � _:, � � - *' � i 3 �� ;� • � t v�„ a +. � �- _. �, ;" � .. �� � r 1 � �, �..,� i rr :� �, 1 � • �W x F � n - r 1F" � a i o r r . 1 s t r t s � • .0 a f ' 1 � 5 • r A e. BECSP Residential Projects — Completed 5/2019 Ave. i ' @ F, Edinnpr Av I © 1. Name: Avalon (3.8 acres/mixed use) Address: 7302-7400 Center Avenue — # Units: 378 units CL �__d��i 1 Av {. _nw _ 2. Name: Boardwalk (12.5 acres/mixed use) w. 7441 Edinger Ave _ - Address: nge - # Units: 487 units 3. Name: Luce (8.5 acres/MFR) Warn& Ave. Address: 7262, 7266, 7280 Edinger Ave. 16001, 17091 Gothard Street W '-- - --- _ # Units: 510 units —Cr _ �- E - +„ i 4. Name: Oceana (2 acres/MFR) T— � Address: 18151 Beach Blvd. _ # Units: 78 units 5. Name: Elan (2.7 acres/mixed use) Address: 18502, 18508-18552 Beach Blvd. - lalbet#, �� -- # Units: 274 units CE T 6. Name: Beach & Ocean (3.2 acres/MFR) 3 ___.. Address: 19891 Beach Blvd. Cr _. _. # Units: 173 units Ave.er El i v z m Total Residential Units — 1,900 rfl id town _ ve. 3 'C I NTS €, . f 1 738 <LL zQ cn U p a _ U }d W 0 ~ ~ LL Z mom Z 06 z LL W cr J Lij ❑ vi0 LLJ � I p J i } ' _ Wg cr C) o > w = N I 2 W C3 Q W v _ � - � C+1 n o W � JZ Q 0 w = Yw � oU IQ I < o W w i�l a � �IQI oJ z- z a ICI II \ 5 U II < W < �- C � m E ~ z O ` cr Z) � IL P- Fo I O HSV i - 0 o r Er O Q 1 w LU LUO J z 0- Z) Cr W m LL J zWU N UJ o0Q ❑ 0WU- ❑ a6e1uaJ aIanud w cn 2i adl1 Agqo-I uowwoo Q U 0 m 11J lL Q M = O w r J S � mWQ, O ~_ 0 = zLL w �z U) O IJ � p 0 0 cm o � J W � 0m J �al Q U z = Q Q z z � ❑ p o0 J = m z ¢ Accident Rates Before`and After Elan, Development Accident Rate Accident Rate Location Before After Elan Development Elan Development Beach Blvd/Ellis Ave* 0.68 0.62 Ellis Ave/Patterson Ln* 0.11 0.15 Beach Blvd (Ellis Ave - Graziadio Dr)** 7.5 6.4 Ellis Ave (Beach Blvd - Goodwin Ln)** 12.7 12.4 *intersection accident rate per million entering vehicles **street segment accident rate per million vehicle miles traveled Before rates calculated based on 3 years of data prior to development After rates calculated based on 3 years of data after development 740 v c 0 ca L r nC Q V Q r .L I r I Q Q C N 'L L � 00 N H L L Q r TC C C c T T > C- `1 L cu Q ^W ^^C C I L ca2 � W 0 Q a_ C N E 0- 0 O O C (B W O N L c C- C E O O — U L C o o m N O C_ N ti C I CV (D c I Q C 'L ALL r � L L •C L() L L ~ m D D O � co Intersection'�, Level-of... ,h ; Service (LOS)" Analysis* Volume/Capacity Ratio Existing Existing PM Acceptable Remaining at Acceptable AM Peak Peak Hour LOS per City LOS (D) with Project (AM Intersection Hour LOS* LOS* Policy Peak Hour/ PM Peak Hour) Beach Boulevard / Talbert Avenue B D D 0.31 / 0.10 Beach Boulevard / Garfield Avenue B C D 0.25 / 0.18 Beach Boulevard / Ellis Avenue A B D 0.37 / 0.29 * Intersection Capacity Utilization Methodology (ICU) 742 fj j a j Z-1 a S Y C4 LLJ Oc Cr B j a V FW+f j 3 c _76 1D -' d (1, IW/ i ell e U Q o W a W W d y J d 4 Q) v ( o. ad 4�i a CL CL ° a © cr- d �. `� yJ c j w } 'V C > V }, 0 Q � Q � i ® me architecture April 16, 2019 RECEIVED APR 2 2 2019 Depr, Q ofCor rM4, : , City of Huntington Beach L? 4E`p�P'°pit Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REGARDING Parking Management Plan Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis &Beach CUP#17-042 To whom it may concern: The proposed development will provide for 128 total off street parking spaces. As currently designed all parking will be underground with 53 total parking spaces on the first sub-grade level, 53 parking spaces on the second sub-grade level and 22 parking spaces on the third sub- grade level. Vehicular Access to the parking area will be from a new 24'-0"wide drive aisle adjacent to the building extending north from Ellis Avenue approximately 295', then ramping down to the first sub-grade level. Each of the ramps that connect the levels to one another will not exceed 10% in slope. Also, ramps will not project into the required maneuvering spaces for vehicles as they enter/leave parking spaces. Residents &patrons may access the parking levels from within the building via the elevator or one of the 3-stairways provided. Parking stalls shall be designed and striped in accordance with City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance Chapter 231. The surface of the parking facility will be paved with non-slip concrete. Parking level one consists of 31 standard stalls for residences, 3 accessible parking stalls, 2 stalls designated for clean air vehicles, 5 stalls to serve the retail component and 12 stalls reserved for tenant guest parking-totaling 53. Parking level two consists of 36 standard stalls for residences, 3 accessible parking stalls, 2 stalls designated for clean air vehicles and 12 stalls reserved for tenant guest parking-totaling 53. Parking level three consists of 17 standard stalls for residences, 3 accessible parking stalls and 2 stalls designated for clean air vehicles - totaling 22. Parking levels one and two also provide for short term bicycle parking, storage for long term bicycle parking and a separate storage room with reserved lockers for tenants. Retail.Entertainment,Hospitality.Office CLEVELAND • DENVER • GLENDORA • IRVINE • SAN FRANCISCO 744 (D949.553.1117 O 949.474.7056 111 Pacifica,Suite 280 Irvine,CA 92618 �' i I. i Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. Page 2 As provided the parking accommodates the 2 required stalls per residential unit, .5 stalls per unit for guest parking and 5 stalls for the proposed retail tenant- totaling 125 required and 128 provided stalls. While there are no assigned/reserved parking stalls, other than those designated for Retail, Guest Parking and as required by law, the parking garage will only remain open between the hours of 9am to 9pm. Beyond those hours the only access will be provided to tenants via a scan card used at the gate for entry/exit. In each level there will be sufficient lighting and security cameras to provide for a safe environment as tenants and guests transition to/from the parking levels. Yours truly, MCG ARCHITECTURE Jeff Herbst, Project Director ee File FILE: Eoa nenl M4-1.5) 745 in g architecture Dep tCommunEf Development eptember 13, 2018 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REGARDING Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis &Beach Sustainability Narrative MCG Project No. 17.359.05 To whom it may concern: The project as depicted in the submitted exhibits is to be designed in compliance with the 2016 California Green Building Residential Mandatory Measures. Components will include at a minimum the following; 1. Minimal site disturbance wherever possible (with the intention to maintain existing slopes). 2. Storm water/erosion control measures during construction. 3. Provisions for future EV charging stations/parking stalls. 4. Drought tolerant landscaping and irrigation in compliance with MWELO Ordinance. S. Water conserving plumbing fixtures (water closets, faucets, shower heads). 6. Construction waste management plan in harmony with waste stream reduction goal to achieve less than 2 lbs./per square foot of building area in alignment for 65% reduction. 7. Prepare building maintenance/operation manuals for both tenants and building owner. 8. Trash recycle area for tenants. 9. Providing building materials to comply with VOC limits within code. 10. Manually operable windows with screens for natural ventilation as an aid to indoor air quality and environmental comfort beyond that provided by mechanical means. Beyond the Mandatory Measures, this project has/will be designed to align with specific Voluntary Measures as follows; 1. Site selection consistent with City of Huntington Beach General Plan and regional public transportation to further comply with environmental sustainability. Retail.Entertainment.Hospitality.office CLEVELAND • DENVER • GLENDORA - IRVINE • SAN FRANCISCO 746 CT) 949,553.1117 T 949.4743056 111 Paclfica,Suite 280 Irvine,CA 92618 Page 2 2. Strive to comply as a Transit Priority Project in conjunction with SCAG requirements. Site is located to maintain community connectivity with residents and local basic services (to include banks, churches, parks, grocery stores, retail, dental,vision, healthcare)all within 1/4 mile of project. 3. Reduction of heat island affect at parking areas by locating tenant and retail parking below grade. 4. We propose to use high albedo materials at the patio surfaces to align with cool roof requirements. 5. Outdoor lighting is proposed to be in compliance with light pollution reduction. The above measures listed are merely an overview of those proposed. The projects construction documents will define the complete compliance measures. Yours truly, MCG ARCHITECTURE Jeff Herbst, Project Director cc File ALE: Oocumerd(204-11) 747 C ca ca c __ _ -O N G C p a) O}''n N N N ss __ CD = U n. O d m m us cis _ _ _ m cn ° moo 0 � O G rn c r ` ,r.., L N N w U (n a) C - z'i J N O E - cti cff .. Y a) O a) C N Ca-,) a) C) - =S: o a) CO fd 0 cm N =_ � � cmY� � ai ai ' is °� ro � a) u d) Q0 cgro3Oas �S -0 aXiCD Zcri ° C 0r x Z U Z c) ME. "== tjeveopmFrP o o o o o ai a) 0 -o E c �6 � E c � Lo € c m c`a E c cv _- :�< .:?;'_i - a) .0 y 'S `m m o .0 m = N o Ca o rn m a W a .N� a d a. n o_ d ny ro n. a o.N ro o a QCD ,`�1' m �y am ca o� U ,- m m L° o CDo n N 3 rn a m ca a a) N N W_01.'=i C o tr oCL Cap c L Y = t Q+ ate] taQ En y 40 _ O) - � ..0. U m •� 61 � _.;;;! a y c cob ca oc q c c c m o_. CL In U to a U to CL U m CC "'.' a) O w b N w .. �. - - U N O 4-, .'-" Oxa: :.:^:`:: f0 •� S 'C i Q) C a) _O .O -- O N (C9 N O (9 L — O .0 ..- N -^ O - - E is 'o o 3 '? o E w � c a c u `" C - a' ro a =- o d a) 'co n u (� =ca a) N c N o a) N w d pp n m e ni N o _ u c tO c Cr a) c C rn w b a� a) O Q N •- N N a) a) O U -.N-• c O C N S '� c t rn U a) :0 i a y :o 'c y'� aa)) =3 Ca � o O c (N� n �O o vi E '` v�i x i cm m ° -8 a 8- .�n c .ram-':_ �n N u•=' a.) rq' O) C N 3 M � ro L b y a) f0 N U U O N •Up E L9 N `� y'+� p, N cOjy b E OL N Q V L� N N �- N - w o '� C V L C L o m a N a) 3 a) E o b _ rn _O C N {"� N O .p. N C -O �+ _ N .p .0 `,.J• .�b C �. b N -� n C N O '? :C N C - — N p V O V Y--. C m U 'O O_ b •.--. b:7 a) a] �p •ro a3 O` :� m O)w U aY d) — U +.. ti C .e p o a7 Q) U N p C _� _ fa Q) ro U O d U .c 4= ',,�cr�:, -'i`-`?'`,:.•:,: '-s- •,�-., C1 O p n C O_ U p j Q] N L ` '' - p a) w r,,. 'O ` V C C C U E t".0 .- :r a) N N b O _ -�-• L- .a O- O m O m 8 a) C c a) 3 b m m o. a) _ C o'� c a c a) in a) u ,� N `s^ .... � c ¢� � � oQ— � ns a y y `a�� N a� ys n a`> 8w � m c �% S d N n 1O co n a) N m -0 o a) •E E o a) O N a) ..0 N O_ N = ..0 r-+ N Q) .n ro L Q) ro O a) rn _- - O Q w� ro u N fir- N� m O u p � m � . c � .o a) a) 3 rn o` o uai o 0 3 o Q as o o a (D E N E .S .. ss a) c (5 ca ca a) .n (D c .t" o u, Y _ °) C) a) d a a) c a c = N O 4 � a n c E E `'� O — '� �' ro 'E m `m U _ E a p oo ro `o y o' ro p () a) t N rn a) m s (D — d o b o L a`� L _ °_;"' E P, N E o w a) a o a) o E c aNi N T E N N r°)n o U " N g;=_'._' W 3 m co N N a n = a�i _ N `� •N N o a N rn V cMo dI CL a) N _ C U C O) a] C O O r C C a) f9 w LU Cn _Y`-�-.- ', ::i<Q.L.' TTo>ONC-.L,L,�NF_rn, .U.�''' caas awO •-�pE-cCa- .cGj .�ron �•.�Q7 C.�y SO7 DO OV rbN-' Oa oCC =�y -aC s?s o- cU C �ar.`.�N a') u(9 Q O'C -O U .pCaOa)) G rnrom Q . E b O_ C O .CL Y aO c -0E >ro` C . ._ ^ • E_ ON O sN U 'f (O, a a)v a) O u NEC).0 N a ca oma) .� '� CD N UCLm ro 6 e Em O a o 0 a CD U) LNU _ yNd = d N P � G N V d . N U)LL u 2; Cy -0 CL C u N 2 y 00 O a) a) Q. O _ f6 C 'C p b a) U — b N 0. N C O O a L 0 O O O.•Sr (!) 'N b s a] N O .� O_a7 o rL N `Q::. "O CL C S L O. m fl. N co O) U F1 Ca Q Q. (a Q. CL {] CD H C OS C Si •C 0 0 0 : U U1 D : ai (C ca mcu c C C � C � •C s ) C O ca ' cad cd cl� U` (7 Cl y CD a) ro a� — n n - ...... ...: U) `1 CL a) (`Cj Z U Z U Z U U - U w n ^ryt;•}-'i'-C C L U � L U Cn a) = LN N tm �O U L G� 0 C o E `0 3 c o = c `o j cn 'm CL0_ CL cC d O_. co O. A_ CM •O..y a7 O. D_ •O_.y ro O) O_p O7 O ;ti: CA CO �=L.. O CQ i cn "�''_ �•G1� ca Q3 0 C p c O cn U O U m y ca a1 fn c0 O ca (9 O CO N O co w ro O C M O C ro O C ro ro O C (O M U ma- U ro O_ U m O_ O. U ro O_Q (- o t o m 0 .0 -0 t cC-o 0 ='_o rn my "o (D a) in (n a) o a) _0 — — `" m acai roc r c E � _� c L t cs o 2 •.�� C = .ro C L •C = .0 in O_ E @ .0 > U � O c J7 C .0 � .wa N L � U U C o o a �°) o �n b y 2 'a a�i c'a - E o _o r cU 2 0 s w N ? �_` m c%a oc m D m a) %i r 9 .5 c t 3 c U o a) m (`o �n `0 0 0 aci (n u�i t ro y p rn M �n °) c y v cn a) (a E 7 rn ro o a a) (nCL T to •� a) U c6 L a) CO CO c co a) .3 o o c `n E 'J `a� ro o ? o > ny w Q a) p c y rLn v E }— c E CO v�i cis v CO io o Ca b S N a) CL U) ro '7 a) C 6 O (/1 c0 co N 7 N (a< TL c2`J O O C T..... O_ c j w m c -� Al a o '(. a) a�°)i -0 _ o o is o t7 a) o U .o Q E v o o a) .E ro E cL c c a (n m 19 x E a h (co CD 0) E o vi t �) F Uf a) a) •� U cc •U a) a c .O O U � m y o O a) foil ch a) U) •= � EO c :3 y n •� .L... c -O a Cr y .V= L Q O N ro a) Q p N O O U O'O N p ro 7 b" ` . o m m � _ N > E c c c rn _ w a c m CO o o c U o >o o ro _ _ a) — E U c noY .S tn m C) 'O d (ay O @ y t c 7 ` d :? u7 U O N C a) U L-S L U) C •� L (i L C ro a7 L -� N _O U a) O vLi C aJ '_^� C .O cm y D) U (0 .2 O C U Q1 O C N p .� L cm O (O L a) E (O O G cC co (O ..N.. �+ .� a7 p U d i0 _ O y 0. •C co O_ O O_ L y ..0 E •� cn O).S c_C v1 C U U 3 c — c C/) —_ a Q a) y �i a) y c U ro E ° c a) a c 8 co ,c o ro �' ` p o c :° o o > E a) �' o — m o- _ o a)) - T a) 2 v, m U h a) �° in o '(� rn a� a 0- v _ c a) (n_ E a) o c) o- m C] fn D w a) m < N c O. D cS U) d C "C3 7-0 c 'p a) O �. U .� .0+ 'cu � cO ,D ,� y U .Q d Ui C E OQ O d O L O (C L c y O a) ro d w- a) — y y fO d N f0 lD O O` C..) cO U y °: a' o ° — o o E m �_ a) o m o •� a) a) c fin U (n U a) CD U U) L Q) U O. o a) o y c o y c m o o iv ,� —_ L C_ m - S m o_ E , a) m m o 'D O 'p O a) U O a' w0- L (O +y d O1 cn O) O C uJ O C > L .- .O O -� OL.. .� O•�? w 'ca ro g'13 •ON O L o ° oero c) n 7 . % . o o a) > � � $ c o 0en ro n h .o i U a) Q U 2 n. coco > U o n' ro � a c a)ooUo c ) c a a L) av> fV ZI '`'` •j' y N C O rL 70 _70. . ... ... ... o- -___ o co co cz cz a� o aa) v w o N of of U o o m r' Z� ZU Zo Z Za Za �wti 1 Y s F< U O O O O ''� a� avi a� y c ( rn L U C L C `o c c oCU co S° E c `o E c o v E c `o c �° c e E v� rn �a v� rn w `° rn CD i @ c° •c o, m aw a EL aL @ Q. d m. @ o a a.N @ o d QN @ -0 C. 3 a) a c . @ a g.y m Q sec; c c c '� Si '� a@ m a) m m y m O a m c C yr a rn a 2� Evtm 1� _ pQ �n U Y £. O @ = CJ .@+ V C O C gyp. @ U N C co UJ .5 c fn fn p_-O a) +. - C N N U N C = @ O @OO @ O C@ p Om @ n n- U@ r- m n rL o Q n. n.rLS` C O )DC+gU �Oc Cc iNNcu 'L Y(L) croaE 15U@ LcJ cCaw.—@j c_av) �@E 4 aa —�2s'—iav aN@c am) nNa a3 Ca _N ac3•a 0E �n>i_ .o ! , o o Uc a � o o CD oIn c' ' — o n o U in o qU N o N'c o � N a) o @ 09 o y o c (a C C (LIco tC @ In. � O7 U 0 opQ pp C ONaO a) R a o a)m m 0 � N CL CL o • � O � w -Ow E y u a _ •� OOO�C '''y"`>`_am�`'.j=u�='•t*`r=`;'`:.'a pA,r>`':.aUS°(o-]� i�cvpcq—�oN.oa -.�o.on- . U o4 aa) Ta i a5N @aoc •c=N.a aS =o ya2 i c — S acv Uo9a) 7 U N U _o a N @'O 0 � E oo E'i o @ asbdr @ c@oS L'ncS O o U p oc i c a) 1 yL o a E o 0 oo o sj o oC) f 4 Lo U n ) E a a U o .co NCL a) U o y a) a, S J' o 'c a 2 85 2 a)` , InoE ff c ? O Oo o c co@coCo o Ea u cva ? >o o ) 'd y E i cu L -Cl a)io. .�°_ CD N aN a rN caCco))p '� CL QO s .O o N o .7 � O U U a on m @ m ma > c o aL.�ca-- c, (Ni c O E O Q) @c p U � C .9 U N ex. C. SC) CcpOLn ,toEN N O@ O V 2 p@@ C TwO 1 .cn a) �°, 0oc @Ec n2@ N 3 o a ,Q P @@m maoL 4-3 tp o o r o v a r, 0 o o, D o a@ c) Z U c m ' c) a) ,, p a) '-i m n y .o� u _� *; c ..a -o N 0 4) ui E s� a E �'+ v=co E rya o n n 4 = ��+ S� t3 `o 'c �-�, a� O •lY d �7S U 7 y N J `� .... N '(,) a a) @ C O _ a) �/7 N N C. �' @ C o s n Uo c c�S n oU sy 4n1 `c� y c° E =S c o �) aCi o 0 o a) p c—=i '� coo 'o m r-. D_ N a �' N N 'O t3 O N (n _— 'O y@ E 2 rn 0 0 0 '� ,C 6) o. (D 3 —^ p i C lJ N td N C O U N a m O a O _- _ L w E c o LV 67 X r O = via n W 3 O ai o c z o ca ) a Q O 0- 0 O N co � > U ¢ E cn z_0 =-U U LU N O C d CL1 U No �1 a r3 U — c C .GG O (U La C p E C C C O O C N Ol y 7 EL a.y m M. a Q.— m a a O fl a.N v� a � o c rn � o o a�i � � m E1? o o rn•a L o c m �n U a > N o _ N c .•�� } v rn 2 aEi o m e o o a c c a) c p_o c " cis . o c c a v 3 0 p m o c y c o o c m y aco ci a m a) .o 'n "' m o rn o m c c a� •p U N cn N L- C Q O 7 c a coi fQ m c� m E a`3 a �' a 2 a) a� rn c o .o v e rn e 2 y m $ c m o o c� o � m m o _ c _ N (II N G�.f L O �_ C V •C � m O C -5- p Ul > c •,W, Q •b •C U U m n a n N rn rn m o 3 p -0 w U - a. rn c v a_ c o m a = c `L 3 E - s =0 m to •D N r v:sf: O c U 'L'co m °' - " U N C O °' O oU (n Lp O ..L... O L i m - C +L+ m U E .0 O_ M m +J' C N � co , cr m ti U in LC9 m N O ?. N O S? �p OCL - Vl C vim' Off. •m m C .O Ov c N p m -0 N 0 N � mw CD 8 � a o � l<s_ - aoi -0 c v o 00 .G3 a� L o a as rn OC Q c n m °3 c v aoi v m E c 3 m m � 2 Fa coa o o c tv c L,cd �' c (D p j 8CL 0 n o pa..p-c.''0 w a`�i U, �L.0 o = � _ a�i �Lr. O .II N T C7 N g 7 -`� U N O• N N iC L U v U 0 Q1 V E C a N A%`,`.=S:cS •�j O c"' a� N L�LC=6 > 'a) 0rn y L L o co � LL C C L72 N d a7 p c cw G1. O a cn CO o m c c c E o ma tm �i a c3 c c E m o c a �. a`�i d o�N m a .c Co cNc p C14d a a�i o , rn 9 N S cn c c� U v U o c w cc T c0 m y== to f coZ5 a s c o' b e g �' c o m - _ d cl E 0 0 o •c o -0 rn E — :iCl: c E m ie a; o c T aNi 'rn is o cu 5 n p a� N i` o U "� p m a� g E c _rn E o 00 O -o m - -o o 0 c °1 m o m L .U.:. C -9 c 8 � a E w ' U c o n � c rrS c m 11J c) . c � a. N ;r m m a m y m o m ... � = aD U U CD °D c m u m "'.�' .S c a> m E o L a_ m' m L a> a U N cLi t t/0� rn $ j m m e o o v o c � �' j o c'i -� s n A o c c `':.41" c cID L c c c m v� p o c u� ccv o o`t m rs ai m E 'zn m N i1 O 41 tL» c6 O N •D C C m N p d O 'ciR1: o c �, cn 5 o p C 94 o v '4 m v �a p iti;:: Z Q rn N to °� c c o L m o Q o c c v c� '�•o 0 o a� o c E a� aci r- `o o Zv __ `�' ti d c E cu ate = o W cn °' — a.� p y o_ ai tt E a? o o p a> a as `':0.: U- o Lev o v -0 o n` a .y. fl cep UJ M 9 C w CL.. c OU U O .�, Ln >, 04 - C C 5 N cu ti\ 0 �3Y z ca > r 7 rn > rn o rnO Q ai o c4 ca M aj O m O ¢ C 0 C ,,... o 0 0 �a caw m c 0 :o O a p a toa m U ...' co C •�-O C O C -ia ;f`s'_-LLS`:.r V_`.�K_',^'s s^W uraz-'"r x>�y:.„=;r:yJ'_�"-S'',;«-x:��`-'__-y._`:;♦.' �o«pnmp-mU-�m-_U.m—G a,¢IIa�LomEvT mU LLm3R �_•vCcNC0 p`'m .Na�Ua3 c�>7 aEi o$c� cmm � _NEpQy a-ooNrn_a> c U.c o o cNo ..--. o •y m E � —0 s x CD • X m N .c �C5rni ao5 NU '�OrcOcrnEo a C � CO N co om ca Cc a a c 3 LR >E o E o o � � LO C:F UROCm 2 � a I- _a o "SC U E c" ci a> > >. Doq o � c cCE m ro 2 x Cm o > U > Em a E 'Om cca p m `p in o ro Eo om0 m.o f a a T cn O O C (6 —0 G j O c Z O orn ro aj on' _ Ma o Lnrn 3 CA ai mNG W c cw a m Ea N o ONw .2 N IN '.G - y E 'b O m O m OU O O - -0 . O dO LV7N ro T _ c to o C � o n N 3 N o E� mUa � c o r o y o o Eo '— m can m N o Lcy m o --:-O n m Q G s ET (D U In_ O 1 cau Co a) N OOUU .}ca N m m ° IIl cEa Cc o N a� v y a� m m vai c c° E +Q m - ` = o c 3 � 19 Cos m ,.. o m' c`a . c 9 � m E co3 o N y o o En �~m N _cn w o m ai UU, a� ? o o — — Cn c �' 3 m 3 e°3 E m '� N y a...". CD ;t m m a f° t c c �n rn N o o_ a�T N c°3 LL .% ca C a �' o W _ c CL.— to ZD C ^` 0. 0 5~ o o ca to x c ca 8 c p w ero7 p c9 L o j ro aci m o c a� a�i LJ :a a G FQ C •+� ?� O m la - N O O to >. U a3 m O `- T o •�' ! m C a": O p..-. y •� .� m E m a) o y y c ro _� o f vi a� N > o N •E ca E a�is c o U rn o o s m a c es o f o> o o a -' o o Co a� �" rn � �- � o E o 0 E � � a - - i'ri ro m C p m C I- m c m G .0 C �L ❑ 03 a d m p m c E N p� r E ca o ro 0. N >. W 3 ¢ E . a o c N ysst` m E cA a) a>i m E ai tv m N v o c m e > c o a0 =rs Q m ca 0 `p m _. u 3 N o > o ro es E m E 3� 4 ■ case CU mo n ` U p O p ; N E Y N p N MN LO = j = i > rn p p cn = U p Y y00 j U D Q O y 3 EL Q `CL S •N u ) O w o Q , cu y c o E rn E -_^= •% C O 0 CD c m g o o ? Nca m tII O_ Q3 cn L c o Q. co d N Uf O 47 ro U ro N y7 N ro N •O N �- C �p .0 G7 O7 �- N O O ao �o nfl -0y•Nro a c t�m E � c° �'a �_ nN 2 - - L to oy -_M1' `•V`µ!'".''.`.`.": y y C G7 O .7•'_,,, •0 `• O t L N C N •O C a7 N O l-. _FF U •C C N ¢ .Ou U U O .i U "d Qf ro 0 O O C a> o ro C� .� t° U ai `~- ro •� o U �' o o E LLJ wa) 0 .a`- o� N oU C (� [ 0) mE NO_ a c >- SE o �i0a �� av � . ro r= LO N d C O C G? �, 7 G? o — (D ro O =' •. — U fl v E S U W q U is �� o N E r 0 . Ln '1 %o;yc 7 N O d C L:j N C O ro CD �- '� ro E -00 L N (T7 �-r N cLi u4i a' O Ni C }. O m y C IUD p °: 'Z O �''.�.. [] U Cl :C d T '� .L-' U •� N al N -p O .= Q7 y Y- t/� O c �+ 0 y V d ro 0 '� V .y„ rA O �n r_.y ro o m y 0 E Q fn �� E m o ID m c E -FT) U fl is ro o ami c •c JU cn 5 v rn"� ro rn EcL y rn E cu � av E a .c in co a� ro a w a y a> c E o aD E m y _ ro d5 c E CL-0 ID 7 o d }' c `° y Q7 m ai o u� E E o` E oc coc o c 0 . ' - o is o cn o Q c o_ a) Ca c a a w6 (D U as U -O p U7 a C E0. O •0 a i9 to '> g CD N o oc E 2 a •w o m 9 aa) s •E p er - ro E r 'r o.= aO 3 ro v3T E O O c s V1 N 0 CD Q) .0 Q.. ...` ._. cn -✓1'f'-�- � a cc - ��_=J_r- m Q •o is y .0 0 uU Q Q- IC a) 'a�ig;' '�' Je =+ ? ca O N E 07 U V �•- - d d G) "O O Q 5• O CD c .S ca N o c o ,ia O V =V p c 3 m a) CD ��ay:Ji,q: O Cj p •eO+ L C4 y � Caa "' oa ca C O w? ca O Fuv o a -r In m `n E o c_=3 'm c m U U c .r v: Xa) p U tiLp 'LCm caL LUOmc a CoO= C oE tO � Lp amnYf. '.$ CO O7C m ca O a) O y p Z m amrp aN ` p LO y> ca rn-p (a U) -0 -0 O E m p U] o p cnNCD y •C m U so— Ca o U � a �_ O OmO CC = C n¢ t a + > O C b � O OO U) 2CD CO In �t CL EnO q � o Q�. U .0 (O C fa m C > ti aC.. wm- E a1 lU ,� '~• '=,:-`;���`=`�_r�+�`:,_- :�cca00>..._,LrUy3 L�Og tucifpns3 U_ym=y•C�)' m cap) Oa) Oo m L `or ro m y_a mE a c cC rn 0-0in` 8 s E m Cc cQ cc:LL VQCfi+ cO oUo p — ? a) 0 c � C E -0 � co UL (D o c E C) ¢ ` a) cuE y a) ay CL m K t/ a) CO O O1J vE (s4) a d aiU f UQ N. Oto o ELy .ap 1pL C Q n - N C m a C p (a - C ' E p In � Q OP - E U o � o .r m 'OL O ' p La)c E w 5 E o m fl s c m o m mm Q mc en yU on c oo a) - M o a E 0 > cm WL CD en N w pc E mcooca .fl Qm) ca ctl o Si c �_ m U c O c CL cn ' -0 in ca E cca �> vCD otm E 7•� 3 en S 01AQ Ujay L m CL m u-0 � `c • ca -0 Orn m iQ LN0 o Co m agf � c=- ca E in rio W mc cm a) cx cp iEa y E i e m > E E caoao 0m a .= � $ c x Z X ::3 N o En L N cis O a) O O- m -0•0 0.++ �O =, '_' O O C m N L I� CD C m m •C O a) o as N Y A a O- m Y O -0 N —"C O v 7 3 O rL•• O (Cd •O [A y E Q O 3om a W"U om t o O rn _ m � sow of o � r ir- 0 0 CL En Cl o mm boy O o C c6 0--aU N � ana>iE ¢ 3 ¢tea A a) Q -0 t6 _ - U w a N tm r_ c otn ca O ` c o 0 0EL E m y a) O7 ca m C 0 o y m a7 a) L V m O O U O a) 0 _V � w -0 -0 C O -0YJ m p '�m - m o0P 0 � 0 c O O c -- 5 m m = a) 0 L o E W a) m i rn rn '' O m 0 m 0. a a-0 h U m d m O. O N Li: O O 'C O O A a) O N -cu -o t5 m of N' C m 0 mN N C � a3 oc v Uc `mL 0o E E a) w oC m ar $ va _o 0 a) . 0 cnO . rn N CIS0 = O -a > a a) m o E mc > cooa 0 IT, La N N u y = N cv o E� N a? ma ^ x a) c oC m2 � 2m E $ o o o o � `c a) o ov m caw cam m J m mL o c a) � .E "c ELE Ev c 'o N U C' O C 7 ?� I N b ?�.� C L C C a) E N a) = 0 0. 'O L ca E o c/) a a) Q ui a) ca m m m w — a) $ E v) o f o o N = o = m N L E 'N o v�:o a) fl t0 .- 2 c_ m .c c 3 Erri - U > y C O Ch CJ �• N m f� V O Lam„ O •C �- O C O O O O 7 _ C c9 3 y y al O F C .�' rL -_ _-_ •�-cc y •o•"" L) N o C ..L"_, >•. N a�j O a a O C 0 (p [tea t^ U m o o •C 1: _ - m .I- � 'v �� m g m ec rn c C � m q c N m E _ ui= `c1 a) 0 O y to o 0 ` cu U U _w. ul 7 N G _ M i` tq c ytn d ca c 0) Q p > y .o m o o s y o S2 0 o y 0 rn --'- - �° C� E v tO 0),2 s m a"oi m o d m o p� a� in aa)i o f 0' a�Oi o `� o v O .G.0 �.. C �a c O N L � o y Cl 3 a) y ~ O b O N O C Q) A C L m C C 0 CL cu CD .O ao) w A 3 � s c c c) � o = m `o CD am mm -0Q E a>i E ow a) L �� y o n_v L V a v1 o t� �,� o m N o rn a5 c m U in p�m a) N0 0 o v rn o N U y .�O o a« c m m > :.: E a) o a) C v Ci c c�3 L) m O v N O a) O — y _ _ Q) y d OLD-. C. U c•- _ p - o c o U am a � 0a) 0 rty, C C -M a) y IL m — ` E .y E cc N ca �"' O 2 � •� U L d N _Q•_— N O ` L LU r` cu = y a> `a -Z = � E o o E aim °-' c o u' F- �' o o � � GQ m `'3 3 ca 3'� � tm..... N N O U ._ _ G O m >. _ ..L... _ 7 0• O .O m _ O O 3 O y D_ E (� y -�- — d rn m C ?-.U d �� O C O a) O y 'D W Q d m C G Y O U1 y -0 E E $ i 'y ccd y o m o `o a> :: �' a� 'c E N m c U �� `� •E`= m o -0 'C yy L m O O m m 7 m ti E L ,Y m m c y G <•:/;_>;�y: C m O .ca 'D -0 c �L'is m U m ?. O••G >, O- U -0 i — 0 O O_ -am) y y m +m C y m L N .0 p .� C C O_ p fn = m a) o) E "J c C O V ca � v °) L -Eia Np>f` vv0 c U ..., y.0 0 Eoa 0 am a o ci EmE NyLl -0 Q .0 O Od y a -0 0en -0O E`s m m oyY 16 .0 m 0a a) C _ O N O_m m0. m 0 C) � On ID In y tm= V)T ¢O ) b aU wy -n m oo p�1 .v rnQ � C m 0_ to 'CO U U CL) a) foc 0 o .5o � . o o o E o co N m - 75aCmo) , ap In 0 o a. o _ c c a a) CL cu -E c mo mm . g o m ^ - rn C o o c a rn 3 $ _r.: „' C -Y' yam-•• CID co CL M is a) -=.-= . • Y mw 3 L s N — r cn a ¢ s' o 030c cI Z` = == r o a) m E Q p c m o -' - C � E .� a c 0 -g �= cmc6 mE Q l_ - '�'t�''he-'�:: :' N. O U O C L f s'''--s •C p Q) N .H C •� , L a.. U i C _ - U �O C o` _ E c `a = p ca E cL� 9 NO KMw roL m ' - N m ro • E cm a. a.- -0 0 rL O m N I a) L aJ s <�Y _ n ._ ro n o o_ 3 ro o ul ro a ? O— O V C - - O d V rn 7 c cL.. a U7 co m C5) m . O O N_O N rnNQc o _ _ p U Ea s m L c bo -0w0c ocu N fOEa- a Cl- m z m UO C c aV a) a� y — �- rn as O -cm, C w N [..7 .U.. C C L co zr r in c� N " Z cv c> > a� p Z 3 a� c c o_ 3 m t a to f9 4 C O Ol to =•= N .0 ro ro f-- co- N C -= LIJ .0 N C 'C C 3- co C to L ,� �C 10 d"- C Y- y �7 .'LO-' _O NELI •� Gp C6 p• N U •� O7 U 0 C 9 N N .y - a) U O O N C O O O) U O L L O m G O O m ; y E c ``" m > m m E � �`i� G_ o " ° v� v' c p E E c b N C L6 -L] ,L,, i N C C •67. -p a-� p O_ E O O b N G O c $ r, yin a3roro � e WC m•Na� U _ a Ec E c Ft Cy s�:.fit_ O (Cp .w N a) .a .p U N co C7. "O N [tl C .� •` N C T E O N O 0 .SC4E • Cr � — (� a.1 'O N _ 0..CC3 .y �n O '�h 0 (,-UO O G CL 0 a o _ O ca v m t 3 •— c o q CO U �1i'','`'^-::' •r O f6 to y y O •O c0 O w.. O (UCD - ?i w m 0 N - O '>i� �' o c Q o pc U a o o w - p a) c n vi _ f° m 3 E U N _ : t cEn m N O O) N a) '� N (D 9 Q �:,i . von p ,c_ ' c N ?i O N .Q: y;-^1: O O a a a7 O' O N c"�U C [.�L U = �: Cl- m C O m 7 N cU'o c N :n ±3:i�`-,�'.�.'-j; L U O •O _O (O �n E — N a7 ;;. `: p� C O O O N L 'f^�,^..--',i'Cr*.,.T-.,-u,ri:.✓1;.Y?:%r._s=°-grk•:-x�G s..',Y-;-M..,3?•r^:i'-`zf lOC_"LOpUmrn'^-GNc• UOQ) 'ccaby iii '?CapO) �U_ :[GN`7 CQ0c) :bOC(rnN�(ff i ECNc3i Ea•Na>i 'LdN cNT Uc�ob.'c�mNNm'ap1 O LaDC_ OnU'- CON '.':.+'tO'n:j.:S;:: aa]4O7>) 34LcWCfi- _:-oO-:CoNcroa).:.,, LZmG`,.X�aN�o-cOd=O •ncamE Lrnmcac ° fl c c Km E d o Gp N pc3fo0a .:<:::":?c.i}�:.N�0V0,:.?='::,,.. to�.�cv-.s•Cron iyn s`L`tcDa •9�CCOCy_U +s-Lw•cNnoN f . c� E m _c in Q _ EpN i ro oc `` Cc U o p v opmE N m S� ca �: 'cN0 m o .c) OE wna ro LJ D_ _ N NG p iG , ..v N (aa). CL W o O_ w To C. m d N a) as CO oEo � c UUCc)C LCE n sa S: a mc (v ' 2 EO_[A m c E ' r cv .� a> m E r� �, — N a v;o�� o m m ,rn m n : G .o m I L (go U i9 m 'rn•— c o � ;i c!j c c -n .= m aD o- rn Q) O •a) c a O u -0,O 2 -1 c0 r.., �n a) N •O t c -Yii •m a) a U C N i .,'tir-'� i-,; M C •� O_ ! a) N N O N .O E 9 C C G D_.n a) .� _- V lII $� N E c a o c ro ,� z 'so: rA O E E c E _� rn rn ai 'i: > > `� m t o m C. E m . Q U O U m � cNn ;;:O,S: pEo �QE} 15 c°�� �E cQa c •c :::;RNs': 10 ccu 3 -NO b d C c6 w w •� y :_�'Qj;: �" U V U m 'a) N ca c�i ri 4 L6 a Cam N a� c� m ■ Y r: - 0- Q w -0 V C a) (DCD N D 0 >= a) O d Q m -0 O M N O (D CL O ?lit 00 3 3 "—_ o O c 0 C L� o to 0 co y Of� �S U U cr N cn ;C m FL m O - U LU Cl ~f~S' Y O C O U cn U - U co O C C (gyp EL cc CM in a . ca C m io d m fn C Cn � bl 'C a) rsarsG�: c M a C C m m m a) a)z m u0 co 1 co (a co d 31%sj L :`,_:':-::-;:Y.y::_,r-;�b tiis:'s^i",;e'ff;%-7.'1�'i_,_^.=:1%>=n,y•5�;'X..i.rv.',�'`_r'.:`_.:T`:'r%::`%:,,"_:`s:.t5%i<,;;y{"%•;�:''*''=_`�..'3Y'_.`r=,_":`:,'-"_^_y'„R:r>'.::r;.E,.',._.o'.aaaCaO(ns))•wN; ._-�Vc«alloaoCCm•1i), .—a�cZcmf`Oom9,j) bJiCmNc8[n. �>cNQN) .cnn`a�O. .-r.cryc�y UaC).•i0O>c0 io_Cay LmmUmc a'�]VO) ccCU vLm�NaEn) macU) `UL�oO C yO »ad- cE S°G_^m1ta4o bc3(cQI 'cc5O oVo vy�' 'o°CcNU� —c ,C(a) 8 ILOd UEm ya i30 Qs7 vWLE>mUycNm(C7 i v000aacQ- --)l00 O O._ N N OOYcu CD b O m d 2L M-0 U (a a ya C U) m O cn (� m az O n V om U a CD ov aa (o m sC , omc3 c C O mm _ aC a) C o L C m > O Upm CDCo am e a o "' a)y a a) c E m > a) a) c a cAo Off o - E oo 0 0 0 � c o � '' m> o Oo a Co c o i ai mE _ci 0 rL CL 0 0 -O '4 O UJd d � Q Y O y a a) E „iir 7i C (D O_ m E CD E v 0 oo cv I-_CD > -0 E° a - cU aG7 oQ m E a) NpO ( EO m p a ` d0O d -ma: Cl) o E "m c a) y o tL Qo (n m o ) Q C -ay E _ yL Sa c o m c � � L cto w a t1 a) a U O acUa -o E m -oa w - -a Zn d ,6 N a m o• U) 2 c U o f"') of rnd a) E o a)a a) E L d m > UZ 5 a. ) Co O a) mID m m m Q) mn E o o cE qo q E � _ o OC m a) m O m O O dEy aO 91 LO O m N n p _ U � C W 0 O O rnc � c o 2 m cU m m .o _ ,� E O ` y i 2 ( mO ))�• _--_-r!'-':^:pN'La°`.;r'.�(cd 'iDap)_ ■mp 'L1 - m'n .o !w . ma) ■0UO o.. Y - $ C Ca) CoU go Im C �ONO LU a) a) a) en w E rnoy NU O rn E O o m o c U CD c I-_ 2 co .m m a 0 o. d m ta )a > E 2 o � � ` d .S E: E )) � c Ca CD L N cL m d E a) E IL = A v Lo acaU)) pcE � 0 CL U Q aa in .O (DO. O m§ E G CD ps > Q m O LL U y . U vfl " E a) — m u > m -oa ow ` Qm � rn o ._0 -0 � r m � m y � 8 Cul CL 00 LO Ca CL ...:..::.:...- 'Coa `= — c o m y CL %M =- Ea, y — - oy =T: > oa) 3CL 0 � M— aD0 p CDtd 'D d1 ZIA c U O ill - CL 2 a v o � •L o` 'cam 4 E _._.•%ter:`? Ca al V � � aa•�^^ � m U d 3 y d (� cz CL _ a3 cn a c _ w aL o c b b a CD a� $ m = 3 U c 3 m o iC a (: 3 y as b a) b a� m cca °� 0) o a. (D O > a— in aD �i c c C � c .c rn v� a V c a d a� a o c�J c a� o E V O ca i� > y a� cn o y •y o °' o_ L in. .a -L •c L CD 'o.ram" d oCl a) >; m — is m m o _� cis cm 8 a) a '' `n• 3 co aC7 m o a� c� `o U m w `- y m c� a� >,a y o �.FE c4, m ram' cC a� a �° U a3 U c c U o a._ t m o c N 3 c C y c m m ,o ff d o a ui : „•,� C .tO. a) U U b O U 'r..J" O O) C cUi> Q.'� U c b ;• > b m d U a1 a� in c a) ca b w a N F b b K' n' m CO a) co•— c E �` ` .`— �° a� a -0 a� rn s b a c Z a`� c c ¢ L c c O CO [d 7 C U d. .a _ y ¢ O .0 V b M, d y a) i` :r�'^w,> b - C C b `I .� >+Q w�• �` .tpr - GZ 41 a7 C y C U y a] Ca �C E a- ff N d ..'•:r�.._ a7 fO G7 O O E C fp O Vj - t/1 14'O a7 O '� (O a- d O ..-O C � d '_ ap U @ Q; C a) U ,.y.. w: d U � � rn � C S .� in > � T-O a� E d 'O U m o c c ` c a. c c 41 m m 4 m En y a• !� E m • o — S • m and of b cc y y fly E = o — a� ¢ cti > is 0 o o• o c E 3 a m ca 0 l7 s a� U r?SS%�... c •o m m Z, c a� �O E �? o a'Ei y a� a> a at _,a� $ -0 0 m c U cad Cj o y Q) M' ` m o c m Q m S c o•y -o m M > y E U V a) ,a� a 0 3 y 0 0 � c � D =.s n — m cu E — o` c° 7 c a`� o — c y, c a`� c b E CD a_ O L O a7 O 0 CD f0 m y� C O w C n `. o f H E Y Z' ch Q ai aUi n '� o m y E i3 '.3 yo rn = moo a a) aci b o a) m ba O IC y d p O 0 0 a. O C F C b d a) E C C a) '� c N o a o CJ b a o c°Ji m `ti c`di o c U f6 a1 R �, aI y C _: C6 > Q) Q) •O �� '9 .0 a) O a) •D 'd O Q7 b O p O E N a E d U o m a) m m 'y ¢ — rn_ U .. .o .� y gyp. a: b �! �. U w '� :: m b '� •O p cC a) N .� Q m N cbC p = c ai'— L a o rn Q. c = as g �: d �_ o c o b c o y m y c� E m c 3 N - c p r0„ c ":_;�, c 2 - m 0 � c� m p ca d m ca rn > CU — o o y o 1—� '- o o = N � c ;2 o c b b c —ca m m L -0 5 m a? >> -5 ca y > c- p E ' y ':`::Y=:_ 8 'o g w — Ci d o ui M ;S c a� Q o ca E_ w itJ c: c m O cy V` rn c ;c o m a� b r:.•t> d cn U p m o >,s ay a: Cl) m 'v -E c U c ai U o 0 a m o E cOi > . — E c w -b m _ .y m c y o a rn''= m a> > cn Q e co t is e� y • is a> ai m o�'i� m 'cn Q ca v r ,e c _' �. . . ca c m U m o c ?s ' as -Co �' ai t. p o a� .;: a " m L7 o ca .c 0 n — U O m C :: 'C' E s o Q c a� m i•• O (D '� y y > c vl ca cD tC i� .$ d o O J p w ` Q'— `> rn aS d » y o �° a`) o co c c :.tV: a E in c a y y co U rn m a o ca c a. are = a� o a� �'•: c o _ of c 0 y c m a o 8 I— to - m U c L CO o a� o o m m a> > C m `:;`a! a� is V (�� v a� a3 a� w E L m b O Jw z (O ? > E E a3 U > p p r- E� S a U f7 d n. U y C N O y ca m CISU E cv efl a� O i4 ca c "i0 ti e m -c c E a`3 m a > > ca E 3 y iL o _� _ _E fa _p ai a� :: c a> m c o3 y > v a d L] c s ca caa::•_;.. 0 ca a� m O c .�^ 0 — (L) ';'�+ 0 c—cd c y 0 y a� L d s a� ¢ u� a_S E U ii is E o u� as i� o o "T'. a rs o_ m m .y m Z ¢ b b (n E p -o U a d F d a) m OCL i ro CD O ?szz Q C = O N U U U a o 0 U C •Q y C C R'. mo ` a n a) �n a)i .a a N a (n - U 1- 0 O y a. E al a) a) a C G O) C a � r r`nn a c m a V a � 0 c of o n m a (D L ca) a) camoo' a a)oa) 0) o o o c 0 m ao o ro E C C d C O O C aD w c ? rn a o O cLi 3 LV i E fl ;c w rn w � . a� c m r� m e m a� d 0 ca 0 a) cd a' a a' a' °c z n z ; cn ❑ a` C7 I- ca E- `o ❑ ❑ a >> o -Y. m cO c ` a w 'N ' sY - � E cocu .- L U O 0 0 O ram- O m O. .� O ICU C O 3 ..LO+ N E Oy N � N .0 f-CO CJ C O N Q O C 'C N r'G.: .Z O W y m O V) C a m z _ i is o L cn $ a) o a) N N N N V C U U d U _ U .0 O "O ig L , N C a) _...:.L N m N U U O a) rL.. C r0.. N N L. N O U 0 0 Cl) m C O a d0 m C m GI U U O ' U ca 0 7 > 0 tE a coi o a o E C� v' c aoi _ -0 m m c) U U co a o c Q a`) c a) o `m in CO `C C7 0 �a� a d .� o N C C i -p "4 O co Q.N � N O Q y m a) -O 0 N C N ca a) j N �p W >` �c v m vOi c N c o `= a) ?) a �� r c a"i ccn c' �' m o E m vi C -8 6 N -� W d.�. �-° a N N 0 � •C m � US :EL )�C j -0 D_'N6 y N fU -�' N m d - m E E m o m vs o m a n d w m m a) o N m 'aco $ m c m m m o ao � �� EE y � d co �, ."-' � o c G o � N °) �'- CL o «`` '. in w — — m `n _ m N CP p-' c E m ,�' 0 � ' ° Co a) _ c a L d z m o c L m o E N m o a1 m o t o d N : -iz 0 x m j -y .O C N C -� O Cl) L i. N - L C co O en -0 N N m (� V N m N O C fd r0.. C GU) C tNn O N D_ N O`O 2 mQf N C C O •"� ?�. O).0 ti C C a O E O C a Cl) -0 a co C N C-- CO L m L C . W 'y U) N = '� C •C 9 m o o °) a) - E -_ m o o is °7 -E m °7 m �) c c o G a is E E a. aa) CAL o f c° a 3 _E v N N R = E m CA w � js c = d cdi m of Pi m � d a E i c C n-X .c U O �_lu o _E c_ N O 0. a L 0 c iU a) a) U a.a% F- U O O d '6 O O O d m 07 O U O -O ya) 0 � �•' m V N N m y 'V N d m 0 O C C C O Q - L .�7 C m d .� N N O C N 4-. m N U ` CL O O tU �' C .[3�C V cu p E G O) N C al y O-N U a) f.) C .J m O L N � m U) -0 N G1 > N Co -C 07 L O D_ m 0 m E m L 0 m w cm m c �- m -O CL CL O j S N n-F- 0 O N fO U C CJ d N d C N O a O A � d > � 2 � C N U •N 13 .2C a m 0] .__.-O — C (n -O G •O -- �. •�. a7 m L C7 O N �a N € m a) o aci y o a E > a�i .rn m $ m G Cl) ccU min c v c w m m a 3 �ca o o �- to OI •C N N O F_FC �) a7 O N C C N5 - G .O O) C in C -'; O a7 '92-a p s O m N .R G -7 d N N C N m p' m U) 'V ". -C p Q d) 'C �Up v O y fNf7 y E N c-�i a m a a) 'o N N y a CJ E m oo rJ a rW sr 3 rn E N a) t c U U c C`a N d '� X o a) L i m 0 - 2 o � o fl m � o m N 111 .S o Q Q m N a w a) Q m Q d c� a) LL'v o m t co Zi in r R r`S ton r1J i, - 'o =` as ch �- = Q w ca r _ v ro c Z3 ` �•T y �'i y ro ro O ca ,n E 0 cu E T �°00 IL C3 C3 cc o c � a IL m �a '_ : `— en �r a) rn (D ?� s 2 C3 c o o y m E (°Q� v 3 o is p ` -O O C (n C Vl .0 C �J! •C m '0 Q U C%7 y V .�C.. •> CoC � CL cu O `�' y (O m ` ,'— fn O •N O C O ro t o a) � y E c E La) c in ro L •�`•_ ~ ro a y cn O � G C a (=n ro O -2 .rro. to ¢ +y c ro L U ,p 0 O O — += ro $ $ 3 ro c (n O 3 0 o cm ' c o (Ea o a) a; Co CDc 'o v U ui U g a� y c in o n .0 fa c 0 c` E ro O e- E c y o a Q aD m 'n ro U >-. o c o _n ro rn p� ro p E (a„ o �n �> o ro ro c_ o c m cu Co a E � •E r>a (n i w o` c = o E n � r� f° .° _ �� (a �' c x = ' D t ai o y y a = m a) o w 0 o ai cn E v v c - (» E v 3 E cis a) ' IL a > E (D n fl c c mCfi Co a) a) a) ro $ c3 ro U c3 f° c a) a) n a v a) c Co t o a c FF ro. c •(.-_ v (cii w (cd cm a) ,o E o °1 m 3 c m y y c c ro E o c c (n o - _ o ro a) a; g o a) a o o .Sd cry roQ ro U w d?_K rys-ci�..F.-^.�. -'c•yd a`COU •-Ccis �3 roy Qy7 .00 :p E, roo va Em (c N •'c� 0.�UrofO0 �c z.roo v'CNc dcor� va •� o -3 yOm 00 macX U O ro � 0 ( E m nE E o E L) E � $ 0o O O 9 C O N O)= ¢O mi X CL 2 a E C C ro O ) . O o p a> '_ n a U C o O OOy0o ( (a 2 Ooc a — UE o > E aa0) rn cx crnUa d ro m.O N CD N � $ c c a) c N o ro t m cca E N `o 'E cG O m - (� > E (a a> = ro (n .L ro >, aroi = c'a o Q y `N ran c m a) b E a 0 t y �D U aN> c = o a y n Co o aai +5 L m e a) m m y °� a+ +� ' ro ca MINER ro .r o a ro a y E i3 v (n ro Q - c y m E t-cd su C7 c (n (n E 'c o n .� fl o a a- O Qi o v .� a Z [1 c cn a) E co - c ro > c a3 U ._ 3 U a) o f9 c a) v $ a rn v s n c a) ty a) ro o o ¢ rn-0 - °� m co ro L c� ca E c O a� U •. Q: UU 0 0 a� o m ro 'eS� c v y '- o a) Vi a) rn n. c E 3 U a+ c a) n t E a > C O }..a.. a ._-+ O Q) Mtn, 2 � (6 C to� H O C s V a) v c rn 7 Ch m a) o _ y m o 21 ro E c > c m c ro ro � c a) E c fl c y c v a 3 to o c a a) n o 0 o m ro �' m rn c C e U a (v 3 j v - f p ro •� o co c cn a °) a`) L 0 ¢ 0 co .a a) a a s N o s o .� 0 c E � S s c o ro a� v c o - c g m t o ��'c%i a) t cca ro cca a) c ro x m a $+ a m (n (n $ ro o o = a O ¢ a) cn d ro c O a o o a F in E c -0 0 (� a) CL ccn a) coif 3 CD -0 ?r O »- O a7 a� c � o J to J E U ro p p C IL CD Q) O fa C In LU ` c L rA: m 1 L' _7%✓r�is Sl� CD ^ •C C C !A 4— aJ O — C. cn sroat = E E -0 m c ca ro v = °: o N o -0 m o c 75 o "`.,�{/„' co 7 U 0 co E N . 7 a) ca D_ _a Q O Ca�_ N - C N Co C 'Q C y _-mJ C) 0 0 O U - ro {Ca C Q .N C C O U U C C (a G C O G U d c t N a d O E C L ca [a U C N ro j _ N N i� U C N N U Z O O Q c c o 'c o E rn is m _ p cq c W 'v U cr Q m m d U CD in U ro c°% U Co o a> 'r m a� aroi «° c y a c o c cn O Q tv N _ tz is Y c m U c - Q_� a a�i E a� E o«c- is ;f_c',•s t%a �Q7 Q �,, y '�"—> y Q _C p •c y VI O cn a� -0 _ Qy «- ci 3 y E m rn ` a c o c Q °J o o� N a c o o � to E � a m- CL ca 0) `o co 2 o c y n c � c ai m o o c ro x co v a� m ¢ E E E ai 5 °� c`a N :p U c V cu c ¢' a cn - _o c a� a� � °' cc m , U) in E a> w y a N a m a c- Co e Co o y r l fin C O U m 2 C +� C N •N to U O d-fi � N y N O (C6 f9 a g U 0 O Q d y U a•`�::,"_._. c ?s p rn E w 4 •c_CD co ig a cq rn N Q c cn a o o cn E t- c c a _ - ¢, a a� ' uD a) E ca ^i Q-°: ca ca o (D o E E m` a� E ¢ ca vi " n c' c E cad m ��- a ro € a� C N c ja a p n a> n o w?+ 3 m a °� L,3 m y •� c ° c o o a m E 'cv c c a`� m ti a E ca 0 a�i -y o E y ¢ -0 m a c - ro c cai a>_0 ro o m a ci o o c w a, ro o cca a�ci ? c E 0 m m Q Q iA C N a N L].. O D U +5 c co p p Q h QI U cU O 'C y o o m E y c m ca m rn a� E a� a •v v 'r, � r=: R m a o H y ` c d m .� c is a� cyca O A aci N 9 is ai e�Z3 Ca Q ca a is o € N o o y Q E o N vi E a rn c a> L o L an E C:) c c -0 ma c - is is rn � a3 cn a' O c 2 0 -0 s Y w CZ 0. a) cn CL %==>c: c-y _¢O ` D• 3a _o o NO c crnro � G C •Q O CL O ou m O > Oycoc6 �caY=Z Qo _cc C- c CD to iO am C., N C Qcop ¢ D_ D_ coCoC Co c o 0 C a to a -0 -0 .Co U iE ff 1 a cn C En (D ` ` Mca b c • m ? Q -cc mqr � � 2 s a o aE 5 E o o_ 0ci u rn rLw w ca ¢ U Q � _ a 'NyCon ro a U co -` a >,L °F a cu tx yw= - co a d .n m m >3 ; CO L C o `o sz Q � E '- o a� .� aci iu ca aci o o c Q a m o Eo c Fu a: 3 m a� ��' m $ c o O csc,;`•: = N � cam. 'c Q) y •`- -� `' 0 o c 3 c y y o m o c E° o m Ra O s v� W — ro �c o cY3 o c E �C m 5 (Go') a o o o p a-0 = ,L u'-'; V � to ca c o v) U > 0 C �° '� /A L �• cc Ids y' a) — v >, a� d o o �c `G n �- m is V w �i a = an E d ` o � o °� a> m ¢Z ' W C7 rn io � o � o 2 c � L � c •E G — C) � n of C m m C N }r G N > U `� .0 a) c0 (D y U -} �;;t .MC-�.`,`-•J�r t6 •� d 'U G� to w 'O 7 U fn ex= - 10 Q'c � � cca `-` c E y >'L °� � o2 r°'n T o aPiQo � c � m uE rn— a� E m o a o u a� as a� T- o o 'S. 0 8 ' rn � ,c U n a� a a c o 0 0 c 3 +' r=i� o d5 d o rn o E c cn o �O a) vi.R C ^ -0 $ a a >, =o G .- a c E � W n O- -• >, o r-0 a o m a� cn c� m m m °� c o Zn O m o a$ o m E o E G c o o °� ^: C) m a ya c ' o c CD .3 a a> c cn w c ty E ?- O a� m a� m c m o a m —.. o c o c c cr- __ .c o a) > m .E E E aD W� a � v' a �n o a+ o o o o � E -0 vn m �is E o rn E ' -n c cr E �- rn o - is r E o c c O y c E o O COL O =c�cm a) '0s0 O w1 1U d cr O G CIL o' � L� 6 s m 2 a) n d En m ' a> go > u G E - rn m a EE rnQarn m mm G mN O OC3 m U ) ��O` mWQr -8 -C Um N m c -0 Orto O uc c m U3 -0o "O to o � en om U o 'E cc>L � G � 3_* —4m P ' _ 0 a y o a) 7 o ` o� Hy M m E � of -0 _ 'coO O > ) oN U v c c c) . o i a . m A o oo Cl-o .� E Oof _ b �Qq�CJ 12 a b :`-$6 ■ u) a o.-t:3 co = 0) a= rnrnaIE5CD CA _ co rn Cod) U3 Ca coa L a C C n cd"3 c U C "'S` r CD N a d a) (U U o 3 ID U �T O CO c d CL CL - - Q tz 3...: - _ U _ LU O c C o rn o o a> '; `_1: °'• c oI"ca (a of vI m_ Q N N O G= X y y CU C_ y ca cn C O CU �. y tm U N d > 5 2m •S y OD y o ED � m N .E m >?^ m E L aI > O ' t � C � � Z� c N 'C y "(O C O O m -V C C m >. y c •,-• m � E id o in o o ro 0- aI co 4 v U _ .� L) � (° Cr E U m C •d O- O Cn i ca O m C y L C m O 4�l C m + U V QT D C L O y C v Q a a n aci o �.moo- c r� =: U m (u t m o p y, CL o a CD Ca. E m aI v a > E o >, d o o m ai o o c aci y aI c° co O1 c aI vca- yi ra E.c _ �i $ � p 2 o Z C (v c (u aI 'S E aI E o o a>i = aci o ai aI co r n a i p aci C `� N aaI r� c o � y n x aI o aI D m > d „- �' v �,� t a (_� o ai y L E v m EG m f° a� E c� c� CD c v+ m ro > o c rn c.- v�i m °3 ayi _ $ � tm m aI CG c E > a) QI [� C G y N ,� m }' o t- o �,.0 E C O .( nL--. ,C N ip� o — r.- -•`.. •rr a... C N •y y CD Y L en a) -0 ` N > aI aI C — m Q C ... _ m O C m •y-• N •C Lc,I 'L7 .r -p N C C 13, m H O L C aI m U C CD C1 N T Lam' 7! y y y C i .`J N O o :� c E g m y o aI a a - a vi 2 g E v o '� cd "uI y m L aI c o o aI c c o•5 * aEI U - c a w m o y y o aci a o c - y co y E y C- (D 41 �•.� +L-. y (u U �O t ';� y ¢ -O L m �U y m •� C C U A .�:',;-•;, I- 'O > C m > Oa' U o fD U U 3 L V m N C :L; R $ (U CD W O -a) E $ 0 O O ca (�y6 V ami .y a3 ayi c c ai `) '~ c c •� � v �' C m ca E > y w o `o w c3 o _ c o m C y -o m m 6O >: c`9 . q rn ca an, N E m r c.0 a �a - "o c '� o S6 c C3 aI m e c3.I c r y -0 > a: E � N O > a= N s vI c cLil c n a •m Cn 2 .c -p D O y > m m U >, U c y rn y oI �' . `�° � C o '� U E m cu € 41 crd >, m U L $ ami Q m y, c o aI _� o 'in y '� iq v5i o E o o c� n o % r.� c> aI oo y v y . aI E o o rn > > > c QI > _ y cd E 3 E N lA 7_� N — ca '� `7 C c a U E m E m N y N N ..y. O .L.. N OIL O 'D `� y _ OI y +� C U C .O —0 d C O)y CU m N C , in 0 >" O ----_- _ 7 - U m Cn 'S CD U 0 (C aI Ca O o y T O co N y N 'd m y -- Q) p • L L y•y - •= S m W C E m O O aI E r o U c c y c p c� oI 2 's' aI o 0 aI ca m e ,o c E (u �. -' o c (3 o m " y m aI o o t .o �' �i o Q Ca c C `aI m v o E io o Z .m > •c-' c'` � c2 >, 0 � a�n a� y � CL h � � y > o gym. ayi � = o y C_y C ro a � o in E °: �n w a 2 - _ a o o p•0 2 LL1 U Ca V aI 'j c oI = ID c •� Co v w E d 'C v y Q > 2 _ o aI m y (d r,+ (u o m w Cn y m s y y S '� m c m v o aI E c n m E cai °I m p E c o m L O c c aai m Z o F c C m $ >. `o D aI o '� aI E C o aI y a-ci o (`d >, c (OI m T— 'c CU p cd L C.) .� >, T 'D m > > ui o 'LV 4) v U c ID o f° o Q c N rna O` o a iti n E w o m a ccoo-0 0 •aI c`I. c p - CL c o T y E2 $ E c E E c E o 0 0 .c aI a o ;�I d o E o 0 cca U � to 2 S E O :er ►i g 8 o rn E CD c o` Z 7U(a) 0 �� c c�a a>i UP' aEi v ca i s ■ ■ ■ 3 CD in J2iq - S 2 -a ;CL CD �S � m 0 v cd •a m 2 c.I m -0 hp h :=_, - YM' vN4 _ 4F L) 'N tsr' •O 0 - ELCL fn ca _ m E SIR: a) Q) r _ U C O U) m Qf O r a) N 52 - O.. a) Sc 30 13 -o a O c_ _ _ O p p Q) b 46 i3U "-� c � cn CL o Q E 0 o -0 c c 'o O in `m o m Q c '� o a� o o c in ui o c m c c s ¢� D o - rn a� U _ c K � m u7 v c o o y m a� L -S o o m ca Q a m U E" c ID n p - � � 8 o vi a� y � � E 3 _ a a� a E o o .,,. 5 >. a E rn n. o a� a o o $ a� E o to ai c o w E - u a� c aD cr _ m o cn c b o L o c .Z o tE w v n �'i w 2 > A E a m Q o o C C ffl QI C O •N i4 O' - U C "__' y O a p -C Cl) :C Ll.. V p c�6 O 07 C fII 6 _o aD 2, E y rn o o = n a� c > L c `- � c Cc 2 0 a�Qi E rn > n n 2 s can c a y .;E a� cm y r � m n Q) -- w a) O p C m y > c a) O a w Q C c Jc a) o =;< rn E a p s ism 2 c _c o E a m w c c a m e o m a� cpi o .R7 U m >, - o o c C y -o - N $ oCD 3 c E _-- m �i.L m o L L c m c c y n rn coi 'i a� o a o oQ rn Q a� n a ca vi - w m - •c -Nd � '-_v="-.��ti�r-_cT.'�.�•ti1»'.'.: �Y". om dLU anC�o0 E2c 'nmaOCmO8 U c ypLtn a NULtOO cn En cQ2 u 45: o E c° o CD o c' ois Coca c a m o E c arn cm o a o O m om aa Oc .c ca mwa md = o a S O W 6 Fy O ), N O �'GQU 1 c m o m no m - ro 10, o y o c cn d� 5 c aci c o 0- ca ono cot a C coi ro ro v' E "� a� m Lu r € en m c w 'c c a� _ c 0 ` b w o o c 3 c a ( 0 in o o W c p llossl- a ' � - .- =t= o o f _= m �_ 3 'CO b a) ca L ,h rn ¢ 09 n_ s �i c c cn o is C '-_'-Y..•r-...-'_' '`�:.- en N p '� :O N C ___ O O n-•> C L6 e N a O 4 C O 3 C d C N N O U •4V—, 6 70 )•_:r a) O O� n.b f0 t� CO p -_ N fn ` y Q O y� O LaOi7' p L +ti 00 C •..C.. C O L O C O C +-T' N = y. c,4 cp o o E a) _ c a� p °� a) U p d Y o E �a o c ocx V o to y_ n o y _ _ v, `a�'� E �+ c ¢ c° o E a E a°'i E �' o � C o c co > O cl, _ _ Q 3 c v� __ - �• _U j b .0 Q lu r o w a a In a �l N 67 y Q. cn p to cO p Q. - _ > o Lj a r l'd oo -c c 3 S c c m o 0 0 0.. c y '� o o m oc is n. E m c %wc ca o o _- o -1, i � p F- E 'in m $ W .6 a tooa c E chi a�i U E U _d o can c� D yr�`~•y.`y` ca Q O QJ L a>..a. m m .�_•'+� '_�`. O U C U [V v� _Q y cc ;L +J D L� a m U a) ^y: ca o E a C r y o a> E O -• C U a) IV N L 'n C .R_• C Q.(D �• N p O a cccn o L (n O a) •Q ca 40 0 3 3 3 cu o N o y Y y Q a) (n U E a) O E 'O y �L ca U a 3 0 0 E Q w m Z U U ua - - Ocn co m mCa >>' � mm Ca y m d .c_cd chi ca.d L _ y • .� cE .0p � Uoy Oh d — a Q N m CL as fl y -a o_ — o _vt:_ C C O U CM cu O C O O T A- EM I- C C CIDI9 O �. N Ca Rf 7 C •..—O.. Ca O �9 O �C O •Vl N I9 O U O Qf i-- c y C o f= ' c c v =o 'm °� o o U co is U to a Q m E R o_ rn E— 0 E 0 CD O c E � m orn tW Wt7 0 m '0�3 a) cn A o aL O N en m o co O Enca E3 � o co w .o U co N O U_ U m N T C _ 0 . t m U C L 7 O :.0 L ',� N 0 .� fOA 'i1.a "'• -U •Q � �. U U O .� � � m O .. O_�' o- .� F p m •�"� C C C - O CL.'- 1C m C a, - ' a) y a d E cu a— c .co y CL ii 0 �' o o m m D cu CL en sa — o °_' c� 4 0' Q �u 'i' a� w rn to o > - =-' o o o o -0 o 0 C a c c c c din _m n 0 0 p D o.rn m c� o — U c = 0 �n o Nc 0 '— Z o C .E Z 0 U m E O C m c o ai ca o N Q aci n. a) o o m N N c d O m y p c D aL o cad r` d rn rn m U L a7 a� o n— ca o w 3'N m N"O � N _ Q7 w — ta — h �«-• •O — nn'' •o g� o �n m > E Q a� 7 o v' o U CU 3 5 a o o cr c cu m C Q7o d 0 � d o � E o o. a) � � L � � � ao — v E � m� o . c r PROPRO. monW c � mXc ccN � .v c L o m o E d m O N vi t cu ca N c rn CL E (-� vi via •— a_� + c � v> ?2Q COma� N t m cC aN u¢c-0 CSOC fNO 4 Q) mE E 5 E o o rn'� 4 m y o a a o oNcu a c o io a m inja u E RL r > na o ON ycc v N .c, o a) s = U c� c C a ( " ` O a Nto� 7 a o >o O Q-0 O o 0 N > Eno E O E E a n ' O- 00 a � •— y s uD er MN � N ui cy E:;:'':i:;:�Cr..:.:r;:. a •a�� c`na ,.. C con � E t r y m.6 ? qe d fl ca > O N � r ca i oN w m 0 a7 a0 x 03 c a � acL E ::;U 2 a to m U °` -= co 0 ai ai ai i 4Ra > N N c ca m m � m m a) a) a) a) m a) W a) a) E E E E E E E E N N N N N N ._ ._ ._ .— CD m a) a) m d m m a) K` ro m co m co ca cococu M. 0 0 0 0 z� o a = ; 0 0 `0 0 0 0 `0 a 0 u ^=: a c a c � c c c C c "^ca-ter= O 0) �. O m U p a) p N LD�jS 'C 0 7 � HmcTi c SU j c mpc 0 �0. c�Su' m pr 06 CL Qp 2H § IL O O UO O 0 C 0 ca n- O VaV U s SM ffgpm�7, c L m m m`: CDN N N N y y Cf) en 49 Bill - p C p C p G p G o c o c o c o c o c c= a) a) a) a) 0 a) m ma) �._.. o f o o f o � o R o o o f o f p =R E ca m m E m E2 m o m E E ca 2 ca a o. n. a. a O. a a o. a. a. a IL O. n. O. n. a c D o c CD m �ii w is isa) coo E E a) io IN, � E � o w — y r� � � � � � � � � m � `0 � C ESL, c c o o o o -� _' su" o_ ca c `s cu c to m e a) m e ai m c LD m Z cn t o m" c o v O r m a) 0 o a) o m o a) O ty c rn rn maw m n m :ocn c`d acn �¢ awn i3 c c m � 9? Z} 0 c m m 3 m x m m m N a. a) IL m L a- O O a- O O fn c �0 � cL Cc x= E 0=E o� o p c c0 o o orac3) _aEi O a [q m — O m CD o p a) p m o p a o 0o CL cn FL n o 7 to= = p 0t ao oc n o LL"a a) c 17 N 6 af. M. UCU E CU $ n, Q N 0 CD 0 co S Q Q U • • jE U swami, c E m .� ca +- m .S m e m •c m m m C V N N = L C L L U en V fL17 O U co O U N N vl a)� L � 0 L L� 0 . 0 iu � en �) (0 -6 E 0 � r Y'. o c t c6 c o �° ° L c to c O m o m � Lm m m w m a) m m rim m .E I ca ? ca U =s'4,- '. ¢ > .N+ J, C N .4C G Y L ,�N x L Y m e m U m �° Yi m m rn m rn m m ^t. °� E °) m E s a) E 0 E a) E = m E cu E m E. c o f E C . _ ff— 70 EP a N 0. m o n m c a. m o a m o [a m o o m c n c o M o_ E LU yj •O C� C L L t L O L O .0 7 L O N L .-- C 4) Vl s d N 'a d N a) N N N N N O a) N O �- In a,= s c is Esc �_ o =i �_ - �) o�) o ai _ r ai �_ � 0 0 a c b a`� O p a _ _ > 1+Rw m = j U L 7 a) c L p "' C Q) C C O S :Y y. L O ti. (p O O m 7 O d m _ �.. C G O (G� 2 .-; O U p O a) O U p O O (p f_7 O 7 O N p U d L.L_U O N .� ` G f..) 'L O C O U O C O U 1=1 C 7 u' •Q.L •a. O Q) O. a) a. Q a. Q O p_ C1 • :a^i: N a. 7 O Q' M p, a. C N u") a. C 7 (D a. N 7 1� a. 00 0. O N QI a. O U] S'^ d. ¢ m Q� m o m d c i m c ¢ t i m Gr E c'i m N Q c m ami ¢ i 7 m $ Q i) f9 -0 E M m E r� m N m m r N r a' E r Q m r N E v m m a v a) E v a) E v m r,L E v a) u a a a v a) rn c5;c" z��,�_ m m ee= O O mO a.¢ O C m •O O m .p o m .O a) ¢ O a) Q "� ' O C .... �' n.v [ 5 nE ¢ a. En m O..Qq o Q Cl. Q no m aC) n olatlU 7 7 `j N N EZ cu E E E E E E to a) a) a) CD m a) a> m O m co ro ro ro _0 DL o o O a o a o _0 c _0 _0 _0 IL `0y. = R Ln ... A O f' W p Qa7 �R Od U da OOOOCOU � CpN 'aC OOO ONV T o O T CDb US a U IL [D o co 0 C O U " �0 o 0-U o O U O p o mUoU m N d d N a) d N m m ca m m ta to ti z :, m -cn �-- ' l O p D O T E m E m a O_ a. O_ CL a. d O_ ILO.. d O_ d d_ m m (D i m a d (D co a`f a) m -u N` a) a a) a) m 16 a) m a) m 'O _- -l'_-%^:'=�::`:;'<,.•:..',7.`::';5�a''{„"y- Namm1'`mGOEm ;mN vaO' mam) �C0 CQp)� � -0 • uoo `�7 r0s wGm m m m m L O3d aw ��O -O p o > 3 b -o o > o o CD cr cr m_ C by m c9 0 Odp b [� m � m b mm m =3 C, m -f- Om m m p o ) a) am m m m 3 w - m C cU-� p L is ,V Cd in G aa) o a) w o f a) m aa) o f aa) c cu o z o o E aa) o f a c E Q c co o cA a o aEi cn o c a) o_o o_ c o a c c j �- c c w .C) o � c .0 y > U) a U) o CA o o U) o a) � of a a) � Gy damp a) � mac a) 2 a) �'oo q a a Q -0 o 2 ram, a a s i _-0 p r) to w a' E c c .E c E2 E c E c 5 w E c c a) U to ui `0 c� c v) � cg m ? -c C, _ L � G � £ coi c Q 3 0 y 3 - ui Ur-i CD U N 0 N a1 toO OO O tq Q- p c At= Q) C a c c ' i c m m c° so o m m acb m a) m ca9 m .� is m m aci a) m fO m m oc y ca) )" v) a GGfA a G � �q d) C ai '.:c mca 03a c 1i m = (D c m E y m E oaEo a - o E i o - g - a?)E a v Ica .i o `)E 0 a L o m u vN o � �� cli>_'•,i'%�?:=_�:..";..t,,,;.,,.;:.. loL cmU Ob Q> O_ c ¢h c Q1 c Nc. z vU OQy .1r-i ycQm.pNac) Qm 0 m y lu c. >?o b m o > O U1c o mL U o m >c LE oUa) LL < � LLCS a LL- U Ny0aas cn o m n o asQo a a d CL o a c m _ m a N cn mdm cym ca CD m cC, cm m ci o) i o 2i c a) o m m v) cu m m o -2 c �. v _a) m`m v a) . 4 m �a F <t v m E v m m a v aa) co co ff Q m m o is � 'o m o � 'o ro o �� �� u�] U ny mU 0-u) `oviaU ao o � � p. N mU a 'cn mU OD ca ca KM ca � ' - ^" cd ��•ice_ _ ?40" O 24'�M1`�`��•`,• '•N ate--! ,'.`` w0-� _ O y� O 0. ai y w S2 i C-6 4" c U a] C a. N aci 'c o c ca p a c4 ca x•- y ':: O cu ca . - o o O r air,=s :.`�;? 0. d O yN i(1) uj Q7 O C 41 O enN N FL'-0O 0 i= v o y 0 w � w .. � o - — ?>><s:` (D o a E E.o o �' n L a� ca a> ca o .Q vi Ef co C cn is ca C O o a SNi y a o a—�i o o a vi E D 0 N o � o _ � rn cu cv E m w c m a _ 0 0 o c S a� cn o a o E o o cn E 0 L a cu c a 3 E2 $ 0 3 0 0' c P y N o v xr3 aD c � LU-- '. as � Q? ea e N of = q� .� c ai as a) c O a E a 0 v ��` E N c N N N E c U cae OU X C 2 � as = '� O .O ,47 O °i 'y p !! y' O) Q O Qf Ln m C .a rn U � c] 0 rn C Q v cO .� N O C a) C E m rn C CD ca o c a, c a? :° In >, E is c a> �` �' o o a�'i 11 m a`� ca E p 3 = o A a: m m co ca cn o Cl) 3 N -0 i -0 E E Cl) Y E a N 3 E m c co a ca a� U) a) °� `o a) — O cNa °�' E Cl) a� o a o m U) �" o tO a� o o N rn 3 0 � E 3 a) co a� 'o _� i3 o m c" 3 5' _ E b c aL�i O E v a m e �' a? c �c a� o `� a� rn a� co`n _ = � cn >, ca ca o = fin' v c.- N = -0 o c L oQ c is 3 _� o m ca •r .c o a cN„ c n1 .- — o o N y Z m E m y Cl, a> o ayi a m cu a� c j rn y o m ::� -•_';;_::: G •$ V N 0 a. � R E C fOn E N -� C N C C a� o ai $ '� a ca o aj o �. io � caa a CO m � aQ a c�a cn o m au7i fin > n = m a' v a cu o 'c3 a�i � o E �i U cyi m a> •� O m c d o a m .3 D 3tn '� � o � $ cn a �, a 0 O w In 0 �' m N a N C ca o c a`i N~ 'N C E N 3 ca 3 �_ ,c o CL c �' c to c vo O '� o O O u vi c 'E O vi c c 5 = a� ona aEi y o c m N o Y m a� o 'o E cNo a�i r=n c c d m c rn cad c E ca a� m N �V.a E d m a> n v� .� N v a� c v o as cn E . E o $ U En.� as �? c c" c o = a`3 Cl) 3 m o 0 3 m o m $ m o D _ O U y (a E N U O C (a 0 Cl) fn �n ` C. U N O -C N ffnn C al ?+ .._ d Q' O O_ C O p [Nn a) U O 47 N C ca a) N N N 0 cn w 8 U n r c� Q a> 0 .E U0. �G o aco Q o -0 -M .CL E n C%3 n cca c ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ o ',J••'••t vV'' ca 5,41 o _'_ = m O n a] o T N CD c N U - '_- Q .0 U 'y ) O LUrra�S' O U L7fy o =3 .ti ` CL CD co L) E co CL >- cca 5 str- a� al o c cv ` c o a E o c 5 sx== t o c m o �p = a> cv V y •� >= G Vl .0 U U ca V y f9 N , %•'' N t6 �j D O 'S t d Ol �. dCL d Q) 7 Q m E o ca y a> v m c is a� = o ci <° is - :° c co .- _ c E y c N 'O E :2•�=k>=�z`r i ca � {� r••� to U � �O U �.g Q� ca � E Q� d O f0 d C U an=f O N O E N CD gg�� o CIS ,? - o ai >_ ;, E w w o 3 of U a o m o d a`� h `m oo = 7C v o m w co a; m In > > f= p o c C, s E a� Y cc is ."' s �a +moo F pp}}?`�� a� �`a � n c °w so L m2 h W � Ul N N N .2.+ C O � O V7 E r0. I= a;C' O Q cl' y tm in C3 � y � V (O LL � U cn E �3 v y CL m o a uai i� cn a m E c c ca � � fA O O L co o _ ' co ; ` a) o o rc3 o o _n 0 � CL .0 O o LF- O f/1 O'•� a) U E ro fA a7 O o f9 c o o o a = a`� 'v ca E o v c� ai c - =< �n a�i 5 D a' E a o y a a) O c O C = rn .� p _ = o_ •Q m c > ca N O o m E UCL vi to o a _ `o a�i 'rn E v� o E o a� o o i� d •� o_ L ca ca O d S c O h a Q, O_ d E O c c 4f cc7 - u� m a rn a>i rn coi c ca - _ c E o � CD u E E N — p s o a`� c cIn 0 � c f 3 a U Ecl) U -� _ c o - ca _ o f 3 CD Q m m o a� o ti 2 4 c E o a� dam ca a? 3 m E y s o m c c f° 4 c�v u� c a w a'�i rn c s E —aoi o m �°i i °o rn m 15 aa)i E o _- o _ '= o m m c a' °� m m a' c y = I= m + 2 E �° c `� m = i m m c m c t°o� r �or c� Ec u� a Z a cVQ �ipmmu 1 =o u d U . a ...0 i Y `a3 a U p U O U O U U - N ,�, N ••- O N O N O M L U p U a) U p N O O Q0- 0. 0 Qc r C p a) C a) C N C CD y3c cn3 � y '3 � N3vi <"= ca 0 .0 ca IraQ U 0— c0 O O tU O .2 c6 Z5.2 -a t5O L .. cL6' U O aL-•w- O L rya '< O CD O d O a) O a) V � � Q � Un '0 _0 � UQ .. -0 d O -p () N N a a) o a) y Co NO a) a) to _ CD a) a_)U) Ua CO O U -p U� Ua U -0 O _ Oo 2 _0 _.fl 6 pDZZ Z QCz Z Qc6 Z Qm 'ram O •�G O p Y O U L p t O U L U .C Q7 L U U C U ` �C U L ca = U 8 C :C L ` U 'O . L m N c=p LA a) m 'C OT O m y.� O m ,� uC� � L VCM a N m a d CL ca a d r ,� m a 4 n. co n 3 o a� 4 n y to ``-3 - N b � N 'u• `� d to N C mm ER bv ca m nLb to ch bC La) o U 8 t c O Omto U cm cu U U �q O m cc O m O i b m p m C rCb LCO c C p w C to N 'i O 'C c0 O C N N C U qC 2 M (Co _ C - U m n A. U m cn.R. U cca co) U cad A a C.) cca a s = a) v c a) o a) D c b 3M o ca a) E c o r n $ U c o a) t ate') c m b = m ». n C �? ai v rn C o m in o N v in c a O i c a m r w Q.�-- co C..) (n U m ul > m •-c"� �y N y C cQ O Q1"`vv:`,`--:;z'ry�` 4a) `nU aa� .- ca a) >,cai o m 'toT co OV Ua) v iUqa vi c fory6 CcJ I m m 'a. n n n m m rn c c m o c o �cn" cn .m m Ll a) o .0 v C c o o CL U cca m coi IL za to n (�03 a) tv m G n m o v cl .) fU •a.-�-,c• `.'�.-C`CLTa. U fl.' U m vJ U ,� •� U l�Gi Ell•UI '� Cm SO _ (� m 4_• tivY = O o.-"'— fn°� coOno O cp o v � c m y m o 3 W_Ca % n o t4o n m :0 to m cn .S U 'R Q CL UM) m _ cT e UaJ a) _ U vEn N o Fmo CoC E Cu g o m > IC m C a in ;-- O , m a) "O .0 'p CD O II �a O - op tU U �OUE .>.s,r-`�,•i'.�•:^•��l�.�Ci;;:S`�c.N'5j y tiN:«^;r-., w5`'i c((Cn� .qU .'.tv:;., n=, f�9 pU iC �a CD O t Q R 0 T " c� cUcQ) OV L = o t0 C L_EnN 0 E a) _ p min a a) m E o to p w Q jT t Cc) zD en .= o , E d07o L'w A U E sy UU to co a o U U ti ca aL) n o c=i a cv to c) ..ter::.:.... '!"fV of L O O cQ N N _U 4) C n. L 6 U 7 to f�.. [3_rJ';; L '� d ? U 3 r :.•� y U •,.. L L C 0 0 O rL+ N L .;. 0 pe' fO :':T'. .� j y c M d y (t�6 F O C C C CY] �T �+-`�"x U 'C �3 ;::-N2 -0 C Lt '`C t0 C •II C 'B U7 N �' O '�' •� U N =-s a� a) a) u� a _ Lh v � E 0 m `� o c E n rn a`� c °a �p C to i� i` S� t� C U) •d y O ti N n. fin•' n to •O ++ C9 i �' '� V O- C g C p C ccn aaci :() n°: co) Uunib v) a ca 3 a) to o o _ U n. U a= N OZZ d y Q a r a� o� V = 9 0 .3 70 y cn O N N O (� w C (C o O _ d 0 CZ 'o .. o U a O ti a 3v (n U) p p •� -. U N d N N -_ - 0 0 •0 "p 0 6 0 U - ZQ� d Za Za U == = a7 NQ. s V, 7C) U1 CY Y u -seo U 0 0) �..) O CD p1 U Q Q) U mV _ C Cy s L C n `> cUG O_ o E c o "� E c '� E c 3 0 ._..'Y m .c y v� '° .c „ a`> fO -� y (D y n..y m fl. 4- d._.. (C Ci CL d N (6 O_ d O_.N U O _. cm cm C33 O 01 C p O_ O_ O O_ cu '.�.% co (D d o �' 2 0 t o ? a� y (ca o N t y O N 3E U E t l6 E "0 0 -0 v1 U m C N U � cm V CD CM p b E o � o o n w o d o 0 CL CD 3 0 _ Z y `o m . s' '. o 3 a. E 3 c 'm y cLe n a y 0CD 3 E o c rn _ '� o m '� o n�i c`o `� 1O p a m °o o oCO (n (a o m p cm ---ems Yy�a N E 0 C a p O_ Q' _QIL C '3 .S Y O.y C •d .__. y Q w •5 0� —(Oc � rn iu � a m W 3cm o CD> o N cpi Sr N - - U •o m N _ d _ }L- v 4t rn a (a F n t IDCa c 'c a� s c oc +y y E- C rn `p Vi c F ca. Co d a('i o E xi rn e} o 2 n. Aube, Nicolle From: Pamela Mccay<pmccay85@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 2:19 PM To: Aube, Nicolle Subject: Ellis Ave Condos Hi Nicolle, I will unfortunately not be able to make it to the city council meeting as I am a nightshift RN and work that night. I'm hoping that my email is as sufficient at voicing my concerns for this complex. I am born and raised in Huntington Beach and I currently live at 18311 Patterson Ave, #2.This is my third time living on this street in the last ten years and I have currently been in my apartment for 4 years. My neighborhood, which is directly behind this proposed site, already has horrendous parking due to the entire neighborhood being fourplexes. We have been having a problem with Elan parking on our street because they do not want to pay for the monthly parking fee to park there on top of their astronomical rent. I have actually spoken to residents while they park in front of my house. They also told me that they tell their guest to park on our street as well. We see people every day walking to and from their cars and Elan. (And no, they are not using the crosswalk on beach) I have been petitioning to get our neighborhood permit parking and all of the residents are in favor of this. On top of the terrible parking, getting in and out of the neighborhood is horrendous. I can't even come out on my own street because the traffic is often backed up all the way to the next exit. Sometimes I can't even get out on that street(Goodwin). This intersection is already a dangerous area and I was almost t- boned coming into my tract on Monday morning on my way home from work. Adding even more traffic and congestion to this intersection will be a disservice to the city and increase the amount of accidents that already occur here. I personally know someone who was side swiped due to someone making a left turn out of the DK/jack in the box parking lot, which is I'm sure the proposed driveway for this complex. I know these complexes are all about making money for the developers, who have already greased the palms of numerous council members to push this through. Our residents do not want this! Most of these complexes have rent so high that most people can't even afford it. I really hope this email helps keep this eye sore off this corner and keep traffic and accidents to a minimum and safety as the highest priority. Thank you for your time, Pamela McCay, BSN, RN i 772 VJ REPUBLIC tS►� SERVICES April 4, 2018 Ref: MCG Architecture Re: Will serve letter for Ellis Ave Condos Please be advised that we have reviewed the proposed plans of the trash enclosures for Ellis Ave Condos. I have found the planning proposed to be accessibly to meet our requirements for providing refuse/recycling collection services to the proposed project. Thank you, Gus Sanchez Hauling Operations Manager 17121 Nichols Lane e sanchezg@republicservices.com o 657-845-6137 c 805-432-5957 w www.RepublicServices.com ?� REPUBLIC SERVICES handle a frorn here_` 773 as ityo Huntington ac 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Code Enforcement Division Building Division 714/536-5271 714/375-5155 714/536-5241 May 22, 2019 Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture 111 Pacifica, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17- 042 (ELLIS AVE. CONDOS) 8041 ELLIS AVE., 92646 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Herbst: In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation. It should be noted this requirement list is in addition to any "conditions of approval" adopted by the Planning Commission. Please note that if the design of your project or if site conditions change, the list may also change based upon modifications to your project and the applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at Nicollc�Aube�surfc t -hb.o�q or (714) 374-1529 and/or contact the respective source department (contact person listed below). Sincerely, Nicoile Aube Associate Planner Enclosures c: Khoa Duong, Building Division—(714)989-0213 Steve Eros, Fire Department—(714)536-5531 Jan Thomas, Police Department—(949)290-1604 Steve Bogart, Public Works Department—(714)374-1692 Jane James, Planning Manager Project File 774 • 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: APRIL 24, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION N.O. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 1-8-001 DATE OF PLANS: APR IL 22,2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, P.E TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 989-0213/khoa@csgengr.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION: *'INCLUDES UPDATED PLANS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN' REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE, AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which-must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. I. REQUIREMENT: 1. Development Impact Fees will be required for new construction and commercial/industrial additions. 2. Submit separate plans for all disciplines; Building 3 sets, MEP 2 sets each. 3. Landscape plan is a separate submittal for irrigation and plants only. No accessory structures or flat work will be reviewed on the landscape plans. 4. All site work for accessibility will be reviewed and inspected based on the approved architectural plans. 5. All accessory and minor accessory structures including site MEP will be on separate permits. 775 Page 2of4 II. CODE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PLANS & DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adopted by the city at the time of permit application submittal. Currently they are 2016 California Building Code (CBC), 2016 California Mechanical Code, 2016 California Plumbing Code, 2016 California Electrical Code, 2016 California Energy Code, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC). Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide all project implementation code requirements and conditions of approval on the approved building plans. 3. Provide building code analysis including type of construction, allowable area and height, occupancy group requirements, exterior wall ratings (per chapter 5 and 7), and means of egress per the 2016 CBC. 4. For mixed use and occupancy, please see-Sections 508 and 509 of CBC.for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. 5. For parking garages please see Section 406 of CBC for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. 6. Provide complete Site plan to show: • The setback between building and property line. • The length of projections from the exterior walls. • Each floor level, please show the setback between exterior walls (both above ground and underground structures) and property line. 7. Provide "Project Data"to show: • Type of building constructions • Occupancy groups • Building area for each type of occupancy within the building • Floor areas/building areas • Number of stories • Building with fire sprinkler system 8. Provide compliance to disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11A and/or 11 B of the 2016 CBC. Including an accessible path of travel to the public way. • Please indicate on Site plan the accessible paths of travel from public sidewalk to building entrances. • Show location of all curb ramps/truncated domes within the accessible paths of-travel. • All areas/units must be accessible to disable persons. • Parking garage must be accessible to disable persons. • For van accessible parking stall(s), the unloading zone must be located on the passenger side. Please identify the location of Van accessible parking stall(s) on Floor plans. 9. Residential Unit— • Please review kitchen layout plans to comply with Section 1133A. • Please review bathroom layout plans to comply with Section 1134A. 776 Page 3 of 4 • Please check required light and ventilation for all residential units to comply with Section 1203 and 1205 of 2016 CBC. • Emergency escape and rescue must comply with Section 1029 of 2016 CBC. 10. Provide egress analysis. Please review the exit system serving all levels. • Show the occupant load-in each area/room/floor along with occupant load factors. • Identify on floor plans location of all fire rated corridors, stairway shafts, and extension of fire rated shafts. • All interior stairways shall be enclosed per Section 1022 of CBC. 11. For elevators please see Section 708.14 and Chapter 30 of CBC. • Elevator enclosures shall comply with Section 708. • Provide elevator lobby per Section 708.14. 12. Review and provide compliance with Title 17 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Building and Construction. This document can be found online on the city's website. 13. For projects that will include multiple licensed professions in multiple disciplines, i.e. Architect and professional engineers for specific disciplines, a Design Professional in Responsible Charge will be requested per the 2016 CBC, Section 107.3.4. 14. In addition to all of the code requirements of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, specifically address Construction Waste Management per Sections 4.408.2, 4.408.3, 4.408.4, 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2, 5.408.1.3 and Building Maintenance and Operation, Section 5.410. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the permitee will be required to describe how they will comply with the sections described above. Prior to Building Final Approval, the city will require a Waste Diversion Report per Sections 4.408.5 and 5.408.1.4. 15. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, including Sections 4.106.4.1 for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction, and 5.106.5.3-Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging. 16.Trash enclosure will require a drain, vent and trap primer connected to the building sewer system. Rain water is not permitted in the building sewer so a cover will be required. III. COMMENTS: 1. Planning and Building Department encourage the use-of pre-submittal building plan check meetings. 2. Separate Building, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Permits will be required for all exterior accessory elements of the project, including but not limited to: fireplaces, fountains, sculptures, light poles,walls and fences over 42" high, retaining walls over 2' high, detached trellises/patio covers, gas piping, water service, backflow anti-siphon, electrical, meter pedestals/electrical panels, swimming pools, storage racks for industrial/commercial projects. It will be the design professional in charge, responsibility to coordinate and submit the documents for the work described above. 3. Provide on all plan submittals for building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits, the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements that are associated with the project through the entitlement process. If there is a WQMP, it is required to be attached to the plumbing plans for plan check. 4. Mandatory requirements for solar ready buildings; single-family residential, low-rise residential, hotel/ motel occupancies and high-rise multifamily buildings, all other nonresidential buildings, CALGREEN Section 110.10 777 Page 4 of 4 5. Provide on all plan submittals for building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits, the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements that are associated with the project through the entitlement process. If there is a WQMP, it is required to be attached to the plumbing plans for plan check. 6. Mandatory requirements for solar ready buildings; single-family residential, low-rise residential, hotel/ motel occupancies and high-rise multifamily buildings, all other nonresidential buildings, CALGREEN Section 110.10 778 H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH- DATE: APRIL 23, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001 DATE OF PLANS: MARCH 7, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE EROS, FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5531 Steve.Eros(cDsurfcity-hb.orct PROJECT DESCRIPTION: **'`UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, LANDSCAPING, HYDROLOGY, WQMP, TRAFFIC STUDY, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND GRADING'"* REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE, AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above, The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have.any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Overall note: The project has proposed a conceptual Alternate Means &Methods (AM&M) strategy to satisfy the exterior hose pull distance requirements. The AM&M has been reviewed and approved by the HBFD. The AM&M will not be formally approved and accepted until the project has received their entitlements. 779 Page 2 of 12 i. Fire Master Plan The Fire Master Plan shall be completed and approved prior to precise grading plan or building plan approval. A separate Fire Master Plan is required for submittal to the HBFD. It shall be a site plan reflecting all the following fire department related items: ➢ Fire hydrant Locations, public and private. ➢ FDC locations. ➢ Dimensions from FDC's to hydrants. ➢ DCDA locations. ➢ Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving. ➢ FACP locations. ➢ Knox box and Knox switch locations. ➢ Gate locations, and Opticoms if required. ➢ Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and circles/cul- de-sacs. ➢ Fire lane signage and striping. (Option 1, 2, or 3 per City Spec. #415) ➢ Property dimensions or accurate scale. ➢ Building locations and heights. ➢ Building addresses and suite addresses. (FD) -2. Environmental The following items shall be completed prior to rough or precise grading plan approval. Environmental Methane Mitigation Requirements Due to the proposed location of construction, soil gas testing for methane gas is required. A methane sample plan shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval, prior to the commencement of sampling. 780 Page 3 of 12 (Methane Mitigation Requirements cont.) If methane gas is discovered in the soil, the following City Specification would be applicable and the grading, building, and methane plans must reference that a sub-slab methane barrier and vent system will be installed per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements prior to plan approval. Additional methane mitigation measures may be required by the fire department. Methane safety measures per City Specification #429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements shall be detailed on a separate sheet titled "METHANE PLAN" and two copies submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. (FD) City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards testing is required. Based on site characteristics, suspected soil contamination, proximity to a producing/abandoned oil well, or Phase I, II„ or III Site Audit, soil testing conforming to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards is required. All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building plans shall reference that "All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards" in the plan notes. Prior to the issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the following is required to demonstrate compliance with City Specifications#429 and # 431-92: 1) Soil Sampling Work Plan: Render the services of a qualified environmental consultant to prepare and submit a soil sampling work plan to the HBFD for review and approval. Once the HBFD reviews and approves the submitted work plan, the sampling may commence. Note:Soil shall not be exported to other City of Huntington Beach locations without first being demonstrated to comply with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean Up Standards. Also, any soil proposed for import to the site shall first be demonstrated to comply with City Specification #431- 92. 2) Soil Sampling Lab Results: Conduct the soil sampling in accordance with the HBFD approved work plan. After the sampling is conducted, the lab results (along with the Environmental Consultants summary report) for methane and #431-92 testi.ng.shall be submitted to the HBFD for review. 3) Remedration Action Plan: If contamination is identified, provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification #431-92, Soil Cleanup Standard. All soils shall conform to City Specification #431- 92 Soil Clean-Up Standards prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. (FD) Discovery of soil contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and an approved remedial work plan submitted. (FD) 781 Page 4of12 Remediation Action Plan. If soil contamination is identified, the applicant must provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification #431-92, Soil Cleanup Standard. Upon remediation action plan approval, a rough grading permit may be issued. (FD) Imported Soil Plan. All imported soil shall meet City Specification #431-92, Soil Cleanup Standards. An "Imported Soil Work Plan" must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to importing any soil from off site. Once approved, the soil source can be sampled per the approved work plan, then results sent to the HBFD for review. No rough grade will be approved prior to the actual soil source approval. Multiple soil sources required separate sampling as.per the approved work plan, with no soil being imported until each source has been verified to meet the CS #431-92 requirements. (FD) 3. Fire Apparatus Access The following items shall be completed prior to rough or precise grading plan approval. Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification #401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. Driving area shall be capable of supporting a fire apparatus (75,000 lbs and 12,000 lb point load). Minimum fire access road width is twenty-four feet (24') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance. Fire access roads fronting commercial buildings shall be a minimum width of twenty-six feet (26') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the.plans. (FD) This review adequately addresses the following HBFD comments: • Information on the `bulb' in the center of the proposed department access road turnaround. • Initially proposed arch at the vehicle entry to the site is not present. Maximum Grade For.Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not exceed 10%. (FD) This review adequately addresses the following HBFD comments: • Ramp to the subterranean parking area is not intended to be part of the fire department access lane. Continued next page 782 Page 5of12 Hose Pull Lengths —The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of Section 503.1.1 of the Huntington Beach Fire Code_ All access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or-facility- NOTE: The north side of the building exceeds the 150-foot hose pull requirement required in Section 503.1.1. The applicant has submitted a conceptual Alternate Materials & Methods proposal that has been accepted by the HBFD. The following alternates will be added for this project. • An addition standpipe hose connection on the north side of the building. • Graphic Annunciator • All in-unit smoke alarms will be upgraded to smoke detectors that are tied into the fire alarm system. • An upgraded sprinkler system to provide an increased sprinkler density. No Parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification # 415 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) Fire Lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both-in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification # 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) Continued next page Emergency Escape and Rescue openings shall be required per CBC and CFC Section 1029. Demonstrate compliance with these code sections on the plans. 783 Page 6 of 12 This review adequately addresses the following HBFD comments: • Ground ladder access to Emergency Escape and Rescue openings on the west side of the building Remaining-Note not Addressed: • Ground ladder access compliant with the dimensions and angles found at the following link needs to demonstrated for the following units. This area of the building is adjacent to the sloped vehicle ramp serving the subterranean parking area and may present challenges to meet the specified dimensions and angles. • Units 2E, 2F, 2G, 3F, 3G & 3H. • Link: Details on these requirements can be found on in Attachment 5, on page 65 of the following link: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/CommunityRiskReduction/OCFA Guide- E04-Architectural Review.pdf 4. Fire Suppression Systems The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and-located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification #424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) Fire Alarm System is required. A building fire alarm system is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with CFC Chapter 9 and NFPA 72 on the plans. A C-10 electrical contractor, certified in fire alarm-systems, must certify the system is operational annually. (FD) Continued next page Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required. NFPA13 Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per Huntington Beach Fire Code for new buildings with "fire areas" 5000 784 Page 7of12 square feet or more or for buildings 10,000 square feet or more. An addition of square footage to an existing building also triggers this requirement. Separate plans (two sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval. Automatic fire sprinkler systems must be maintained operational at all times, with maintenance inspections performed quarterly and the system serviced every five years by a state licensed C-16 Fire Protection Contractor. For Fire Department approval, reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with the California Fire Code, NFPA 13, and City Specification #420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the plan notes. NOTE: When buildings under construction are more than one (1) story in height and required to have automatic fire sprinklers, the fire sprinkler system shall be installed and operational to protect all floors lower than the floor currently under construction. Fire sprinkler systems for the current floor under construction shall be installed, in-service, inspected and approved prior to beginning construction on the next floor above. Exception: Buildings entirely of Type 1 or Type 2 construction. (FD) Fire Department Connections (FDC) to the automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be located to the front of the building, at least 10 feet from and no farther than 100 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant. (FD) Class 1 Standpipes (2 Y2" NFH connections) are required at each stairway. The standpipe system in stairwells cannot protrude into, impede, or compromise the CBC "Exit Width" requirements. For FireDepartment approval, reference and portray Class 1 standpipes at each stairway in the plan notes. (FD) Smoke alarms and Carbon Monoxide alarms are required per CBC and CFC Sections 907.2.11 and 915, respectively. 5. Fire Hydrants and Water Systems The following items shahl be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fire Hydrants are required. Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed -and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrant and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2016 Edition, California Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. Plans shall be submitted to Public Works and approved by the Public Works and Fire Departments for connection to street main and DCDA. For Fire Department (Fire Hydrants cant.) 785 Page 8of12 approval of all piping downstream of the DCDA and the private hydrant, submit a separate plan to the HBFD reflecting the fire hydrant location and meeting all requirements of the 2016 CFC, NFPA 13 and 24, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards. Reference this in the plan notes. (FD) Private Fire Hydrants are required. City Specification #407 requires an onsite Fire Hydrants when portions of the building are further than 150 feet from an approved fire apparatus access road. Fire Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2016 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and-City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Private fire hydrants shall not be pressurized by Fire Department Connections to the sprinkler system. The system design shall ensure that recirculation of pressurized water from the hydrant, thru the FDC and back through the sprinkler system supply to the hydrant does not occur. Installation of the private fire service main, including fire department connections, shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2016 Edition requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. The maintenance of private fire hydrants is the responsibility of the owner or facility association. Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. For Fire Department approval, portray the fire hydrants and reference compliance with City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards in the plan notes. (FD) Private Fire Service Connection to the Public Water Supply- Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing the connection, piping, valves and back-flow prevention assembly(DDCA) for approval and permits. Approval by Public Works and the Fire Department must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. The dedicated private fire water service off-site improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. (FD) 6. Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOX@ Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates &.-Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at(714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification #403 - KNOX® Fire Department Access in the building plan notes. (FD) Roof Access is required. At least one stair-shall extend to the roof from grade level and have an exterior door available for fire fighter access. (FD) Exterior doors and openings required by the CBC or CFC (see CFC Section 504.1 and 504.2) shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided. (FD) 786 Page 9 of 12 Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX& Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum interior dimensions are 7 feet (84") wide by 4 feet 3 inches (51") deep. Minimum door opening dimensions are 3 feet 6 inches (42") wide right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 4 feet 6 inches (54")width. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance on the building plans. (FD) 7. Addressing and Street Names The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Structure or Building Address Assignments. The Planning Department shall review and make address assignments. The individual dwelling units shall be identified with numbers per City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process in the plan notes. (FD)- Residential(SFD)Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428, Premise Identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high with one and one half inch (Y2") brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #428, Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray-the address location on the building. (FD) Individual Units Addresses. Individual units shall be identified and numbered per City Specification#409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process through the Planning Department. Unit address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches (4") affixed to the units front door in a contrasting color. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification#409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, in the plan notes and portray the address and unit number of the individual occupancy area. (FD) 8. GIS Mapping Information The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements. Minimum submittals shall include the following: 787 Page 10 of 12 ➢ Site plot plan showing the building footprint. ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs. ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any. ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access. ➢ Street name and address. Final site plot plan shall be submitted in the following digital format and shall include the following: ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD rom to the Fire Department. ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ➢ File format shall.be in .shp, AutoCAD, AUTOCAD MAP (latest possible release ) drawing file - .DWG (preferred) or Drawing Interchange File - .DXF. ➢ Data should be in NAD83 State Plane, Zone 6, Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet. In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen colors, and layering convention. and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification # 409— Street Naming and Addressing. For specific GIS technical requirements, contact the Huntington Beach GIS Department at (714) 536-5574. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes. (FD) 9. Building Construction, Fire Safety and Egress Components The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Setback and Exterior Fire-Resistance Rating requirements are reflected in CA Building Code Tables 601 and 602. (FD) -Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is required throughout all portions of the structure(s) as per Chapter 5 of the CFC. A separate plan must be submitted to the HBFD for method of addressing this requirement. System must be tested, certified and then inspected once building construction is primarily complete but before the certificate of occupancy will be issued. (FD) Stairwell Required Minimum Widths. Standpipe systems in stairwell areas shall not impede code required minimum widths. (FD) 788 Page 11 of 12 Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Gates and Barriers shall be able to open without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Gates and barriers in a means of egress shall not be locked, chained, bolted, barred, latched or otherwise rendered unable to open at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied, and shall swing in the direction of travel when required by the Building Code for exit doors. (FD) Posting Of Room Occupancy is required. Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for assembly purposes, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit per CFC Chapter 10. (FD) Egress IlluminationJEmergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power is required. Provide means of egress illumination as required by the CBC and CFC.(FD) Recreational or Decorative Fire Pits shall be fueled by domestic gas only and shall comply with the Huntington Beach Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and Huntington Beach Fire Department Guidelines for Recreational Fire Pits. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION: a. HBFD approval must be obtained before lumber or other combustible building materials are brought onsite. The project will be required to demonstrate onsite roadways comply with fire access road requirements including all weather paving and load bearing performance, as well as hose pull distance. Water supply for fire suppression operations, namely fire hydrants, shall also be operable and demonstrate compliance. (FD) b. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with CFC Chapter 33, Fire Safety during Construction and Demolition. (FD) OTHER: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines-, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) b. Outside City Consultants: The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council 789 Page 12 0£12 approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) C. HBFD review and approval associated with any healthcare licensing processes must be completed before building occupancy. (F'D) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 51''floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at http•Uwww.huntingtonbeachca.govfgovernmentidepartments/Fire/fire prevention code enforce mentlfire dept city sl2ecifications.cfm If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714) 536-5411. 790 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT CPTED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HUNTINGTON REACH DATE: MARCH 28,2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APP#: 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CUP#17-042 DATE OF PLANS: MARCH 7, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVE. (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVE., EAST OF BEACH BLVD.) ASSIGNED PLANNER: JESSICA BUI,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: JAN THOMAS, CPTED CONSULTANT-HBPD TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (949) 290-1604/jcktlioinas(w.cox.net PROJECT DESCRIPTION: *Updated architectural plans, landscaping, hydrology, WQMP, tentative tract map, and grading. To demolish a single family residence, liquor store, and a portion of an existing carwash to construct a four-story 48-unit condominium development with 891 SF of ground floor commercial and three levels of subterranean parking on a 0.955 acre site. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements,which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any,will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. No further concerns. December 23, 2019 comments: No concerns regarding revised plans. 791 Access control doors were added to the first floor residential hallway, as requested at our meeting with the developer. A copy of past comments is included below for reference: ENTRANCE Use enhanced paving at the driveway entrance to the project. WINDOW TO FRONT OF RESIDENCE Ideally, give each resident an opportunity to personalize,to a limited extent,the exterior of their unit. Each unit shows a kitchen facing the exterior walkway. Consider a design to incorporate a shelfing or display area in each kitchen window to allow each resident to personalize(take ownership)over the outward appearance of their individual unit. RADIO TRANSMISSION Ensure radio transmission works in this three-level subterranean parking. Public Safety radios might not transmit well in the lower levels.It is imperative that an effective antenna be installed so that emergency personnel can receive and transmit in the parking structure. Install a system conducive to public safety radio transmission. Contact Orange County Communications at(714) 704-7919 for specifics, if there are questions. POLICE ACCESS Concern: Is there a Knox-Box?Police must have access. Recommend: If there is a-Knox-Box on the property, install a"duel"Knox-Box to ensure police officers, as well as firefighters, have access to the property. SURVEILLANCE Install surveillance cameras throughout the property and parking areas.Include elevators, stairwells, storage, courtyard, entrances and exits. 792 Concern: Is this access-controlled parking? How will guest parking be regulated?Guest parking is shown in the parking structure. Is there controlled access into the structure? If so, how do the guests park in the structure? It is recommended that 24/7 security personnel, as well as surveillance cameras(recorded)be positioned in the parking area,as well as in and around the property. Concern: Private storage area in the parking area should be equipped with a motion sensor light inside. Ideally,the door leading to the storage should contain a security window so residents can see into the storage area before entering. Panic hardware is recommended to be used inside the door. Storage door is shown to swing inward. Advise that the door swing outward,and equipped with emergency hardware, in case someone in the storage room needs to exit quickly to avoid a potential assault, etc. Concern: Lighting in parking area should be concentrated between the vehicles. Since most parking garage crime occurs between the vehicles, this area is especially important to light well. PRIVATE PATIO AND ROOF DECK: The roof deck will be used by residents from other units, as well as the residents who actually own a patio deck on that roof. There is a potential conflict between public(residents)use of the roof deck, and the semi-private patios owned by the residents that share that roof deck. This topic should be explored. For example,post roof deck hours. Even posting hours may not avoid a conflict of use in this area. 793 o t�e CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: MAY 22, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001 DATE OF PLANS: APRIL 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE(NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692 /SBOGART(&SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ***UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, LANDSCAPING, HYDROLOGY, WQMP, TRAFFIC STUDY, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND GRADING*** REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE,AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY,48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND. THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code(HBMC),Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. 794 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rgmts 4-25-19) Page 2 of 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. BONDING MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT: 1. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Tract Map. (ZSO 230.84A & 253.10K) a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 2. A Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analyses shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (ZSO 230.84) The study shall also justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements and City Standard Plan No. 300. (ZSO 255.04) 3. Confirmation from the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD), to accept the.discharge from the new development into the existing OCSD sewer, shall be obtained. A copy shall be provided to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. 4. A qualified, Licensed Engineer shall prepare a detailed soils and geotechnical analysis. This analysis shall provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, foundations, landscaping, dewatering, ground water, retaining walls, pavement sections and utilities. (ZSO 251.06 &253.12) 5. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The study shall include, but not limited to, analysis of site access from Ellis Avenue. Site access shall be limited to right-turn in/right-turn out only. 6. The grading and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255.16C & MC 17.05) 7. A Homeowners'Associations) (HOA)shall be formed and described in the CC&R's to manage the following for the total project area: a. Best Management Practices (BMP's as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). 8. A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. 795 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 3 of 9 9. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: a. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. 10. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: a. Design Specification: i. Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ii. Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits). iii. Digital data shall have units in US FEET. iv. A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. V. Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. vi. Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. b. File Format and Media Specification: vii. Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats (AutoCAD DWG format preferred): • AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4) drawing file: _.DWG • Drawing Interchange file: DXF viii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: • CD Recordable (CD-R) 650 Megabytes 11.All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney, if it is desired to record the final map or obtain building permits before completion of the required improvements. 12.A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 13. If the Final Tract.map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement and accompanying bonds may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) 14.All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Fees shall be calculated based on the currently approved rate at the time of payment unless otherwise stated. (ZSO 250.16) 15.A drainage fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of $14,497 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments. This project consists of 1.045 gross acres (including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages) for a total required drainage fee of$15,149. City records indicate the previous use on 796 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 4 of 9 this property never paid this required fee. Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one-time fee shall be paid for all subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1. A Legal Description and Plat of the dedications to City to be prepared by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying and submitted to Public Works for -review and approval. The dedication shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (ZSO 230.084A) a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP) 3. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ellis Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207. (ZSO 230.84) b. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No.211. The driveway design shall include treatments for right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84) c. The existing driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter; and sidewalk per Public Works Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207. (ZSO 230.84) d. Frontage improvements along Ellis Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to City standard cedes, specifications, and the required street configuration and specifications of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, Town Center Neighborhood segment. The required frontage improvements shall include new curb, gutter, sidewalk, parkway landscaping and irrigation, street pavement, street trees, street lighting, benches and trash receptacles. (BECSP, ZSO 230-84.D). e. New street lights shall be constructed pursuant to City Standard codes and specifications, and the required street configuration and-specifications of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. (BECSP, ZSO 230-84.D). f. A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in Ellis Avenue. If the new sewer lateral is not constructed at the same location as the existing lateral, then the existing lateral -shall-be severed and capped at the main or chimney. (ZSO 230.84) g. Any existing on-site public water pipeline (including removal of water appurtenances) impacted by the proposed structures, curbs, planters, parking facilities-, trees, walls, etc. shall be abandoned per Water Division Standards. (State of California Administrative Code; Title 17) h. Two (2) new domestic water master meters, one for the residential component and a second for the commercial portion, shall be installed per Water Division Standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC) i. Where a separate use (i.e. retail) is placed on the same parcel of property as the residential portion and the retail is conducting a separately established business, separate water services 797 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rgmts 4-25-19) Page 5 of 9 and meters shall be installed per Water Division Standards and sized to meet the minimum requirements-set by the California Plumbing Code(CPC). j. The existing domestic water service currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Water Inspector. If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service, any non-conforming water service, meter, and backflow protection device shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. k. A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 232) (MC 14.52) 1. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for domestic, irrigation and fire water services, and shall be screened from view. (Resolution 592.1 and State of California Administrative Code, Title 17) m. The existing domestic water service and meter, if not being used, shall be abandoned per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) n. The fire sprinkler system that is required by the Fire Department for the proposed development shall have a separate dedicated fire service line installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) o. Any on-site fire hydrants that are required by the Fire Department to serve the proposed development shall become private fire hydrants that are served by private fire water services. These private fire water services shall be separated from the public water mains in Ellis Avenue by construction of a double check detector assembly. The double check detector assembly shall be constructed per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 618, and shall be sized to provide adequate fire flow protection for the private on-site fire hydrant(s). The double check detector assembly shall be located within landscape planter area or other area and screened from view by landscaping or other method as approved by the Department of Public Works. The on-going maintenance of this private fire water service and private fire hydrants shall be the responsibility of the development owner(s). (Resolution 5921, State of California Administrative Code, Title 17) 4. The developer shall submit for approval by the Fire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water analysis to ensure that fire service connection from the point of connection to City water main to the backflow protection device satisfies Water Division standard requirements. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (BECSP), the developer shall be required to mitigate the impacts to the public sanitary sewer system resulting from the increase in flow anticipated by this project,as a result of the allowed increase in development density. Payment of an in lieu fee allows the City to implement system-wide public sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements. The amount of this in-lieu fee is $296,000, which represents a proportional fair share-payment to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the City's public sanitary sewer system. (BECSP Mitigation Measure 4.14-2) 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land,the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) [General Construction Permit] by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State of California Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National 798 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqints 4-25-19) Page 6 of 9 Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City. (DAMP) 7. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030) [MS4 Permit] prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address Section XII of the MS4 Permit and all current surface water quality issues. 8. The project WQMP shall include the following: a. Low Impact Development. b. Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable). c. Addresses Site Design BMPs(as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas,maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. d. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. (DAMP) e. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. f. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. g. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. i. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. j. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance. After acceptance, two copies of the final report shall be returned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: i. The 11" by 17" Site Plan in .TIFF format (400 by 400 dpi minimum). ii. The remainder of the complete WQMP in .PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner's certification sheet, Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet, appendices, attachments and all educational material. k. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file. 9. Indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP. The WQMP shall follow the City of Huntington Beach; Project Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2008. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 10. A suitable location, as approved by the City, shall be depicted on the grading plan for the necessary trash enclosure(s). The area shall be paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run- on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, and screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. The trash enclosure 799 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 7 of 9 area shall be covered or roofed with a solid, impervious material. Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited. If feasible, the trash enclosure area shall be connected into the sanitary sewer. (DAMP) 11. A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide .detailed recommendations for grading, over excavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining wails, streets, and utilities. (MC 17,05,150) 12. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (AQMD Rule 403) 13. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. 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. 14. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 15. An Encroachment Permit from the City Depart of Public Works is required for all work within City's right-of-way. 16. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05210) 17. 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. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Wind Erosion WE-1) 18. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.-m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall-be limited to Monday through Friday only. (MC 17.05) 19. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-1/MC 17.05) 20. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1) (DAMP) 21. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the Exposed surface'prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (DAMP) 800 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 8 of 9 22. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (DAMP) 23. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (AQMD Rule 403) 24. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (DAMP) 25. All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. (DAMP) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 26. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. (MC 17.05) 27. The applicable Orange County Sanitation District Capital Facility Capacity Charge shall be paid to the City Department of Public Works. (Ordinance OCSD-40) THE FOLLOWING-DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 28. Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a- Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 29. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 30. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) 31. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the—city web site at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/oublic works/fee schedule.pdf. (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) 32. Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) for the proposed project shall be paid prior to-building permit issuance for retail use and prior to final occupancy for the residential use. The current rate for residential condominium use is $1,364.01/unit, and for retail use is $4,175,67. The rates are subject to annual fee adjustments. (MC 17.65) 33. Prior to grading or building permit-close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and s-pecifications. b. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed. 801 8041 Ellis Avenue(PW Code Rqmts 4-25-19) Page 9 of 9 c. Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. , d. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN: 34. The finished floor elevations indicated on the Conceptual Grading Plan are lower than the surrounding landscape planter areas and landscape swale at the northerly portion of the site. As a prudent design the swale flowline elevations should be lower than finished floor elevations to allow positive drainage away from the building foundations. 35. Section C-C shall include a cross section of the proposed underground detention basin,. including width and depth dimensions and distance from the new public right-of-way line. The proposed underground detention basin shall be located a minimum distance of 10 feet from the new public right-of-way line. 36. Section D-D indicates a swale flowline lower than the new finished floor elevation. However-,the plan view above shows spot elevations of a swale (and area drain) higher than the new finished floor. 37. Section D-D indicates building setback dimension of 11 feet from the northerly property line, whereas the plan view above shows a setback dimension of 15 feet. 802 F61B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: MAY 22, 2019 PROJECT NAME: ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 17-205 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001 DATE OF PLANS: APRIL 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 ELLIS AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD) PROJECT PLANNER: NICOLLE AUBE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/ SBOGART(CDSURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 'UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, LANDSCAPING, HYDROLOGY, WQMP, TRAFFIC STUDY, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND GRADING'"* REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE,AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT -CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated March 7, 2019 shall be the conditionally approved layout, including the following: a. The existing 6-foot easement(along the subject site's westerly property line)for Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site's westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said easement. 803 8041 Ellis Avenue—PW Suggested Conditions of Approval(4/25/19) Page 2 of 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 1. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, furniture, and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public right of way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. 2. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project's Ellis Avenue frontage shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If required, easements shall be quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies. 804 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: May 21, 2019 PROJECT NAME: Ellis Avenue Condos PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2017-205 ENTITLEMENTS: Conditional Use Permit No.17-042 Environmental Assessment No. 18-001 Tentative Tract Map No. 18-004 DATE OF PLANS: April 22, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 8041 Ellis Avenue (north side of Ellis Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard) PLAN REVIEWER: Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1529/Nicolle.Aube@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LIQUOR STORE, AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 48-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 891 SF OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING ON A 0.955 ACRE SITE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided should final project approval be received. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230.14 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. (HBZSO Section 230.14) a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners'Association.The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO Section 253.12.1-11) 805 Page 2 of 5 b. Final tract map review fees shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (HBZSO Section 254.16) 3. A minimum of 14 days prior to submittal for building permits, an application for address assignment, along with the corresponding application processing fee and applicable plans (as specified in the address assignment application form), shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (City Specification No. 409) 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. (HBZSO Section 253.22) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Community Development Department pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Fee Schedule) 6. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code including the Noise Ordinance shall be adhered to. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday — Saturday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 7, The Departments of Community.Development, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Community Development Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the tract map are proposed during the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Community Development 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 may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 241.10) 8. Tentative Tract No. 18147 shall not become effective until the ten (10) calendar day appeal period has elapsed from Planning Commission action. (HBZSO Section 251.12) 9. Tentative Tract Map No. 18147 and Conditional Use Permit No. 16-031 shall become null and void unless exercised within two(2)years of the date of final approval.An-extension of time may be granted by the Director of Community Development pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 251.14 and 251.16) 10.The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter, Article V) 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 12.The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $2,280.75 for the posting of a Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Community Development Department within two (2)days of the Planning Commission's action. (California Code Section 15094) 806 Page 3 of 5 13.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas,check with Community Development Department and Public Works for code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator. (HBZSO Section 232.04) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design: a. Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 23, California Administrative Code. (HBZSO Chapter 231) b. The site plan shall include all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (HBZSO Section 230.76) c. The site plan and elevations shall include the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. (HBZSO Section 230.76) d. All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed- so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a-time-clock or photo-sensor system. (HBZSO 231.18.C) e. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 231.20—Bicycle Parking. (HBZSO Section 231.20)- 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A-Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04) b. "Smart irrigation controllers"and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 232.04.13) c. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (HBZSO Chapter 232) d. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232.04.BECSP 2.6.9) e. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (HBZSO Section 232.06.A) 807 Page 4 of 5 f. A Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees. Said Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name,certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution No. 4545) 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A minimum of 14 days prior to submittal for building permits,an application for address assignment, along with the corresponding application processing fee and applicable plans (as specified in the address assignment application form), shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (City Specification No. 409) 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan fee shall be paid. (Resolution No. 2010-80) b. All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, except for mobile home parks, shall pay a park fee, pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.20—Payment of Park Fee. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution. (City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Fee Schedule) 5. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to,: a. All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 6. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Community.Development Department.(HBMC 17.04.036) b. Signage shall be reviewed and approved under separate permits. (HBZSO Chapter 233) c. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. (HBMC 17.05) d. All trees shall be maintained or planted in accordance to the requirements of Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan No. 14. (HBZSO Chapter 232) e. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (HBZSO Section 232.04.D) f. The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMC 14.52) 808 Page 5of5 7. The use shall comply with the following: a. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pick-up, shall be subject to approval of Conditional.Use Permit. (HBZSO Section 230.74) 8. The Development Services Departments (Community Development, Fire, Police, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Community Development Director's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Director of Community Development may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. (HBZSO Section 241.18) 9. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 shall-become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final approval, or as modified by condition of approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 241.16.A) 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 shall not become effective until the appeal period following the approval of the entitlement has elapsed. ((HBZSO Section 241.14) 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (HBZSO Section 241.16.D) 12.The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Community Development Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter,ArticleV) 13. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 14. The applicant shall submit checks in the amount of$50 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The checks shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Community Development Department within two (2) days of the Community Development Director's approval of entitlements. (California Code Section 15094) 15.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Community Development and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) 16.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Community Development Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. (HBZSO Chapter 233 809 1 1 Ellis Avenue Condos February 18, 2020 8041 Ellis Avenue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 Project Overview Tentative Tract Map No. 18157: consolidate three parcels into one approx 0.95 acre parcel for condominium purposes Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042: permit development of a mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences, 891 square feet of ground floor commercial, and three subterranean levels of parking y- • 1 1 t L�'1lpartment �'' ' law All Mimi t a Pro•ect Descri tion 1 p • 4-story mixed use building • 48 condominium residences • (6) one bedroom units & (42) two bedroom units • Affordable Housing: 10�o affordable • 4.8 affordable units required • Son-site affordable units proposed£ • 891 s.f. of ground floor retail space • Three level subterranean parking garage - 5 spaces for retail • 24 spaces for guests • 99 spaces for residents 1 1 • June 11, 2019 — PC denied project • June 20, 2019 — Appeal of PC denial filed by' property owner • August 19, 2019 — CC opened public hearing and continued to September 3, 2019, at property owner's request ,� • September 3, 2019 — CC opened public hearing and denied project Californians for Homeownershi v. City of Huntington Beach • The City was sued by Californians for Homeownership on October 28, 2019 • City Attorneys Office retained a traffic safety expert and fire code/safety expert to review Project as originally proposed as part of the lawsuit defense • Experts reviewed the entire Project including scaled plans and reports to analyze everything objectively and offer findings/opinions regarding ,the proposed project via separate reports i 1 1 Expert deports • Such reports are normally kept confidential as "attorney work-product" and used only at a certain time in court for purposes of defending a lawsuit • New material information, findings, perspectives, and opinions are offered by the Expert Reports • City Attorney determined that this information could not remain confidential as the City Council must have all information available to make an informed decision City Council Action The City Council may take one of the following action(s): ,A) Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional _Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings OR B) Deny Without Prejudice Tentative Tract Map No. 18157`" and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings OR ) Tentatively Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct Staff to conduct environmental analysis on the new information .;provided in the Expert Traffic and Fire Code/Life Safety Reports in accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA .:..Guidelines and re-agendize for a future meeting Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:07 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Attachments: 2020-2-18 - Californians Letter to City Council.pdf From: Matthew Gelfand<admin@caforhomes.org>On Behalf Of Matthew Gelfand Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:58 AM To: Brenden, Patrick<Patrick.Brenden@surfcity-hb.org>; Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Hardy,Jill<Jill.Hardy@surfcity-hb.org>; Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson@surfcity- hb.org>; Posey, Mike<Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>;Semeta, Lyn<Lyn.Semeta@surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula <ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org>; Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership To the City Council: Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 23 being discussed at your upcoming meeting. The attachments will follow in a separate email. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand matt@caforhomes.org SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date:_ A - /f-d6 dL Agenda Item No.`s �a�-13 93 J i ® MATTHEW GELFAND,COUNSEL WIN CALIFORNIANS FOR MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG MIN HOMEOWNERSHIP TEL:(213)739-8206 February 18, 2020 VIA EMAIL AND MESSENGER City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Email: patrick.brenden@surfcity-hb.org; kim.carr@surfcity-hb.org; lyn.semeta@surfcity-hb.org; jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org; erik.peterson@surfcity-hb.org; mike.posey@surfcity-hb.org; barbara.delgleize@surfcity-hb.org; city.council@surfcity-hb.org; cfikes@surfcity-hb.org RE: February 18, 2020 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 23. To the City Council: Your February 18, 2020 meeting will mark a key landmark in what should have been a simple story. A city, hoping to meet its state-mandated affordable housing goals, designates a corridor for medium-density mixed-income development. A property owner on that corridor accepts the invitation and works for several years to design a project that complies with all of the city's standards,downsizing the project along the way. The applicant works closely with the city's professional staff, meeting all of their demands, addressing all of their concerns about traffic and fire safety, and earning their recommendation of approval. That should have been the end of the story. This project is as much a product of City staff s input as the applicant's choices. The decisions about how to configure the building, where to locate various features,and what life safety features to include all reflect the direction of City staff. The City's elected officials should have accepted the professional judgment of their staff and approved this zoning-compliant project, as the law requires. Instead, the City betrayed its own staff and rejected the project. So we sued the City to send a message to all of California's cities and counties: it is no longer acceptable to engage in this sort of bait-and-switch zoning. Knowing that the City's earlier denial wouldn't hold up in Court, the City Attorney hired outside consultants to second-guess the conclusions of the City's own staff. Ultimately, it was all for naught. After months of review and untold thousands of dollars spent on consultants, the City has come up with nothing new, and its consultants have undermined even its weak arguments for rejecting the project. e 25 S.Virgil.Avenue os Angeles,CA 90020 February 18, 2020 Page 2 The analysis of the traffic safety consultant, Mark H. Miller, focuses two concerns. First, he discusses the risk of collisions at the Ellis/Patterson intersection, identifying two features of the intersection that he finds objectionable.' He confirms that both can be corrected through simple mitigation measures on the part of the City (adding red curbs and re-directing pedestrians to signalized intersections). The City should just make those improvements. Along the way, he undermines three of the City's basic justifications for rejecting the project by confirming that the collision rates at the Ellis/Patterson intersection are "well below the State average . . . for similar types of intersections," that the project provides adequate fire department access as designed, and that it meets the City's bicycle access rules. Second, Mr. Miller discusses congestion on Ellis Avenue, suggesting that congestion will lead to "driver frustration and impatience" and speculating that that could lead to unlawful behavior by drivers resulting in additional collisions. But he does not consider the level of projected traffic from the project, how that number compares to the total traffic on Ellis Avenue, or how it compares to the current use of the site as a carryout retail store with no turning restriction at its entrance. Indeed,his analysis of the impact of congestion ignores the nature of the use of the propeLty altogether. He simply assumes that any use of the property will lead to conflicts with the existing congestion on Ellis Avenue. The exact same analysis could be used to reject the use of any property along Ellis Avenue (and many other streets in the City), for any purpose, in any ingress/egress configuration. In any event, Mr. Miller's only support for the claim that congestion leads to collisions is a misleading citation to a AAA summary of decades-old "conventional wisdom"among planners. The AAA report does not endorse that"conventional wisdom,"and modern research has suggested that the opposite is true for non-freeway congestion.2 This makes sense, of course; slower-moving vehicles are easier to control and less capable of causing harm. Indeed, the only collision that Mr. Miller describes in detail happened outside of the high-congestion times identified in his report. Just as interesting as what's in Mr. Miller's report is what's missing from it. He does not make any findings regarding the impact of the project after accounting for his proposed mitigations. Nor does he analyze any of the myriad other potential mitigations that would address the concerns he raises, such as prohibiting left turns and/or U-turns at the Ellis/Patterson intersection, signalizing the Ellis/Patterson intersection, using plastic bollards or channelizers to create a "porkchop" in the project's entrance, using plastic bollards or channelizers to separate Ellis Avenue, or applying traffic calming measures to Ellis Avenue. ' Mr. Miller's report does not discuss the risk of collisions at the Ellis/Beach intersection, presumably because the City has found that the Elon project had a significant positive effect on the safety of that intersection and a discussion of that intersection would not help the City's case. 2 See, e.g., https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPR_Research/MD-03-SP308B46- Congestion-Vs-Accidents-Report.pdf("The estimation results, based on the available sample data, reveal that accident rates on local arterials tend to decrease with an increase in traffic volume."). February 18, 2020 Page 3 Nor does Mr. Miller attempt to quantify, in any way, the impact of the project on public health and safety. He provides no estimate of the number of additional collisions that would result from the project's development,or the number of injuries or amount of property damage that would arise relative to the current use of the property. In sum, if Mr. Miller was hired to help the City justify its rejection of the project, the City Attorney should have hired someone else. The "fire and life safety" report from James F. McMullen is even less helpful. Mr. McMullen concedes that he was given access to "minimal information," including only "incomplete" and "conceptual" plans for the project. Remarkably, although flying nearly blind, Mr. McMullen criticizes the results of the detailed fire department plan check performed by the City's own Steve Eros, a veteran fire safety professional and April 2018 winner of the Mayor's Award.3 Because he did not get complete information,Mr.McMullen's report is an exercise in blind speculation about how the project might be configured, what materials it might be constructed out of, and the like. It's not surprising, then, that it contains glaring inaccuracies. As an example, the report suggests that that the applicant provided only one fire safety improvement to mitigate the long fire hose line distance required by the project's design, concluding (without explanation)that that single mitigation was inadequate. But at the September 3, 2019 City Council meeting, Mr. Eros explained that the applicant had agreed to four mitigation measures,and that he deemed them adequate in his professional judgment.4 Is the City Council really going to undo the results of the close consultation between the applicant and the City's professional fire staff based on Mr. McMullen's ill-informed and half- hearted criticisms? Even putting aside all of the inadequacies described above, the City cannot legally reject the Ellis Avenue project based on these new reports, because doing so would violate the Housing Accountability Act. Indeed, the Act is designed to confront exactly this sort of pretextual anti- housing decision-making process. Before the recent improvements to the Housing Accountability Act, the Legislature observed that cities were engaging in bait-and-switch zoning. Cities would satisfy their RHNA, Housing Element, and other state housing obligations by designating areas for higher-density residential development, just as Huntington Beach did with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Landowners and developers would take those designations seriously,working with city staff to develop zoning-compliant projects, just as the applicant did here. But when those projects faced NIMBY opposition, the cities' elected officials would ignore their own land use rules and reject the projects based on vague and subjective findings and standards invented post- hoc. If the applicant came back with a new proposal that attempted to address the elected officials' 3 https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/announcements/announcement.cfm?id=l207 4 Sept. 3, 2019 City Council Meeting Video at 2:51-2:53. February 18, 2020 Page 4 concerns, the officials would simply come up with a new set of complaints. This process would repeat, ad infinitim, with the goalposts always moving out of reach. So the Legislature developed and refined the Housing Accountability Act. Today, the Act forces elected officials to stick to their objective land use and health and safety standards, as they exist at the time a development is proposed. Elected officials can only reject a zoning-compliant housing development project if it would create a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact to public health and safety, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed at the time of the development application. A standard is not objective unless it "involv[es] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and [is] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official."5 The analyses in the City's consultant reports were not made public until a few days ago, so they cannot be used to justify the City's findings under the Act. Nor can the City credibly claim that there exists a.U criteria "knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official" that justifies rejecting this project, because its own staff could not identify any when they considered the project. The City's attempt to create a post-hoc rationalization for its rejection of the project is exactly the sort of conduct the Act was designed to prohibit. That the City might reject this project is particularly galling given the historic context. Just weeks ago, the City amended its Housing Element, again reiterating that it wants development on this corridor, at this density, on similarly sized and shaped lots. Is the City going to use these same justifications to bar development at the sites identified in its Housing Element amendment? The City cannot have its cake and eat it too. The City cannot repeatedly identify an area for housing development to satisfy its state housing obligations, and then use the state of its own infrastructure to justify denying development applications in that area. If the traffic configuration in the area covered by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan is broken, the City should fix it. In fact, the City expressly recognized the need to improve circulation at the Ellis/Beach intersection in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. See BECSP Section 3.1.2(6). Where is the City's plan to improve circulation along Ellis Avenue? What has the City been doing with the thousands of dollars in circulation improvement impact fees it charges, if not using that money to improve circulation where it has identified a deficiency? So once again, we find ourselves asking the City: what's it going to be? Are you going to make the only lawful choice you can, and approve this project as proposed? Or are you going to again send the City into months or years of litigation, exposing the City to the risk of fines and liability for attorneys' fees? The rest of this letter sets forth the basis for our legal claims if you make the wrong choice. 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). February 18, 2020 Page 5 As part of the Legislature's effort to address California's housing crisis, the Housing Accountability Act places sharp restrictions on local land use decisions. For several decades, California has experienced a significant housing access and affordability crisis. In recent years, this crisis has reached historic proportions. As a result of the housing affordability crisis, younger Californians are being denied the opportunities for homeownership and housing security that were afforded to previous generations. Many middle and lower income families devote more than half of their take-home pay to rent, leaving little money to pay for transportation,food,healthcare,and other necessities. Unable to set aside money for savings,these families are denied the opportunity to become homeowners, and are at grave risk of losing their housing in the event of a medical issue, car trouble, or other personal emergency. Indeed, housing insecurity in California has led to a mounting homelessness crisis. And the crisis has had a disproportionately harmful effect on historically disadvantaged communities, including individuals with physical and developmental disabilities and communities of color. What's more,the housing crisis is having a severe impact on the environment, in California and beyond. When workers are denied housing opportunities near job centers, they are forced to commute long distances to find housing they can afford. This contributes to air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic. At the core of California's housing crisis is its failure to build enough new housing to meet the needs of its growing population. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that, from 1980 to 2010, the state should have been building approximately 210,000 units a year in major metropolitan areas to meet housing demand. Instead, it built approximately 120,000 units per year during that period. And the situation is getting worse: in the five-year period from 2013 to 2017 California issued building permits for less than half as many units as it did in 1985-1989. Today, California ranks 49th out of the 50 states in existing housing units per capita. The legislature has recognized that the housing crisis is an emergency that requires immediate, proactive solutions: "The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives." Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(A). As part of its efforts to address the crisis in the 1980s, the legislature passed the Housing Accountability Act (often called the "anti-NIMBY law"), which limits the ability of localities—like Huntington Beach—to reject proposed housing development projects. In recent years, it has strengthened the law by adding additional penalties for non- compliance and providing a statutory right of action for housing organizations (like Californians for Homeownership) to sue to enforce the law. The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project if it complies with the City's applicable, objective development standards. Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1). If the City determines that a project is consistent with those standards, but nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must make written findings, supported by a preponderance February 18, 2020 Page 6 of the evidence,that the project would have a specific,unmitigable,adverse impact upon the public health or safety. Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1). These provisions apply to all housing developments, including the development of market- rate housing. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be "interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing." Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L). When a locality rejects a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, a non-profit organization like Californians for Homeownership can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public's interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce the Act must prepare the administrative record at its own expense, on an expedited basis. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The locality, not the plaintiff, bears the burden of proof in such a lawsuit. Gov. Code § 65589.6. And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization's attorneys' fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, a court can also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). The Ellis Avenue project meets all of the City's objective development standards. Under the Housing Accountability Act, a housing development project must generally be approved if it meets the City's "applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete." Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1). The City cannot lawfully find that the Ellis Avenue project fails to meet its applicable, objective standards. First, none of the development standards referenced in the City's proposed Findings of Denial are objective. "Objective" means "involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official." Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). The standards referenced by the City do not meet this high bar. As an example, there is no "external and uniform benchmark or criterion" that an applicant can use to determine whether its project is "of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses." Indeed, that is exactly the sort of vague, subjective standard that the Housing Accountability Act was designed to prohibit. Of course, the City does have objective height and size standards, all of which the project meets. Second, even if the City's standards were objective, the City must find that the record evidence "would allow a reasonable person to conclude" that the project meets those standards, because that was the determination of its own professional staff. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). February 18, 2020 Page 7 Third, some of the City's proposed findings are directly rebutted by the new reports from the City's consultants. For example, the City's proposed findings fault the project's bicycle infrastructure, but the report from Mark H. Miller indicates that the project complies with the City's bicycle infrastructure standards. Fourth, the City's proposed findings are internally inconsistent. For example, the finding that the "project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent(1.5%)of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use" is inconsistent with the City's stated concerns about the project's traffic impacts. Commercial use is a more intensive form of use than residential use, leading to far greater traffic impacts. If the City is genuinely concerned about the traffic impacts of this project, why is it faulting the applicant for proposing a less intensive use? The Ellis Avenue project will not cause public health and safety impacts that justify rejecting the project under the Housing Accountability Act. To reject a project based on concerns about public health or safety, a city must find based on a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety," meaning that it would have "a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1)(A) (emphasis added). We have provided a detailed discussion of the City's new consultant reports on pages 2-4 of this letter. For the reasons discussed above, the reports do not provide any factual support for the City's proposed findings regarding impacts to public health and safety. But even if they did, the findings would be legally insufficient to justify rejecting the project. The fire and life safety impacts discussed in James F. McMullen's report are so non- substantive that it is impossible to meaningfully analyze them using the rubric mandated by the Housing Accountability Act. Mr. McMullen concedes that he was given "minimal information" about the project by the City Attorney. To the extent that Mr. McMullen cites any specific standards, the report just reflects his disagreement with the (much more detailed) fire department plan check performed by City staffer Steve Eros. As we explain above, Mr. McMullen's analysis of that issue is also factually incorrect. The rest of Mr. McMullen's report is just a vague list of issues that he would consider looking into if he had been given more information about the project. As for the traffic-related impacts discussed by Mark H. Miller: The traffic-related impacts referenced by Mr. Miller are not "quantifiable" or "significant. " As we explain in greater detail above, Mr. Miller makes no attempt to quantify the actual health and safety impacts arising from the project. This is not a minor error. Because of this flaw, it is impossible to use his analysis to compare the level of harm that the project would February 18, 2020 Page 8 create as opposed to the current use of the property or any other use of the property. Or, for that matter, any use of any other property anywhere in the City. The same basic analysis could be used to justify rejecting any use of any land in the City. The impacts referenced by Mr. Miller are not direct. Much of Mr. Miller's report is devoted to a discussion of the City's poor roadway design, traffic conflicts created by the Elon project, and the congested state of Ellis Avenue. He then suggests that, because these conditions exist, any use of the project site will result in potential additional traffic conflicts. But that is not this project's fault. If the problems identified in Mr. Miller's report exist,the City needs to address the issues giving rise to them, not use them as an excuse to prohibit new housing development. The impacts referenced by Mr. Miller are not unavoidable. Mr. Miller discusses only two potential methods for mitigating the traffic impacts of the project. And he concludes that those methods will work! As we discuss in additional detail below, if the City has remaining concerns about traffic impacts after applying those two simple mitigation methods, there are myriad additional mitigations it must consider before rejecting the project. The impacts referenced by Mr. Miller are not based on identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions that existed on the date the application was deemed complete, that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. Mr. Miller only references two external benchmarks in his report. First, he compares the collision rate at the Ellis/Patterson intersection to state averages and concludes that the intersection is much less dangerous than the average. Second, he reviews the fire department turning radius standards and determines that the project, as designed, provides sufficient fire equipment access. Both of these comparisons with external benchmarks counsel in favor of approval of the project. Even if the City's health and safety concerns could serve as a legal basis for rejecting the project, they are miti able. Even if a city identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if it finds based on a preponderance of the evidence that "[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . .other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density." Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting the project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue. For the issues raised in James F. McMullen's report, the City already negotiated for and accepted a set of four mitigations. See Sept. 3, 2019 City Council Meeting Video at 2:51-2:53. 6 At your September 3, 2019 City Council meeting, City staff conceded that the City currently allows left turns out of the project site (despite the purported danger) and that it has not analyzed the impact of the project relative to the current use of the site. See Sept. 3, 2019 City Council Meeting Video at 2:49. Mr. Miller's analysis does nothing to remedy those deficiencies. February 18, 2020 Page 9 Even if the report raised issues that were not resolved through this prior agreement (it does not), the result would be the imposition of additional mitigation measures, not rejection of the project. As for the traffic impacts discussed by Mark H. Miller, the City has made no meaningful attempt to discuss mitigation methods, save for one. The City has focused extensively on the possibility of adding a concrete "porkchop" to the entrance of the project. This is a strawman. Misunderstanding the Planning Commission's pretextual denial as a genuine effort to engage in a productive dialog, the applicant proposed the porkchop design. The City seized on one version of that concept (made of concrete), found that the concrete version would impede fire access, and decided its work to consider potential mitigations was complete. That is not the case. There are many other mitigations that the City needs to consider, including variations on the porkchop design that do not impede fire department access. Indeed, in the pre-litigation letter we sent you on September 16, 2019, we suggested the use of alternative materials, such as plastic bollards, for the porkchop. But to this day,the City has never addressed that possibility. The following is a non-exhaustive list of traffic-related mitigation measures the City must consider(separately and in combination) before rejecting the project:7 Measures for increasing traffic safety at the project entrance • Reduce the risk of unlawful turns through the use of a "Pork chop" made of plastic channelizers (see CA HUTCD8 Fig. 3H-101 (CA)). Plastic channelizers do not limit fire department access because they can be safely overrun, but they do provide a strong disincentive to a driver considering an illegal turn. • Reduce the risk of unlawfulf aork turns through the use o "g p �,,� chop" made of hollow plastic bollards. Plastic bollards do not - limit fire department access because they can be safely overrun or removed, but they do provide a strong disincentive to a driver considering an illegal turn. • Reduce the risk of unlawful turns through the use of a "pork chop" made of a low concrete curb. A low concrete curb does not limit access to heavy duty vehicles like fire equipment or ambulances, but does provide a strong disincentive to a driver considering an illegal turn in a passenger automobile. 7 In this list, references and pictures are provided, as appropriate, solely for the purpose of identifying the type of roadway design feature or traffic control device being referenced. These references are not intended to provide detailed portrayals of the configurations being proposed. 8 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition, Rev. 4, available at https:Hdot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/camutcd/camutcd-rev4. February 18, 2020 Page 10 • Reduce the risk of unlawful turns through the use of a "Pork chop" made of manually removable metal bollards or pop-up metal bollardsIs that can be lowered using an emergency keybox(see Huntington Beach F.D.C.S. 403). Metal bollards would render illegal turns impossible, and emergency access could be obtained through removal of the bollards or the use of a Knox Box or equivalent emergency keybox, just as emergency personnel use to access other restricted spaces. • Reduce unlawful turns by separating the roadway using plastic channelizers (see, e.g., CA MUTCD Fig. 3H-101 (CA)). Plastic channelizers do not limit fire department access because they can be safely overrun, but they do provide a strong disincentive to a driver considering an illegal turn across the roadway centerline. • Reduce unlawful turns by separating the roadway using hollow plastic bollards. Plastic bollards do not limit fire department access because they can be safely overrun or removed, but they do provide a strong disincentive to a driver considering an illegal turn across the roadway centerline. • Improve traffic control at the entrance through the addition of a stop sign on Ellis Avenue. Adding a stop sign would significantly decrease the risk of traffic conflicts. • Improve traffic control at the entrance by signalizing the entrance. Adding traffic signals would significantly decrease the risk of traffic conflicts. • Reduce traffic conflicts through additional signage about the requirement to keep the entrance area clear (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-18 (CA)). Congestion immediately in front of the entrance can be reduced through signs and roadway markings requiring that the area be kept clear. This would reduce the frustration of drivers exiting the project. • Reduce risk of traffic conflicts by adding marked speed humps along Ellis Avenue before the entrance (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-29). Speed humps reduce the speed of roadway users, decreasing the risk of conflicts with vehicles entering the roadway. Advance markings can be added for additional driver awareness (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-31). • Reduce risk of traffic conflicts by adding transverse rumble strips along Ellis Avenue before the entrance. Transverse rumble strips reduce driver inattention, decreasing the risk of conflicts with vehicles entering the roadway. .,- Measures for increasing traffic safety at the Beach/Patterson intersection • Improve traffic control at the Ellis/Patterson intersection through signalization. Adding traffic signals would significantly decrease the risk of traffic conflicts. February 18, 2020 Page 11 • Improve traffic control at the Ellis/Patterson intersection through the use of stop signs. Adding stop signs would significantly decrease the risk of traffic conflicts. • Improve traffic control at the Ellis/Patterson intersection through the use of a radar feedback speed limit sign. Adding a radar feedback speed limit sign before the Ellis/Patterson intersection would reduce speeds and increase driver awareness, decreasing the risk of collisions. • Reduce the risk of traffic conflicts by prohibiting left turns and/or U-turns at the Patterson Lane intersection for traffic traveling along Ellis Avenue. The City's concerns appear focused on the risk of conflicts with turning traffic at Patterson Lane. The City can eliminate those risks by prohibiting the vehicle movements the City finds problematic, and enforcing the restriction through signage, roadway markings, hard barriers (such as a median), or soft barriers (such as plastic channelizers). • Improve traffic control and pedestrian safety at the Ellis/Patterson intersection through the addition of marked crosswalks. Currently, it is legal for pedestrians to cross Ellis Avenue at Patterson Lane, but there is no crosswalk. Adding a crosswalk would improve pedestrian safety and increase overall driver awareness in the vicinity of the project entrance. For added safety, the crosswalks could be enhanced with signage and roadway markings (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-17), a hybrid beacon system (see CA MUTCD Chapter 4F), a marked speed table (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-30) or in-roadway warning lights (see CA MUTCD Fig. 4N-101 (CA)). Measures for increasing traffic safety at the Ellis/Beach intersection • Improve traffic control and pedestrian safety at the Ellis/Beach intersection through the use of a higher visibility crosswalk design (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-19 and 3B-19 (CA)). The Ellis/Beach intersection is currently painted with standard crosswalk markings. To improve pedestrian safety and overall driver awareness, the crosswalks could be improved by using a higher-visibility design. • Improve pedestrian safety at the Ellis/Beach intersection through the use of an exclusive pedestrian phase or "Barnes Scramble" (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-20). An exclusive pedestrian phase eliminates vehicular movement during pedestrian crossings, reducing the risk of collision with a pedestrian. • Improve pedestrian safety at the Ellis/Beach intersection through the use of a leading pedestrian interval. A leading pedestrian interval reduces vehicular movement during pedestrian crossings, reducing the risk of collision with a pedestrian. • Improve driver awareness of traffic rules in Ellis/Beach intersection through the use of additional and higher-contrast line extensions (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-13). The Ellis/Beach intersection currently only uses a few faint line extensions. Driver confusion and unlawful movements could be reduced by improving the line extensions. February 18, 2020 Page 12 • Improve driver awareness of traffic rules in Ellis/Beach intersection through the use of larger and additional signage, advance signage, and additional roadway markings(see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-27). The Ellis/Beach intersection currently uses very limited signage and roadway markings. Driver confusion and unlawful movements could be reduced by improving the signs and markings. • Reduce intersection non-clearance through signage and roadway markings about the requirement to keep the intersection clear (see CA MUTCD Fig. 3B-18 (CA)). It is unlawful for drivers to block the Ellis/Beach intersection by entering the intersection when it cannot clear. This behavior can be reduced through signs and roadway markings, reducing the risks created by intersection non-clearance. • Reduce intersection non-clearance through regular enforcement of the requirement to keep the intersection clear. It is unlawful for drivers to block the Ellis/Beach intersection by entering the intersection when it cannot clear. This behavior can be reduced through regular and visible enforcement during peak hours, reducing the risks created through intersection non-clearance. • Reduce congestion through the adjustment of light timing at the Ellis/Beach intersection. The back-up congestion and failure to clear at the Ellis/Beach intersection could be improved through adjustments to light timing and light cycles. Technologies including dynamic light timing and speed-dependent light timing could be employed. Traffic calming measures for increasing safety along Ellis Avenue Attached with the electronic version of this letter is a review of traffic calming measures that have been successfully applied to 25 streets across the United States, entitled Rethinking Streets: An Evidence-Based Guide to 25 Complete Streets Transformations. Traffic calming measures—even lane reductions—generally increase traffic safety and visual appeal without meaningfully reducing traffic throughput. The City should consider all of the traffic calming methods discussed in Rethinking Streets. Some examples are provided here for illustration: • Reduce the risk of traffic conflicts through the elimination of the continuous central turning lane and the addition of landscaped medians with discrete turning areas and gaps as needed. • Reduce speeds and increase driver awareness through the elimination of one or more travel lanes on Ellis Avenue. • Reduce speeds and increase driver awareness through the elimination of a travel lane and the creation of an angle-in parking zone along Ellis Avenue. • Reduce speeds, increase driver awareness, and increase bicycle access through the replacement of a travel lane with a marking-delineated or bollard- or channelizer-separated bike lane. • Decrease vehicle dependence, reduce congestion, increase driver awareness, and reduce speeds through the replacement of a travel lane with a dedicated bus lane. February 18, 2020 Page 13 • Decrease vehicle dependence and reduce congestion by providing new or more frequent public transit service. • Reduce speeds and increase driver awareness through the addition of street trees. • Reduce speeds and increase driver awareness through a reduction in the width of the travel lanes. • Reduce speeds and increase driver awareness by reducing the speed limit, using advisory speed limit signs, or using radar feedback speed limit signs. It is time for the City to end its quixotic effort to prohibit development at the Ellis Avenue site. Do the right thing and approve this project. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand cc: Michael Gates, Esq., City Attorney By email to: michael.gates@surfcity-hb.org Oliver Chi, City Manager By email to: oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director By email to: ursula.luna-rynosa@surfcity-hb.org The following documents are attached to the electronic copy of this letter and are hereby incorporated in their entirety: A. October 28, 2019 Petition in O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC (Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach) B. Rethinking Streets: An Evidence-Based Guide to 25 Complete Streets Transformations Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:07 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Attachments: 2020-2-18 - Attachment A to Californians Letter to City Council.pdf; 2020-2-18 - Attachment B to Californians Letter to City Council.pdf From: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org>On Behalf Of Matthew Gelfand Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 2:02 AM To: Brenden, Patrick<Patrick.Brenden@surfcity-hb.org>; Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Hardy,Jill<Jill.Hardy@surfcity-hb.org>; Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson@surfcity- hb.org>; Posey, Mike<Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>; Semeta, Lyn<Lyn.Se meta @surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula <ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org>; Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: RE: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership To the City Council: Here are the attachments referenced in our letter. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand 9 Date." a ^ /df~ ��— matt@caforhomes.org Agenda,nem No: — 3 3 From: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:58 AM To: 'patrick.brenden@surfcity-hb.org'<patrick.brenden@surfcity-hb.org>; 'kim.carr@surfcity-hb.org' <kim.carr@surfcity-hb.org>; 'barbara.delgleize@surfcity-hb.org'<barbara.delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; 'jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org'<jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org>; 'erik.peterson@surfcity-hb.org'<erik.peterson@surfcity- hb.org>; 'mike.posey@surfcity-hb.org' <mike.posey@surfcity-hb.org>; 'lyn.semeta@surfcity-hb.org' <Ivn.semeta@surfcity-hb.org>; 'city.council@surfcity-hb.org' <city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; 'cfikes@surfcity-hb.org' <cfikes@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: 'michael.gates@surfcity-hb.org'<michael.gates@surfcity-hb.org>; 'ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org' <ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org>; 'oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org'<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership To the City Council: Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 23 being discussed at your upcoming meeting. The attachments will follow in a separate email. Sincerely, 1 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California,County of Orange,10/28/2019 11:35:08 AM. DAVID H.YAMASAKI,Clerk of the Court By Isia Vazquez,Deputy Clerk.30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC ROA#2 1 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP, INC. Matthew P. Gelfand (SBN 297910) 2 matt@caforhomes.org 3 525 S. Virgil Ave. Los Angeles, California 90020 4 Telephone: (213) 739-8206 Facsimile: (213) 480-7724 5 Attorneys for Petitioner, 6 Californians for Homeownership, Inc. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 CALIFORNIANS FOR Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC z HOMEOWNERSHIP, INC., a Judge Layne Melzer Dept.0 12 12 California nonprofit public benefit corporation, 13 VERIFIED PETITION FOR z ¢ Petitioner, WRIT OF MANDATE LLJ j 14 V. [C.C.P. § 1094.5; Gov. Code § 65589.5] 15 o ¢ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, cn 0 16 Q -� Respondent. 2 17 0 Q 18 THDT INVESTMENT, INC., U 19 Real Party in Interest. 20 21 INTRODUCTION 22 Petitioner Californians for Homeownership, Inc. alleges as follows: 23 1. California is in the midst of a "housing supply and affordability crisis of 24 historic proportions." Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2). That crisis is driven in major part 25 by "activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of 26 housing . . . ." Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(1)(B). 27 2. The law requires cities like Huntington Beach to plan for areas where 28 housing can be built to meet regional housing needs. Huntington Beach designated an VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I area along and near Beach Boulevard for the development of a walkable urban 2 neighborhood with a variety of residential buildings. 3 3. Real Party in Interest THDT Investment, Inc. proposed a 48-unit mixed- 4 income condominium Project for that corridor after working with the City's planning 5 staff for two years to craft a proposal that complied with all applicable requirements. 6 4. The City's professional staff determined that the Project met all City 7 standards and should be approved. But when confronted with neighborhood 8 opposition, the City's elected officials ignored the City's own rules and rejected the 9 Proj ect. 10 5. The City's reasons for rejecting the Project were pretextual. They had no 11 basis in fact, did not meet the relevant legal standards, and reflected a choice to ignore z 12 City staff s professional judgment in favor of uninformed speculation. a 13 6. Californians for Homeownership seeks a writ under the Housing z 14 Accountability Act to require the City to approve the Project. 15 PARTIES oQ 0 16 7. Petitioner Californians for Homeownership, Inc. ("Californians") is a 17 California nonprofit public benefit corporation and 501(c)(3) public charity. Its 0 Q 18 mission is to address California's housing crisis through litigation in support of the U 19 production of housing affordable to families at all income levels. 20 8. Californians is a "housing organization" under Government Code 21 Section 65589.5 because it is "a nonprofit organization whose mission includes . . . 22 advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households" and because 23 it filed written comments with the City prior to the decision at issue in this Petition. 24 9. Respondent City of Huntington Beach is a city situated in Orange 25 County. Through its governing body, the Huntington Beach City Council, it rejected 26 the Project at issue in this Petition. 27 10. Real Party in Interest THDT Investment, Inc. ("THDT") is a California 28 corporation. It is the applicant seeking to build the Project at issue in this Petition. -2- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 11. The Court has general subject matter jurisdiction over this action 3 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and Government Code Section 4 65589.5. 5 12. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the City of Huntington Beach 6 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10. 7 13. Venue for this action properly lies with this Court pursuant to Code of 8 Civil Procedure Section 394. 9 THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 10 14. In recent years, the California Legislature has sought to address what it 11 has described as a "housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions." U z 12 Gov. Code 65589.5(a)(2). "The consequences of failing to effectively and a CIO 13 aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future o 14 generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for O w z � 15 workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the z 0 16 state's environmental and climate objectives. While the causes of this crisis are � a 17 multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to 0 18 significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of 19 all income levels is a key factor." Id. (subdivision numbers omitted). 20 15. As a result of the housing crisis, younger Californians are being denied 21 the opportunities for housing security and homeownership that were afforded to 22 previous generations. Families across economic strata are being forced to rent rather 23 than experience the wealth-building benefits of homeownership) Many middle and 24 lower income families devote more than half of their take-home pay to rent, leaving 25 26 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, California's 27 Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities: Final Statewide Housing Assessment 28 2025 (2018), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans- reports/docs/SHA_Final_Combined.pdf, at 18-19. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I little money to pay for transportation, food, healthcare and other necessities.' Unable 2 to set aside money for savings, these families are also at risk of losing their housing in 3 the event of a personal financial setback. Indeed, housing insecurity in California has 4 led to a mounting homelessness crisis.3 5 16. Beyond the human toll, California's housing crisis harms the 6 environment. "[W]hen Californians seeking affordable housing are forced to drive 7 longer distances to work, an increased amount of greenhouse gases and other 8 pollutants is released and puts in jeopardy the achievement of the state's climate 9 goals." Gov. Code § 65584. 10 17. At the core of California's affordable housing crisis is a failure to build 11 enough housing to meet demand. California's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates z 12 that the state should have been building approximately 210,000 units a year in major 0. W13 metropolitan areas from 1980 to 2010 to meet housing demand. Instead, it built o 14 approximately 120,000 units per year. ' Today, California ranks 49th out of the 50 zL.7 z 15 states in existing housing units per capita.' 0 16 18. California's housing crisis has been building for decades. The 17 Legislature has recognized that the crisis is driven, in part, "by activities and policies 0 Q 18 of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of U 19 land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of 20 housing." Gov. Code §65589.5(a)(1)(B). 21 19. As part of its efforts to address the crisis in the 1980s, the legislature 22 23 ' Id. at 27. 24 3 Id. at 3, 48-50. 4 Legislative Analyst's Office, California's High Housing Costs: Causes and 25 Consequences (2015), available at https:Hlao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing- 26 costs/housing-costs.pdf, at 21. 5 McKinsey & Company, A Tool Kit to Close California's Housing Gap: 3.5 27 Million Homes By 2025 (2016), available at https://www.mckinsey.com/—/media/ 28 mckinsey/featured insights/Urbanization/Closing Californias housing gap/Closing- Californias-housing-gap-Full-report.ashx, at document page 6. -4- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I passed the Housing Accountability Act (often called the "anti-NIMBY6 law"), which 2 limits the ability of localities to reject proposed housing development projects. Gov. 3 Code §65589.5. In recent years, the Legislature has strengthened the Act. Stats. 2016 4 c. 420 (A.B. 2584) § 1; Stats. 2017 c. 378 (A.B. 1515) § 1.5. As amended, the Act 5 limits local review of zoning-compliant housing development projects in three key 6 ways: 7 20. First, the Act generally requires a city to approve a housing development 8 project if it complies with "applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision 9 standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the 10 housing development project's application is determined to be complete." Gov. Code 11 § 65589.50)(1) (emphasis added). If a city considers a project out of compliance with a 12 objective zoning and land requirements, it must make specific findings to that effect W13 within a prescribed period; otherwise, the project is deemed compliant. Gov. Code o 1� 14 § 65589.50)(2). W 15 21. Second, the Act requires cities to treat a project as complaint with such z 0 16 standards "if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to Q -' x 17 conclude" that the project is in compliance. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). 0 a 18 22. Third, if a city determines that a project is consistent with its objective U 19 standards but nevertheless rejects it, it must 20 base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project 21 upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: 22 (A) The housing development project would have a specific, 23 adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project 24 is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a 25 "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, 26 and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they 27 28 6 NIMBY stands for "Not In My Backyard." -5- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 2 (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid 3 the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval 4 of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower 5 density. 6 Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1)(A). The Act expressly notes the Legislature's intent that 7 the law be interpreted such that these circumstances "arise infrequently." Gov. Code 8 § 65589.5(a)(3). 9 23. The Act applies to residential developments, including "[m]ixed-use 10 developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds 11 of the square footage designated for residential use." Gov't Code § 65589.5(h)(2). U z 12 24. The Act contains a statement of intent regarding its interpretation: "It is 0. W 13 the policy of the state that [the Act] should be interpreted and implemented in a o 14 manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and xW 15 provision of, housing." Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L). 0 16 25. The Act provides an express private right of action to challenge the 17 disapproval of a housing development to any "housing organization." Gov. Code 0 Q18 § 65589.5(k)(1)(A). A "`housing organization' means a trade or industry group U 19 whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of 20 housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or 21 advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed 22 written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing 23 development project." Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). 24 26. "A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees 25 and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce" the Act. Gov. Code 26 § 65589.5(k)(2). 27 27. An action to enforce the Act is brought under Code of Civil Procedure 28 Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). -6- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 28. "In any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a city, 2 county, or city and county to disapprove a project . . . pursuant to [the Act], the city, 3 county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has 4 conformed to all of the conditions specified in [the Act]." Gov. Code § 65589.6. 5 FACTS 6 The Proms 7 29. The Project at issue in this Petition is a proposed 48-unit, 4-story mixed- 8 use condominium project planned for 8041 Ellis Avenue in Huntington Beach, near 9 the intersection with Beach Boulevard. The Project would provide 5 income- 10 restricted affordable housing units. It includes an 891 square-foot retail component. 11 30. The Project site is currently home to a liquor store, a single family home, z 12 and part of a car wash. The site fronts on Ellis Avenue, which is six travel lanes wide a 13 along the Project site frontage. o 14 31. The Project is located in the Town Center—Neighborhood area of the O w 15 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, which is to be developed as follows: 0 16 Near-term development activities would take advantage of the large z 17 areas of vacant and underutilized land in this area to provide the o investment opportunities that would begin the formation of the urban Q 18 neighborhood surrounding and supporting the Town Center Core. This 19 neighborhood would feature the City's widest range of contemporary housing types and possibly a wide mixture of uses, all concentrated 20 within walking distance of the Town Center Core's theater, shops, 21 restaurants, cafes, nightlife, and amenities. 22 32. The Project is situated across Ellis Avenue from the Elan development, a 23 six-story 274-unit apartment building developed in 2015 at twice the density of the 24 Project. Adjacent uses along Ellis Avenue include a Jack In The Box fast food 25 restaurant and a lot containing utility equipment. 26 27 28 -7- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 33. The Project would be situated approximately as indicated in yellow:' 4 r ,,r - - ► M -,,� 6 - , • ,r 7 Cl f e = 8 t-- "INS�. 9 10id 12 _ 13 Q T 14 15 _Ins Jft 16 z .� a 17 Administrative Proceedings 0 18 34. From 2017 to 2018, THDT and its principals and representatives engaged U 19 in extensive discussions with Huntington Beach planning staff regarding the potential 20 development of the site at 8041 Ellis Avenue, submitting plans for developments 21 ranging from 51 to 65 units. 22 35. In November 2018, THDT filed its application to build the Project that is 23 the subject of this Petition. The application was deemed complete on April 1, 2019. 24 The application sought approval of the Project and related entitlements, including a 25 tentative tract map, a conditional use permit, and environmental approvals. 26 27 28 Image attribution: Google; Maxar Technologies; U.S. Geological Survey; USDA Farm Service Agency. -s- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 36. On May 14, 2019, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission held a 2 study session to discuss the Project. 3 37. On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 4 Proj ect. 5 38. In advance of the May 28 meeting, the City's planning staff issued a staff 6 report recommending approval of the Project and the related entitlements. The staff 7 report concluded that the Project was consistent with all of the applicable zoning and 8 General Plan designations, that it met the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, 9 and that it would be "compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land 10 uses." The staff report also concluded that local accident rates had decreased after the 11 development of the Elan project across the street. U 12 39. At the May 28 meeting, the Planning Commission determined that it 0. W13 would reject the Project and directed staff to return with proposed findings of denial. o 14 40. On June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted findings rejecting W 15 the Project. z 0 16 41. On June 20, 2019, THDT filed a timely appeal of the Planning Q � 17 Commission's decision to the Huntington Beach City Council. 0 Q 18 42. On August 19, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing to consider U 19 THDT's appeal and continued its consideration of the appeal to September 3, 2019. 20 43. On September 3, 2019, in advance of the City Council's meeting, 21 Californians for Homeownership sent the City Council a letter providing comments 22 on the appeal. The letter referenced the City's obligations under the Housing 23 Accountability Act and stated that the City would violate the Act if it rejected the 24 Project. It was sent by email to all seven members of the City Council, the 25 administrative assistant assigned to the City Council, the Community Development 26 Director, the Associate Planner in charge of the appeal, and the City Attorney. It was 27 also submitted through the City's online submission portal for comments on matters 28 being considered by the City Council, which provided a confirmation of receipt. -9- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 44. On September 3, 2019, the City Council held the continued public 2 hearing, made a de novo decision rejecting the Project, and made written Findings of 3 Denial. The City's final Findings of Denial are attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 Administrative Mandate (C.C.P. § 1094.5) 6 For Violation of the Housing Accountability Act, Gov. Code § 65589.5 7 45. Californians incorporates and realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs. 8 46. The Project is a "housing development project" under the Housing 9 Accountability Act because it is a "[m]ixed-use development[] consisting of 10 residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage 11 designated for residential use." Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2). U z 12 47. Under the Act, the governing body of a city "disapproves" a housing a W13 development project when it "[v]otes on a proposed housing development project o 14 application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use zW z 15 approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit." Gov. Code ° ¢ 16 65589.5(h)(5). Thus for the purposes of the Act the City Councils September 3 za § p � � Y p a 17 2019 decision constituted a disapproval of the Project. 0 18 48. The Findings of Denial do not identify "applicable, objective general U 19 plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review 20 standards, in effect at the time that the [Project's] application [was] determined to be 21 complete." See Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1). 22 49. The record contains "substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable 23 person to conclude that the" Project is consistent with all applicable, objective general 24 plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria because, among other things, the 25 City's professional staff reached that conclusion. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). 26 50. The Findings of Denial do not identify a "specific, adverse impact upon 27 the public health or safety," meaning a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and 28 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety -Io- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was 2 deemed complete." See Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1)(A). 3 51. The Findings of Denial do not explain why "[t]here is no feasible method 4 to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid" the listed impacts, "other than the disapproval" of 5 the Project. See Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1)(B). 6 52. The Findings of Denial are not supported by the evidence in the record. 7 53. Californians is a "housing organization" under the Act because it is a 8 "nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased 9 access to housing for low-income households" and it "filed written . . . comments 10 with the local agency prior to action" on the Project. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). 11 54. In rejecting the Project, the City acted in bad faith and willfully violated z 12 the Act because, among other things, it knew that (1) its professional staff had a W13 concluded that the Project met all relevant standards, making it impossible for the o 14 City to conclude that there was not "substantial evidence that would allow a zW 15 reasonable person to conclude that" the Project met those standards; (2) the Findings o16 of Denial did not meet the requirements of the Act, and at least four commenters Q a 17 (including Californians) identified the City's obligations under the Act during the 0 18 public hearing process; and (3) the Findings of Denial were not supported by the 19 evidence in the record. 20 55. Californians has no available administrative remedies. 21 56. Californians has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, other than 22 the relief sought herein. 23 57. Accordingly, Californians is entitled to a writ of mandate directing the 24 City to approve the Project. 25 58. In the alternative, Californians is entitled to a writ of mandate voiding the 26 City's September 3, 2019 decision and directing the City to reconsider the Project in a 27 manner that conforms to the requirements of the Act. 28 -11- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 PRAYER 2 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows: 3 1. A writ of mandate directing the City of Huntington Beach to approve the 4 8041 Ellis Avenue Project, or in the alternative, a writ of mandate voiding the City's 5 September 3, 2019 decision rejecting the Project and directing the City to reconsider 6 the Project in a manner that conforms to the requirements of the Housing 7 Accountability Act; 8 2. Costs of suit; 9 3. Attorneys' fees as allowed by law, including under Government Code 10 Section 65589.5(k)(2); 11 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. U a 12 13 Dated: October 28, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, Q o U 14 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP,INC. w x 15 z ° 0 o 16 By o i 7 Matt ewh P'Gelfand a. 18 Attorneys for Petitioner, 19 Californians for Homeownership, Inc. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE EXHIBIT A SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 SUGGESTED HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that the project will have a negative impact to health and safety for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. In light of the evidence in the record, the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety due to unsafe ingress/egress conditions caused by the project. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Due to the proximity of the project access driveway to the Beach and Ellis intersection, the project will require right turns only in and out of the project site. This would prohibit motorists from exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Avenue. Residents and visitors also cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Avenue without continuing past the project to make a u-turn at Patterson Lane to make a right turn into the project site. The Ellis/Patterson intersection is currently unsignalized. According to the project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a licensed traffic engineering firm, the project will generate 222 additional u-turns at the Ellis/Patterson intersection. Based on accident data provided by the Transportation Division of the Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the Ellis/Patterson intersection has experienced an increase in traffic accidents within the last few years, while other intersections and street segments near the project site have had a decrease in accidents. The increase in approximately 222 u-turns at this intersection as a result of the project will exacerbate accident rates at this intersection causing an adverse public safety impact. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis discloses that motorists entering and exiting the site may experience significant delays during the PM peak hour due to westbound vehicular queuing along Ellis Avenue. Traffic delays on Ellis Avenue will contribute to motorists attempting to turn left to enter and exit the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends installation of a "STOP" sign and signage restricting outbound movements to right turns only in an effort to improve safe ingress and egress at the site. However, these measures are not adequate enough to improve safety and the study also recommends additional driveway treatments to further regulate the turn restrictions, such as the installation of raised pavement to physically prevent left turns out of the site. This suggests that is a reasonable assumption that motorists will lose patience and attempt left turns out of the site onto Ellis Avenue creating an unsafe condition, particularly during the PM peak hour when there is a long vehicular queue of traffic on Ellis Avenue in front of the project driveway. Additionally, motorists may attempt to avoid having to make a u-turn at the unsignalized Ellis/Patterson intersection resulting in additional delay due to vehicular queuing on westbound Ellis Avenue. These motorists entering the site from eastbound Ellis Avenue will attempt left turns from a through lane across traffic into the project driveway creating unsafe conditions on both eastbound and westbound sides of Ellis Avenue. 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. The site cannot accommodate an alternative access point or an additional access point to mitigate the negative safety impacts caused by project generated traffic. The project site does not have access to another street or alley. The appellant proposed a raised "porkchop" design at the driveway entrance to prevent left turns out of the project site as recommended by the Traffic Impact Analysis. This could potentially address the adverse health and safety impact to an uncertain degree. However, this design does not meet Fire Department access standards and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements. Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 401 contains minimum standards for fire apparatus access and No. 403 has additional requirements for driveway width when there are multiple lanes of travel with an "island divider", like the proposed driveway with the raised "porkchop" design. Each lane of travel must be a minimum of 14 ft. wide. Two lanes of travel require a minimum 28 ft. wide driveway, without counting additional width required for an "island divider". The proposed project driveway is 24 ft. wide total. Since the proposed raised "porkchop" design would take up a portion of the driveway width, it will result in a driveway that is less than 24 ft. wide. Since the proposed driveway is only 24 ft. wide when there is a 28 ft. minimum width (excluding additional width required for the raised "porkchop"), there is no feasible mitigation available for the adverse health and safety condition resulting from the proposed "porkchop" driveway design. The raised "porkchop" design would impede Fire Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact caused by the project. Therefore, insufficient access to the project site and project generated traffic will have a direct adverse impact to health and safety which cannot be mitigated. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157: The City Council finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein: 1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below. 2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd. 3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users. Circulation Element Goal CIRC-1c. Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources. Policy CIRC-IF: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. Policy CIRC— 1 G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use. The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave.from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a u-turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042: The City Council finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP's vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property. 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, Matthew P. Gelfand, declare: 3 1. I hold the position of Counsel at Petitioner Californians for Homeownership, 4 Inc., and am familiar with the matters discussed in the foregoing Petition. 5 2. 1 have read the Petition and know the contents thereof. The statements of fact 6 therein are true and correct of my own knowledge. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 8 9 Executed on October 28, 2019 at Los Angeles, California. 10 11 U 12 13 Matthew P. Gelfand o " 14 xW 15 � z 16 � a° 17 0 w_ 18 U 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE f 4f pi 7 3- 77 00*1 � r 4 Wal I Ask Ash tr M "+a Marc John ASA Dave r ._ -- Kett Rethinking Streets An Evidence-Based Guide to 25 Complete Street Transformations Marc Schlossberg, PhD John Rowell, AIA Dave Amos Kelly Sanford ©2013 Marc Schlossberg,John Rowell,Dave Amos,and Kelly Sanford DISCLAIMER:The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors,who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein.This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.Department of Transportation's University Transportation Centers Program,in the interest of information exchange.The U.S.Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The University of Oregon's Sustainable Cities Initiative(SCI)works to leverage the resources, expertise,energy and capacity embedded within universities to make good sustainable places through research,teaching,training and policy/advocacy. SCI's award winning Sustainable City Year Program(SCYP)has developed a new"catalytic learning"pedagogical model that has been described as"perhaps the most comprehensive effort by a U.S.university to infuse sustainability into its curricula and community outreach"(NY Times)and"one of higher education's most successful and comprehensive service-learning programs"(Chronicle of Higher Education). SCI's applied research focuses on sustainability and the built environment,sustainable urban design, active transportation,transit,triple bottom line analysis and more. SCI also actively works with policy makers and practitioners internationally,providing advising,training and consultation in a variety of sustainability areas related to cities,livability and quality of life. More information can be found at sci.uoregon.edu. COVER PHOTO CREDITS:top left:Greg Konar,top right:City of Charlotte,bottom left:Jonathan Maus,Bike Portland,bottom right:Rob Shenk 'WIN NITC L INSTITUTESustainable Cities Intati* 6w TRAANS"TAMN Unnersityof Oregon and COMMUNITIES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Sustainable Cities Initiative(SCI)at the University of Oregon,the National Institute for Transportation and Communities(NITC),The Department of Architecture at the University of Oregon and Rowell Brokaw Architects for their support of this project. We would also like to thank our partners in the private,public and nonprofit sectors from around the country who have offered their input throughout this process;in particular Andy Clarke of the League of American Cyclists,Kit Keller of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals,Stefanie Seskin of Smart Growth America,Sheila Lyons of the Oregon Department of Transportation,Tom Larsen of the City of Eugene,Chris Zahas of Leland Consulting,Michele Reeves of Civilis Consultants,Kaarin Knudson of Rowell Brokaw Architects and Howard Davis of the University of Oregon. Additionally,we would like to thank two graduate student architecture fellows who helped tremendously with developing all of the design templates throughout this guidebook(and countless designs that did not make the cut):Briony Walker and Laura Levenberg. Lastly,we would like to thank Emma Newman,a now graduated undergraduate student in Environmental Studies who helped tremendously in identifying potential streets to include and developing the background database of information. Table of Contents Foreword from the Authors 1 Arterial Rehab Introduction 3 E. Washington Avenue 28th Street (US 36) Transportation Concepts 5 Aurora Avenue N. (WA 99) Bicycle Facilities 9 Urban, Mixed-Use The Street Cross Section 10 Second Street Pine&Spruce Streets How to Use This Guide 11 S. Carrollton Avenue Mill Avenue Road Diet 16 Barracks Row (8th Street SE) 25th Avenue 17 Main Street Stone Way N. 21 W. Lancaster Boulevard Nebraska Avenue 25 Clematis Street Ocean Boulevard 29 Main Street (US 62) East Boulevard 33 Courthouse Square Bike Street N. Williams Avenue 5e" NA 8th and 9th Avenues misloula."' Pennsylvania Avenue F y 1 F Higgins Avenue G"rsu,e wot is,MN _u...„r" I a -7 Indianapolis Cultural Trait w York,NY Ohild&Iphia,PA £f San F4rWkica,C'/ s. co �} .Ira j hington.DC Transit Street SW 5th and 6th Avenues rJ CA N� Euclid Avenue .0 s, _+TMyrtle Beach,SC Marquette and 2 n d Avenues -•..� +5ulphuc Spnngs Tic Wit._.-•, �„�„•, ��^lcv.J It t s i A ,., 1M�.st Palm Beach,ft Street Data Endnotes v a WPI �r r �j 9 IY�y V t 1 2 Table of Contents Foreword from the Authors 1 Arterial Rehab Introduction 3 E. Washington Avenue 28th Street (US 36) Transportation Concepts 5 Aurora Avenue N. (WA 99) Bicycle Facilities 9 Urban, Mixed-Use The Street Cross Section 10 Second Street Pine &Spruce Streets How to Use This Guide 11 S. Carrollton Avenue Mill Avenue Road Diet 16 Barracks Row (8th Street SE) 25th Avenue 17 Main Street Stone Way N. 21 W. Lancaster Boulevard Nebraska Avenue 25 Clematis Street Ocean Boulevard 29 Main Street (US 62) East Boulevard 33 Courthouse Square Bike Street N. Williams Avenue r 8th and 9th Avenues `P°rt`rld on .Mj&jo F'°W Pennsylvania Avenue Higgins Avenue x a�nc'aofjy Indianapolis Cultural Trail andµ i+w York,NY Philadelphia,PA SAnf nc..CA , to „ ,N <t*hivon,DC Transit Street SW 5th and 6th Avenues • CA Euclid Avenue G1 1�. 6CA�iloNt'NC `A ( TX ? )lAyrtieReath,SC Marquette and 2nd Avenues .— New Ork�i y�. Palm BLmh,FL Street Data Endnotes Foreword from the Authors It's time to rethink the street. For too long we've been building streets as though they have one function-to move cars quickly.The " reality is that streets can do more than just move cars.They can move people on foot,on bikes,and on transit,often without hurting vehicular throughput and improving safety.They can also be more than a way to get somewhere else.Good streets are good places, too-public places where people meet,sit and socialize,conduct business,wander about,play,and more. Many communities across the country are re-thinking their streets and re-designing them to meet changing preferences and future needs. Americans are driving less. Many want to live where they aren't as dependent on cars for their daily routines.They want to be more connected,for physical and mental health.Some communities seek a wider range of transportation choices for social equity or to protect against climate change. And for others,the sheer cost of fixing potholes is pushing them to look for ways that create less wear and tear on the road network. Community Yet,making changes to street design-like re-allocating travel the Albino N lanes or on-street parking for dedicated bus lanes,bike lanes,or Oregon mee wider sidewalks-is often met with community controversy and NorthWilliol divisive processes that take much too long to get from idea to information, implementation. Often it can be hard to imagine a street differently than how it currently exists. Streets,and the buildings that are adjacent,seem like fixed,unmovable,unchangeable conditions. We accept the way things are,even if they are less than ideal. Change can be hard,especially when it is difficult to picture how an alternative will look or function. That is why we produced this book-to use evidence from completed street projects from around the United States in order to help communities imagine alternative futures fortheir streets. We are not showing hypothetical street re-designs,but actual examples from typical communities to show how they did what they did and see what resulted from the change. We have included a variety of types of information relevant to traffic engineers,transportation planners,elected officials,businesses and community stakeholders at large.It is presented to be easily accessible and understandable ' to all. Most of our examples are ordinary,everyday streets that exist ' somewhere in most cities big or small.In some cases,a specific street featured in this book may be directly relevant to a proposed project in your community. In other cases the collection of examples in this book may provide the foundation for creative street re-purposing. - This book is designed to communicate how communities of all '�' kinds are making these changes all the time.It is our hope that this will make it easier for new projects to get built and that the examples will make it possible for a"new normal"to take hold, where all streets are re-visited and assessed to see whether they - can be doing more. This is similar to a post-occupancy analysis-do our streets perform the way we want given all of the needs and uses The redesigr we have of them?If not,then this book provides many examples on was big ur how to move forward and`remodel'our streets. in major imr including 48 A few of the street examples go beyond the ordinary and represent businesses,. the transformative potential of streets in remaking a city.The investment, Indianapolis Cultural Trail and Lancaster Boulevard examples,for related collk example,show how deliberate investment in re-thinking a street more inform can also help to re-think the community. Thank you for your interest-now go and get to work! RETHINK Introduction No public space works harder than the street.Streets provide vital links to homes and business,and serve as public spaces.As auto ownership in the United States increased,this balance shifted to favor streets as auto thoroughfares instead of places for living. '"�� Lately,the"Complete Streets"movement has challenged this paradigm,emphasizing transportation choices for users beyond cars and streets as places instead of mere transportation links. Efforts to transform streets into Complete Streets(or from mobility- based to accessibility-based designs)face resistance at times,from both professional communities of traffic engineers and planners, and often from policy makers and the general public who feel new designs do nothing more than reduce automobile access. Complete Streets advocates,in some cases,counter that while their designs often create pedestrian and cycling space from areas that were previously occupied by automobiles,throughput is often not impacted and that automobile flow can actually improve. One example of this conflict is the"road diet",where a four-lane A rood diet c road (two lanes in each direction)with no median or bike lanes is oceoneoule turned into a five-lane road,with one auto lane in each direction,a The street is center turn median and two bike lanes.Removing two automobile bikesdedicc travel lanes seems like it would reduce automobile throughput, the some nu but studies of road diets often show that the improved flow achieved with left turning vehicles using the center median actually maintains or improves upon previous throughput numbers. In some cases,a reduction in vehicle flow is unavoidable to introduce other modes.Some improvements to the street environment will reduce traffic flow but improve the quality of the place.This is a tradeoff that can have significant benefits for the businesses and residents along the street.Adding elements like on-street parking,street trees,and mid-block crossings can reduce auto speeds and potentially reduce throughput,but such designs make the street more inviting to people. This book documents the redesign of 25 streets across the United States and some of the effects the redesign had on traffic safety,and economic measures. Each of the streets treats y the balance between transportation modes and the balance ` between thoroughfare and place differently,and the results differ '' w accordingly.Some streets added facilities for other modes with a goal of maintaining auto throughput.Others consciously reduced auto throughput and tipped the balance in favor of creating a place. �I Each street shifts this balance in its own way.For example,in the 1, case of South Carrollton Avenue in New Orleans,Louisiana, traffic engineers simply added bike lanes.In the case of Ocean Boulevard, in Myrtle Beach,South Carolina,the street received a complete redesign and looks nothing like it did before. The goal of this book is to use already finished projects to help communities better visualize new ways to use their commercial streets to serve multiple purposes and multiple modes of transportation. Because commercial streets are frequented by south Carrot both local neighbors and visiting shoppers,they serve people with woterofrerF diverse backgrounds and needs.Additionally,sales tax receipts, New Orleom surveys with business owners and building permits can all serve as a bicycle lor, economic indicators-providing more evidence of change brought extra-wide a on by street design. the street inc The collection of finished projects provides the evidence and inspiration for more communities to rethink and retrofit their streets for the next generation of use. RETHINK Transportation Concepts Like any discipline,transportation engineering,planning,or design rely on specific concepts,measurements,nomenclature,and techniques that may not be obvious to the general public.This guide is designed to be understandable to everyone.The following street ` '. design concepts will help everyone from traffic engineers to local R, residents speak the same language when talking about streets. ,+ Aft. Average Daily Traffic Average Daily Traffic(ADT)is a common way to measure automobile ` " use on a street.ADT is the number of cars passing a specific measurement point on a street in a 24-hour period. Busier streets have higher ADT numbers,while lower-volume streets have lower ADT numbers. It is important to note that ADT does not factor in the difference between a bus full of people and a single occupancy car,and does not measure the number of people using the street.While " streets with the same ADT share some characteristics,there are multiple street design alternatives that can accommodate the samen demand,as shown in the examples on the right.The relationship between ADT and street design can be complex,but recent research suggests that streets with ADT numbers between 10,000 and 16,000 f: seem to be better suited for pedestrian-oriented retail than streets with lower or higher ADV Streets with four lanes of car traffic and .r.. -'w.� ::i)r?:Eieu E,i.iEVFidrir];::11.(i30t L.Jaf'?EuI)Y.O an ADT lower than 20,000 are often candidates for road diets.2 t I� y ,eoarA.:ha...-,tte, Phu;.';ty of 0 arlltte Peak Hour Traffic Traffic Fluctuations and Peak Hour While ADT gives one indication of a street's usage,it does not address fluctuations of traffic throughout the day.On most streets, MI F traffic increases during the morning and evening rush hours and ��o;ntxu:,drraffic s„m��l,z-, drops off to almost nothing in the middle of the night(see chart 350G at right).Typically,one lane on a city street can accommodate 1,000-1,600 cars per hour.To avoid traffic jams during peak periods, 3a0 streets are often designed to be wide enough to handle rush hour traffic with only small delays.For most of the day,however,the 2500 f street is wider than necessary to accommodate car traffic.Street it redesigns that reduce car throughput often only reduce service g 200� r a, during the peak hour but continue to serve the needs of car traffic , 15or for most of the day and night. 1000 500 12:11)AM G:OOam i2:6H1wn This somple traffic fluctu• In this steno am and 4 pn evening corr around 3,00( traffic per he doily troffic c around 40,0i RETHINK Posted Speed When determining a speed limit,traffic engineers consider the street width,context along the street,intersection frequency,and ; the street geometry,such as curves and elevation changes.Based on these characteristics,the traffic engineer will first consider how fast a typical motorist would go without a posted speed limit.The actual speed limit is then set to 85%of this speed.This technique assumes many drivers will go faster than posted speeds. Design Speed Street speeds can also be determined by street design rather than posted speed limit signs.Wide lanes and streets without trees and _-aai t nue., nF,an:.Cr pirto:Reneos.swen other streetscape elements encourage higher speeds. Increased distances between crosswalks or signals also encourage higher speeds.As speeds increase,businesses tend to locate further back from the street edge,and employ higher signs that can be read at a distance.This style of development is common in suburban commercial corridors that often feature fast food restaurants and strip malls. � When speeds need to be consistent with adjacent pedestrian and bicycle activity,narrower lanes,parked cars,street trees,regular " crossings,benches,bike racks,lamp posts,and other street furniture all give drivers visual cues to slow down and be alert. x ti This type of street design encourages safe driving,encourages -- pedestrian-oriented shopping and dining,and reduces injury in case of accident. Usually it is more effective to design a street for a given design 4 speed to encourage safe driving rather than relying on the posted , speed alone to enforce driver behavior. Right of Way and Curb-to-Curb Streets,sidewalks,planter strips,and all elements of a public street exist within a space called the right of way.This is the area of the street that is publicly owned and maintained.In an urban area,this } may be the entire space between facing buildings.On a residential street,this may be the space from sidewalk to sidewalk,with a few extra feet on either side. In the right of way,the public owner(city, state,etc.)can design and implement improvements like streets, Aw sidewalks,storm drains,and street trees.Changes to a street must occur within existing rights of way.Changes that extend beyond the right of way are typically complex,more costly and can be politically unpopular. On existing streets,the right of way isn't the only important measurement.Moving curbs to widen or narrow streets can be very expensive,especially if utilities and storm drains need to be moved as well.This cost may be worth it in some cases,but often engineers and planners make changes without moving the curbs.Instead, they will add or remove travel lanes,bike lanes,and parking lanes, _ -- adjust the width of lanes,or use painted buffers while keeping the existing curb-to-curb width intact. ►���'�"���� £z:'�.""„� Streetscope and parked o driver feel! trofc,mokh os o place.7 image ore 0 RETHINK Bicycle Facilities Many of the streets in this book have new infrastructure to accomodate cyclists.Depending on the size of the street and the context within the community,there are multiple potential - - - -- - strategies that help cycling be safe,comfortable,and direct. Sharrows are symbols painted in the lane indicating that drivers 10!'-14 4' P 8' and bicyclists share the travel lane.Existing law generally already allows for shared use,and sharrows simply reinforce that reality in particular locations.In narrow lanes,sharrows may be installed in the center of the lane,whereas on wider lanes they tend to be toward the right.In either case,the sharrow symbol often indicates the preferred location for cyclists to ride. ! P Bike lanes typically range in size from 4 feet to 8 feet,and are lanes 1 9'-12' ` 4'-6' s' specifically dedicated to cyclists,though they may occasionally share space with cars for right turns at intersections.They usually exist on busier streets and demarcate bicycle space from motorized i vehicle space with a line of white paint. - - - -- Cycle tracks are like bike lanes,but are physically separated from thej/* ,a motorized traffic.The barrier further protects cyclists from cars and dooring(collisions between cyclists and the open doors of parked 9'-12' 2 4'-8' cars).Cycle tracks may be one way or two way,and are sometimes lined with posts or painted green for added visibility.Advanced cycle tracks may be raised above the roadway between the asphalt and the sidewalk,or separated with larger physical barriers like planters. -- - - Buffered bike lanes are a hybrid design that widens the strip of paint between a bike lane and motorized vehicle lanes.This extra buffer, ! P ' often 2-3 feet,provides extra space and comfort to a wider range of 9'-12' 8' 3' 8'-12' people on bikes.Like bike lanes,buffered lanes and cycle tracks are generally located on busier streets that have destinations where people want to go. For a more detailed explanation of bicycle facilities and design guidance,see the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 0 The Street Cross Section M • • a curbs Parking Right of Way Travel Lanes Streets The curb provides a clear Although changes to The right of way is the strip Though re-striping lanes Streets distinction between the parking may only require of land that accommodates may require a traffic include sidewalk and the street,but restriping or painting the all the elements of the study,the cost to grind parkin€ is also important for the curb,changing parking is street,including lanes off old paint and repaint furnish street's function.Changing often the most controversial and sidewalks.Expanding the lines is generally very Thougl the curb line impacts the and discussed aspect of the right of way can be a low.Additionally,there is standai drainage system on the redesigning streets.On- minimal disruption to traffic complicated,lengthy and clear w street,and requires re- street parking typically is because the construction engineering the street located next to the curb, expensive process. In order process is simple and can a varlet system,which can become although in some cases bike to expand the right of way, be done in phases.Cities the stre costly.Construction may be lanes are located between the City typically must can also test out new street streets( lengthy and result in partial curb and parking to give purchase the land along the designs with temporary can iml closure of the street.Thus, cyclists protection from roadway from individual restriping because of its of plat( street designs that include moving vehicles. In addition citizens and businesses.In low cost.Auto travel lanes create l moving curbs often require to cars,parking strips many cases,structures and can range from 9-12'in enviror a greater investment of time can contain bike parking other obstacles may exist in commercial areas.Current and resources. (12 bikes=1 car),leaving this area. standards recommend sidewalks to pedestrians. minimum 6'bike lanes. RETHINK How to Use This Guide Location a (2010 U After it - - - - - - - - - - - - r t 6 a „ate" Wide green stripes and sharraw Before ° I more comfortable travel lane at i` Outer lanes in both directions were 1 of bright green to call attention to t cars in the lane. White sharrows were painted overt 1 iresyrnbols indicating that bicycle! with cars,and should travel in the fl t Keylnterven Street Section Before and After Facts and Figures rs� 1 1 1 • Mixed-'Jse Street 1 1 Al 1 Major Arterial s E 765-80) �:.; 0.75 miles u SPEED SPEED LIMIT LIMIT 25 25 . - 1 BEFORE AFTER 1 � - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- —- 29,840•r:.2t9,300` 1 KEY OUTCOMES BEFORE AFTER I) Bikes Are Good for Business A Safer Street for Everyone In Interviews with 27 businesses along the corridor, Nearly four years after the paint was added,the total 1 1 I11) BikeLong Beach foundthatabout15%of shoppers number of crashes has declined roughly25%." 1 ; 3 days 1 come by bike,and BDWo of businesses observed an increase in business from cyclists after the Driven and Cyclists are More Harmonious 1 1 Construction 1 Implementation of the green stripes.' The green lane was Installed In part to coax cyclists E t away from the'door zone"and encourage them to 1 1 Increase in Bicyclists take the lane.After an adjustment period,a majority — „„„ „,„ „„ — — — —I Cycling rates nearly doubled after the green stripes of cyclists began riding in the center ofthe green were added in place of more typical sharrows.Cyclist paint.With the green paint,drivers understand that 1 F:ea counts over a three day period showed an increase bikes belong,and have been more respectful of `f-m1-32-cyc—lists to2p28cydists�a year ia— — — cilis=ta=ing-he—lane—sin—ceth—echange.' —, —1— RETHINKING STREETS t Evidence of Change RETHINK How to Use This Guide Location ai (2010 Additional information on Second Street the street and its context SECOND STREET CONTEXT A BEACH NEARBY 1 Second Street serves as the main street for the Belmont Shore area of S 1 Long Beach.This area is characterized by a sandy beach,many beach IFT cottages,and Second Street's many restaurants and retail stores catering to the beach crowd.The pace of the street is slow,with stoplights at _LL 1 1 nearly every block. 1 Prior to the addition of the green stripes(also known as"super i a sharrows"),Second Street was already a popular destination for cyclists, .tFf 1 in part because of the flat terrain,limited car parking and nice weather. D • In addition to the green stripes,signage educating cyclists and drivers I p 1 on the lanes were added.Decorative bicycle parking further encouraged 1 cyclists to use the corridor. ' 1 • The City of Long Beach's Bike Long Beach project has been forceful about f 1 increasing bicycle facilities throughout the city,as well as promoting 1 bicycle use and bicycle awareness.This project did not happen In isolation,but is part of a strong and growing network of good bicycle 1 infrastructure around Long Beach. 1 Second Street is five blocks from the Belmont Sh 1 liveliness stems from its proximity to the beach. ww . r r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ — 1 N I d. �. 1 SECOND ST. ® JM. ,A d,tiaiA[:6 LSL "REFi Map of the stree- surrounding Urban,Mixed-Use BUSY. MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR CYCLING RATES BEFORE.AND AFTER a m a tsoo a, low 0 o BEFORE 3 MONTHS 12 MONTHS *` � ' �yekNf MA:tantm aria ' cyciisr'lcnild�+.slk _. cyxrisia Me}em;+xu+aaEcR 5vnr Second Street sees cars,bikes,buses,and pedestrians in high numbers.The Cycling increased after the green stripes were.added,and continued to street always feels bustling and full of energy. increase a year after instillation?' SECOND STREET DETAILS c "Bikes in Lane"signs remind drivers to be alert Painting the lane was a 3-day process. Decorative bike racks adorn the sidewalks. RTHItiKItaG STREETS ® + RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com a S .A 0 It x _ u �;;a r Road Diet Balancing the needs of all road users can b, a challenge. Rebalancing a street to includ( improvements for pedestrians and cyclists even more challenging. A road diet, or a fOL lane conversion, manages to successfully rE streets by re-allocating two auto lanes fort bike lanes and a center turn lane. By doing throughput remains high and the street be( much better place for people. 25th Avenue Stone Way N. Nebraska Avenue Ocean Boulevard East Boulevard i i • f f E 8 'a lam. re e ;per i 3 1 � �y ei 1 Restriping the road was all it took vehicle travel times and boost pet ACildactivity along 25th Avenue. " Four lanes of traffic were converted to tw lanes and a two-way center turn lane. • Trees were planted where cars once park sidewalk. Curbside bus loading zones were added ® ROAD DIET AFTER STREET CLAS Major RIGHT OF WA 70 LENGTH .9 mil SPEED 9' 7' 13.5' 11' 13.5' 7' 9' SPEED LIMIT BEFORE 25 ---- --—.. - --.... ; BEFORE 9 7' 9 10' 10' 9' 7' 9' AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 13,00' BEFORE Non-Car Modes Increased Left Turns More Comfortable Bike and pedestrian activity increased during the PM Prior to the road diet,left turns were often rushed PROCESS peak hour.Bus boardings increased by 35%along the and intimidated pedestrians.Since the redesign, stretch of 25th Avenue that was redesigned.3 drivers have reported that they felt more comfortable 3 yea i making turns in the dedicated turning lane,and Improved Travel Times for Buses pedestrians felt more visible in the crosswalks.^ Bus travel times through the entire length of the corridor were reduced by 6%and bus arrivals were Positive Public Response more predictable and evenly spaced.The left turn City officials gave people the chance to offer feedback lanes and dedicated bus zones allow traffic to flow on the project."It has been a great improvement,"says 'Please note tha more smoothly,resulting in improved travel times one resident,"Traffic moves a lot slower and the street any complaints z despite slower speeds.' is more livable.There seem to be fewer accidents."' surrounding stre, RETHINK 2%cm h Avenue s 25TH AVENUE CONTEXT NEW PASSENGER LOADING ARE • 25th Avenue runs through the Outer Richmond District and runs from Golden Gate Park to the Presidio and the San Francisco Bay.Much of the avenue is lined by rowhouses,and commercial activity on the avenue is clustered around Geary Boulevard,Clement Street and California Street. • It was a group of residents on 25th Avenue that sought out the help of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to improve the Fd. dangerous and uncomfortable conditions on the street.The project was made possible due to the support of the district supervisor and a local air quality grant.' ?_ , • Before the change,buses had to travel in between the two narrow lanes to avoid sideswiping vehicles.The wider lanes allow the buses to stay in one lane,and new passenger boarding zones along the sidewalk preserve the ability for cars to pass while the bus is loading. In addition to reducing travel times,the buses experience fewer delays.' • Although there are no dedicated bicycle facilities on this stretch of the street,25th Avenue provides a direct link between cycling paths in Golden Gate Park and the Presidio,and is the preferred route for some cyclists. Several new designated bus loading areas allow buses t, The wider lanes provide some accomodation. without blocking the flow of traffic. N Lo Whid 25TH AVENUE N N V) V) V) Ln W Q > Q o Y K w co Y O G J W Q Q. W J W m m J Q U Q v v Omi .25mi .5mi .7 mROAD DIET BEFORE: PARKING ON SIDEWALKS AFTER: SPACE FOR TREES AND a Concerned about being clipped by passing cars and trucks,motorists used to Wider travel lanes gave motorists confidence to park in park on the sidewalk,obstructing the pedestrian path. opening up space on the sidewalk for street trees. ` y � t so, d tM, �Y a The turning lane doubles as a place for truck loading. The Presidio,once a military base,is a national park. Rowhouses are typical in the RETHINK M 4 d k' e.. w Il�pu I TO 8 Pop— .0 Seattle improved safety and c, without sacrificing car traffic t Four lanes were converted to two 1, center turn lane. • A bicycle lane was added to the up street and sharrows were added to lane on the downhill side. ® ROAD DIET AFTER STREET CLAS Minor RICH f OF WA d 90' LENGTH 1.2 m 'a SPEED 8' 10' 7' 13' 11' 11' 5' 7' 10' 8' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT R 30 8' 10' 7' 10' _ 10' 10' 10' 7' lo' 8' { BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 13,00, BEFORE Pedestrians Are Safer More Cyclists Pedestrian collisions at crossings were reduced 80 Between 2007 and 2010,the volume of cyclists PROCESS percent thanks to improved crosswalks compliant increased 35%.Bicycles now represent almost 15%of with federal and city guidelines.Total collisions have peak traffic volume on the street.5 1 yea i also declined 14%.5 Traffic Capacity Remained Steady Speed Declined Peak hour volumes are higher south of N.45th Street, Drivers now drive closer to the posted speed limit but congestion is not a problem.This indicates the and top speeders—those traveling over 40 mph— capacity is still there to handle the same number of declined more than 80%.5 vehicles with fewer lanes.5 `Please note tha Seattle's arterials not diverted onto RETHINK Stone Way N . City Median How STONE WAY N. CONTEXT TOTAL COLLISIONS BY TYPE 20 • As of July 2013,Seattle has implemented 35 road diets across the city.The City of Seattle has been measuring and documenting the effectiveness 180 of the road diet program and has found that it is a useful tool for maintaining car capacity while improving safety and adding bike lanes." 150 •, • Stone Way N.connects the Wallingford and Fremont neighborhoods and 120 supports a mix of residential,commercial and retail development.Eight schools,two public libraries and five parks exist within five blocks of the 90 corridor.Several Metro bus routes travel along Stone Way,supporting significant bus traffic. 60 • This corridor was chosen for improvements because it was identified in 30 the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan,the crosswalks were out of date,and theE, �h street was scheduled for repaving. oil TOTAL COLLISONS INJURY COL • The City of Seattle studied the before and after conditions of Stone Way N. The before measurement period occurred between April 2005 and August 2007,and the after measurement period occurred between August 2007 All collisions between cars,pedestrians and and December 2009.5 collisions that resulted in injury dropped afi diet was implemented.' N c p - n `— —_ IN —STONEI ERN. STONE;WAY N. tk = Z 2 O 0 F- _ = 2 = of Ln J M N O M cot IT Q V V V V V M M M M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z (Oml 1.25mi 1.5mi 1.75mi {1mi MROAD DIET BEFORE AFTER f m Previously,there were no dedicated left-turn lanes or explicit markings to Now,parking and bike lanes are demarcated,and the c demarcate the parking or cycling lanes. turn lane transforms into a dedicated left-turn lane at i parking lane gives way to a right turn lane. VIEWS OF STONE WAY N. �i. �.IR _ � .ata kwilm Cyclists take advantage of improved markings. This bus stop once faced an empty lot. The same stop now serves a r RETHINK ---------- Nebraska Avenue '' GV IOtUTB TUMEUpY MYa " ?,.�-�. ''�>;... •. v II A transformed corridor impro) µ and efficiency for everyone. Four auto lanes were converted to a centerturn lane and two bike [an Dedicated bus loading zones were • Sidewalks were updated for ADA cc • Medians and crosswalks received s :- - treatments. ® ROAD DIET AFIEP — STREET CLAS 6 Minor .:... y P,IGH i OF WA r .. .. 5 0)_/1 LENGTH 3.2 m SPEED }.. ,.__ _ ......._f - F SPEED 5' 5' 5' 11' 12' 11' 5' 5' 5' LIMIT BEFORE 35 �� ,a•wW, BEFORE 5' 5' 11' 11 11' 11' AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 17,90 BEFORE Crashes Dropped Significantly Car Traffic Declined Slightly Collisions along the corridor decreased by 68 percent After the redesign,fewer cars travel along Nebraska PROCESS after the redesign.Before 2007,Nebraska Avenue Avenue.This small drop may be due to the recent 16 me saw 174 crashes per year on average.After,the improvements to Interstate 275,a highway that was street saw only 56 crashes.Crashes in all categories, improved at the same time as Nebraska Avenue. Co n5� including those involving pedestrians and bicyclists, Through traffic may have migrated there.Other side dropped.The decrease in crashes occurred despite streets near Nebraska Avenue did not see an increase the increase in pedestrians and bicyclists,who were in traffic.' attracted by improvements.' RETHINK Nebraska Avenue ,. NEBRASKA AVENUE CONTEXT LANDSCAPED HIGHWAY UNDEF • Nebraska Avenue hosts residential and commercial uses along its route. , The street begins in downtown Tampa and extends north for miles into suburban Tampa.The street parallels Interstate 275 for much of its length , in Tampa,and is part of State Route 45,which was the primary route to A Tampa before 1-275 was constructed in the 1960's and 70's. • Due to the high rate of collisions along the corridor,the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)redesigned over three miles of Nebraska Avenue.FDOT consulted with the City of Tampa,Hillsborough Area Regional Transit,the Chamber of Commerce and local community groups throughout the process.e ', • The project cost$11.1 million to complete,and paid for improvements ° t7, beyond simply restriping the roadway.FDOT improved traffic and pedestrian signals,added midblock pedestrian crossings and fixed some sidewalks and drainage facilities.' • Hillsborough County's new bus rapid transit system,MetroRapid,now runs down Nebraska Avenue from Telecom Park to Downtown Tampa. The stretch of the avenue passing under the highway rE treatment:newly planted trees now line a decorative b ,.: c� 2 i Pork N.:CENTRALAVE. Robles NEBRASKA AVE. Y I .. ... N MERIDIAN AVE CCU .. ,..... jI .c....._... _,..... w .. .... _ �G / i w > I �. N I > ......_ A ....... I . .. ¢ ... z • m ---"--w w w ......... FL CHANNELSIDE DR. ca w u' N.14TH ST u' UJ ui omi 1.5mi 11mi 11.5mi 12mi 12.5mi 13mi ® ROAD DIET BUS RAPID TRANSIT UNION STATION HART , r ri ry �� The project included designated bus loading areas,which have since been Union Station is at the southern end of the avenue,an( updated to accommodate the county's bus rapid transit system,MetroRapid. station for Amtrak. BICYCLING MORE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS After the lanes were installed bicyclists reported feeling safer on the street.' Medians,signage and paving are designed to make cro RETHINK 9.; 11 v f a Y Myrtle Beach's main street nog i needs of a hospitality district. x, A Four to Five Lane Conversion: fou traffic were reconfigured to two aul bike lanes and a two-way centertu xr Landscaped medians, improved si( safer pedestrian crossings were ins C- s ® ROAD DIET AFTER "' STREET CLAS Count * RIGHT OF WA 58' LENGTH 4.1 m - - - - - - - - - - SPEED 5' 7' 11' 13' 11 7' S' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 25 5' 13' 11' 11' 13' 5' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 15200 BEFORE Improved Street Life Decline in Crashes The street redesign led to a safer,more pleasant Collisions along the corridor dropped 400 percent PROCESS environment.It added frequent protected median after the redesign.Car to car crashes resulting Ongo crossings so people now feel comfortable walking from lane changes and rear ending were quite high from one side of the street to the other. before,as were car to pedestrian collisions.After 2008 the redesign,car crashes dropped significantly Lower Speeds and accidents were less severe. Pedestrian-related Though the speed limit didn't change,drivers on the crashes vanished. Bicycle collisions,virtually non- street now tend to travel at 15 mph,which has led existent before the redesign,did increase modestly, to less noise and vibrations for hotel guests along though this is likely due to the significant increase in the corridor.At the same time,bicycle,transit and cyclists using the street.lo walking counts increased." RETHINK My OceanBoulevard City Median How OCEAN BOULEVARD CONTEXT FEWER COLLISIONS OVER 6 MO • Ocean Boulevard serves as Myrtle Beach's main artery and runs through a large hospitality district.The street runs parallel to the Atlantic Ocean and serves numerous hotels,restaurants,gift shops,and other tourist z destinations and attractions. 0SEGMEIN • New bike lanes offer an amenity to visitors as well as another o transportation option to employees of establishments along Ocean J REDESIGNED Boulevard. SEGMENT 0 • The project was a public-private partnership between the City and o 20 40 60 - 80 hoteliers who contributed 20%of the project budget and actively participated in the process. Z. io Vi I j k KINGS HIGHWAY Uj F> ' � w Z - i OCEAN BOULEVARD r 1D}["" i detail below PHA'ZQ PNASE-2 PHASE• 0 mi 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi Family King t�LZ AmusemenTR-drk I ♦ w z z z Zi J J4 w w w w ��2 > w Z. Tv OCEANIBOULEVARLP Myrtle Beach Boardwalk . and Promenade 0 mi .2 mi .4 mi .6 mi ® ROAD DIET MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS AN AMUSEMENT PARK AF : o� r Landscape refuge islands reduce the crossing distance and create a safe, Attractions along the boulevard include the Family Kin; inviting space for people to wait between lanes. Park,which opened in 1966 and has been operating foi BICYCLE LANES PARALLEL TO THE OCEAN One of the car lanes was repurposed to become two bicycle lanes. Ocean Boulevard's proximity to the beach makes it attr RETHINK i • . LIS Metro Population.2,296,569 AI * ` A r m e e 9 I dam, ,e $ ..;<. ..,. ,_,::: .,.,, it..ia •,.: x ` This commuter corridor's redesi early critics and now supports a without significantly disrupting • Four auto lanes were converted to two bicycle lanes and a center turn • Crosswalks were marked with a dis pattern, and planted pedestrian re- OEM the crossing distance. © ROAD DIET AFTER(PHASE 2) STREET CLAS Arte ri .: RIGHT OF WA f �� 60-10 LE NGTH _. 1.6 m ORR Tt w LZIMMML SPEED 6' 8' 9' 5' 11' 19, 11' 5' 9' 8 6' SPEED BEFORE(PHASE 2} LIMIT _ 35 ........................ ................ 6' 8' 9.5' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 9.5' 8' 6' BEFORE AVERAGE DAl KEY OUTCOMES 20,60, BEFORE Street Now Supports Outdoor Dining Speeds Dropped,Travel Times Remained Constant Residents and business owners wanted more The posted speed on the street is 35 miles per hour, PROCESS sidewalk cafes and outdoor dining options,and after but some drivers would speed in excess of 50 miles 5 yea the redesign those options significantly increased. per hour.The 85th percentile speed declined from Reduced traffic noise and a greater separation 43 to 40 miles per hour.Despite this speed decline, between diners and moving traffic facilitated that travel times did not change except for a slight change." increase during peak periods.11 Changes Popular with the Public Minimal Impact to Car Traffic After the first two phases were complete,77 percent Daily traffic counts along East Boulevard showed that of those surveyed indicated they supported the same traffic slightly increased in one section and slightly changes along phase three.12 decreased in another." RETHINK East Bo • i EAST BOULEVARD CONTEXT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY P • Land uses vary along the 1.5 mile stretch of East Boulevard.A regional ' park,grocery store,hospital,shops,fast food restaurants,cafes,offices and condominiums line the street. • In 2002,the City of Charlotte adopted the East Boulevard Pedscape Plan.The plan laid out the guidelines for future public and private sector investment on and along the roadway.This document created the framework for a street redesign along the corridor.13 • The redesign connected and balanced all transportation networks.The new and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure now better connects with bus routes and light rail. • Initial public outcry about the proposed redesign was intense.From a letter to the editor in the Charlotte Observer in 2006:"If the goal is to bring pedestrians to the streets,that may actually work—since they can no longer drive on East."" • After the redesign,City engineers received praise. From a resident's email to City staff:"If the goal was to slow down traffic,improve pedestrian safety and quality of life,while allowing traffic to flow smoothly,you've Protected islands give pedestrians a comfortable way t succeeded!"11 businesses on both sides of East Boulevard. .`. Latta Park c o ¢ o J x m m ¢ E.KINGSTON AVE. � ui � Hp },...,. .. p 0 v v O w Y m EAST BOULEVARD Easiest o Stot�on E.WORTHINGTONAVE. a x <� -------------17O O E.TREMONT AVE. Z `L" 3 a PHASE 2(20I0) PHASE 3(2011) PHASE 1(2006) 10 Mi 1.5 mi 1 1 mi 11.5 mi ® ROAD DIET MULTIPLE TREATMENTS ALONG THE SAME CORRIDOR (PHASE 2) u;,a Here at the intersection of Lennox Avenue,the wider right of way allows The median narrows to provide a left turn pocket at th( room for street parking,bike lanes and a wide planted median. Winthrop Avenue,while still providing a refuge for pedi BUSINESSES EMBRACE THE STREET TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Outdoor dining became more popular with the new road configuration. The Blue Line Lightrail connects to East Boulevard at C RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com u Am. � . ram �uu a • � s r WAIN �f low, $ is # I 4 Arterial Rehab Busy, multi-lane streets, often referred to a arterials, crisscross the landscape of our cit suburbs. Alongside these wide thoroughfar food restaurants, strip malls and grocery st take advantage of the high volume of vehic .f they help facilitate. The next three street pr demonstrate how arterials can be rehabilit. to accommodate other types of road users � improving the aesthetics of the area. P , Yle. E. Washington Avenue 28th Street (US 36) Aurora Avenue N. (WA 99) E, Wa�hin to h AVe n u e Metro Population:568,593 a .� ��I,w n,���, p tis �,M,� hh3rpf{{ _III��• SkED LIMIT �h is { s 3a'• Landscaping, parking, and bicyc connections breathe new life in# corridor. • New landscaping, street furniture a were installed, including a new bikE pedestrian overpass. • A parking lane was widened to aca cycling and parking. ARTERIAL REHAB 1 AFTER S-(REEF CLAS Major RICH C OF Vv'A 132' � LENGTH 1 g g 5.5m 5' S' 13' 11' 10' 11' 15' 11' 10' 11' 13' 8' S' SPEED varies varies SPEED BEFORE LIMIT W 35 5.3' 5.7' 10' 10' 10' 11' 20' 11' 10' 10' 10' 9.7' 5.3' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 53,001 BEFORE New Development New Connections for Bicycles After E.Washington Avenue received its facelift,new The City of Madison took the opportunity to improve PROCESS development began to emerge in an area with little its bicycle network on the street and throughout momentum before. A$39 million mixed-use building the corridor.Bike paths run along the Yahara River 5 years with 32,500 square feet of commercial space and 220 and under E.Washington Avenue's new bridge. apartments opened in August of2013. Additionally,there is a new bike and pedestrian 6 years overpass crossing the avenue at Starkweather Creek. More Amenities for Pedestrians Enhanced crosswalks,wider resting places in the median,countdown timers and bump outs at intersections all serve to improve the experience of walking along E.Washington Avenue. RETHINK E. Washington E. WASHINGTON AVENUE CONTEXT A GREENER CORRIDOR • E.Washington Avenue forms the spine of the eastern half of Madison. " Between the interstate highway and the State Capitol,it passes by ` schools,a mall,residences,a stadium and countless businesses and ° industrial enterprises. . ' ? • City leaders have been trying to reinvigorate the Capitol East district, roughly the part of the isthmus between the state capitol and the Yahara River. Previously,manufacturing and light industry populated the district, n, but now the area has a high vacancy rate.The redesign of E.Washington ,-� Avenue is part of the City's efforts to invest in the district with the hope of attracting new businesses and development.l" _' • Engineers divided the project into five segments to reduce construction impacts on businesses and residents along the corridor.Construction halted in 2008 to provide a break for road users between segment construction. =' • Major changes to the corridor include new lighting,enhanced landscaping,bike lanes along the whole corridor and new on-street parking.The goal of the project was to create a gateway feel and provide consistency in streetscape elements along the entire corridor.The project The medians along the route received attention;the Ci cost$100 million and was paid for by local,state and federal funds.16 landscape design plan to add some color and shade. L Ike Mendota ;"� '� �• � O" • ° s State Capitol, � a r 3_ JJLL �E WASHINGTON AVE51 � s Ea Omi 1mi 2mi I3mi I4mi 5mi mARTERIAL REHAB NEW BIKE UNDERPASS AND OVERPASS CAPITOL. CONNECTION a —too mom 9 Photo:Chy of Madison IL Yahara River Bridge(above)and Starkweather Creek overpass(below). E.Washington Avenue links downtown and the capitol RETHINK t Y d if i NMI S' The City of Bou[der tra nsforrnk highway into a corridor for peon k £ ° j 1- � 't .�. - `� _ - • Bus stops, a retaining wall and an L 41 all received artistic treatments in a( improved landscaping throughout • Travel lanes were narrowed and bL, areas were added. mARTERIAL REHAB AFTER Si REET CLA, Major RICH I OF III 90 LENGTH - 1 mil( 12' 15.5' 11' 11' 11' 11' 18' 11' 11' 11' SPEED varies varies varies SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 35 { --------- t {_....-_.-..- 1....._...---_----------...---- �._.. 12' 15.5' 13' 13' 13' 17' 13' 13' 13' BEFORE EFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 50)001 BEFORE More People Biking and Walking New Development Pedestrian and bicyclist activity in the area has Five new multi-family housing developments catering PROCESS increased since the first two phases of the project to the elderly and students are under construction 6 yea have been completed.1' next to 28th Street.1' An Attractive,Functional and Progressive Corridor More Capacity to Develop The project received an award for encouraging As a result of the improvements to transit,pedestrian non-motorized transportation from the Federal and bike facilities,the planning board and city Highways Administration by enhancing the human council approved new zoning for the area that environment. Functional art was concentrated increased allowable housing density.1' around transit stops,a pedestrian underpass and a retaining wall. RETHINK ---- 28thStreet 36) 28TH STREET CONTEXT TRANSIT STOP ARTWORK • 28th Street connects Central Boulder to the University of Colorado and continues on to Denver and Rocky Mountain National Park.A major goal of the project is to make the 28th Street-Denver/Boulder Turnpike better act as a gateway to Boulder.Previously,the corridor looked nondescript and did not draw attention to the University.17 • The project consists of three phases.The first is titled "Hello Boulder!" - and consists of the southern segment,profiled here.This segment cost $10 million,with 37 percent paid from federal sources.The mix of funding -- `� sources included city and state transportation funds.l' • To create that sense of arrival,functional art was deployed to make the _. corridor more memorable.A retaining wall colloquially known as"The Great Wall of Boulder"adds to the visual appeal,as does a beautifiedp pedestrian underpass.The City created an entire 28th Street Corridor Arts and Aesthetics plan to guide the implementation of the art pieces.1e d • Further improvements to the multi-use path and on-street bike facilities are now in the planning stages and slated for construction in the fall of 2014.19 Every surface of the transit"superstop"on 28th Street adorned with art. University of Colorado Boulder ,o Q 28TH STREET( 36 MIN �„�¢ ■■ Q = ¢ O" SOf J m Q Q 0 10 mi 1.25 mi 1.5 mi 1.75 mi mARTERIAL REHAB ARTISTIC RETAINING MALL PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS =z 14 t s.. Artists Ken Bernstein,George Peters and Melanie Walker created this piece This pedestrian underpass once felt cramped and dark. that is inspired by geology of the surrounding landscape. redesigned the entrances to reduce collisions and impro FR,0NTAGE ROAD BEFORE FRONTAGE ROAD - AF-11 -, ar Before the improvements,the dark underpass receded into its surroundings. Today,the more inviting underpass offers a seamless wz RETHINK n a � 4 I i .r� Aurora Avenue N . 99 -i, City leaders in Shoreline,WA crez M main street for a new city. • The city widened the right of way 20 feet k from local businesses. • Planted median strips were installed, ped were improved and a dedicated lane for b turns was added. • Urban design elements like new bus shelt and pedestrian crossings helped establisl the city. mARTERIAL REHAB AFTER STREET CLAS Major RICH I OF WA 90 L E T H; 1 milE ... e .. SPEED 7' 4.5' 13' 11' 12' 15' 12' 11' 13' 4.5' 7' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 45 13.5' 12' 12' 15' 12' 12' AS BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 38,001 BEFORE Economic Development Sales Increased during Construction Construction on the first mile and planning for the Merchants along the corridor were concerned about PROCESS remaining two miles has stimulated redevelopment losing business during the construction process.City projects,created jobs and offered more retail choices officials kept track of sales tax receipts along the 2 yea i in the area.20 corridor during the two years of construction and CO ns 1. found a 2.9%dip in sales in the first year and a 9.1% Accidents Decline increase in the second year.20 Before the redesign,Aurora Avenue N.saw nearly one accident per day on average.Forty-two pedestrians were struck by vehicles between 1992 and 1996.After the redesign,accidents dropped 60%.20 RETHINK AuroraAvenueWA AURORA AVENUE N. CONTEXT NEW BUS STOPS • For much of its history,Shoreline existed as an unincorporated community ply near Seattle,WA.In 1995,Shoreline incorporated and began to define itself as a city.With no formal main street or downtown,city officials decided to redesign busy Aurora Avenue(State Route 99)to serve as a main street and center of retail and civic life.The city worked hard to create a pleasant urban environment while meeting state highwaystandards.20 • This project is linked to other civic projects in Shoreline,including the Interurban trail,a civic center/city hall project,Heritage Park and Fire adminstration offices.All projects help establish Shoreline as a new city. • The design arose out of an extensive public participation and review process with businesses along the street and the greater community. Though the city contributed$2.4 million of its own funds,the project was primarily funded by grants,which made up$21 million of the budget.21 • The redesign did not happen without significant conflict within the community.The project required the City to acquire 20 feet of right of way from neighboring businesses.Business owners against the project went �?�� to court to stop it,but lost and the project moved forward. This photo shows one of the enhanced bus stops with 1 Trail bridges in the distance. N e� ,r 99 AURORAAVENUE N. AM ■ r � � FSTMN�F,p i ^: INTER uRB�N jR�IL 52= Ln Ln . :ygyN N o = r = m o h lD lD � C Z z z z 1 0 mi 1.25 mi 1.5 mi ( .75 mi mARTERIAL REHAB i INTERURBAN TRAIL CONNECTION I �I. s sr 111 H v .. ry The Interurban Trail,a 15 mile bike and pedestrian off-street trail,runs roughly parallel to Aurora Avenue N.The project included two n BUSINESS--ACCESS TRANSIT LANES IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ZONE! :I 4h:7�Clin? Buses now have their own lanes;cars may only use them to turn right. The corridor now has a consistent,continuous sidewal RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com 7 - z t TOW, ONE WAY 7.1ZIN - a All < rt" air r r y 4 f -moan o& Urban , Mixed - U4 t Streets in this category play host to a diver! uses. These uses can change along the lend street, with each block having a different cl The uses may also be different from buildir building, or within the same building. Thes � demonstrate how improvements to the pul way can further row and support that divE .�, Y g p p y.` energy. Second Street Pine & Spruce Streets S. Carrollton Avenue Mill Avenue Barracks Row (8th Street SE) i . Alk Nm Ig VOW i Wide green stripes and sharrows giv more comfortable travel lane on a b Outer lanes in both directions were paint of bright green to call attention to the mi cars in the lane. • White sharrows were painted over the gn are symbols indicating that bicycles shar with cars,and should travel in the flow o ® URBAN, MIXED-USE STREET Urban, AFTER STREET CLAS Major 76�-81 LENGTH F 0.75 r SPEED i 9' 10' 10' 15' 110' 10' 9' 6'green strip 6'green strip SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 25 I- ...... . 41 i il i i , 9' 10' 10' 15' 10 10' 9' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 29,801 BEFORE Bikes Are Good for Business A Safer Street for Everyone In interviews with 27 businesses along the corridor, Nearly four years after the paint was added,the total PROCESS Bike Long Beach found that about 15%of shoppers number of crashes has declined roughly 25%.24 3 day.,come by bike,and 80%of businesses observed an increase in business from cyclists after the Drivers and Cyclists are More Harmonious COr1St implementation of the green stripes.22 The green lane was installed in part to coax cyclists away from the"door zone"and encourage them to Increase in Bicyclists take the lane.After an adjustment period,a majority Cycling rates nearly doubled afterthe green stripes of cyclists began riding in the center of the green were added in place of more typical sharrows.Cyclist paint.With the green paint,drivers understand that 'Please note tha counts over a three day period showed an increase bikes belong,and have been more respectful of traffic counts take several years apa from 1,320 cyclists to 2,428 cyclists a year later." cyclists taking the lane since the change.25 as an average. RETHINK LA Sec6nd Street SECOND STREET CONTEXT A BEACH NEARBY • Second Street serves as the main street for the Belmont Shore area of _. Long Beach.This area is characterized by a sandy beach,many beach cottages,and Second Street's many restaurants and retail stores catering !. to the beach crowd.The pace of the street is slow,with stoplights at nearly every block. _ 1 • Prior to the addition of the green stripes(also known as"super TTMITI sharrows"),Second Street was already a popular destination for cyclists, SFc " in part because of the flat terrain,limited car parking and nice weather. oNoSTR T V' FFp • In addition to the green stripes,signage educating cyclists and drivers on the lanes were added.Decorative bicycle parking further encouraged f ✓ r ' cyclists to use the corridor. • The City of Long Beach's Bike Long Beach project has been forceful about ;e increasing bicycle facilities throughout the city,as well as promoting bicycle use and bicycle awareness.This project did not happen in k , isolation,but is part of a strong and growing network of good bicycle infrastructure around Long Beach. Second Street is five blocks from the Belmont Shore an liveliness stems from its proximity to the beach. �,►� � ._ T CITi • SECLU ONDST � .� > a z ¢ > ¢ i i O z O ¢¢ 7 } O O w p LLJ > w Z o' � a t~ ¢ (D z g ( a 10mi 1.5mi I1mi ® URBAN, MIXED-USE STREET M BUSY, MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR CYCLING RATES BEFORE AND A MOW t6 �' 2000 wa � o ry y s O s d 1500 _._ 1000 > �..� O Soo Z O U 0 W BEFORE 3 MONTHS 121 cyclists in green lane 4. . cyclists on sidewalk cyclists in door zone Second Street sees cars,bikes,buses,and pedestrians in high numbers.The Cycling increased after the green stripes were added,a street always feels bustling and full of energy. increase a year after installation.13 SECOND STREET DETAILS r \\EN \` �3a t t T "Bikes in Lane"signs remind drivers to be alert. Painting the lane was a 3-day process. Decorative bike racks adorn tl RETHINK x c _ Ri This one-way couplet provides t �� •. ¢- ` a safe,calm link between the Sc Delaware Rivers, Iq l One travel lane was converted into ,, bicycle lane. Parking for religious services is pert a bicycle lane on Sundays. ® URBAN,MIXED-USE STREET s F mm i AFTER STREET CLAS City Ne ' RIGH.i.OF�iVA 50' LENGTH 2 mik 7tirt :..... SPEED 12' 6' 3' 10' 7' 12' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 5 12 9 --10 7' 12 BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEG OUTCOMES 6,000 BEFORE Traffic Volumes Did Not Change Auto Speeds Remained the Same Despite removing one car lane,traffic volumes Prior to the change,car speeds averaged between 17 PROCESS remained constant along both streets. Peak hour and 20 miles per hour.After the redesign,the range of volumes were measured in two places along each average speeds in the study locations was identica1.21 6 mor street and only small increases and decreases in peak hour volume were observed.26 Public Reaction Positive Nearly 70%of residents surveyed afterthe redesign Crashes Declined had positive comments. Most drivers felt more 3 years since the streets were reconfigured with bike comfortable,although some felt the streets were too lanes,the decline in crashes remains nearly 30%. slow.26 RETHINK Pine & Spruce Streets PINE & SPRUCE STREETS CONTEXT R4WHOUSES, RETAIL AND RES • The new bicycle lanes provide a critical east-west route through Center City,connecting trails that exist or are being constructed along the Schuylkill River and Delaware River. FOOD • Residents of the Society Hill neighborhood were initially divided about adding bike lanes,with some residents strongly supporting thel concept,and others opposed. The civic association was very engaged in the planning and evaluation of the trial bike lanes. Following implementation,a substantial majority of residents endorsed the plan. • The new lanes were implemented on a trial basis with striping for six - - months and made permanent when the city resurfaced both streets. • The streets now feature a green wave-a motorist or bicyclist traveling at This mixed-use neighborhood features rowhouses mid 18-20 mph will seldom encounter a red light. and restaurants clustered at intersections. �..C .._.............. MARKETST. City Hail ...._ _... ............N N', CHESTNUTST. 'ti � ... ... .... v ._ .... 1~D N.. .......... .... ..._... ...................._............. ...... ,.. .......... .... ....__....�a__...........,. _.... '"..... ......_, WALNUMW T ST . Rittenhouse -- - _ - Washington I _ _ , t_._._......._ — -- Square. Square Pork �. i _«-SPRUCE ST.-- i t 7 _.. y 1 ' a PINE ST. » 77- 1 __ _ ] ......... . -'' .._. ..... .... ii W ....' '.T.__ ...� ".""" �. o U -_ .. 1 O mi 1.5 mi 11 mi 11.5 mi URBAN,MIXED-USE STREET Urban, NEGOTIATING PARKING AND BIKE LANES FLEXIBLE USE OF BIKE LANE In this mixed-use neighborhood,parking is scarce. Philadelphia had previously allowed residents,building contractors and delivery vehicles Il MI it to stop forshort periods of time in the travel lanes. When the lane was converted rted to a bike tane the streets were ostedwi h"No Parking si gns, _ Y ••v-----max. which allow vehicles to stand in the bike lane while making deliveries. Stopped vehicles that block the lanes are a recurring obstacle for cyclists along each street,although most of the curb space remains available for ka bicyclists.27 More problematic has been the parking at religious institutions. { Philadelphia has traditionally allowed members of religious institutions to park their cars in travel lanes against the curb while attending services. Several years prior to creating the bicycle lanes,the City started regulating this parking.Specific block faces are assigned to specific religious institutions for defined hours,and members are allowed to park in the no parking zones only if they display a current permit on their dashboards" Fifteen religious institutions were identified along the couplet,and many of those institutions have been in place for 200 years or more. The CHANGES IN CRASHES BY TYPE City agreed to continue to allow drivers to park in the bike lanes if they displayed permits. Elimination of the religious parking would likely have resulted in the rejection of the bike lanes." 40 200- Observations indicate that drivers so far have been considerate about 30 `: 2011 sharing the remaining vehicle lane when the bike lane is obstructed, whether for religious parking or for residential deliveries. Ina dense, urban neighborhood,flexibility goes a long way to making streets work for 20E % E everyone at all times.27 10 a OCCUPANT PEDESTRIAN BICYCLIST INJURED INJURED INJURED RETHINK x a N�. y: - ~' S. Carrollton Avenue demonstra impactthat small changes tothi have on non-motorized modes. 4 Sidewalks were repaired and curb i installed at intersections. • Bicycle lanes were added by narro� lane. Fhero.Ctt�des(,.Fste�,H.GE1:lr�e friec3mar�Cnfle<;��n mURBAN, MIXED USE STREET AFTER S f RE I CI—AS Major RIGHT OF WA 108 3 K. ... } f : . g LENGTH 1.2 m F SPEED 5' 8' 8' 5' 11' 60' 11' 5 8' 8' 5' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT owl) 35 I---I 5' 8' 8' 16' 60' 16' 8' 8' 5' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 17,40' BEFORE Cycling Increased Overall Cycling Behavior Changed After the bike lanes were installed,cycling along S. Before the lanes,cyclists often rode on the sidewalks PROCESS Carrollton increased 325%.Cycling counts decreased or rode the wrong direction in traffic.This behavior Strip( along side streets,indicating a preference to ride on reduces the safety of cyclists and other road users. S.Carrollton once adequate facilities were in place. After the lanes were installed,16%fewer cyclists were June The area saw a net gain in cyclists,and the number of observed riding on the sidewalk on S.Carrollton and women cyclists increased 475%.28 3%fewer cyclists rode against the flow of trallic.28 RETHINK Ne Carrollton Avenue city median How S. CARROLLTON AVENUE CONTEXT CYCLING RATES INCREASED • The Carrollton neighborhood was once an independent city,but was annexed by New Orleans in 1874.Carrollton Avenue was originally the city's main street,and is now host to a mix of residential and commercial 300 buildings. Male 250 Female • The total cost for road resurfacing was$3.4 million.The bike lanes and o additional bike signage cost$11,320.211 200 - w a • All of the funds for the road resurfacing came from the South Louisiana 150 Submerged Roads Program,a program of the Federal Highway JQ Administration.The program funded 56 road improvements on arterial } 100 - streets that were damaged in 2005 by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.The u program began in 2007 and ended in 2012.21 50 $ • For some streets funded by the program,including Carrollton Avenue,the damage from the hurricanes not only came from the storm or flooding 0 itself,but from the trucks and heavy equipment used during the rescue 2009(before) 2011 and recovery efforts. Daily cycling rates increased dramatically aft( lanes were added to the street. Prior to the la almost no women cyclists.28 oil Ak '~ w s c■.: !"•� tea. ;. .: r r . ., r aS:-CARROLLTON.AVE. ` . - ■ ■ , ... . . ■ . • •, ■fin 1i L >w off 0 �a r pli 1111 11115 @mill# W1l1■'' lopla Wj w cn to N N N N Q W Y 3� _ > g J O U_ O O J_ Z Q m m = a S V H V1 Omi .25mi .5mi .75mi lr URBAN,MIXED-USE STREET Urban, FLOODED BY HURRICANE KATRINA BUSINESSES RETURNING �s The street was flooded in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina,damaging People lined up outside of a popular gelato shop,Ange businesses and homes in the neighborhood. business reopened after recovering from Hurricane Kat HISTORIC STREET RAIL LINE WOMEN CYCLING ,p Y The Saint Charles Line is the oldest continually operating street rail line in One year after the dedicated bike lanes were installed,r the world and has been transporting passengers on Carrollton since 1835. many women and 3 times as many men were counted c RETHINK 1 � II q.r pyt yv %:� ✓A ale,a 1':, y3 v 1_ III e 3F r Dill Avenue serves as the interfa Downtown Tempe and nearby f University. • Two lanes of traffic were replaced parallel parking. • Bike lanes were widened and sidev redesigned. Photo:City of Te:mre: URBAN,MIXED-USE STREET AFTER STREET CLAS Major " RIGHT OF WA 98'-1( LENGTH - 0.5 m SPEED 16' 8.5' 5.5' 12' 12' 12' 5.5' 8.5' 16' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 7 30 16' 4' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 4' 16' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 19,00, BEFORE Pedestrian Benefits Less Through Traffic Redesigned sidewalks with well-defined amenity, Reducing the number of auto lanes almost PROCESS pedestrian and transition zones created a popular eliminated through traffic on Mill Ave. Prior to the Ongo pedestrian environment.Mill Avenue averages redevelopment 16%of traffic was destination- 18,000 pedestrians mid-week,and nearly 25,000 on oriented,and after the redesign the numberjumped 1987 weekends." to 60%.12 Healthy Retail Environment Slower Speeds=Less Noise Between 1993 and 2002,taxable sales downtown Average speeds declined from 27-28 m.p.h.to 16-18 more than doubled-an increase of$89.2 million- m.p.h.This change,coupled with a small reduction signifying a healthier street for retail and restaurant in traffic volume,reduced traffic noise volume 20-30 activity.31 decibels.32 RETHINK Will Ave • City Mledian Hou MILL AVENUE CONTEXT PROXIMITY TO CAMPUS • In the early 1990's,commuters used the street as a way to get through fl town quickly.City planners and engineers tried widening the sidewalks ARIZOA S in 1987,but the change didn't solve the traffic problem.In 2004,they removed an auto lane in each direction and added street parking.They divided the wide sidewalk into different functional zones to encourage street life. • The Mill Avenue District serves as the heart of Tempe,located downtown and near the ASU campus.Tempe City Hall sits a half block away. • In addition to the new street design,the City of Tempe offered incentives MILLAVE � for development and subsidized projects to give the area a boost • Mill Avenue hosts a number of events and celebrations.An annual Fantasy of Lights event typically draws over 50,000 attendees and a boat parade attracts 40,000.Twice a year the street closes to traffic for the Festivals of the Arts in the Spring and Fall,which have been taking place since 1968. Attendance for these festivals is now around 225'000.34 Mill Avenue in relation to Arizona State University and i City Nall Plaza Arizona-State gi r Jim University i MILL AVE. 0 mi. .25 mi. .5 mi. MILL AVENUE,TEMPE,AZ PEDESTRIAN-FIRST DESIGN COLLEGE TOWN NIGHT LIFE 8, s o < �I KARN LIVE 1 51 1�e d 3, �L s Parked cars replaced a travel lane in Mill Avenue's redesign.As a result, Mill Ave.draws 4 million visitors annually and regularly traffic noise dropped and pedestrian activity increased and remains strong 65,000 Arizona State University students to enjoy a vibr today.33 life environ men t.30 LIGHT RAIL CONNECTION DOWNTOWN TEMPE COMMUNI The work of creating and sustaining momentum aroun often happen without some dedicated support.In the c Downtown Tempe Community(DTC),a nonprofit busin role.DTC employs 15 staff to market,organize events,r and engage in business development. Funding for DTC grants and district assessments. Ef#E[ tm,M Light rail service began in 2008 and serves about 1,200 passenger trips on a typical weekday. RETHINK ■ . yas "mv9g.. v ,k, •�'`orb: 11,"' -; 4 •. R ` _p tee. r e. Y 9 u�h Rebranded as"Barracks Row"and n be an attractive street,Sth Avenue SE back to life after decades of decline. 4 +lN.. The dilapidated streetscape was replaced wit sidewalks,American Elm trees, landscape pla and new street lighting. Parallel parking was switched to angled parki blocks,adding 55 parking spaces. Two blocks of one-way street were returned t( Iu Paving patterns and cobblestones were instal mURBAN,MIXED-USE STREET Urban, AFT R STREET CLAS Minor _.' RlGH-t OF WA 98' 4 r_- _: LENGTH li0.75 r _ SPEED 24' 20' 12' 12' 8' 16' angled SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 25 3 24' 9' 16' 16' 9' 18' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 1450 BEFORE Cafe Culture Blossomed Business Transition and Expansion Within two years of the redesign,Barracks Row went Although four businesses on Barracks Row closed PPJCESS from two cafes on the streetto more than a dozen. during the 15 months of construction,more than 15 me Barracks Row is now a highly-regarded restaurant and 30 new businesses opened when the construction caf6 row for residents of Capitol Hill.35 was complete.According to the Barracks Row Main CO r'Sl`` Street organization,the businesses that closed were More Foot Traffic and Bicycle Amenities struggling before construction.31 The number of pedestrians has increased dramatically and street events are well attended. National Recognition Bicycle parking was part of the streetscape The street won the The National Trust for Historic improvement and two Capital Bike Share stations Preservation's"Great American Main Street Award" serve the street.37 in 2005. RETHINK Barracks RoW City 1Median How: III II BARRACKS ROW CONTEXT HOST TO EVENTS AND FESTIVA • Located 8 blocks east of the Capitol,Barracks Row is a historic . commercial street in the Capitol Hill Neighborhood.Capitol Hill is the largest residential historic district in DC,and is also one of the most densely populated. • Barracks Row saw significant disinvestment in the 1960's.The Washington Navy Yard laid off workers after World War II,and a freeway bisected the . street in 1962.Civil unrest in the 1960's further scared businesses out of central Washington.Until the 1990's,many storefronts were boarded up ,F�, or were home to businesses barely hanging on. • The Barracks Row name comes from Marine Barracks Washington,an (, active military facility still located on the street.In the 1990's the Barracks Row Main Street association rebranded 8th Street SE as Barracks Row and the name change has largely been adopted by Washingtonians. ,b • Barracks Row Main Street worked hard to keep businesses afloat during the construction period.They scheduled events to bring people to the area;some worked and some did not.The organization now regularly schedules events on the street to promote the district to shoppers and diners.35 People take over the street during the 2011 Fall Festiva events hosted on Barracks Row. KIM $TjHISTJSE B"ARRA'CKS Navy Yard C r ; Marine Barracks hey 911Ii ST+SE N h O Z C7 W C 0 mi .25 mi .5 mi .75 mi mURBAN,MIXED-USE STREET Urban, LOCAL BUSINESSES INSPIRED BY CHANGE v t j 11 z k cL . '+ r=' tr The cafes along Barracks Row offer attractive outdoor seating and often add Local businesses,like this bike shop,take advantage of beauty to the streetscape by setting out planters.36 to showcase their merchandise and draw customers in STREETSCAPE, BEFORE STREETSCAPE, AFTER c f3 , E... S T 7 A a x b f t z era t e The shabby streetscape received a facelift during the redesign. New sidewalks and crosswalks signaled public reinvesl RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com f Syr y d _ s � < t r .y ..:�� .fix• 'K �" k,.. I �H w. Main Street Main streets serve as important symbols in communities. The streets in this category h historically served as the center of town, th s* place people went to shop, meet friends, ai ! attend community events. Prior to the redE documented in this book, each of these stri through periods where they no longer serv( community hub. Fortunately, these comma x. did something about it and now serve as e> examples of how to change the trajectory c street. ��illi'llidVVl .' W. Lancaster Boulevard Clematis Street Main Street (US 62) Courthouse Square w, e r � yy d IR n4 a' i t y W. Lancaster Boulevard's succes led to $130 million in private inv • 2 travel lanes and a center turn lan, converted to diagonal parking anc the center of the street. • Street trees, benches, and landscal added along sidewalks and in the r ® MAIN STREET AFTER STREET CLAS Major RIGHT OF USA 102' _ 0.6 m k ' SPEED 16' 8' 12' 30' 12' 8' 16' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT y 35 16' 1 8' 10' 11' 12' 11' 10' 8' 16' BEFORE AVERAGE Dnf KEY OUTCOMES 19,80 BEFORE Economic Development Safety Improved The project resulted in$273 million in economic During the two years after the project's completion PROCESS output and$130 million in private investment. the overall number of traffic collisions has been cut 8 Mor The redesign attracted 49 new locally owned in half,while injury-related collisions have decreased businesses and added 800 permanentjobs and 1,100 85%as a result of the new streetscape and traffic Const construction-related jobs." pattern." Revitalized Buildings New Housing Downtown Over 116,000 square feet of commercial space was The project attracted private developers who built constructed or rehabilitated,making the streetscape 800 units of low-to moderate-income condos and feel more vibrant.39 apartments on the corridor.39 RETHINK W. Lancaster LANCASTER BOULEVARD CONTEXT NEW BUSINESSES • The streetscape project cost$11.5 million,and was led by the City of Lancaster and The BLVD,a business organization.39 • W.Lancaster Boulevard used to run through a downtown area that had increasingly more and more vacant storefronts due to the economic recession and high unemployment in the late 2000's. ��` • The project also included nine new housing complexes,rehabilitation r or construction of 116,000 square feet of new commercial space and the ;, construction of a park and a museum.39 • All 190 businesses in the project area remained open through construction.The construction was phased so no business was severely impacted for more than three months.39 • New developments include a former furniture store converted into a nightclub and an underground bowling alley.These establishments, along with the addition of a movie theater,added activity to the street at f e night. The redesign led to over 40 new businesses along the c new three-screen movie theater,shown above. aw N/ d. W."NCASTER$LYD. w w w w w w w Oz 0 w w w LO u � o v a I.Omi I.25mi mMAIN STREET PARKING MARKET 1 ,h '3 1 I � r On most days,a well-designed center median defined by landscaping and On farmers market days and holidays,the central parki distinct paving provides additional parking to downtown businesses. for vendors,while pedestrians replace cars in the auto how a street can be a place as well as a transportation A COMPLETE REDESIGN . ° 4 The City of Lancaster completely rebuilt Lancaster Boulevard in eight months. RETHINK • Ah Alk 'e u - r Downtown West Palm Beach wi for commuters, but now attract families, and tourists. Widened sidewalks, landscaping, ti street furniture all contributed to ai pedestrian realm. • Three lanes were reduced to two a! converted from one way to two wa, mMAIN STREET AFTER STREET CLAS { Minor R;G�i OF kt,a 68 ft LENGTH 0.5 m SPEED _ 13' 8.5' 12.5' 12.5' 8.5' 13' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 30 10' 8.5' 11' 11' 11' 8.5' 10' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES [no dat, Major Private Reinvestment Followed Crime Declined The City's$10 million dollar investment in Clematis Prior to the City's revitalization efforts,Clematis Street encouraged$300 million in private investment Street was a destination for illegal activities like drug along the street.40 dealing and prostitution.After public investment, those activities disappeared and a more welcoming Retail Vacancies Disappeared atmosphere emerged. Families with children began Many storefronts stood empty in the early 1990's frequenting the street,and a weekly block party, due to crime and blight.At its worst,nearly 80%of "Clematis by Night"has been drawing people storefronts were empty.After the redesign,stores downtown since 1995.40 and restaurants came back.The street now has 80% 'Please note tha occupancy.Where rents were once$6 per square foot lower than the ur per year,now they are five times that.41 and estimated at RETHINK —terntis Street I CLEMATIS STREET CONTEXT CENTENNIAL SQUARE REVITAL • Downtown West Palm Beach is home to approximately 25%of Palm Beach County's employment base and sees a large amount of commuter traffic in and out every day.40 • The City of West Palm Beach developed a downtown master plan in 1995 that set design standards,simplified the permitting process,and made traffic calming projects the new normal for streets downtown.These policies led to the conversion of Clematis Street from a one-way street to a two-way street with new streetscape elements.10 • In 2000,CityPlace,an upscale shopping center,opened downtown. , Rosemary Avenue,the connection between Clematis Street and CityPlace, received a facelift that emphasized people over cars. • The overall investment in the project amounted to$10,000,000.This included the streetscape improvements on Clematis,a redesigned plaza, The City rehabilitated Centennial Square with Clematis S and a facelift for the library situated on the plaza.40 the east end of Clematis Street and once again serves as BANYAN B40 LVD. FUMATIS 1TIU& DATURA ST ui w w w p a a Q Q m z g W W J Q Z J Q J X Q J 0 J Q a' Q UJ Q W cn Q Q O ¢ W Z ~ (n [if Z Q z L d z Vi 10 mi 1.25 mi 1.5 mi 1.75 mi MAIN STREET ................................. ROSEMARY AVENUE, BEFORE ROSEMARY AVENUE, AFTER rk . .. After the success of Clematis Street, Rosemary Avenue was redesigned A new curbless design, brick pavers,and a zone where under the city's new policy,connecting the mall to downtown. trees mix maximized the narrow street's ability to serv( DIXIE HIGHWAY, BEFORE DIXIE HIGHWAY, AFTER R Many of the streets in downtown West Palm Beach served to efficiently In another project on Dixie Highway,City traffic engine move commuters in and out of downtown but did not serve people well. lanes,added street trees and made intersections safer RETHINK y._ au s'm 4 • Fm"5nT A• Mi t IIIYI ti V1� 10A l u- This small village revived its city by working with the State Depai Transportation on its downtowr • Pedestrian improvements includes pedestrian crossings, landscaping extensions. • Traffic calming strategies were emr Bef• ' including narrowed lanes and rour MAIN STREET AFTER STREET CLAS Urban h RIGHT OF WA 66 ft f` 4 LENGTH je 1.9 m a SPEED 5' H varies 7' 4' 10' 10' 4' 7' varies 5' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 30 5' varies 9' 12' 12' 9' varies 5' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 1240' BEFORE Fewer,Less Severe Accidents Local Business Blossomed Car Accidents dropped by 66%and injuries The Village Business Advisory Council(VBAC) made PROCESS dropped by 60%two years after the changes were a concerted effort to promote local businesses implemented in 2009.41 during construction. No businesses were lost during 4 yea i construction,and more businesses were attracted C011St New Investment Downtown to the area after the improvements.The number of $7 million dollars were spent on 33 building projects building permits rose from 15 in 2005 to 96 in 2010.42 in the four years since the design was implemented. The New York Main Street Grant Program contributed Boost to Property Values $200,000 in grants which sparked$1.2 million in Locals report that people are returning to Hamburg, private investment.41 and average property sales increased 169%from 2005 to 2011.41 RETHINK Main Street -(US MAIN STREET CONTEXT • Hamburg is a small village located on the border of Erie County,20 . minutes south of Buffalo. The town's main street is a part of U.S.Route 62. 1 N �co2 o,P • The project initially rose as a reaction to a proposal by the state transportation department(NYSDOT)to remove parallel parking and Hamburg add another lane to the street.Concerned citizens formed the Route OCKLER AVE. High School 62 Committee and spearheaded the effort to come up with a better proposal.11 NORTH ST. NORWOOD AVE. • Architectural design standards for the street now promote the OLIVER PL preservation of historical features,and encourage buildings with shops at the street level and housing above.The street was placed on the National ' HIGHLAND AVE. Register of Historic Places in 2012.11 PROSPECT AVE. z l • Traffic calming strategies included replacing traffic lights with roundabouts, w adding more on-street parking and planting more trees in the area.Striped MAPLE AVE. o = "safety lanes"also provide space between parked cars and moving traffic, w - and function as bike lanes.41 Y g =PLEASANTAVE. • Street fairs and events are popular on the street,including a movie-in-the- park night,a village garden walk and a music festival,among others.41 UNION ST. STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS MAIN ST 62 E LONG AVE. I. Z w U WOODViF-\N AVE:---a I TA' -. a Eighteen Mile Creek Street trees,upgraded sidewalks and improved crossings benefit pedestrians. 10 mI 1.25 mI 1.5 ml 0 MAIN STREET TRUCK ACCESS MAINTAINED INCREASE IN BUILDING PERMI— s ri� �y 100 .. 80 AFTER 60 53 4 45 43 .. s, ' — BEFORE 20 1201 2004 2005 � 2006 2007 2008 Buffalo Street is a designated truck route,and the new roundabouts were Increased investment on the street began in 2005,at tF carefully designed to provide enough room for large turning vehicles. construction,and jumped again after construction was ROUNDABOUTS REPLACE INTERSECTIONS REVITALIZED STOREFRONTS Timot�v Vile"-' 2� F F� �FXSAYER ,: This roundabout transformed an ordinary intersection into a landmark. This exterior renovation received a$7,800 grant to helF RETHINK PPaa 3 a�t„s a A multi-pronged approach in City Rl; Economic Development, and Urban big rewards in downtown Sulphur Sl -tillfn s ' ; . Whatwas a parking lot has become a grass, trees, benches, a splash fountair 4' kMk, A new veteran's memorial was establis square as a place of civic pride. The surrounding one way streets were two-way streets and re-paved with vib MAIN STREET AFTER STREET CLAS N/A RIGHT OF WA 104 y LENGTH .5 mil SPEED 12' 6' 18' 12' 12' 21' 6' 8' 12' public square SPEED BEFORE LIMIT gfflffim�� - - - 30 s 10' 18' 14' 12' 6' parking lot BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 4)000 BEFORE Businesses Attracted to the Area 500 New Jobs in Town After the improvements were made,the downtown Local industries have expanded and new industries PROCESS area saw$1.5 million in private investment.Fifteen have moved in,producing roughly 500 new jobs in 4 years new businesses have set up shop in the district,and Sulphur Springs as a result of the revitalization.43 the city reports a 15%increase in sales tax revenue.43 constru Regional Recognition Property Values Increased Dramatically In 2011,during the tail end of the project,Sulphur In the two years since changes were implemented in Springs was named the"Most Improved Small Town" 2011,most downtown properties have doubled in by County Line Magazine,a publication serving the value.Additionally,a real estate broker with over 30 upper east side of Texas.44 ears experience reported he had doubled his record Please met h y l p p lower than the r year for selling real estate in Sulphur Springs.43 and estimated at RETHINK Courthouse Square City Householo: COURTHOUSE SQUARE CONTEXT 54 r • The Downtown Revitalization was a choreographed effort,and the city N I worked deliberately to attract people and businesses downtown.Shane ATKINSST. N Shepard,the City Development Director,said"It is not a build it and - they will come scenario.... It is a build it,program it,and recruit partners (businesses)and they will come:'43 u • The wide streets surrounding Courthouse Square were once part of a •` STATE lJr( state truck route.The route was diverted and the one way streets were (( county (Courthouse converted to two-way streets during the redesign. C®IVN'OLLY�ST. 1 • A number of businesses along the square and surrounding streets received veterans grants for signage and facade improvements.The Downtown Revitalization - - Memoriol Board has awarded$320,000 in grants as of September 2013.43 • The project cost$6 million dollars and was funded through Tax Increment 67 CAL Financing: property taxes from the increased property value will pay off �IMAINS+7. the 20 year bond43 • Festivals and events populate the square 44 weekends out of the year, ! 54 including concerts,car shows,wine tastings and weddings.43 loft 1250 ft 1500 ft A DESTINATION FOR PUBLIC EVENTS SPACE TO SIT AND PLAY a Y k a - ram... ...:�.j�(!{•i':':i':' A popular farmers market takes place on the square and surrounding streets The new square offers plenty of places for the public to during the spring and summer. the downtown neighborhood.Speakers play music da) MMAIN STREET FUNCTIONAL ART ON THE SQUARE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE r. s. h v This public restroom is reflective on the outside,but transparent on the inside! Sitting prominently on the square is a veterans memork The city advertises the restrooms on a billboard along 1-30 to attract tourists. courthouse.The courthouse was constructed in 1895 an GILMER STREET BEFORE GILMER STREET AFTER t r � — wIr w � 3 Before the redesign,the area was plagued with vacant store fronts and run- With the revitalized streets and square,new businesse! down buildings.A grant program gives incentives for facade improvements. restaurant and pub. RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com p♦. TRW a D ` � t a �� A D • t �g • i' d � p ♦ �� a<8A' . vl • .Rx v' a ° it AU At a Y- Bike Street Cycling, and the need for dedicated bicycle rim— >= infrastructure, is on the rise in the United S These streets demonstrate the variety of w,' cyclists can be accommodated on all types Him Examples in this chapter include everythinj -�--�= simple bicycle lane to an eight-mile world c trail. 43� N. Williams Avenue 8th and 9th Avenues Pennsylvania Avenue Higgins Avenue Indianapolis Cultural Trail r • * 1 � E �<W k Pedestrian and bike improvemE 3 bring investment to a neighbor[ r recovering from urban renewal • A bike lane was striped in 1999. • Streetscape improvements were m including improved crossings, land a repaved sidewalks. of Pert(,:=.6 mBIKE STREET AFTER STREET CLAS Neighbor RIGHT OF WA 60' LENGTH 1.9 m - - - - - S � y - - - SPEED __...._. ; ....... ....... 6' 4' 7' 10' 10' 6' 7' 10' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 30 . . .... ........ _..__. , BEFORE 10' 7' 13' 13' 7' 10' AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 8)000 BEFORE Increase in Cyclists Higher Property Values Before the lanes,there were almost no bicyclists on Rents along N.Williams are now$5 per square foot PROCESS the street,and city staff were worried that the lanes higher than the Portland average,having doubled wouldn't be used.A decade later there are so many from$10 to$20 per square foot in the last ten years." 2 yea i bicyclists using the lanes that plans are in place to expand the facility.45 Bicycle Friendly Businesses A number of bicycle-friendly businesses have opened Development is Booming along N.Williams Avenue. In July of 2012,twenty- New residential,mixed use and commercial buildings two businesses participated in Rider Appreciation are quickly replacing empty lots and abandoned Day-an event in which local businesses offered gifts, buildings 46 In October of 2013,700 new units were discounts,food,drinks and other perks to passing under construction with more on the way.47 cyclists.48 RETHINK N . WittiamsAven a N. WILLIAMS AVENUE CONTEXT MORE CHANGE AHEAD • North Williams is at the heart of Portiand'sAlbina Neighborhood.During the 1950's,the once-thriving African American community fell victim to I bulldozing in the name of urban renewal,destroying 1,100 housing units and a multitude of businesses.4e • Gentrification over the past 20 years has resulted in a shift from 70% African American and 21%Caucasian in 1990 to 27%African American and 54%Caucasian in 2010.10 • There is a high degree of heavy industrial use along the corridor,which employs 63%of the local population.50 • North Williams is designated a"major city bikeway"because it offers a continuous connection between the Broadway and Steel Bridge Bike Paths. In the warm months roughly 400 cyclists bike up the avenue per hour.51 " • In 2012 a community process began to redesign the street again.Street users expressed desire for buffered bike lanes,well-marked crosswalks, better street lighting,traffic calming measures and more public gathering spaces.52 The community is in the process of redesigning the streE more cyclists while respecting the neighborhood's histo •� i lbina v Led ac Emanuel L1lisAl City Park Medicaf,Center 3 �.. � `®N:'VAN000VER AVE. _i N:%W1M1AMS*AVE. Ln v w NE RODNEYAVE. o O w O LLJ � _ �� m m L w Q' z ,z z z z NE MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BLVD. �21 I I FTF-71-I F-1 I 1 11 1 1 1 0""Tn_"'q I I 4"r r 10 mi 1.5 mi 11 mi 11.5 mi mBIKE STREET RATES OF CYCLISTS PER DAY SOARING BIKE-FRIENDLY BUSINESS 4000 a >, 3500 3000 IAN 2500 _ n 2000 � 1500 1 1000 ) 500 -. (, P11' 2000 AN)1 21X12 21N)1 l()g4 200'. 2006 200i 2UUti 2001) 2010 2011 201.1 !" The number of cyclists on the avenue has increased dramatically since the lanes Local businesses are capitalizing on the high volume of were striped in 1999.Bicycle traffic city-wide has more than tripled since 2000.51 offering bike parking and embracing cycling culture. SCENES ALONG N. WILLIAMS F _ 7»1 IP With so many cyclists,bus stops can cause backups. New housing developments are a common sight. Street art peppers the corridc RETHINK • • is r MUM ,n M y a a rt W - C n J, K 6" 44 ;€ ` 4 New cycle tracks on the west side of improved retail sales,safety,and tray The four travel lanes on this avenue w 14x_A generate space for a cycle track- a bikE from auto traffic with a row of parked 011 . 1sIII�� zone. • Intersections were designed to regula turns while preventing collisions with Ph1W::. BIKE STREET AFTER(8TH AVENUE) STREET CLAS Minor -, RIGHT OF WA 100 W. LENGTH 2.5 m a SPEED . ............................ {.......... . .. .. ...... ....... ........ 15' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 9' varies 6' 15' SPEED BEFORE(8TH AVENUE) LIMIT 30 5 12 11' 11' 11' 12 _ 5 8 js BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 30,001 BEFORE Crashes with Injuries Declined Car Travel Times Decreased Eighth Avenue saw a 20%decline in crashes that The new design added left turn lanes while PROCESS caused injuries,while Ninth Avenue saw a 52% preserving the number of through lanes,which has M u ltl pli decline.The severity of crashes has also significantly led to improved travel times along the corridor. decreased.s" The mid-day average travel time dropped by over a 2007, 21 minute,while peak hour trips were shortened by 22 Retail Sales Increased to 28 seconds from W.23rd Street to W.34th Street on 2010, 21 Sales at locally-owned businesses along the corridor 8th Avenue. jumped 49%after the addition of the cycle track. Sales only increased 3%borough-wide." RETHINK 8th and 9th Avenues 8TH AND 9TH AVENUES CONTEXT INTERSECTION DETAIL. • New York's bicycle planning efforts received a boost with the adoption of PlaNYC in 2007.The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) began implementing progressive street redesigns as a result of the plan. Between 2007 and 2010,250 miles of bike lanes were added to New York streets,and the city saw an 87 percent increase in commuter bicycling.56 • NYCDOT claims that 8th and 9th Avenues are the first protected bicycle lanes in the United States. IOOIi �i Illlli� • The lanes were implemented in a number of phases in 2007,2008,2009, 2010,and 2012.In 2012 the project was extended to include the stretch from 34th St.to Columbus Circle on 8th Ave.and 33rd St.to 59th St.on 9th Ave.,connecting the Port Authority to Madison Square Garden and Central Park. • Some businesses were concerned that the lanes would make deliveries too difficult and that the loss of parking would drive away customers.57 A comprehensive study of this project and others in NYC has since shown that street improvement projects do not detract from commercial activity at the site of implementation,and may contribute positively.58 The design of left turn lanes improves the visibility of cyc so that all users can navigate the intersection safety. I 9TH AVENUE `i' r" j PortAutho ty 3 8TH AVENUE , r Penn•Station <.. chi` dui �t _._ tea. ti tea. �Sq[da(de 1 0 mi 1.5 mi 12 mi 12.5 mi 13 mi BIKE STREET SHORTER CROSSING DISTANCE PROTECTED LANES 3 Q � r 5p � t . Refuge islands shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians while also Cyclists on 8th and 9th Avenues are protected by a wid making a clear distinction between the bike lane and travel lanes. flexible bollards as well as parked cars. SIGHTS ALONG 8TH AND 9TH AVENUES �i � �� III��i ���pw Moi UyoEY'Uii.uii�rY..wwil�m►I�� � � � �. r .. .E 0 Madison Square Garden sits on 8th Avenue. 9th Avenue featuresthis public plaza at 14th Street. Citibike docks serve the avenL RETHINK ys a� J e+t Y. r �a v r_� Cane of the United States' iconic features bike lanes at its very cei A center median was repurposed it buffered cycle track, with bicycle tL , - bicycle traffic signals. Left turns by motorists between the and the Capitol Building became rE ®i BIKE STREET AFTER ST REE 1'CLAS Major RICH f OF Wt� 146) A :r LENGTH mil( .� SPEED t 5' 3' 11' 11' 11' 11' 21' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 1 AMIN: 25 21' 11' 11' 11' 11' 16' 11' 11' 11' 11' 21' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 33)00 BEFORE Bicycling Increased Car Volumes Declined A study of the Pennsylvania Avenue cycle track found After adding the cycle track,peak hour car traffic that cycling increased over 250%during the morning declined 21%.The reason is not clear,though turn and evening peak hours.All areas along the street restrictions added due to the central location of the experienced significant increases in cycling.59 cycle track may have played a role.19 Community Asset Pedestrian and Auto Congestion Unaffected When surveyed,90%of businesses stated that they Level of service is a measure of congestion on a scale did not think the bike lanes affected their property from A: most free flowing,to F:most congested.The or business,and 71%of residents agreed that Level of service on Pennsylvania Avenue remained at the center bike lanes were a valuable asset to the A or B for pedestrians and E for motor vehicle traffic.s9 neighborhood.19 RETHINK Pennsy[-vania Avenue J PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE CONTEXT • Pennsylvania Avenue connects the White House with the U.S.Capitol - Washington D.C.'s bike share system,Capital Bikesha building.This connection of executive and legislative branches of share stations and over 1,800 bikes in the region,an( government gives the avenue heightened symbolic importance.As a tourists and residents. result,events like parades,protests and presidential inaugurations pass through the corridor on a regular basis. • Traffic signal timing was changed to allow cyclists to intersection before cars to increase their visibility. • When not in use as a ceremonial street,eight lanes of traffic carry high volumes of traffic at high speeds.The street is very wide and imposing to • The addition of the cycle track required city engineer people at street level. new signs to educate cyclists on how to use the new drivers about the changes to their experience. • A new bicycle master plan was adopted in 2005,charting the way to improve bicycling in the city by improving facilities,establishing bicycle- Bollards were initially installed with the lanes and in' friendly policies and expanding education and outreach. function of the street.They were later removed.Sinc illegal u-turns across the bike lanes have been a prof Le Whfe'Nouse i ?' So So 111 N .F z� LIP � 1 Z v, ST.NWT r w� z � €z- C� 4 CONSTITUTION AVE.NW 1 0 mi 1.25 mi 1.5 mi 1.75 mi l mi M BIKE STREET INCREASE IN BICYCLING A NATIONAL STAGE 200 d C- U R H ll�ll,6 150 E.S' o Pennsylvania Avenue 1 U € t Washington DC Average u � T a, m 100 v 50 I OCT APR OCT APR OCT APR OCT 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012i ,+su?A� DDC- This graph shows the steady increase in peak hour bicycle volumes on Pennsylvania Avenue is host to a number of national e� Pennsylvania Avenue compared to the rest of the city.59 presidential inauguration. FEATURES OF THE CYCLE TRACK �.. _.., . ». _ �'"^`•»a�.=� .tea ,w...µ� *, '„w, .r r A,...,... ._.—. ._ � - I Turning lanes at intersections provide space for cyclists to wait without Zebras,the low profile barriers pictured above,have b( blocking the flow of traffic. trial run on the avenue to discourage vehicles from ma RETHINK i • s = 7% - �R H d F/ A road diet with a cycle track invite. but concerned" cyclists to Higgins j Four travel lanes were converted to five, it ' tracks,two auto lanes and a center turn lE parking remained. -- A cycle track was constructed by extend in outside of the bike lane. New landscaping and sidewalks were inst the pedestrian environment. BIKE STREET AFl-_R S-GREETCLAS Major RIGHT OF VVA 95'-91 LENGTH .2 mil SPEED 15' 5.5 , 3' + 8' 11 11' 11' 8' 3' 5.5' 15' (varies) (varies) SPEED BEFORE LIMIT 25 15' 9' 12' 12' 12' 12' 9' 15' BEFORE (varies) (varies) AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 7,400 BEFORE A More Comfortable Ride for Cyclists Green Paint Improves Visibility In surveys conducted with people on bikes 6-10 The majority of bicyclists and motorists surveyed PROCESS months after the installation was complete,75% expressed that the green paint significantly improved 1 yea of respondents stated that the lanes were either visibility of cyclists in the intersections.Roughly 75% pretty comfortable or very comfortable and that the of surveyed users felt that the green paint was a improvements were a good use of funds. Key benefits good use of funds,and some commented that it was identified were being out of the door zone,having essential to the project.65 more room and keeping rocks out of the bike lane.65 Motorists Support Improvements Motorists and bicyclists alike agreed that the new configuration works well and improves the safety of the street.65 RETHINK Higgins 1 e : HIGGINS AVENUE CONTEXT PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS • Higgins is one of Missoula's historic downtown streets.It accommodated both a horse-drawn and electric streetcar system at the turn of the 20th century and it continues to be an important street in the city,starting at Missoula Central Railway Station and continuing for3.5 miles to the south.61 • Surveys conducted for the City's 2008 Long-Range Transportation Plan found that 5.9%of all commuters used bicycles and 49.7%of Missoula residents thought that improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities was a higher priority than expanding road capacity for automobiles.61 , • In response,the 2009 Downtown Master Plan identified the need for better bicycle infrastructure and Higgins St.was recommended for use as a protected bikeway.The 2010 streetscape improvements to N.Higgins St.were a demonstration project as part of the initial implementation of the Master Plan.A bike corral installed on N. Higgins is part of the project as a pilot project.63 W a • Financing for the project came from a variety of sources,including$1.2 ='y million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,$200,000 fromrR a� the Montana Legislature's House Bill 645,and$50,000 from the Montana Department of Transportation.14 Bulbouts extend through the parking lane to make ped distances shorter,but do not conflict with the generou! faros Pork I ■ N.H10INS AVE t~/1 7> ~ sui Z Z I�Q w D co Ui Ui lomi .25mi BIKE STREET PASSENGER UNLOADING A TYPICAL INTERSECTION Y� „f rc, " The cycle track includes a"door zone"or an area where car doors do not The cycle track merges back into the street at intersect interfere with cyclists. backed with green paint to improve visibility. HIGGINS THROUGH THE SEASONS a r , w a ^ d., Construction tookjust under months. The cycle track is plowed during snowy weather. on street bike parking is insta RETHINK c y�. p pt Wi _Ej Y. a, This world-class bike and pedes connects cultural attractions in I y Parking and travel lanes were narrowed 1 space for plantings, benches and walking A two-way bike path was installed at the m sidewalk and buffered from the road wid planters and pavers. Distinct paving patterns, crosswalks and • - strengthen the identity of the trail. mBIKE STREET AFTER STREET CLAS Netwi I� RICH F OF WA h _ 90' i LENGTH .......... , a 8 mil( h... _ _ SPEED 15' 9' 10' 10' 10' 9' 4' 8' 6' 9' Va ri e BEFORE 1. 3 15' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 15' AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES Variec. Local Businesses View the Trail as an Asset Ambitious Project Draws National Attention Butler University students interviewed businesses Newspaper and magazine articles about the trail PROCESS about the trail and all expressed positive reactions to have been published across the United States.This the trail.Some businesses felt their sales increased, positive exposure will likely improve the perception 7 yea i while others appreciated the trait's design.66 of Indianapolis around the country. Car Trips Declined Trail Users Love It 49%of trail users surveyed said they make fewer trips When asked their opinion of the trail,users were by car thanks to the trail.66 quick to offer their support and suggest places to expand the trail.Says one respondent,"It's great to have someplace safe to run,ride and walk my dog:166 RETHINK Indianapolis INDIANAPOLIS CULTURAL TRAIL CONTEXT N _ iILIi • The trail is designed to connect five downtown cultural districts: Fountain Square,Indiana Avenue,Mass Avenue,The Canal&White River State Park, and the Wholesale District. Ntt • The Indianapolis Cultural Trail(ICT)connects to the Monon Trail,a 10.4 mile trail completed in 2003.The Monon Trail connects the Indianapolis Cultural Trail to points of interest in the north side of the city,including a Moron coon the state fairgrounds and a dozen neighborhoods. _ - Pu6(i C biory • No local public money was used to build the ICT.The$63 million came F P Y �*, American from private donations and federal transportation grants.The trail is now £TT � ',_ tegionMall managed by a non profit: Indianapolis Cultural Trail,Inc." o J Indian 'WoWrldl- CE • Gene and Marilyn Glick donated$15 million to the ICT and also were moo, w6rM or m _ active in shaping the vision for the trail.66 m Q ivEv in i°no I U 1 m • The trail includes 163,300 square feet of green space and more than Histo'r center ° 25,000 square feet of storm water planters.ee P AitRt i ver' Inrr�rrno Monumcrot Greenwus m SE°te gap Grc(e ?CityMorket y T WA51 A BRANDED, WELL-MARKED TRAIL cc onvention Center Union I Frel It bse Stir# Is t f L l _ m Ll LT .. �.Al 1% I A i'g oK." i r..'rl C yil F..l�s Wpm r 1 i'.roto:)fir,Y-ianyt 4 Distinctive paving,crosswalks,signage and logos are deployed uniformly � `� .� 3 throughout the trail.A trail user always knows where to go next. l o mi 1.5 mi {1 mi ® BIKE STREET X 7 m r'` z g A FLEXIBLE TRAIL FOR MANY CONTEXTS ,2 In some places,bikes are separated from pedestrians,like above. Here,bicycles and pedestrians share the trail to enabic Pedestrians on the left,bikes on the right. transit shelter and bicycle parking. U14, M1N�III I>M����I lVMllll s k The trail includes a special sculpture garden,the Glick Peace Walk. Here the trail winds through an alley.It takes advantag Sculptures are dedicated to people who achieved greatness through peace. circumstances to form a complete loop. RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com c W P W Mm "Ann �f .. c •� twT e a _ AD eµ .p Transit Street n. Transit streets emphasize buses and trains employ designs that make it easy for peopl them. Similar to the bike streets, dedicated make for excellent transit streets. The dedic remove some of the delays associated with and increase reliability for passengers. Ded transit lanes also signal to businesses and i developers that this amenity will be arounc long time. In this way, transit streets can ca .ra = economic development, known as transit-c development. �h SW 5th and 6th Avenues Euclid Avenue Marquette and 2nd Avenues i . a pad:. a i J4 z Agroundbreakingtransit mall g better when it adds new transpc options. • A light rail system was incorporate( existing transit mall along with nev shelters. A bike lane was added and previou divert automobile traffic were rem( Pr,:.o:Z rAr,:�,;., .. ® TRANSIT STREET AF1"ER STREET CLAS City Ne RIGHT OFF WA 60-80 LENGTH 26' 13' 12' 11' 18' SPEED BEFORE(1999) �. SPEED LIMIT 12' 12' 12' 18' 20 BEFORE (1977) BEFORE 15, 7' 12' 12' 12' 7 15' AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 400-12,( BEFORE Transit Collisions Dropped Block-by-Block Improvements Between 2001 and 2006,the mall saw 68 bus-related The Block-by-Block Program provided assistance PROCESS collisions each year on average.After the redesign, and low-interest loans to nearby businesses.The the mall averaged 27 bus collisions and 13 light-rail program helped implement 40 storefront renovations 6 yea i collisions yearly.12 and other small improvements.The program cost $1.4 million and leveraged$9.4 million in private Downtown Redevelopment investment.68 The Transit Mall project led to two hotel renovations and other improvements that generated$1.5 billion in private sector investment.69 RETHINK SW 5th and 6th Avenues SW 5TN AND 6TN AVENUES CONTEXT IMPROVED CAR ACCESS • Portland's Transit Mall was originally built in 1978 and received numerous accolades for its attempts to improve transportation and revitalize downtown. • Thirty years later,the Transit Mall was showing its age,and plans called for adding light rail in addition to the many buses that traversed the corridor.The project,the largest public works project in city history, rebuilt 58 blocks,added 18 new blocks,replaced or added 45 new transit ' shelters and reconfigured the roadway for light rail,bus and through traffic for cars. • The entire project cost$160 million.70 • The transit mall crosses six neighborhoods,including the central core of The old transit mall diverted cars every few blocks,but the city. cars to drive all the way down. 2� SW 11TH AVE. �2 e _ SW 10TH<AVE. `ram iPortlondState No ks University South Park Blacks.. o� Pioneer 6TH AVENUE ISquore 5TH AVENUE Ln �. z z zo N ~ J+ i u > ¢ O �0 Mi 1.25 mi 1.75 mi I l mi 11.25 mi ® TRANSIT STREET OLD TRANSIT SHELTERS NEW TRANSIT SHELTERS "1 e y S .`+e`�� •x9�1� The original transit shelters featured an original design,but blocked views New transit stops almost disappear in the daytime,allc to shops and provided shelter for illicit activities. the storefronts behind while providing substantial prot PRE-TRANSIT MALL ORIGINAL TRANSIT MALL I�MYif WOW 1 u Priorto the original transit mall,buses had to merge into traffic after The original transit mall had a lane for boarding and a I; boarding,slowing the process considerably. configuration also exists in the latest redesign,with the RETHINK A All ! t . f> r• "r t wR ' Cleveland's signature bus rapid n=s corridorspurred billions in rede! ` Two travel lanes were converted in M sr` lanes and transit stations were inst ,. new median, creating a bus rapid t New landscaping, public art, sidew trees and street lightingwere implE Photo:David Wilson TRANSIT STREET AFTER STREET CLAS Major RIGHT'OF WA w 88,47' LENGTH ' 7 mik SPEED 12' 8' 11' 11' 4' ill 11' 8' 12' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT ' 25 12' 10' 11' 11' 11' 11' 10' 12' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 22,00' BEFORE Transit Investment Spurred Private Investment Transit Ridership Jumped The HealthLine,Cleveland's new bus rapid transit After the HealthLine opened,ridership increased 46% PROCESS system,cost$200 million and attracted more than from the previous standard bus service.In the first 22 year: $5.5 billion in private investment along the corridor. year,the line moved 3.8 million passengers.12 Numerous vacant properties were redeveloped along 3 years , the seven-mile route.71 Ridership Continues to Increase Year after Year Ridership increased 62%over its first year.As of Property Values Rose Even Before the Line Opened November 2013,the HealthLine's annual ridership Between 2003 and 2008,before the HealthLine began reached 4.8 million. service,the price of an acre of land in the Midtown neighborhood went from$200,000 to$400,000.73 RETHINK EudldAvenu,p # EUCLID AVENUE CONTEXT RTA'S HEALTHLINE • Between the 1860's and 1920's,Euclid Avenue was nicknamed "Millionaire's Row"for its many opulent mansions.By the 1930's,the • ���, corridor was better known as a thriving commercial avenue.As industrial disinvestment hit Cleveland hard in the 1960's,Euclid Avenue declined in stature and vitality. • Even with Euclid Avenue's decline,in 2003,60%of Cleveland's transit 1 rides occurred on the corridor.' _, • The Euclid Avenue redesign and Healthi-ine bus rapid transit line were funded by Federal New Starts funds,the City of Cleveland,the Greater w,N Cleveland Regional Transit Authority,the Cleveland Clinic and University g Y, Y Hospitals.71 . A new bus rapid transit line is the centerpiece of the proj • Nearly 1,400 trees of 26 varieties were planted along the corridor.75 Clinic and University Hospitals of Cleveland jointly boug . ..-...._..............._.............. LakeTne 4111 �SUOFmo AVE i - 20 Burke Lakefront .J UJ ..................... _ - •rf/� � '�`� �• � �� t � I � ;,�. MAYFIELD RD 22 CHEST- AVE fi University E _ Hospitals of ZI }Cleveland EUCLID AVEN�1�» 20 • - Cleveldnd r{ State University; � Y CARNEGIEAVE.` I %Cleveland= �/ : i -lino � : t : 10 mi 1.5 mi 11 mi 11.5 mi 12 mi ® TRANSIT STREET STATIONS FOR SAFETYAND SHELTER NEW BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTUF i. „ The HealthLine's stations are transparent to prevent illicit activities,but Bicycle lanes were installed from East 21st Street to Ch almost fully enclosed to shelter riders from the harsh Cleveland winters. made in 2006 and 2010 showed an increase in cyclists c CONNECTIONS ACROSS NEIGHBORHOODS STREETSCAPF IMPROVEMENT-C I r Euclid Avenue connects downtown with the Midtown neighborhood, This view of a downtown segment of Euclid Avenue she Cleveland State University and the Cleveland Clinic(shown above). pedestrian realm received an upgrade along with the b RETHINK s r • Pay no fire on buses marked"Free Ride" :g ! `io'�` Lr .aaeax�. Es" s..c-sat aertika+,:y1�P, :t^a�a aapw,, a- it 1l Minneapolis consolidated down express buses along the "Marg2 and saw big benefits in reliability • Two travel lanes were removed, me an additional bus lane and a flexib cycling, parking and driving during • The landscapingwas enhanced wit Before ® TRANSIT STREET STREET CLAS Major C RIGHT OF WA 80) LENGTH _ .8 mi SPEED 14' 14' 11' 12' 12' 17' SPEED BEFORE LIMIT z � 30 Mori=................ ; 12' 12' 12' 12' 6' 12' 12' BEFORE AVERAGE DAI KEY OUTCOMES 12,00 BEFORE Ridership Increased Bus Capacity Increased Bus boardings increased 4%between October 2009 Metro transit now runs 40%more buses throughout PROCESS and October 2010.The corridor now serves over the day.During evening rush hour,the number of 2 �� 24,000 one-way boardings each day." buses traveling along each street increased nearly 90%,from 80 to 151 per hour.Because the new Bus Travel Times Decreased configuration is designed to accommodate 180 buses The operating speeds of buses in the transit lanes per street per hour,there is still room to expand increased up to 83%during the morning peak hour transit service during the busiest times of the day. and 74%during the evening peak hour.The left bus There are two bus stops per block,and buses stop lane is for traveling,while the right bus lane is only every block and a half.78 for picking up passengers,allowing for betterflow of traffic.78 RETHINK M a rq u ette a n d 2 n d Ave n MARQ2 CONTEXT CONTRAFLOW LANES • Prior to the project,the bus network in downtown Minneapolis was , bursting at the seams.As the primary transit street,Marquette and 0" ', Second Avenue were designed to accommodate 60 buses per hour and prillf managed to operate at 80 buses per hour at peak times.During those 1 1#0#014 peak times,buses moved through downtown at 2.9 miles per hour,slower than walking.79 5V• In 2000,Minneapolis adopted a"Transit First"policy and 40%of P } downtown commute trips were already made by transit.Downtown was . d growing,so a new facility was needed to meet the projected demand.The downtown transit spines could not handle that volume and Marquette and 2nd Avenues were chosen to accommodate the growth.79 • Inspiration for the Marg2 plan came from Portland's transit mall and their two bus lane configuration.Portland's system triples capacity and does not increase operating costs(see page 115). E w Y • The region received$144 million of Urban Partnership funds for various improvements to relieve congestion,of that amount approximately$40 million went to rebuild Marquette and 2nd Avenue.78 Marquette and Second Avenues allow for buses to run� This configuration reduces the chance that cars will tal, .. •!711J Ift-11RQUETi AVENUE ,, SECONDiAVENUE(S. to N N N N N N N 10 mi 1.25 mi 1.5 mi ® TRANSIT STREET BUS SHELTERS ALONG BUILDINGS BUS SHELTERS INSIDE BUILM �.Y q IWO W, ! F x w' ✓R,,,h Some bus stops that existed before the Marg2 project were built into the Passengers can shelter themselves from Minnesota wir sides of buildings,like this one built into the Target Center above. located inside the lobby of the Wells Fargo Center. SIDEWALK CONGESTION Waiting passengers and street furnishings can make passing through difficult. Clear sidewalks provide plenty of space for those waitin; RETHINK Street Data RIGHT OF WAY SPEED LIMIT AFTER 25th Avenue,San Francisco,CA 70' 25 13,000 11,500 ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ .......................... ........ Stone Way N.,Seattle,WA 90, 30 13,000 12,000 d4i ................. ............... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .......... o Nebraska Avenue,Tampa,FL 50'-64' 35 17,900 14,600 ..........................I.........I................................. ................... ........ .......... Ocean Boulevard,Myrtle Beach,SC 8 25 15000 13000 5 , , 4i ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ .......... East Boulevard,Charlotte,NC 60'-100' 35 20,600 18,900 4i ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ .................. ........................ .......... W E.Washington Avenue,Madison,W1 132' 35 53,000 53,000 ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ .............I.......... ........................ .......... 28th Street,Boulder,CO 90, 35 50,000 44,000 ce .............................I...........I..............I.............: ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .......... Aurora Avenue N.,Shoreline,WA 90, 40 38,000 35,000 ........................................................................... ............ ........ Second Street,Long Beach,CA 76'-80' 25 29,800 29,300 Ct .............................I................ ........ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .......... LU Pine&Spruce Streets,Philadelphia,PA 50' 20 6,000 6,000 dl� o .........................**,.*,"*",""*,*,*,'',"*",*,I........... .................... x S.Carrollton Avenue,New Orleans,LA 108' 35 17,400 28,600 ...................................................................... ................... ....... .......... m Mill Avenue,Tempe,AZ 98'-100' 30 19,000 16,000 D ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .......... Barracks Row,Washington,D.C. 98' 25 11,500 11,500 ........................................................................... .............................................................................................................. a SPEED LIMIT RIGHT OF WAY AFTER W. Lancaster Boulevard,Lancaster,CA 102' 15 19,800 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .......... LU LU Clematis Street,West Palm Beach,FL 68, 30 ........................ ........................ ....................... ........................ .......... ...................................................................... z :rc Route 62/Main Street,Hamburg,NY 66' 30 12,100 15,000 d� ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ ....................... .................. .......... Courthouse Square,Sulphur Springs,TX 104' 30 4,000 7,500 Ct ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ ....................... ........................ .......... N.Williams Avenue,Portland,OR 54' 30 8,000 7,700 Ct ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ ....................... ........................ .......... 8th and 9th Avenues,New York City,NY 100, 30 30,000 30,000 F- LU LU ........ ........... ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .......... Pennsylvania Avenue,Washington,D.C. V) 146' 25 33,000 32,800 LU ........... .................. ...... .......... Higgins Avenue,Missoula,MT 95'-96' 25 7,400 7,600 ...................................................................... ........I............... .......... ............. .........I.............. ........................ .......... Indianapolis Cultural Trail,Indianapolis,IN 90, ..........I................................................................ ........................ ........................ .......... SW 5th and 6th Avenues,Portland,OR Uj 60'-80' 20 400-12,000 Uj ................................................I...... .............. ................... ...... .......... V) Euclid Avenue,Cleveland,OH 88' 25 22,000 20,000 0 z "I"*""",*"*",*",*,*'""',*,",'',l*,**"*'"""'I........... ................... ...... .......... Marquette and end Avenues,Minneapolis,MN 80' 30 12,000 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... RETHINK Endnotes INTRODUCTION www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/designExpo20l2/P CITATIONS Green-len n ifer-Nebraska%20Road%2ODiet.pdf 1. DC Vibrant Retail Streets Toolkit. Presented to the DC Office of 9. Steele,Kathy."Redesigned Nebraska Avenue signiTampa Tribune.13 July 2011. Planning by Streetsense. March 2012.http://dc.gov/DC/Planning/ Across+the+City/Other+Citywide+Initiatives/DC+Vibrant+Retail+Streets+ ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Too[kit/Vi bra nt+Retail+Streets+Toolkit "Improving Safety forAll Users: Rightsizing Nebras 2. Model Design Manual for Living Streets.Los Angeles County.2011. Florida:'Project for Public Spaces.http://www.pp� http://www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com improving-safety-for-all-users-rightsizing-nebraska- ROAD DIET Ocean Boulevard 25th Avenue CITATIONS 10. Correspondence with Patrick Sadek,City Engineer CITATIONS August 2013. 3. Provence,Dan."25th Avenue Road Diet Project:A One year Evaluation" Transportation for Clean Air Project#05R07.San Francisco Municipal East Boulevard Transportation Agency.22 May 2009. CITATIONS 4. Correspondence with Dan Provence,San Francisco Municipal 11. Saak,Joshua E."Using Roadway Conversions to Ir Transportation Agency.September 2013. Transportation-The East Boulevard Experience"C of Transportation.Presentation at SDITE Annual M Stone Way N. TN.23 April 2007. CITATIONS 12. "Realizing a Community's Vision for East Boulevarc 5. "Stone Way N. Rechannelization:Before and After Study N 34th Street to Spaces.www.pps.org/reference/east-boulevard-w N 50th Street"Seattle Department of Transportation.May2010. achieve-community-desires/ 6. Correspondence with Brian Dougherty,Seattle Department of 13. "East Boulevard Pedscape Plan"Charlotte Mecklei Transportation.July 2013. Commission.Adopted by City Council June 2002. 1 Nebraska Avenue org/city/charldtte/epm/Projects/Transportation/R EastBlvdPedscapePlan.pdf CITATIONS 7. "Nebraska Avenue Road Diet: Before and After Analysis"Tindale-Oliver& Associates,Inc.Planning and Engineering.15 January 2013. 8. Chin,Ronald A."Nebraska Avenue(SR 45)from Kennedy Boulevard to Hillsborough Avenue"Florida Department of Transportation.http:// ARTERIAL REHAB URBAN, MIXED-USE E.Washington Avenue Second Street, Long Beach, CA CITATIONS CITATIONS 14. Andersen,Andrea "Googfe among companies to move into East 22. Gandy,Charlie."Belmont Shore Economic Data" B Washington Development"Wisconsin State Journal.15 August 2013. Presentation to city staff in 2010. 15. "East Washington Avenue:Old East Side Master Plan"Better Urban Infill 23. KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering.Secor Development Program.Dane County,WI.August 2000. and Green Lane Progress Report:October 2010. 16. Czubkowski,Kristin"East Wash: Poised for a right turn?"The Capital 24. Crawford,Allan."Green Sharrows:safer for everyoi Times,Madison,WI.21 April 2010. August 2013. http://www.bike[ongbeach.org/archi ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 25. Correspondence with Man Crawford,Bike Coordir • The East Washington Avenue Reconstruction Project Website.http:// Beach,City of Long Beach.July 2013. www.cityofmadison.com/ewashingtonave/ ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 28th Street Bike Long Beach. http://www.bikelongbeach.org CITATIONS 17. PBIC Case Study-"28th Street Multi Modal Improvements" Pedestrian Pine&Spruce Streets and Bicycle Information Center.Accessed September 2013. http://www. CITATIONS wa[kinginfo.org/library/detai[s.cfm?id=4160 26. Carmaft,Charles"Cycling in Philadelphia:Safety o 18. 28th Street Corridor Arts and Aesthetics Plan.City of Boulder. February Bike Lanes"Mayor's Office of Transportation and L 2002. Philadelphia.12 September 2012. 19. City of Boulder 28th Street Improvements Project Web Page. https:// 27. Correspondence with Charles Carmalt,Pedestrian bou[derco[orado.gov/transportation/28th-street-improvements-project Coordinator,City of Philadelphia.July 2013. Aurora Avenue N. S. Carrollton Avenue CITATIONS CITATIONS 20. Interview with Kirk McKinley,City of Shoreline Transportation Services 28. Parker,Kathryn M.,Janet Rice,and Jeanette Gusta Manager.August 2013. Infrastructure Improvements in New Orleans,Loui. 21. Hansen,Ronald B. [Letter to the Editor] Enterprise Newspaper.13 University. February2013. August2004. 29. South Louisiana Submerged Roads Program.Acce ADDITIONAL RESOURCES http://www.norpc.org/submerged_roads.html • City of Shoreline Project Page.Accessed November2013.http://www. shorelinewa.gov/government/departments/public-works/capital- im provement-plan/au rora-corridor-project RETHINK E n d n otes Mill Avenue MAIN STREET CITATIONS Lancaster Boulevard 30. "Downtown Tempe:You Belong Here"Promotional flyer by Downtown CITATIONS Tempe Community. Mill Avenue District. 31. Searer,Kristen"Development Bolsters Tempe's Downtown Oasis"East 39. "Moule&Polyzoides Receive Smart Growth EPAAv Valley Tribune. 14 July 2003. for New Urbanism.30 November 2012. http://wwv news/2012/11/mou le-polyzoides-receive-smart-gi 32. Interview with Rod Keeling,Executive Director of Downtown Tempe ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Community during the redesign. •33. "2012 Spring Downtown Tempe Pedestrian Count Report"Mill Avenue Moule and Polyzoides Architects and Urbanists. ht District.The Downtown Tempe Community.July 2012. mparchitects.com/site/projects/lancaster-boulevy 34. Tempe Festival of the Arts Website.Accessed November 2013.http:// Clematis Street www.tempefestivalofthearts.com/about CITATIONS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 40. Lockwood,Ian and Timothy Stillings."West Palm I • Mill Avenue District Website. http://millavenue.com/business The Second Generation"TRB Circular E-0019: Urb; December 2000. Barracks Row (8th Street SE) ADDITIONAL RESOURCES CITATIONS Revitalizing West Palm Beach with Better Streets.l 35. McLeod,Bill"From Planning to Promotion:Surviving Streetscape Administration.Onlinevideo clip: http://www.you Construction"Main Street News. The Monthly Journal of the National watch?v=pwhSFN8rud8 Trust Main Street Center.Jan/Feb 2007. Project for Public Spaces Case Study.Accessed Se 36. Macl-eary,Rachel"Capital Improvement"Public Works Magazine. www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?pub[ic_pl October 2004. 37. Barracks Row Main Street Annual Report2009. http://www.barracksrow. Main Street (Route 62) org/what/annualreports CITATIONS 38. Great American Main Street Awards.National Main Street Center. 41. Gaffney,Dennis"Widen Main Street?AViilage Had National Trust for Historic Preservation.Accessed November 2013. Then Thrived" New York Times. 17 August 2013. http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/awards/gamsa/ 42. "Walkable Olean:AVision for Union Street" Report ADDITIONAL RESOURCES City of Olean by Jeff Belt, President,Solepoxy Inc. • Barracks Row Main Street Website. http://www.barracksrow.org Consultant.September 2011. http://www.walkabl- Walkable_Olean_Vision_online.pdf ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 50. Portland Commercial Corridors Study:North WilliE • Hackathorn,Laura"The Village of Hamburg,NY Revitalization"Accessed Portland. http://www.portiandoregon.gov/bps/38 October 2013. http://prezi.com/w5g9owfc_fgr/the-village-of-hamburg- 51. North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Project:P ny-revitilization/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy House.City of Portland.May 2012. http://www.por • "U.S. Route 62 Village of Hamburg"Context Sensitive Solutions. transportation/53905 Accessed November 2013.http://contextsensitiveso[utions.org/content/ 52. Community Forum Survey Responses.28 Novemb case_studies/u_s_route_62yillage_of_hambur/ portlandoregon.gov/transportation/53905 Courthouse Square 53. Portland Bicycle Count Report 2012,City of Portlai port[andoregon.gov/transportation/article/44840- CITATIONS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 43. Correspondence with Shane Shepard,Community Development Director,City of Sulphur Springs.September 2013. City of Portland Project Page."N.Williams Ave Traf Safety"Accessed 11October 2013.http://www.poi 44. Best of County Line.County Line Magazine.2012.Accessed September transportation/53905. 2013. http://www.county[inemagazine.com/Best-Of/ 8th and 9th Avenues BIKE STREET CITATIONS 54. "Making Safer Streets"New York City Department( N.Williams Avenue November 2013.Available Online: http://www.nyc CITATIONS down loads/pdf/dot-ma king-safer-streets.pdf 45. Correspondence with Jeff Smith, Project Manager,City of Portland 55. "Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Centur Bureau of Transportation. November 2013. City Department of Transportation.Accessed 23 SE www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/dotlibrary.sht 46. Baker, Linda."Developers Cater to Two-Wheeled Traffic in Portland, OR"The New York Times.20September2011.http://www.nytimes. 56. Sadik-Khan, "Eighth and Ninth Avenues Con com/2011/09/21/business/portland-ore-developments-cater-to- Extension Community Board 4"21 September201 bicycle-riders.html?pagewanted=all&_r=l& 57. Katz, Matthew."Business Owners Rail Against Hell 47. Fehrenbacher,Lee"North Williams gets new`Stem"'Daily Journal of Plan"DNAinfo New York.22 September2011.Avail Commerce-Oregon,30 October 2013. www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110922/chelsea-h( owners-rail-against-hells-kitchen-bike-lane-plan 48. Maus,Jonathan "Williams Ave businesses show their love at first 58. Lee,Eric S.and Galeota-Sprung, Ben"Bike and Pe. ever`RiderAppreciation Day"'Bike Portland.12 July 2012. http:// bikeportland.org/2012/07/12/williams-ave-businesses-show-the-love- Street Improvements and Economic Activity in NY( at-first-ever-rider-appreciation-day-74636 Transportation Initiative.Webinar.21 February 201 us/Events/the-positive-link-between-bike-and-peg 49. Mirk,Sarah."It's NotAboutthe Bikes"The Portland Mercury. 16 February im prove ments-and-economic-activity-in-nyc/ 2012. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/its-not-about-the- b i kes/Co n to nt?o i d=5619639 RETHINK E n d n otes ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Missoulian.15 October 2010. http://missoullan.coi • New York City Department of Transportation Flickr Page. http://www. c88e0bce-d8dd-lldf-ac88-OO1cc4c002e0.html flickr.com/photos/nycstreets/ 65. Green Pavement Markings Within Bike Lanes Repo Pennsylvania Avenue (E)-Missoula,MT. November2011. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES CITATIONS • Missoula Institute for Sustainable Transportation. 59. District Department of Transportation Bicycle Facility Evaluation. Portland State University,Toole Design Group,and Kittelsen Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Indianapolis, IN and Associates,Inc.April 2012. http://www.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/ CITATIONS On+Your+Street/Bicycles+and+Pedestrians/Bicycles/Bicycle+Lanes/ Bicycle+Facility+Evaluation 66. Butler University Environmental Practicum Course Cultural Trail"Spring 2012.http://www.but[er.edu, 60. Sigworth,Ryan"Zebras get go-ahead for Pennsylvania Ave bike ict_spring2012.pdf lanes"Greater Greater Washington. 18 September 2013.http:// greatergreaterwashington.org/post/20192/zebras-get-go-ahead-for- 67. IndianapolisCulturalTrailWebsite. http://indycult pennsylvania-ave-bike-lanes/ ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Higgins Avenue Rundell Ernsterberger Associates, LLC. Land Plann and Landscape Architecture.618 Market Street,Inc CITATIONS www.reasite.com 61. "Then-Higgins Avenue and Front Street" Historic Missoula.Accessed 29 October 2013.http://www.historicmissou[a.org/History/ Then and NowRePhotographingMissoula/HigginsandFront/tabid/329/ TRANSIT STREET Defa u It.aspx 62. Baldridge,John."2008 Missoula Long-Range Transportation Plan SW 5th and 6th Avenues Survey Draft Final Report"Bureau of Business and Economic Research. CITATIONS University of Montana.17 April 2008. 68. Jost,Daniel."Changing Lanes" Landscape Architei 63. "Examples of In-street Bicycle Parking"Association of Pedestrian and 2013. Bicycle Professionals.Accessed 29 October 2013.http://c.ymcdn.com/ 69. "Portland Mall Revitalization Award of Excellence" sites/www.apbp.org/resource/collection/5de92501-a2c5-485c-a537- Society of Landscape Architecture.Accessed Augu 428a lc913c93/Resources_a nd_exa m p les_I n-street_bi ke_pa rki ng.pd org/2011awards/091.1htm[ f?h hSea rchTerms=%22exa m p les+and+street+and+bicycle+and+pa rki ng%22 70. "Conceptual Design Report Final Supplement"Cit, and Metro. 12 May 2004. 64. Szpaller, Keila."Missoula's downtown streetscape changes celebrated" Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH CITATIONS 71. Hellendrung,Jason."Healthline Drives Growth in Cleveland"Urban Land,May/June 2012. 72. "Transit as Transformation:The Euclid Corridor in Cleveland" Partnership for Sustainable Communities.Accessed October 2013 http://www.sustainab[ecommunities.gov/pdf/studies/cleveland-euclid- corridor.pdf 73. Jim Haviland,executive director of MidTown Cleveland,Inc.,quoted in http://blog.clevela nd.com/pdextra/2008/05/big_price_tag_on_big_ renovatio.html. May 16 2008. 74. "About the Healthline"Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Available Online.Accessed 25 November 2013.http://www.riderta.com/ health line/about 75. Mays,Vernon."Health on Wheels" Landscape Architecture Magazine, June 2011. 76. Lefcowitz,Marc."Bike Counts:Can They Slim Your Street?"Green_City Blue Lake:The Cleveland Museum of Natural History Blog.1 November 2013. http://www.gcb[.org/blog/2010/08/bike-counts-can-they-slim- your-street Accessed Marquette and Second Avenues CITATIONS 77. Results Minneapolis. Public Works Transportation&Internal Services.15 November 2011. 78. Correspondence with Steve Mahowald,Senior Transit Planner,Metro Transit.August 2013. 79. Mahowald,Steve"Transit and CBD's Symbiotic Union Finding a Workable Balance"Metro Transit. RETHINK For more information,visit:rethinkingstreets.com Rethinking Streets is a tool for implementing change. Marc Schlossberg,PhD. is an Associate Public Policy and Management(PPPM)ai The case studies within present measurable outcomes Sustainable Cities Initiative(SCI)at the U from street projects that have been executed in He teaches and researches on active tran communities across the United States. Each case streets,urban design and community pa enhancing active transportation design, study includes information on design, Community He holds a PhD from the University of Mi Context, traffic levels and economic Indicators- academic career worked professionally providing evidence readily accessible to planners, and was a United States Peace Corps Vol community groups,traffic engineers and merchants. John Rowell is an Associate Professor of University of Oregon,where he teaches d technology.He is Principal of Rowell Bro The case Studies range from small rural towns Eugene.His professional work includes u to major metropolitan areas, and from light traffic planning,inclusive neighborhoods,speci people with disabilities,as well as mixed loads tostate highways. Several projects are as simple educational and civic projects.His resear as re-striping the roadway white others are major environments for people with developm capital improvement projects. Some projects focus designing neighborhoods for vitality and on improving bike infrastructure, while others are Dave Amos is an Associate Planner atMi more focused on improving the transit and pedestrian urban planning consulting firm based in Previously„he received a Master of Archit experience. of Community and Regional Planning fro Oregon and a Bachelors degree in Urban Most of the examples are normal, everyday streets, from Cornell University.His professional but they represent 25 diverse communities that have complete streets,urban design and land taken steps to improve transportation and public Kelly Sanford is currently a graduate fell of Architecture Program at the University life in their own neighborhoods. Taken together, the received a Bachelor of Arts inArchitectur streets within demonstrate that street redesign is not Brown University and spent a year studyi only possible, but happening in every region of the and urbanism in Copenhagen.She has in Francisco's Pavement to Parks program a Country Bicycle Coalition,working to expand bicy public space in the city. For more information,visit:rethinkingstr Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 12:42 PM To: Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty; Estanislau, Robin Subject: ® MyHB-#249012 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments [] MyHB New Report Submitted -#249012 Status new Work Order #249012 Issue Type Agenda &Public Hearing Comments Subtype City Council Meeting Notes Please help us get the Beach and Ellis application for condos review stopped.Again.Governor and Developer don't care about those of us who have to suffer with hi-density and dangerous traffic as it is at 5 points intersection. Not to mention we have noticed way less cooling ocean breezes we used to get. He is hopping on the homelessness issue to benefit himself.We already have the Elan and low income next to it.Please stand up for us and don't let them bully our hardworking neighborhood.Thank-you, Lisa, homeowner and business owner here since 2001. View the Report Reporter Name Lisa RadvanskyMosley Email SUPPLEMENTAL lisarad123@gmail.com COMMUNICATION Phone Mewing Date' d 949-337-3000 Report Submitted Agenda ftm No: FEB 15, 2020-12:42 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Aube, Nicolle Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:54 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Beach and Ellis condo project Public comment From: lisa radvansky<lisarad123@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 12:27 PM To:Aube, Nicolle<nicolle.aube@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Beach and Ellis condo project Please help us get this ridiculous project off the radar. Our neighborhood already did our part with the Elan high rise and the low income units next to it. This is a dangerous intersection and this monstrosity will negatively affect our quality of life. Don't let them bully us, he can find some other place to build that isn't so small of a footprint. They are jumping on homelessness issue to force play their own interests. Thank-you Lisa Radvansky, Mosley homeowner and business owner since 2001. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. Agenda uem No.; ,43 ( a"�D- a 9.') SUPPLEMENTAL Es arza, Patty COMMUNICATION From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org Mwft Date. O Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 10:57 AM To: Agenda Comment Agenda Item No., Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items AGENDA COMMENT Subject Potential 4-Story Complex Behind Car Wash and Jack-in-the-box on Beach and Ellis Name John Ziebarth Email jzeba@hotmail.com Comments Hello. I received the request for another appeal to demolish the DK liquor store along with using the vacant lot behind the car wash to build a 4-story structure on the northeast corner of Beach and Ellis. I think it would be quite the awkward place to put a four story building. I get how the big, 5/6-story complex on the southeast corner of Beach and Ellis has great views of the north, south, east and west. Because I even have a pretty good view of the San Gabriel mountains out of my second story window looking out to the north at 18401 Patterson Ln. apt. 1. But one thing Huntington Beach might like to take into consideration, is to always be mindful of their development. We actually have a great view of the west sky in the back of our 4-apartment, apartment complex (or quadruplex it could be called) here at 18401 Patterson Ln., and as funny as it sounds, the finches and hummingbirds love the view too. The vacant portion of the older car wash (whose property backs right up to the back of our property line), has quite a bit of honeysuckle against the back wall of the now vacant lot that the hummingbirds like hanging out on along with the other variety of trees in the immediate area (although the honeysuckle hasn't been trimmed for a while). You can tell when you walk back there (especially during sunset/pre- sunset time or even morning and afternoon times), that when you catch some of the hummingbirds flying around and then landing on the honeysuckle, that they actually do specifically like looking in that (the west) direction. I would like to invite any members of the city council or anyone that works for the city of Huntington Beach to walk back to the back of our quadruplex here at 18401 Patterson Ln. and check out the different perspective of the area. If you choose to take my invitation, please walk through on the right side of the building where the driveway is and just walk casually on to the back. It's a nice, open, entryway to the back of our apartment complex. I also might as well make a point that the passageway on the right side of our apartment complex is so casual, that various people have used that passageway to walk through there so that they can hop the wall to get to the vacant lot. It seems a bit sketchy to have people walking through there as it would seem more appropriate (or appropriately casual) if this was a bigger apartment complex with more apartments as in 10 or 20 apartments. But so far, no problems with any of them. And a couple of them would casually greet as they have passed by me. It seems like the vacant lot has been used by various people for the past 2 or 3 months now. Some of them could be homeless, some of them could be "watchers of the lot." For example, Bruce, in apartment 2 bumped into one of them and Bruce told me that one of them said that he was the manager of the lot or in charge of the lot or something like that. Also in the infancy of the various people walking through the right side of our apartment complex to hop the wall to get to 1 the vacant lot, the ladies that live in apartments 3 and 4 both commented to me on it. The lady in apartment 4 said that she asked them to be quiet as they were loud one night and the lady in apartment 3 asked if I knew about the people "walking through." I told her I did and she was walking up her stairs as she added, "...There's nothing we can do???" They both seemed concerned. So while this space is quite the casual space, take advantage of it and come by to check the different perspectives of the area! But I think the 4-story development would be a bad idea. Plus, if you look at the driveway of the DK liquor store, you'll notice that only right turns out of the liquor store are practical. Left turns on to Ellis out of the liquor store are very sketchy and awkward. ...But who knows, maybe these people hopping the wall are potential protesters of the 4-story development and will lay flat on the ground of the property in protest once the construction of the 4-story structure starts. Thank you, John Ziebarth, apt. 1 at 18401 Patterson Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:09 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Comment Letter for 8041 Ellis Avenue Hearing Attachments: 8041 Ellis Avenue Comment Letter.pdf From: Dylan Casey<dylan@carlaef.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 9:23 AM To: Brenden, Patrick<Patrick.Brenden@surfcity-hb.org>; Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; Hardy,Jill<Jill.Hardy@surfcity-hb.org>; Peterson, Erik<Erik.Peterson@surfcity- hb.org>; Posey, Mike<Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>;Semeta, Lyn<Lyn.Se meta @surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy <CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula <ursula.luna-reynosa@surfcity-hb.org>; Aube, Nicolle<nicolle.aube@surfcity-hb.org>; Ken Stahl <kstahl@onellp.com> Subject: Comment Letter for 8041 Ellis Avenue Hearing Dear City Council, Please consider the attached letter as comment from California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund for the 8041 Ellis Avenue project, up for public hearing at tonight's meeting. Sincerely, Dylan Casey Executive Director, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund 443-223-8231 1 www.carlaef org SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda hem NO. � 3 93 .ram `' u • , ` � L February 18th, 2020 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: 8041 Ellis Avenue Development Dear Planning Commissioners, and City Attorney, The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform the City Council that it has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposal to develop property located at 8041 Ellis Avenue. The Housing Accountability Act, Gov. Code § 65589.5, requires approval of projects that comply with all objective zoning and general plan standards, unless the city finds that based on a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the development would result in a "specific, adverse impact on public health and safety." (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1)(A).) The impact must be a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions . . . ." (id.) The California state legislature enacted the HAA in order to encourage approval of housing developments where cities have planned and zoned for new development, with the expectation that impacts warranting disapproval would arise infrequently. (§ 65589.5(a)(3)•) The proposed development in this case complies with all objective zoning and general plan standards. The Planning Commission's initial proposed findings of denial identified no objective standards with which the project failed to comply. In fact, the Commissioners proposed to reject the project for entirely subjective reasons such as their interpretation of the "vision" and "spirit" of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. Only after receiving our letters advising about the HAA did the city council attempt to identify objective standards in two subsequent proposed findings of denial, but it failed both times. The city's most recent proposed findings for denial fail to document any objective, written standards that the proposal does not comply with. The supplementary fire access analysis prepared by James McMullen concludes in error that the fire access road fails to comply with City Specification 401, by applying a standard for curves in fire access roads to the proposed turnaround. City Specification 401 clearly specifies a separate standard for turnarounds, with the the proposed development complies. An analysis of the application by the city's own fire safety experts came to the same conclusion, confirming the mistake in Mr. McMullen's analysis. In any event, the HAA requires that an applicant be advised of any objective standards with which the applicant failed to comply within 3o days of the application being complete, which in this case was May 1, 2019. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(I).) Because the city failed to do so, the project must now be deemed fully compliant with all objective standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B)• The other proposed findings for disapproval of this development fail to identify a specific adverse impact on public health and safety that would be required to comply with the Housing Accountability Act. The findings claim to identify a safety issue generated by additional traffic from the residents of the new building.Almost any new housing development, however, will include some residents who own cars and commute with them. The locally increased traffic that may result from these new residents could never constitute an impact sufficient to justify a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act. The increased traffic generated by any development is a foreseeable impact that the city has had ample time to plan for. The development is part of the Beach/Ellis Specific Plan that required the City to undertake years of analysis and planning for increased density. Under the findings and analysis provided by the CIty, the traffic impacts of this development fail to result in any significant concern on health and safety. Even if they did, the City has failed to analyze any number of potential mitigation measures to improve traffic safety around the project. It is the city's own parking requirements for the development in the first place, that would even require accommodation for increased traffic. Further, the health and safety impacts described by the traffic study - increased traffic volume, leading to increased accidents - would, if true, occur with almost any new housing development. This is hardly the kind of "infrequent" impact contemplated by the HAA. If this traffic study is a sufficient basis to deny the project, the HAA would become a dead letter. The fire safety study also fails to identify a specific adverse health and safety impact. Like the traffic study, the fire safety study does not identify any objective health and safety standards that this project failed to meet. Nor did the fire safety study prove that any of the issues it identified rose to the level of a significant, quantifiable, and unavoidable impact on health or safety, or discuss any possible mitigation measures. The fact that the city's own staff failed to identify any fire safety issues, or indeed any health and safety issues of any kind, after an extensive period of review further diminishes the credibility of this study, which by its author's admission was based on "minimal" and "inadequate" information. As an additional note, the city disclosed these studies to us just three business days prior to the February 18, 202o hearing, giving us inadequate time to review the studies and consult with outside experts. Therefore, we reserve the right to identify additional inadequacies in the studies in the event this matter goes to litigation. California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org 2044 Franklin St,Oakland,CA 94612 If the city were to deny this proposed housing development, it would call into question the broader planning framework under which the city operates. This City Council recently made amendments to its zoning and general plan to identify additional sites for multifamily development, under pressure from the state Attorney General's office and others who challenged the City's Housing Element compliance. Denying the proposed development would call into question this resolution. If Huntington Beach intends to establish rules and regulations to allow for housing developments in accordance with state law, it must also approve proposals such as this that fully comply with these standards. If the Council attempts to manufacture a reason to deny this project,what would stop if from doing the same for any of the sites recently identified for future development. Huntington Beach should approve this project, and demonstrate that it intends to follow through on its own promises to plan for housing development sufficient to meeting the needs for California's future. As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing developments such as the proposed project here are a public benefit, desperately needed across California. It will bring increased tax revenue, and new customers to local businesses, but most importantly it will help reduce the rise in housing costs that cause displacement of existing California residents into homelessness or long car commutes. Huntington Beach has fallen far short of its planning targets for housing development across all income levels. This development would help to correct this failure in city policy, and it is being proposed on land that Huntington Beach has planned for use as new multifamily housing development. Huntington Beach should follow through on its planning and zoning policy, and approve the proposed development. CaRLA is a 501(03 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels. The proposed Project will provide badly needed housing for families in Huntington Beach.While no one project will solve the regional housing crisis, the proposed 8041 Ellis Avenue development is the kind of housing Huntington Beach needs to mitigate displacement, provide shelter for its growing population, and arrest unsustainable housing price appreciation.You may learn more about CaRLA at www.cariaef.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey Executive Director California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org 2044 Franklin St,Oakland,CA 94612 Yes In My Back Yard 126o Mission St San Francisco,CA 94103 hello@yimbylaw.org 2/18/2020 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA Lyn.Semeta@surfcity-hb.org;jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org; Patrick.Brenden@surfcity-hb.org; Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org;barbara.delgleize@surfcity-hb.org; erik.peterson@surfcity-hb.org;mike.posey@surfcity-hb.org; Robin.Estanislau@ surfcity-hb.org; Via Email Re: 8041 Ellis Avenue Tentative Tract Map NO.1815'7/Conditional Use Permit NO.1'7-042 Dear Huntington Beach City Council, Yes In My Back Yard submits this letter to inform you that the Huntington Beach City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal,including the Housing Accountability Act(HAA). California Government Code§65589.5,the Housing Accountability Act,prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality's zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete,unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable,objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria,including design review standards,in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1)The housing development project would have a specific,adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective,identified written public health or safety standards,policies,or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph(i),other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeft Dabs: a —( I Apnde nam No.-AA e9D — .3g3 (4)For purposes of this section,a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning,if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.If the local agency has complied with paragraph(2),the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan,however,the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to construct a four-story mixed-use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant,therefore,your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yes In My Back Yard is a 501(03 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of Yes In My Back Yard, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director Yes In My Back Yard YIMBY Law,126o Mission St, San Francisco,CA 94103 Estanislau, Robin From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 2:50 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Vote No on Agenda Item 23 &25 From:Taylor Haug<taylorhaug@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 2:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Vote No on Agenda Item 23 & 25 I urge you to repeat the vote on Agenda Item 23 and reject the item. The building does not fit the space, and it will cause even more traffic and safety issues at this intersection. HB doesn't need to get into the real estate business. This was proven in the last purchase of the Pipeline disaster, costing taxpayers over 100K. The fact that you already have a letter of intent to purchase these two items prior to changing the overlay of these parcels shows you have already decided before the public meeting. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reject this item. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT. Thank you. A homeowner and lifelong resident. Taylor Haug SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION M99*V Deis:a - / 8- " 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:29 P_M To: Agenda Alerts Subject: Agenda Item#23 - 8041 Ellis From:Steven C. Shepherd,Architect<steve@shepherdarchitects.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:26 PM To:Agenda Comment<agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item#23 -8041 Ellis Hello City Council - I am once again writing to you to voice my support for the proposed project located at 8041 Ellis Ave. In the past, I've voiced support both in-person and via emailed comments, and I have followed this particular project through multiple appearances before HB Planning Commission as well as at a previous appeal before this Council. While I have no relationship with anyone directly involved in this project or financial stake in its success or failure, I am keenly aware of the future consequences related to Huntington Beach's actions. So to put it very simply here are the reasons this project should be approved: 1. The project is approvable based on the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. 2. The project is similar in use to surrounding properties. 3. The project updates and modernizes an outdated, underutilized, and visually decrepit property. 4. The project provides new and much-needed housing units for our Huntington Beach community. I would assume that this is why the original city staff report recommended the project be approved. You see city staff, unlike elected or appointed officials, rely on code and context. They are bound by the rules set in advance and largely remain above the raw emotion that fouls so many of these local decisions. I ask you to remember that the future of Huntington Beach is set in motion based on decisions like this one. The residents of Huntington Beach, both present and future, deserve local governance focused on improvement, not denial. I urge you to act in the best interest of our city by voting to approve this project per agenda item #23. Regards, Steven C. Shepherd, Architect P: 714 785 9404 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:37 PM To: Agenda Alerts; Brenden, Patrick; Carr, Kim; Delgleize, Barbara; Fikes, Cathy; Hardy, Jill; Peterson, Erik; Posey, Mike; Semeta, Lyn Subject: Comment All Council Members COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES Ellis Ave. Condos - Mayor Semeta and City Council Members, I am asking you to vote as you did last year regarding the Ellis Ave. Condo Project and deny the applicants request to build this apartment building in the proposed location. In addition to the HBFD and an independent fire safety consultant saying it doesn't meet code, an independent consultant discussing the traffic increase and the potential increase in vehicle and or pedestrian incidents the project just doesn't fit. As a 36 year resident of Huntington Beach I am asking you to once again, DENY this project. Thank you for your consideration, Steve Farnsworth Opened: 02/17/2020 14:57 PM Closed: By: Steve Farnsworth Email: Hazmn54@gmail.com Phone: 714-847-4457 Device: WEB AAQ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items- 1. CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042. THE MATTER IS REAGENDIZED WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT. Applicant: Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine CA 92618 Appellant: Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, 4740 Green River Road, Suite 304, Corona, CA 92880 Request: The City Council will consider the request to demolish an existing liquor store, residence, and portion of a former car wash to permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed- use building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking. Location: 8041 Ellis Avenue Beach Boulevard (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) City Contact: Nicolle Aube, Associate Planner ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 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 or on line at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov on Thursday, February 13, 2020. 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 Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Robin Estanislau, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ 1 2 5 HB Chamber of Commerce Orange County Assoc.of Realtors Huntington Beach Tomorrow President Dave Stefanides President j 2134 Main St.Ste. 100 25552 La Paz Road PO Box 865 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i 8 INTEROFFICE 9 13 ETI:Corral 100 Newland House Museum EnAroinmenita c2rd Jean Kimbrell,Treasurer — Pres.,H.B. Historical Society P.O.Box 2298 An"tfa Ta:l"3�1af17 T�� 19820 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 4 th ✓ Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Floor •�J i 14 19 19 Historic Resources Board Chair O.C.Ping.&Dev.Services Dept. O.C.Planning&Develop.Dept. Kathie Schey Director Michael Balsamo 3612 Rebel Circle P.O.Box 4048 P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 i 29 26 29 Fountain Valley Elem.School Dist. Department of Transportation,Dist 12 Fountain Valley Elem.School Dist. Maureen El Harake,Branch Chief Marc Ecker Rina Lucchese,Executive Assistant 10055 Slater Avenue 1750 E 4"'Street#100 10055 Slater Avenue Santa Ana,CA 92705 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 30 30 31 HB City Elementary School Dist. HB City Elementary School Dist. School Dist. Gregg Haulk, Superintendent John Archiald Attn:Cindy Ocean View ViewPulfer,Admin.Services 17011 Beach Blvd,Ste 560 17011 Beach Blvd,Ste 560 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 31 32 32 Ocean View School Dist. Westminster School District Westminster School District Gustavo Balderas,Superintendent Tony Wold Marian Kim Phelps,Superintendent 17200 Pinehurst Lane 14121 Cedarwood Avenue j 14121 Cedarwood Avenue Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Westminster,CA 92683 Westminster,CA 92683 33 33 36 HB Union High School District HB Union High School District OC County Harbors, Beach&Parks Dept. j Stephen Ritter Greg Plutko, Superintendent P.O.Box 4048 5832 Bolsa Avenue 5832 Bolsa Avenue Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 54 57 58 Third Party Environmental Review Kathleen Belohovek Debra Keefer Southern California Edison Company 9101 Five Harbors Dr. 7871 Seabreeze Dr 2244 Walnut Grove Ave,GO-1,Quad 2C Huntington Beach,CA.92646 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Rosemead,CA 91770 62 62 Randy Coe,CCIM Randy Coe,CCIM Jim Martin Senior Vice President ! Senior Vice President 7542 Taylor Drive Land Advisors Organization Land Advisors Organization Huntington Beach,CA 92648 100 Spectrum Drive,Suite 1400 100 Spectrum Drive,Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92618 Irvine,CA 92618 2 0TWIT u�. 19157/eUP N9 RNz ti 159-102-43 159-102-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18631 Beach Blvd 18635 Beach Blvd 18637 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2054 159-102-43 159-102-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18639 Beach Blvd 18641 Beach Blvd 18645 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2054 930-034-33 930-034-35 930-034-36 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 333 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 100 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 102 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5694 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1349 930-034-38 930-034-39 930-034-41 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 104 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 105 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 108 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1349 i Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1349 930-034-42 930-034-43 930-034-44 Occupant -Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 208 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 209 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 210 Huntington Beach,Ca 9.2648-1349 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1349 Huntington-Beach, Ca 92648-1349 930-034-45 930-034-46 930-034-48 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 211 1837T Beach Blvd Unit 212 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 215 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1349 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-1349 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1349 I 930-034-49 930-034-52 930-034-54 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 216 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 222 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 323 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1349 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1350 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1350- 930-034-57 930-034-59 930-034-60 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 326 18377 Beach Blvd-Unit 328 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 329 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1350 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1350 i 7 oLIZ 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 12 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 14 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 15 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1477 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1477 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1478 .159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 16 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 17 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 18 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1478 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1478 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1478 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 19 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 2 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 20 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1479 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1475 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1479 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 ! Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 21 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 3 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 4 Huntington Beach Ca 92648-1475 Huntington Beach Ca 92648-1475 !� g , 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 5 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 6 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 7 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1476 - Huntington-Beach,Ca 92645-1476 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1476 I i 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-26 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 8 j 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 9 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 334 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1476 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1477 Huntington Beach- Ca 92648-5694 159-031-26 159 102-01 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 335 18501 Beach Blvd 18541 Beach Blvd Unit 101 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5694 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2053 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-8002 j 159-102-43 159-102-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18541 Beach Blvd Unit 1.02 19561 Beach Blvd Unit 101 18561 Beach Blvd Unit 102 -Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8002 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2057 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2057 I 159-102-43 159-102-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18575 Beach Blvd 18581 Beach Blvd 18583 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2054 159-102-43 159-102-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18585 Beach Blvd 18595 Beach Blvd 18607 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2054 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648,2054 Huntington.Beach, Ca 92648-2054 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 3 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 4 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 5 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1470 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1471 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1471 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 6 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 7 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 8 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1471 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1471 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1472 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant- 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 9 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 1 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 10 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1472 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1345 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1481 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 11 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 12 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 14 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1482 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1482 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1482 I 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 15 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 16 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 17 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1482 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1467 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1467 ' I 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 18 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 19 I 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 2 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1467 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1467 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1480 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 7882-Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 20- 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 21 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1468 Huntington Beach., Ca 92648-1468 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1480 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant_ Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 4 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 5 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 6 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1480 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1480 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1480 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 7 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 8 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 9, Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1481 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1481 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1481 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 1 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 10 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 11 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1475 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1477 Huntington.Beach, Ca 92648-1477 a I I 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit D 18351 Beach Blvd Unit E 18351 Beach Blvd Unit F Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1346 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1347 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1347 I 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit G 18351 Beach Blvd Unit H 18351 Beach Blvd Unit I Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1347 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1347 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1348 159-031-24 159-031.24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit J 18351 Beach Blvd Unit K 18351 Beach Blvd Unit L Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1348 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg Unit 1 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 2 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1492 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1492 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1469 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 j Occupant Occupant Occupant 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 4 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 5 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 6 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1469 Huntington,Beach, Ca 92648-1469 Huntington-Beach, Ca 92648-1469 I 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 7 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bidg C Unit 8 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 1 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1469 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1491 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1470 i 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 10 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D U-nit 11 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 12 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1472 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1472 Huntington-Beach, Ca 92648-1473 159-031-24 ! 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 14 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 15 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 16 Huntington Beach,Ca-92648-1473 j 'Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1473 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-147-4 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 17 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 18 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 19 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1474 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1474 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1474 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 2 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 20 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 21 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1470 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1474 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1474 F I 157-471-33 157-471-33 j 157-502-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 661 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 662 8142 Ellis Ave Unit A Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0922 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0922 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1711 157-502-01 157-502-01 157-502-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8142 Ellis Ave Unit B 8142 Ellis Ave Unit C 8142 Ellis Ave Unit D , Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1711 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1711 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1711 157-502-02 157-502-02 157-502-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8132 Ellis Ave Unit A 8132 Ellis Ave Unit B 8132-Ellis Ave Unit C Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1710 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1710 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1710 j 157-502-02 157-502-03 157-502-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8132 Ellis Ave Unit D 18531 Demion Ln Unit A 18531 Demion Ln.Unit B Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1710 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8824 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8824 157-502-03 157-502-03 157-502-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 18531 Demion Ln Unit C 18531 Demion Ln Unit D 18541 Demion Ln Unit A Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8824 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8824 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8826 157-502-04 157-502-04 157-502-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18541 Demion Ln Unit B 18541 Demion Ln Unit C 18541 Demion Ln Unit D Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8826 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8826 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8826 I 159-031-08 159-031-08 159-031-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 1-8421 Beach Blvd -18423 1/2 Beach Blvd 18423 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1329 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1329 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1329 i 159-031-08 159-031--08 159-031-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18425 Beach Blvd 18427 Beach Blvd 18429 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,-Ca 92648-1329 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1329 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1329 159-031-10 159-031-17 159-031-22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18477 Beach Blvd 18455 Beach Blvd 18361 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca-92648-1329 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1329 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1310 j i 159-031-24 159-031-2-4 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit A 18351 Beach Blvd Unit B 18351 Beach Blvd Unit C Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1346 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1346 j Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1346 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 627 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 628 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 629 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 ' I i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 630 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 631 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 632 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 Huntington-Beach, Ca 92648-0920 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 634 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 635 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 636 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 637 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 638 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 639 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 640 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 641 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 642 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0920 Huntington.Beach, Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant j Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 643 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 644 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 645 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0920 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 646 18504 Beach Blvd Un.it 647 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 649 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 650 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 651 18504_Beach Blvd Unit 653 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant ' 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 654 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 655 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 656 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 657 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 658 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 659 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0921 9 Ii a 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 544 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 545 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 546 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0917 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 547 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 549 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 550 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0917 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 551 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 553 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 555 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 556 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 557 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 558 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 559 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 561 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 562 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 600 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 602 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 604 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 605 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 606 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0918 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264870918 I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 607 1:8504 Beach Blvd Unit 609 18504 Bea;h.Blvd Unit 611 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92-648-0919 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0919 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 i Occupant Occupant Occupant ! 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 613 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 615 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 617 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 623 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 625 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 626 Huntingto-n Beach, Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0919 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 508 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 509 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 510 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 511 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 512 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 513 Huntington Beach,Ca.92648-0915 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 ! 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 514 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 515 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 516 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 i i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 517 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 518 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 523 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0915 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 525 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 526 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 527 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach-,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0916 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 528 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 529 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 530 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0916 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-3 3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 531 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 532 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 534 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0916 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 535 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 536 18504 Beach.Blvd Unit 537 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 538 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 539 i 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 540 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0916 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0917 ! 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 541 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 542 18504 Beach.Blvd Unit 543 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-09.17 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0917 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant j Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 436 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 437 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 438 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 . 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 439 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 440 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 441 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 442 18504 Beach-Blvd Unit 443 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 444 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 445 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 446 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 447 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 449 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 450 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 451 i Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 j Occupant Occupant Occupant '. 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 453 j 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 454 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 455 j Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0913 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant i 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 456 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 457 18504-Beach Blvd Unit 458 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0914 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 459 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 461 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 462 I Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-.0914 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 500 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 502 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 504 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 505 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 506 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 507 I Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0914 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0915 I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 400 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 402 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 404 j Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0910 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 j Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 405 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 406 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 407 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0910 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 408 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 409 18504 Beach Blvd-Unit 410 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 411 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 412 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 413 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 j Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 414 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 415 18504 Bea.ch-Blvd Unit 416 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 417 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 418 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 422 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 423 18504.Beach Blvd Unit 425 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0911 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant i 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 426 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 427 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 428 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 429 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 430 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 431 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 432 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 434 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 435 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0912 i - ---157-471-33 �-- - - - 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 327 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 328 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 329 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0908 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 330 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 331 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 332 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0908 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 334 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 335 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 336 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0908 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 337 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 338 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 339 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 i j 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant j Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 340 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 341 j 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 342 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0909 I Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0909 i Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 343 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 344 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 345 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0909 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0909 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 j Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 346 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 347 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 349 ' Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0909 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 157-471-33 157-471-33- 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 351 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 353 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 355 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0909 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0909 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 356 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 357 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 358 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648--0910 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 359 1850.4 Beach Blvd Unit 361 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 362 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0910 P W s .. -. ,l . I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 251 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 255 j 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 256 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0923 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 257 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 258 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 259 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 157-471-3 3 157-471-3 3 157-471-3 3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 261 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 262 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 300 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 302 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 304 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 305 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 I i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 306 18504 Beach Blvd Unite 307 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 308 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0906 i Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0906 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 309 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 310 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 311 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 312 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 313 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 314 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 315 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 316 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 317 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 318 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 320 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 322- Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 323 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 325 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 326 ! Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0907 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0908 Y- - 7 157-471-33 157-471-33 i 157 4 1 33 Occupant Occupant j Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 209 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 211 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 213 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 215 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 217 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 218 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0903 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 220 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 222 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 223 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0904 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 225 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 226 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 227 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0904 I � 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 228 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 229 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 230 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 i i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 231 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 232 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 234 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0904 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471 33 -Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 235 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 236- 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 237 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0904 Huntington.Beach,Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0905 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 239 18504 Beach B.Ivd Unit 239 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 240 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648=0905 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0905 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 241 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 242 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 243 -0905 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 i i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 245 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 247 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 249 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0905 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0905 M 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 112 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 116 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 120 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0924 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0924 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0924 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 200 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 202 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 204 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2027 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 206 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 208 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 210 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2027 i i 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 300 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 302 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 304 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2027 I -- 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 306 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 308 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 310 i Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2027 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 400 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 4.02 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 404 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2027 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0900 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0900 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 i Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 406 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 408 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 410 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0900 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0900 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0900 157-471-3 3 157-471-3 3 157-471-3 3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 100 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 102 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 104 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0902 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0902 -Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0902 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 118 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 200 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 202 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 i - I 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 204 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 205 18504 Beach Blvd Unit 207 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0903 II i i 157-471-3 2 -157-471-3 Z 157-471-3 2 I Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 311 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 312 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 313 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8879 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8879 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8879 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 314 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 315 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 316 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8879 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8879 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8879 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 317 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 318 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 319 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8879 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8879 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8880 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant j Occupant Occupant ' 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 320 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 321 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 322 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8880 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8880 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8880 I - - 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 323 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 324 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 325 j Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8880 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8880 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8880 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 326 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 327 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 328 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8886 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8881 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8881 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 j Occupant -Occupant Occupant i 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 329 81D2 Ellis Ave Unit 336 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 337 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8881 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8881 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8881 157=471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 338 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 339 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 340 I Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8881 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8882 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8882 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 341 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 342 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 343 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8882 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8882 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8882 157-471-33 157-471-33 157-471-33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 100 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 104 18502 Beach Blvd Unit 108 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0924 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0924 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0924 r I k 157-471-32 1S7-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 218 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 219 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 220 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8875 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8875 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8875 157-471-3 2 157-471-3 2 157-471-3 2 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 221 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 222 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 223 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8875 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8875 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8875 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-47-1-32 Occupant Occ-upant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 224 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 225 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 226 Huntington Beach,Ca.92646-8876 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8876 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8885 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 227 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 228 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 229 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8885 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8885 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8885 157-471-3 2 157-471-3 2 157-471-3 2 -Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 236 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 237 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 238 I Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8885 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8885 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8877 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 239 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 240 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 241. Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8877 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8877 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8877 i 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 242 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 243 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 301 j Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8877 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8877 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8877 � I 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 302 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 303 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 304 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8877 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8878 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8878 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 305 81-02 Ellis Ave Unit 306 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 307 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8878 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8878 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8878 I 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 308 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 309 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 310 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8878 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8878 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8878 157-471-32 157-471-32 ! 157-471-32 i Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 121 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 122 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 128 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8871 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8871 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8871 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 129 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 130 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 131 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8871 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8872 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8872 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 132 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 133 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 134 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8872 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8872 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8872 157-471-32 j 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant % Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 135 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 136 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 137 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8872 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8872 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8872 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 jOccupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 138 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 201 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 202 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8873 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8873 Hu-ntington Beach, Ca 92646-8873 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 203 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 204 8102.Ellis Ave Unit 205 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8873 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8873 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8873 i 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 206 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 207 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 208 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8873 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8873 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8874 I 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 209 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 210 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 211 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8874 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-88:4 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8884 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 212 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 213 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 214 j Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8884 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8884 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8884 I 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 215 8102 Ellis Ave.Unit 216 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 217 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8884 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8875 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8875 lid 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 233 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 235 ! 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 236 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2063 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2063 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2063 .157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 239 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 23B 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 240 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2063 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648=2012 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2063 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 3 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 8A 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 8B Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2029 i 157-471-06 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 9 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 101 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 102 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8869 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8869 , 157-471-3 2 157-471-32 157-471-3 2 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 103 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 104 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 105 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8869 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8869 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8869 i ! i 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 106 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 107 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 108 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8869 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8869 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8869 i 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 109 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 110 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 111 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8869 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8883 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8883 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 8102 Ellis AveUnit 112 j 8102 Ellis Ave Unit-113 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 114 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8883 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8883 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8883 157-471-32 157-4-71-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 115 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 116 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 117 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8867 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8870 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8871 157-471-32 157-471-32 157-471-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 118 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 119 8102 Ellis Ave Unit 120 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8871 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8871 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8871 157-471-06 157-471-06 ; 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 1C 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 2 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 20 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2012 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 201 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 202 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 203 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2081 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 204 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 205 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 206 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2081 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2081 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2081 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 207 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 208 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 209 Huntington Beach.,Ca 92648-2081 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2081 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2081 157-471-06 1S7-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 21 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 210 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 211 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2043 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2043 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 212 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 213 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 214 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2043 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2043 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2012 157-471-06 1-57-471-06 157-471-06 i Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 215 18582 Beach Blvd.Unit 216 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 218 i Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2043 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2082 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2082 i 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 22 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 223 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 224 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2082 Huntington Beach, Ca 926433-2082 i 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 225 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 226 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 229 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2093 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2093 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2063 j 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 230 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 231 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 232 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2063 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2063 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2063 { h II P p' 157-352-03 157-352-03 157-352-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18301 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18301 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18301 Patterson Ln Unit 4 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1688 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1688 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1688 157-352-04 157-352-04 157-352-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18311 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18311 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18311 Patterson Ln Unit 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1690 Huntington Beach,Ca 92.646-1690 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1690 157-352-04 157-352-05 157-352-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18311 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18302 Beach Blvd 18310 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1690 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 157-352-05 157-352--05 157-352-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18312 Beach Blvd 18314 Beach Blvd 18316 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 i 157-352-05 157-352-05 157-352-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18318 Beach Blvd 18320 Beach Blvd 18322 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 I Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 j 157-352-05 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18330 Beach Blvd 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 1 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 10 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2029 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 I Occupant Occupant Occupant I 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 11 18S82 Beach Blvd Unit 12 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 121 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2071 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2083 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2012 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 13 18-582 Beach Blvd Unit 14 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 15 i Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 i 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 16 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 17 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 18 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92.648-2012 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 19 18582 Beach Blvd Unit 1A 1.8582 Beach Blvd Unit 1B Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2012 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2029 yu � � g, REMEMER II T� i qw, 157-343-05 157-343-06 157-343-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8112 Forelle Dr Unit 4 8132 Forelle Dr Unit 1 8132 Forelle Dr Unit 2 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7719 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1698 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1698 157-343-06 157-343-06 157-343-21 Occupant Occupant. Occupant 8132 Forelle Dr Unit 3 8132 Forelle Dr Unit 4 18432 Patterson Ln I Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1698 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1698 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1664 157-343-21 157-343-21 157-343-22 Occupant Occupant Occupant I 18442 Patterson Ln I 8072 La Palma Dr 8092 La Palma Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1664 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1664 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1655 157-343-24 157-343-24 157-343-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8131 La Palma Dr Unit A 8131 La Palma Dr Unit B 8131 La Palma Dr Unit C Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1630 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1630 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1630 I 157-343-25 157-343-25 157-343-25 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8121 La Palma Dr Unit A 8121 La Palma Dr Unit B 8121 La Palma Dr Unit C Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1632 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1632 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1632 157-343-28 157-343-28 157-343-28 j Occupant Occupant Occupant 18412 Patterson Ln Unit A 18412 Patterson Ln Unit B 18422 Patterson Ln Unit A Huntington Beach, 92646-1666 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1666 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1657 157-343-28 157-343-31 157-343-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18422 Patterson Ln Unit-B 8101 Ellis Ave 8071 1/2 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1657 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1721 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1767 157-352-01 157-352-01 157-352-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18312 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18312 Patterson-Ln Unit 2 18312 Patterson Ln Unit 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1684 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1684 Huntington Beach, Ca-92646-1684 157-352-01 157-352-02 157-352-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18312 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18302 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18302 Patterson Ln Unit 2 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1684 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1686 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1686 157-352-02. 157-352-02 157-352-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant p 18302 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18302 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18301 Patterson Ln Unit 1 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1686 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1686 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1688 157-341-16 157-341-16 157-341-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant i 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 4 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1674 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1674 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1674 i 157-341-17 157-341-17 157-341-17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1672 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1672 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1672 157-341-17 157-341-18 157-341-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 2 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1672 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1696 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1696 157-341-18 157-341-18 157-341-19 Occupant Occupant Occupant i 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 1 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1696 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1696 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1694 i 157-341-19 157-341-19 157-341-19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 4 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1694 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1694 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1694 157-341-20 157-341-20 157-341-20 I Occupant Occupant Occupant 18331 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18331 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18331 Patterson Ln Unit 3 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1692 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1692 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1692 I 157-341-20 157-341-23 157-341-23 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18331 Patterson In Unit 4 • 18451 Patterson Ln Unit 101 18451 Patterson Ln Unit 102 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1692 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1720 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1720 157-342-01 157-342-01 157-342-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18332 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18332 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18332 Patterson Ln Unit 3 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264-6-1682 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1682 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1682 157-342-01 157-342-02 157-342-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18332 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18342 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18342 Patterson Ln Unit 2 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1682 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1680 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1680 157-342-02 157-342-02 157-342-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18342 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18342 Patterson Ln Unit 4 8091 Forelle Dr Unit 1 i Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1680 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1680 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7714 "4a I 157-342-03 157-342-03 157-342-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8091 Forelle Dr Unit 2 8091 Forelle Dr Unit 3 8091 Forelle Dr Unit 4 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7714 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7714 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7714 157-342-04 157-342-04 157-342-04 i Occupant Occupant. Occupant 8101 Forelle Dr Unit 1 8101 Forelle Dr Unit 2 8101 Forelle Dr Unit 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7712 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7712 Huntington Beac-h, Ca 92646-7712 157-342-04 157-342-05 157-342-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8101 Forelle Dr Unit 4 8111 Forelle Dr Unit 1 8111 Forelle Dr Unit 2 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7712 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7710 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7710 157-342-05 157-342-05 157-343-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8111 Forelle Dr Unit 3 8111 Forelle Dr Unit 4 18382 Patterson Ln Unit 1 I Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7710 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7710 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1668 i 157-343-01 157-343-01 157-343-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant i - 18382 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18382 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18382 Patterson Ln Unit 4 Huntington$each;Ca 92646-1668 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1668 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1668 157-343-02 157-343-02 157-343-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18372 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18372 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18372 Patterson Ln Unit 3 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1670 Huntington Beach,Ca-92646-1670 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1670 i 157-343-02 157-343-03- 157-343-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18372 Patterson Ln Unit 4 8092 Forelle Dr Unit 1 8092 Forelle Dr Unit 2 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1670 Huntington Beach,-Ca 92646-7715 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7715 157-343-03 157-343-03 157-343-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8092 Forelle Dr Unit 3 8092 Forelle Dr Unit 4 8102 Forelle Dr Unit 1 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7715 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-7715 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7717 I 157-343-04 157-343-04 157-343-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8102 Forelle Dr Unit 2 8102 Forelle Dr Unit 3 8102 Forelle Dr Unit 4 I Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7717 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7717 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7717 157-343-05 157-343-05 157-343-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8112 Forelle Dr Unit 1 8112 Forelle Dr Unit 2 8112 Forelle Dr Unit 3 HuntinRton Beach Ca 92646-7719 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7719 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7719 C � 157-341-01 157-341-01 157-341-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18344 Beach Blvd 18346 Beach Blvd 18348 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 157-341-01 157-341-01 157-341-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18350 Beach Blvd 18352 Beach Blvd 18354 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 157-341-01 157-341-02 157-341-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18356 Beach Blvd 18358 Beach Blvd 18360 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1311 151-341-02 157-341-02 157-341-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18362 Beach Blvd 18364 Beach Blvd 18382 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1311 Huntington Beach,.Ca 92648-1311 157-341-05 157-341-06 157-341-07 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18400 Beach Blvd 18462 Beach Blvd 8031 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1312 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1312 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1719 i 157-341-08 157-341-11 157-341-11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8041 Ellis Ave 18441 Patterson Ln Unit A 18441 Patterson Ln Unit B Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1719 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1678 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1678 157-341-11 157-341-12 157-341 12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18441 Patterson Ln Unit C 18421 Patterson Ln 18.425 Patterson Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1678 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1660 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1660 157-341-12 157-341-13 157-341-13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18431 Patterson Ln 18409 Patterson Ln U-nit A 18409 Patterson Ln Unit B Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1660 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1676 Huntington Beach; Ca 92646-1676 157-341-13 157-341-14 157-341-14 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18411 Patterson Ln 18401 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18401 Patterson Ln Unit 2 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1660 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1662 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1662 i 157-341-15 157-341-15 157-341-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18391 Patterson Ln Unit 101 18391 Patterson Ln Unit 102 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 1 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-1600 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1600 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-1674 Switzer, Donna From: David Ward <daward@scng.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 8:03 AM To: De Coite, Kim Cc: (dward@ocregister.com); Sandra Campos (Scampos@ocregister.com);Aube, Nicolle; Vigliotta, Mike;Villasenor,Jennifer; Esparza, Patty; Estanislau, Robin; Switzer, Donna; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula Subject: Re: Legal Notice to be published in the HB Wave on 2/6 Good morning Kim. Your notice is all set and ready to go. Have a great weekend. Ad#11359717 Run Date 2/6 Cost $200 PROOF i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BE HE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 6:00 p Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council wil hearing on the following planning and zoning items: I DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRA� M4 EE13MIT N 7-042. TH E MATT E R I S R1 F scan : Jeff Herbst, MCG Ai Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine CA 92618 . Tahir Salim, THDT Investm( River Road, Suite 304, Corona, CA 92880 Reau idL@ The City Council will consii to demolish an existing liquor store, residence, and portion of a former car we one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building includ dominium residences-with 891 square feet of commercial space and three lev+ nean parking. LOCCINOM 8041 Ellis Av ue aich Boulevard (North side of tween Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.) Nicol le Aube, Associate ON F I LE : A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Develc ment, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection b COPY o f t e staff report.wi l I b av i lab le to interested parties at the City C ler� line at ht�p: www•huntington eac ca.9ov on Thursday, February 13, 2020. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and exppri submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you cha Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you o raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspond to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the abovc your written communications to the City Clerk Robin Estanislau, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-527� http://huntingtonbeachca.gov HBPublicComments/ Published : The Huntington Beach Wave February 6, 202011359717 David Ward Legal Advertising Rep 2190 S. Towne Centre PI. Anaheim, CA 92806 714-796-6764 daward@scng.com PLEASE NOTE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED 2 SOUTHERn CALIFORMH NEWS GROUP On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:09 PM De Coite, Kim<KDeCoitensurfcity-hb.M> wrote: Please see the attached notice to be published in the HB Wave on 2/6. Thank you, Kimberly De Coite Administrative Assistant Department of Community Development 714-536-5276 kdecoite@surfcity-hb.org 3