HomeMy WebLinkAboutVILLAGES PARTNERSHIP - 1986-08-20aer-ording rboueste'd by: City of Huntington Beach, CA
_Aftee:recordsng mail to: 0f of the City Clerk, City of. Heington Beath
• • 2000 Main St.,, Nuntingtnn Beach, CA_
This ' doetuaent is, solely for the EXEMPT
��f-3978�20
official`' be.iness of the City C Z
Lof {Huntington Bench, ns cotite, `AFFO iGREEMENT
Platedundo- Gaverrirtent Code ;
Soo. �6103 and should be recorded
tree of ehpr-,
THIS 'AGREEMEW, made and entered into on they day of
, 1986, is by and between the CITY COUNCIL of
the.CITY OF HUNTINGTON' BEECH, a public body, corporate and politic
(the "City" herein) , and tTIL- AC?:S PAR'I't•ERSHIP, a General Partnership,
("Participant" herein).
WHEREAS, the preparation by Participant, approval by the City,
and subsequent recordation of an Affordability Developrr,ent Agreement has
been imposed by the City as a condition of approval of Participant's
Zone Case=B-67-1 5, Ordinance No. 2821-13 and Condi :ional Use Permit -
No. $6-12 for the development and us' of the project area; and,
WHEREAS, :his Agreem• nt is ent Bred into for the purpose of
setting forth the total number of units and continued affordability
of such units for said project; and,
WHEREAS, the ful f i 1 Imer.t of this Agreement and the development
of the site pursuant to this Agreement are in the best interests of
the City and the health, safety.' and wel f -%r•n of its resld,:-nts, an'i
in accoraance with public purposes and provisions of applicable Feder-
a1, State anti 1oca1 laws and requirements.
NOIK, THEREFORE. IT IS HEREBY At REED by and between the parties,
as follows:
1. PROJECT AREA/SITE: The project area consists of approxi-
mately 3.09 `gross acres, generally locat!d west of 'Springdale Street
f _ -
80-39T820
and south of Edinger Ave nue,iand.commonly_'described as 17111 Spring
dale 'Street, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, and more -particularly 'described as follows:
The east 4.00 acres of the south half of the northwest
quart :er.'of the northeast quarter of Section 21, Town-
ship 5 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho has Bolsa
Chica, city of Huntington Beach, county of Orange,
state of California, as per map recorded in Book 51,
page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the
County Recorder of said county.
Excepting therefrom the north 15C.00 feet thereof.
2. NUMBER AND TYPE OF UNITS: Participant has been granted
a Conditional Use Permit to build a maximum of one hundred thirteen
(113) Senior Citizensrental units, clus one (1) manager's unit,
for a total of one hundred fourteen (114) units, ,object to the Con-
ditions imposed by the City in Conditional Use Permit t:c. 86-12, which
was approved by the Planning Commission o. the City on or about April
1, 1986.
3. AFf'gRDhIsLE UT'ITS: Participant shall be required, and
hereby agrees to, provide and rent one-third (1/3) of the total num-
ber of units, being thirty-eight '38) units, as "affc2-dable" units in
said project. said "a, of"tic3Lic" unit%_s shell b-• provided as follows:
a. Where Federal Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing is
provided for said project, Participant agrees to comply with the af-
fordable housing requirements ,`.or said Federal Financing program.
b. The "affordable" units not required to be provided
by the Federal Mcrtgage Revenue Bond Financing program shall be pro-
vided by Participant as follows:
i
2-
r
gE. 397820
(l) Fifty percent (SQL) to households of "moder-
ate" income; and,
(2) Fifty percent (50%) to households of "low
income.
"Low" income households as used herein, shall be
`defined to mean those households earning up to eighty percent (80%)
of the .Orange County median family income, as determined by the Center
for Economic Research at Chapman College in Orange, California. "Mod-
erate". income households as used herein, shall be defined to mean
those households earning up to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of
the.Orange County median family income, as determined by the Center
for=Economic Reseercn at Chapman College in Orange, California.
C. The remaininc seventy-five percent (75%) of the
total number of units, being ei.ghty-five (65) Senior Citizens' rental
units, may be provided and ren•:.ed at market rates by Participant.
4. DURATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS: The said "affordable"
units.shall continue to be so provided and rented for the duration
of the bonding period, if applicable, or fifteen (15) years, which-
ever is longer. '
5. SENIOR CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: Each unit shall be occupied by
at least one (1) person who is sixty-two (62) years of age, or older.
No person or persons under the age of forty-five (45) shall be per-
mitted as full-time residents of the project, eucepting the resident
Manager(s)
6. NOTICES: Any notice required hereunder shall be in writ
ing. and sent postage pre -paid via Certified or Registered Mail, ad-
`dres.sed in the case. of the City to:
-3
3�7820
CITY . OF iHU'•'TI TIN BEACH
2000 Mai- `Street
P.O`. Box 190
Huntington'Beach, CA 92648
Attn:
and in'the case `of Participant, to:
VILLAGES PARTNERSHIP
1`610 14th Street, Suite 207
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Attn: T. Daniel Neveau
or as may otherwise be changed in this same manner.
.7. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS: This instrument and the rights
Wand obligations herein contained shall run with the land for the dura-
tion hereof, unless earlier amended or terminated by the parties here-
to.,-.
In no event may this Agreement, or any of the obligations herein
contained, be amended, changed, or terminated without the prior writ-
ten consent of :.he City of Huntington Beach. This instrument shall
bind and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, personal repre-
sentatives, successors an.1 assigns of the parties.
It: WITNESS WiiEREGr, the parties have placed their signatures
below, on the date, first above written, at Huntington Beach, California.
City: CITY OF HL?NTI NvTUN REACH
Mayor y
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LICIA "1..►IEtITt10RTH. CITY CLERK
OVAAj
By: DEPUEt i ty Clerk City Attorney
irector cif Development Services
f
86-397820
CITY OF HUNTINGTON.BEACH
►.. 2000 Mai- Street
'P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn:
and in.the case of Participant, to:
VILLAGES PARTNERSHIP
1810 14th Street, Suite 207
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Attn: T. Daniel Neveau
or as may otherwise be changed in this same manner.
7. BINDIr.G ON SUCCESSORS: This instrument and the rights
and obligations herein contained shall run with the land for the dura-
tion hereof, unless earlier amended or terminated by the parties here-
to. In no event max this Agreement, or any of the obligations hereiia
contained, be amended, changed, or terminated without the prior writ-
ten consent of the City of Huntington Beach. This instrument shall
bind and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, personal repre-
sentativPs, successors and assigns of the parities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have placed their signatures
below, on the date first above written, at Huntington Beach, California.
�.��� .,,... :, �.... �104"`r''.'�'tl,J`t}er,,'Y::x,^.r;'1, k;• n•r+rn:r.� .. ... _.... ......... .. ......__. _.. _.._.. .. _..... � . T+£`�� ..•g:� '" 3e .... 'RS'rvTt- •+!:++'nraw.r+e+w.........�..«+w�«..._.........,......�.
397
...STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 8671 82O
CCvnTY OF ORAIM
J
u5m
Onthis day of 15 before me ,,tom
Lary. Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
�� � C . , r • known to me to be the Mayor
and : C�t�k1.1 g. �ts�•+��_., known to me to be the o
City Clerk
of 'the City of Huntington Beach, the municipal car ratir�
p ho n that executed
the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the
within instrument on hehalf'of said municipal corporation and acknowledged
to'Za that such municipal corporation executed the same.
(Sianture)
(Prim. Name)
(Title)
'STATE OF CALIFOR141A j
COUNTY OF.ORANGE ss
On July 28, 1986 , 1986, before me Bette Harilla ►
,a Notary Public for the State of California, personally appeared
Daniel Nevcau _ known to :ne to be one of the
partners VILLAGES PARTNERSHIP that executed the within, instrument,
and acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same.
.,,�^_.J tt'� , ~ "___..fit ► _. (% ►—�' - -
OFFICIAL SEAL (Signature)
BETTE WILLA Notary Public for the State
9►t hairy
PuWK-Cio ►nla of California
0PA%G[ GQUNtY
My Commission expire-:
�a• 86r-397820
ORDINANCE NO. '2853
AN�14 ,OMINANCE OF THE � CITY OF 11UNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING,THE;�AFFORDATIILITY. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 'A
,11M UNIT SENIOR ,CITIZENS APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED
WEST OF 'SPRINGDALE STREET, SOUTWOF ` EDINGER '
'WIIEREAS,,pursunnt'to City"Council Resolution No. 5390, the.
Huntington beach Planning Coninie-ion and Huntington Beach.City
0.
,.
• Council have had.separate`public hearings=relative 'to the
Affordability.De►velopment Agreemeit:for a 114 unit senior citizens
apartment project located on Springdale Street approximately 760
feet south of Edinger Avenue. and
WHF., AS, both bodies have carefully considered all
information presented at said herrings, and after due consideration
of all findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and
•' all evidence presented to said City Council the City Council finds
that the'Affordability Development Agreement is proper, and
consistent with the general plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Huntington
'beach hereby approves the attached Affordability Development
Agreement (Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the city Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2I_s_
;day'of July 1986.
Omyor
APPROVE AS TO FORMt
�i y L"TerTc 1 ty torney/—
REV I E7
INITIATED AND APPROVEDI
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS �
OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
-3 sc) phi SEP 2'86
Cry �� cl f [C,++m
.. 4 .. »,-n .i ..qg t :;iuY++,.q„�
Recording requested by: Ct* of. ngtan'Beach, CA ,,
After 'recai'Sirdt ng `mai 1 ta.: 0 ,r ,.e of the Ci ty c irk, City of °. ingtan Ba"c-h `86-0-398��
4 2000 Main St., Huntington'Beach, CA
EXEMPT
far y
This �doottiaent is solely
the
`ofticiel business of. the Citg
of�Huntin8t6n Beach, ns:contem- ,
:AFFORDABILITY 'AGREEMENT
fated N.,.
P,. under erment Coda
Soa. 6103 and should be recordad.
.
free of ehnr"a ? �,
THIS 'AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the.O� day of
ti
1986, is by and between the CITY COUNCIL of
�._ the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, corporate afid politic
O (the "City" herein), and VILLAGES PARTNERSHIP, a General Partnership,
.U..
s
pt ("Participant" herein).
b
tr �' WHEREAS, the preparation by Participant, approval by the City,
av�
and subsequent recordation of an Affordability Development Agreement has
tJ;Z beer. imposed by the City as a condition of approval of Participant's
Zone.Case 4B-33-13, Ordinance No. 2B21-B and Conditional Use Permit
No. 86-12 for the development and use of the project area; and,
WHEP.EAS, this Agreement is entered into for the put pose oz
setting forth the total number of units and continued affordability
of such units for said project; and,
WHEREAS, the fulfillment of this Agreement and the development
of the site pursuant to this Agreement are in the best interests of
the City and the health, safety and welfare of i.ts residents, and
in accordance with public purposes and provisions of applicable Federr
al, State::and local laws and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties,
as follows
1. PROJECT AREA/SITE:. The 'project area consists of approxi-
matply 1.09'cross acres. aenerallv. located west of Springdale Street
and south of Edinger Avenue, and commonly described as 17111 Sprzng-�
dale Street, -City of.`Huntington 'Beach, `County 'of Orange, State orf
Cali fornia,'and more`particularly`described as follows:
..The east 4 .00 'acres o£ the south '`half 'of the northwest
"quarter of thenortheast quarter of'Section 21,,'Town
s.hi.p '5 -South, 'Range 11 West, in 'the Rancho Las Bolsa
- Chica, city of Huntington Beach, county of Orange,
state of California, as per map recorded in Book 51,
page 1.31 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the
County:Recoider of said county.
.'Excepting'therefrom the north 150.00 feet thereof.
2. NUMBER AND TYPE OF UNITS: Participant has been granted
a Conditional Use Permit to build a maximum of one hundred thirteen
.(113)`Senior Citizens' rental units, plus one (1) manager's unit,
fora total of one hundred fourteen (114) units, subject to the Con-
ditions imposed by the City in Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12, which
was approved b% the Planning Cc,mmission of the Cit}� on or about April
3. AFFORDABLE UNITS: Participant shill be required, and
hereby agrees to, provide and rent one-third (1/3) o: the total num-
ber of units, being thirty-eight (38) units, as "affordable" units in
said project. .Said "affordable". units shall be provided as follows:
a. Where 'ederal Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing is
(1) Fifty -percent (501) to households'of "mo�er-
a_e"income; and,
(2) Fifty percent (50%) to households o` "low
income.
Low" income households as used herein, shall be
`defined to,`me'an those households earning up to eighty percent (60t)
of the Orange County median family income, as determined by the Center
. for Economic Research at Chapman College in'O.range, California. "Mod-
erate income households as used herein, shall be defined to mean
those households earning up to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of
the Orange County median family income, as determined by the Center
for Economic Research at Chapman College in Orange, California.
C. The remaining seventy-five percent (75t) of the
fetal number of units, being eighty --five (65) Senior :'iLizens' rental
units, may be provided and rented at market rates by Participant..
4. DURATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS: Tne said "affordable"
units shall continue to be so provided and rented for the duration
of the bonding period, if applicable, or fifteen (15) years, which-
eYer is longer. '
5. SE
hIOR CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: Each unit shall be occupied by '
at least one (1) person who is sixty-two (62) years of age, or older.
No person or persons under :.he age of forty-five (45) shall be per-
: mitred as full-time residents of the project, excepting the resident
Manager(s)..
6. NOTICES:.'Any notice required he:Qunder shall be in writ-
ing ana sent postage pre -paid via Certified or Registered Mail, ad-
:dressed in the case of the'City tos
7. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS: This instrument and the rights.
and obligations herein contained shall run with the land for the aura-
tion hereof, unless earlier amended or terminated by the parties here-
to. I.i no event may this Agreement, or any of the obligations herein
contained, be amended, changed, or terminated without the prior w•rit-
ten.consent of the City of Huntington Beach. This instrument shall
bind and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, personal repre-
sentatives, successors and assions of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have placed their signatures
below, on the date first above written, at Huntington Beach, California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s s
'+(Signature)
Notary rublic for the State
of California
My Commission expires:
Y5'..
4 ti
ORDINANCE NO. 2$53 '
�`3
1tltOF 'riiE:'CITY OF BEACH ,
r
, ..ORDINANCE ; ,itUNTIlJCTON,, h
APPROVING;' THE AFF.ORD".1LITY''DE'VELOPMENT;, AGREEMENT FOR `A
. 42y4 UNIT,..SENIOR;'CITIZENS: APARTMEW PROJECT LOCATED
M�ESI' OF SPRINGDALE. STREET, '' SOUTH : OF . EDINGER
�z
WHEREAS,�pursuent'to, City Council Resolution No. 5390, the
... '..
Huntington" Reach Planning Conmiision'and'Huntington Beach City
Council have had scpazbte'public hearings relative to the-
;.,;.
Affordability,Development'Agreenent:fora 1l4`unit senior citicens
apartwent 'project located on Springdale Street appro7tisiately 760
`feet.south 'of Edinger Avenue, and
WHEREAS, both bodies have carefully considered all
information presented at said hearings,'and after due consideration
of all findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and i
•`
all evidence presented to said City Council the City Council finds
that the Affordability Development Agreement is proper, and
consistent with"the general plat.,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Huntington
Beech hereby approves the att6ched Affordability Developoent
Agreement (Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the city Council of the City of
Huntington Basch at a'regular meeting thereof held on the
dey of July. 1986.
mayor
APPROVE AS TO FORMt
city clarV i y ttorney
MIAPPROV Dt INITIATED AND APPROVED:
ty A to r er erector 51 Dave opment Services
-. Tfie foregoing .insirment is a correct
a ..
Copy "of the origins! on fete in this office, RECORDED IN OMCIAL RECORDS
OF ORANGE COUNTY CAUFORNIA
Clerk of the City of 'Huntington Beach ai:d ex -off icio Clerk of . the
City Council of 'the said•City,'do hereby certify that the whale number
of "members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that -the foregoing ordinance was:read to said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the lEth day of June
19 96 and was again read to said City Council at a regular
'meeting thereof he 1 d on the C 1st day o f July
14 E ( , and
was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote ..) more than a majority of
all the mersbers of said City Council.
AYES: ..Councilmen:
Ke11y,.; MacRl l istpr, !'andi c, E,ai lei , C,reen
NOES: Councilmen:
f:0ne
tiBSEN Councilmen:
Finlev, Thomas
'� a� -
r�L.'�,�J rI�/ • :t:�- /� i��'''.-�='✓vim �.
City Clerkand ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach,.California
F
SECTION 1. TI following procedures and requirements are
hereby established for consideration of development agreements:
'Section
1
Applicacions
-Section
2
Notices and Hearing
,.Section
3
Standards of Review, Findings and Decision
Section
4
Amendment and Cancellation of Agreement
Consent
Section
5
Recordation
Section
6
Periodic Review
Section
7
Modification or Termination
Section
1.
noplications
Section 1.1
Section 1.2
Section 1.3
Section 1.4
Section 1.5
Section 1.6
by Mutual
Authority for adoption
Forms and information
Fees
Qualification as an applicant
Proposed form of agreement
Review of application
Section 1.1 Authority for adoption. These
regulations are. adopted under the authority of Government Code
Sections 65664-65869.5.
Section 1.2 Forms and Information.
(a) The Director of Development Services shall pre-
scribe the form for each application, notice and documents pro-
i , vided for or required under these regulations for the preparation
Wand implementation of development agreements.
(b) The Director of Development Services may
require an applicant to sub it such information and supporting
data asdeemednecessary to process the application.
Section 1.3 Fees. The City Council shall by,,.
'separate resolution fix the schedule of -fees and charges imposed
for• the filing and processing of each 'application and document
Frovided.fo. or required under these regulations.
Section 1.4 Qualification as an apphicant: Only
a `quali`fied; applicant may: file and application to 'enter into a
devel'opmer�t `agreement. A .'qualified 'applicant is a :person ;who has
-legal `or. egtii"table :interest in the real '.property . which is ' the sub-
ject of "the `development"agreement. Applicant includes aut2iorized
agent._ The Director of Development ",Applicant
may, require .an appli--
`cant'to:`submit proof of his interest in 'the real property and of
tthp ,authority "of the _ agent ` to act for theapplicant.
Section 1:5 Proposed form of agreement. Each
application shall be accompanied by the or of development. agree-
meet proposed by the applicant.
Section 1,'6 Review of application. The Director
:of Development Services shall endorse on the application the date
it is received.. The.'aPplication may be rejected if it is incrim
plete or inaccurate for processing. If it is determined that the
application is complete, it shall be accepted for filing. The.
Director shall review the application and determine the additional
requirements necessary to complete the agreement. After receiving
the required information, a staff report and recommendation shall
be prepazed which shall state whether the proposed agreement is
consistent with. .the general plan and any applicable specific plans.
Section 2. t:otices and Hearinc.
Section 2.1 Duty to give notice
'Section 2.2 Requirements for form and time o_
notice of intention to consider adop-
tion of development agreement
Section 2.3 Rules governing conduct o: hearing
Section 2.1 Dutti• to give notice. The Director of
Development Services shall give notice ol intention to consider
adoption of development agreement and of any other public hearing
required by law or these rules.
Section 2.2 Recsuirenents for form and time of
notice of intention to consider adoption of development agreement
(a) Form of notice. The form of the notice of
Intention to. consider adoption of development agreement shall con-
tain:
(1) The time and place of hearing;
(2) A general. e�:planation of the matter to be
..considered, including a general description of the area affected;
and -
(3) Other information required by specific
;.provision of these regulations or which the Director: considers
necessary or desirable.
2.
(b) Ti*me "and manner of 'notice . The t i"me and 'manner
of. giving 'notice is by:
(1) rPublication or. i2osting. Publication at
least 'once in a newspaper of general circulation," `which is cir-,
cul"ated.in the' City 'of Huntington Beach.
(2) Mailinq. Mailing. of the notice : to "all
'persons:showr. on. the last equalized assessment roll as owning real
property within 300 feet of the property which is the su')ject -of
-
the :'proposed development agreement.
F•
(3) Notice shall be given at leaf., ten (10)
calendar 'days be fore the public hearing.
(c) 'dditional notice. The Director of Development
�Services�way direct that notice of public hearing be given in.a
manner t)pt exceeds the notice requirements prescribed by lay.
'Section 2.3 Pules cover-ninq conduct of hearing.
as a be in
e ublic hearing shall be conducted as pearl m
The P 9 } } �
accordance -with the procedural standards adopted under Government
Code Section 65604 for the conduct of coning hearings. Each per-
son interested in the matter shall be given an opportunity to be
heard
Section 3. Standards of Review, Findings and Decision
Section 3.1 Determination by Planning Commission
Section 3.2 Derision by City Council
Section 3.3 Approval ofdevelopment agreement
Section 3.1 Determination by Plannina_ Commission.
After. the hearing by the Planning Commission, the Planning Com-
mission shall make its recommendation in writing to the City Coun
cil. . The recommendation shall include the Planning Commission's
determination whether or not the development agreement proposed:
(1) Is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general
plan and any, applicable specific plan;
.(2) Is compatible with the uses authorized in,
and the regulations prescribe for, the land use district in which
the real property is located;
(3) Is. in conformity with public convenience,
:general welfare znd'000d land use practice;
(4) hill, be detrimesital to the health, safety
and :-'general welfare;
t:� .. ._ •
(5) :::Will adversely affect the .orderly develop-
meet ;of property values.
.The recommendation shall include the reasons fur '`recommendation.
Section 3.2 Decision by City.Council.'
(a) After the City Council completes the 'publ i c
'hearing, it: may accept, modify or 'dist,pprove the recommendation of
the:'Planning Commission. It may., but need not, refer matters `not
previously considered by the. Planning Commission during its hear-
ing ""back to the .Planning Commission for report and recommenda
tion. The Planning Commission may, but need not, hold a`public
hearing on'matters'referred back to it by the City Council.
(b) The City Council may not approve the develop-
ment agreement unless it finds that the provisions of the agree
went are consistent with the general plan and any applicable
specific plan.
Section 3.3 Appzoval of develoiments :agreement..:,
°.Cit}► Council approves the, development agreement, - it shall
do` so, by -,.the : adoption : of. an ordinance.
After the ordinance approving the development agreement takes'
effect `the 'Cfty _Council. may enter into the agreement.
Section 4. Amendment and Cancellation of hcreement by Mutual
Consent. - —
Section 4.1 Initiation of amendment or can-
cellation by mutual consent
Section 4.2 Procedure
Section 4.1 Initiation of amendmen: or cancella-
tion. Either party may propose an amendment to or cancellation in
whole or in part of the development agreement previously entered
into.
Section 4.2 Procedure. The procedure for pro
posing and adoption of an amendment to, or cancellation in whole
or in part of the development agreement is the same as the pro
cedure for entering into an agreement in the first instance.
However, where the City of Huntington Beach
initiates the proposed amendment to or cancellation in vbole or in
part .of the 'development agreement, it shall first give notice''to
the property 'owner of its intention to initiate such proceedings
at ' least sixty (60) days in advance of the giving of notice of
intention to consider the amendment or cancellation required by
Section 2.2.
,f 4.
(b) If the parties to the agreement or their suc-
...cessors in interest amend or cancel the agreement as provided in
Government Code Section 65868, or if the City. Council terminates
or, modifies the agreement as provided in Government Code Section
'-65865.1 for failure. of the applicant to comply in good faith with
the terms or, conditions of the agreement, the City Clerk shall
have notice of such action recorded with the County Recorder.
'Section 6 . Periodic Review
'Section 6.1 Time for and initiation of review
Section 6.2 Notice of periodic review
Section 6.3 Public hearing
Section 6.4 Findings upon public hearing
Section 6.5 Procedure upon findings
Section 6.1 'Time for and initiation of review.
The City of Huntington Beach shall review the development agree -
men 4 every twelve (12) months from the date the Lgreement is
entered into.
The time for review may be modified either by agree-
ment between the- parties or by initiation in one or more of the
following hays:
(a) Recommendation of the Director of Development
Services
(b) Affirmative vote of a majority of the Planning
Commission;
(c) Affirmative vote of a majority of the members
of the. City Council.,
Section 6.2 Notice of periodic review. The
Director of, Development Services shall begin the review proceeding
by giving notice that the City of Huntinclon Beach intends to
Undertake a periodic review of the development agreement 'to the
property owner. He shal,l'give the notice at least. thirty (30)
,days in advance of .the time at which the 'matter will. be considered.
i
_5
g
b,
Secti6n'6.3 Public hearing.. The Planning Com
' mission shall 'conduct a public hearing at which the '`property owner
must demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms -ofthe
agreement. The burden of proof on this .issue is upon. the property
77
owner,, .
Section 6.4 Findings upon.. public he The
Planning Commis's-ion shall determine upon the basis of substantial
"evidence whether or not the property: owner has, for the 'period
under review, complied in -good faith with. the terms and conditions
of'the agreemen`. If the Planning Commission finds and determines
that she property ok•ner has not complied in good faith with the
terms :.and conditions of the agreement, the Planning Commission
shall make its recommendation 'n writing to the City Council. The
recommendation shall include findings based on substantial evi-
dence that the property owner has not complied in good faith with
the terms and conditions of the agreement during the period under
review; and' modifications to conditions or terms in the agreement
or termination of the agreement.
Section 7. Modification or Termination.
Section 7.1 Proceedings upon modification or ter-
mination
Section 7.2 Hearing on modiA.
fication or termination
Section 7.3 Modification or termination of agree-
ment
Section 7.1 Proceedings Uoon modification or ter-
mination. if, .upon a finding and recommendation of the Punning
Commissional the City Council determines to proceed with modifica-
tion or termination of the acreement, notice of that intention
shall be given in the manner provided in Section 2.2 by the City
Clerk. The. City Clerk shall give notice to the property owner of
its intention so to do. The notice shall contain:
(1) The time and place of the hearing;
(2) A statement as to whether or not the City
Council proposes to modify or terminate
the agreement;
(3) other information which the City Council
considers necessary to inform the property'
owner of the nature of the proceeding.
Section 7.2 Hearin or, modification or termina-
tion. 'At the time and place set for the hearing on modification
or termination, 'the property owner shall be given an opportunity
to.be heard. The City Council may refer the matter beck..to the
Planning Commission for further. proceedings or for- report and
.,recommendation. The .City. Council may, impose those conditions to
the action it takes as it. considers necessary.'to protect the
interests.oi the city. The decision of. the City Council is final.
6.
c
menL.: -•rne tproceaure, ror moaizicacion or LerminaGion oz ,Lne agree-
ment 'i s 'the same '- as: the procedure ` for entering into an agreement.
PASSED 'AND. -ADOPTED by the City. Council of the City of
:iuntington "Beach 'at a regular ineeting thereof held on the . 18th
day of June 1984.
La
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
• n .
ell
City Clerk :., City Attorney z7N
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AIM APPROVED:
� l
Ice ee
G�7✓�
City Administrator irector of Development
Services
7.
ABSENT: Councilmen:
.one
NOT VOTING: Thomas
r
it _. • � � � � '� ..,.r--- �..
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
s
a u - vt' ✓:s A '`: eta: ,.
5.. - CIT C3 iHi�.lil1l�'"lt�lfl�'1'I l
CH
., 2000 MAIN STREET
CALIFORNIA 92648
R. F
OFFICE OF .T}iE CITY CLERK
August 26, 1986
Lee A. Branch
County Recorder
P. 0. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Enclosed please find Affordability Agreerper.t to be recorded
and
returned to the Office of the City ^lerk, City of Huntington Beach,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 9264E.
Enclosed is a copy of the Affordability Agreemerit to be conformed.
Please return with document number and date of recording.
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Aulhdrlted to Publ,fh:Adver h46ment$ o r I, rnCludin P%;Dhc
99
.nt,t1cej : b! frticree. al :the 5uper�or C - ,a►_,oran4t Counlr,
Calllornla,'Number A:6�14, dated 29 September 1961, and
A-14031, dared A June 1%3
STATE OF CALWORNIA
County'of Orange .yo.t ►Gottho.«tl.n►I cowwoo '.
. or �+.�
..0 to arca c v.~ *.at"
1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of
the`County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years, and, not; a. party to`or'interestea In the below
entitled matter. f am a principal clerk of the.Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the
NEWS -PRESS. a'newspaper of `general circulation.
printed and `published ,n the City of Costa Mesa,
County : cf Orange. State of California, and that a
Notice of PUBLIC HEARING _
of which copy aftachea hereto Is a true and complete
copy,. was printed and published In the Costa Mesa.
Newport `Beach. HuntiIngton Beach, Fountain Valley.
Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna
Beach issues of said newspaper for. one time
consecutive weeks to will the issue(s) of
COvrClt,
Gl►r�. �*
p. Y
a �a
f/��'A A�f1fiii�flp� r ii '}�•
'.�1;�FgtA1t�CtJiitT` '�r
,ttum ctT1m o. "
APARTO/ W CpMPtsF.t(`'
1�( VLT1
ERES
r �1c haarinp b ilia Can►-'
od . chw4 r at (( the . Hunt
kK*m Beach ' Oic ; Cerrtar,!
a20W Main i.t$treN� ' Ftur�t
:1Q14fi aee'.�f,' cafgOride. 49n
the Na:40 and at the limit kr
dkrtted below to ntwM end
corw k I the alatemarlia•of
CRlrfGrle'R$O whll to bil]
heard , retatbv to the aapq. j(
r.Wan seaertked below .
DATM,Mondayt June•11c,
NOV
TtMY•`7:30 putt:.,
8ttt�,lECTi ttavelo rtnonk
AOnarnmt'. Meadowtand
LOCATION. daaat ardii'of
Sprk9dak, 780 feet saAh W
1% SAU b exaardo `s
d"iW0ftW* bersomw o be-
twm mnl oee or, on ap WTrlie
W* WrAv aperuTmom item+
PIUL
V1ROMMEN'TkIL
pBTATUS: ErnAror+r"ntall k11•
the��d ef�fac" of
ON
A"Oppy Ofthe
an ! in thet t Of
t3e're1G�lfltent Servk�s�„all,'►
ALL, WTEAESTM PEi1-
00119 dote kFvtted to thank
as d � howr tp w4 ei rs"
OQIrllOfle Of alitt•41R lN�Illtls
tar ar apakW !ne a
W Ou4fk1P� aL�41M. iJ f
plUM . a:htbtil.` Gild: dw
erxlpCloM ; p! th1e; OropOid
air cn We *41t% ofAm of
the . 01Y C101161.It100 `f►Rldn
stree2t,,. Hcirlttrgtt><1'. Bwct,:
C100"A fo.( I
ilia t s:R�......
Ml xT NWTOII 11RACH
ctiV. CONSIt3 Syt, Asedd
WWolowart:i 4 CM. Ct r.
SW
�. aalea.nar,.4,.laa�
Pvbll .: orarlpR- a Comm
peg+ PM dude ei .15 ,1.
,J
REQUE FQR `CITY COONCTION
June 16', J9.86
Date r
Submitttb Honorable Mayor and Ci ty' Council
ed to:
Charles .W. Thompson, City Administr
Subm6itted by: � t,
Prepared bY � James. W. Pal in, Director, Development Services
k:.
,Su jest: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 86-1 FOR A 1.14 UNIT SENIOR
APARTMENT COMPLEX
Cosisistent with Council Policy? Pal Yes New Policy or Exception
Statement of iss6a,' Recommendation; Analysis, Funding S6u'rc8, Alternative Actions, Attachments: j
'STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The adopted zone Change Ordinance No. 2821-B for this project
required that prior to the development of the apartment complex, the
property owner submit a development agreement, approved by the City
Attorney, as.to form and pursuant to Government Code Section 658650
ot. seq. which shall include provisions for the total number of
units'and:continued affordability of units allowed by the granting
of.a density bonus.
Resolution 5390, adopted by the City Council in June of 1984, sets
..forth the procedures and requirements for the consideration of
development agreements. The adoption of a development agreement
requires,a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Planning Commission action on June 3, 1986:
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
86--1 WAS APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, L,ivengood, Mirjahangir.
NOES: Erskine, Porter
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: None
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. Thirty-�eight.(38) units of the senior apartment project shall
be affordable based upon the granting of an additional 25
percent density bonus.ever and above the requirement of
Section 65915 of the_Government Code and the granting of a
special permit allowing.a reduced side yard setback along the
southern edge.of the property.
PIq 4/54
2: The`Development Agreement is'consistent with 'the objectives,
'policies, `general land uses and.'prograrns specified in. the
General Plan.
3 The -Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in,, and the regulations prescribed for the senior
residential land use district in which the property is located
4.1 The Development Agreement is in conformity.with public
convenience, general welfare and good land use practice.
5. The execution of the Development Agreement will not be
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare.
6.
7.
.The execution of the Development Agreement will not adversely
affect the orderly development of property values.
if Federal Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing is provided for the
project, the affordable units required by the bond program
shall meet the affordable housing requirements for said
Federal Financing program. Affordable units not covered by
the bond financing shall be rented at an affordable rate based
on the Orange County Median income prepared by Chapman College.
All affordable units shall continue to be so provided and
rented for the duration of the bond period, if applicable, or
fifteen years, whichever is longer.
The Agreement shall be legally binding for all future property
owners fora period of 15 years. The Agreement shall. be
recorded with the County Recorder in order to put any
potential buyer on constructive notice.
Each' unit shall be occupied by at least one (1) person who is
sixt.v-two (62) years of age, or older. No person or persons
under.the age of forty-five (45) shall be permitted as
full-time residents of the project, excepting the resident
managers)
recommendation is the same as the.Planning Commission
ANALYSIS:
Section`65915 of the Government Code allows for the granting of.a
density bonus or other incentive of equivalent financial value in
the following instances:
(a)''When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least
(1) 25 percent of the total units of a housing•development for
persons and families of'low"or moderate income, as defined in
'Section 50093 of. the:Health and Safety Code, or (2).10 percent
'of the.total units 'of a housing development for lower --income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5.of.the Health and
f Safety. Code, or (3) 50 'percent 'of the total 'dwelling units of a
housing development for qualifying residents,,as defined in
41, Section `51.2 'of the Civil Code.
534
:RCA ,- 6/16/86 -2- ( 5d)
2.
:The Development Agreement is consistent with, the.objectives,
policies, general land uses and .programs specifiedin the
Generali Plan.
3.
The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the senior
residential land use district in which the property is located.
4.
The Development Agreement is in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare and good land use practice.
5.
The execution of the Development Agreement will not be
detrimental :to the health, safety and general welfare.
- 6.'..
The execution.of the Development Agreement will not adversely
affect the orderly development of property values.
7.
If Federal Mortga.ge Revenue Bond Financing is provided for the
project,, the affordable units required by the bond program
shall meet the affordable housing requirements for said
Federal Financing program. Affordable units not covered by
the bond financing shall be rented at an affordable rate based
..on the Orange County Median Income prepared by Chapman College.
S.
All affordable units shall continue to be so provided and
rented for the duration of the bond period, if applicable, or
fifteen years, whichever is longer.
9.
The ;agreement shall be legally binding for all future property
owners for a period of 15 years. The Agreement shall be
recorded with the County Pecorder in order to put any
potential buyer on constructive notice.
10.
Each unit shall be occupied by at least one (1) person who is
sixty-two (62) years of age, or older. No person or persons
under the age of forty-five (45) shall be permitted as
full-time residents of the project, excepting the resident
manager (s) .
ANAL'YSIS:.
Section.65915 of the, Government Code allows for the granting of a
density bonus or other incentive of equivalent financial value in
the following instances:
(a) When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least
(1).25 percent'of the total units of a housing development for
persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined.in
Section`50093 of the HF31th and Safety Code, or (Z) 10 percent
of the total units `of, a -housing. development for lower -income
households, as defined in Section:50079.5 of the Health and
Safety code, or (3) 50 percent of she total dwelling units `of a
housing development for 'qualifying 'residents, as defined.in
"Section 51.2:oU the Civil Code.
RCA; �; `6/.16/86 -2_ (5345d )
4.. • .... ALL... --- � - ° -- -
This project met'requ;rement number 3 (qualifying residents are
defined, as, persons . over 62 years of age.
A.',density bonus i.s defined.as::a density increase of at least 25
ercent over the other�,iise maximum allowable resi entia density
under the 'applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the
general plan.
--This project received a, 50 percent density bonus (76 units were
allowed.under the R3 zoning,'50%°of 76, or 38 units, were granted by
'the density bonus: , 76 + 38 = 114 total units). Government Code
`Section 65915 required the City to grant a 25 percent density bonus
for. 'the provision.of the senior housing. The granting of a 50
percent. density bonus was in excess of the Government Code
requirements., In addition, a special permit was granted to allow
fora reduced. setback on the southern edge of the property.
The issue of affordable housing was discussed many times during the
approval process for this project. The „une 3, 1986 staff report,
whirr, is attached,to.this RCA, diagrams the discussions and actions
takL. by the.Plann:ng Commission regarding the affordable housing
for .this project.
The Development Agreement proposed by the applicant and recommended
by the Planning Commission as modified is attached to this report.
This document calls for a total of 38 units within the project (the
number of additional units allowed by the granting of the 50 percent
density bonus) to be made affordable to seniors of loc, and moderate
income
If the applicant is successful in obtaining mortgage revenue bond
financing,: the 22 affordable units required by the bond financing
Would :have, to meet the strict affordable requirements set by the
federal government for the bond programs. The 16 remaining units
would be made affordable to low and moderate income senior
households. based on the Orange County Median Income as established
by..Chapman College. Fifty percent of the remaining affordable units
°would be for low income nouseholtic: and fifty ercent would be for
P
moderate income households.
Should the applicant not receive bond financing, all 38 affordable
units would be equally divided between low and moderate ir:come
households as per the Orange County Median Income.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IF
BOND FINANCING IS USED
Very.low;
Low*
Low income
Moderate .income
e Dassaae of.HR 3838
The units would remain affordable fora period of 15 years, or the
duration of the bonding, whichever is greater.
Also'atta-hed to this,RCA is a discussion of Affordable Housing
Criteria,which discusses how affordable renta'lr aEes are calculated
and what the most recent affordable.rent rates are in Orange County.
FUNDING ' SOURCE :
Not 'applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Cis-y`Council may require a greater or lesser number of units
within the 114.unit project to be made affordable to persons of low
and moderate incomes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised Development Agreement dated June 4, 19$F.
2. Ordinance No.
3. Staff Report dated June 3, 1985
JV'P:GO:kla
n
unting dh �b�ach dQveto :ent services ` tlepartmst
,
y, e
` A
EPORI...��I�.RYRii��r�Ar�YlR�Ry
TO:
Planning.Co'mission
k
FROM:
Development Services
DATE:,
June 3, 1986
'SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
114 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT
ry
'COMPLEX
.APPLICANT/
Meadowland Ltd.
DATE ACCEPTED:
..OWNER:
16561`Bolsa Chica
May 21, 1986
Suite 108
:
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
July 20, 1986
REQUEST:
To approve. the Development
Agreement for a 114 unit
ZONE: Q-R3-SR
seniorapartment complex
GENERAL PLAN: Senior
LOCATION:
West side of Springdale,
Residential
approximately 760 feet
south of Edinger Avenue EXISTING USE: Vacant,
Inaus-riaSheds
ACREAGE: 3.09 acres
1.0 SUGGESTED'ACTION:
.Approve the attached Development Agreement with modifications based
on the findings outlined in this report.
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
C
On April 21 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit No.'86-12.allowing the construction of a 114 unit senior
citizen apartment complex located on Springdale Street, south of
Edinger Avenue. .General Plan Amendment 85-3 and Zone Change No,
85-15 (R5 Office/Professional to Q-R3--SR), adopted by the Planning
eommisaion.on February 18, 19861.also granted.the developer a 50
percent density bonus for the project. The zone change ordinance
2821-B states that
"Prior to anydevelopme'nt,on the property, the property owner.,.
and the City shall enter into,a development agreement, approved
by°the city as 'to form.pursuant to Government ccide
Section 65865, et.:seq. which shall include provisions -for the
total.number.'of units and continued affordability of units
allowed by `density "bonuses."
Resolution No. 5390. adapted by ,the City Council in June of 1984
sets forth the' and requirements for the consideration of
development, agreements pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.
The.,6dopti6n of a development agreement requires a public hearing
'befor'e'the.Planning Commission and City Council..
3.O ANALYSIS:
Se6tion''65915 of the Government Code allows for the granting of a
density Bonus or other incentive of eaulvalent financial value in
the following instances:
(a) When a -developer of ,housing agrees to construct at least
(1) 25 percent'of.the total units_,'of a housing development for
persons and families°of low or moderate income, as*defined'in
....Section o50093 `of theHealth and Safety Code, or (2) 10 :percent
"o£ the total units -'of a housing` development for lower -income
households, as*defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, 6r,(3) 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a
housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in
"Section 51.2 of the Civil Code.
This project met reouirement number 3 (qualifying residents are
defined as persons over 55 years of ace in a senAor citizen housing
development).
A density bonus is defined a a density increase of at least 25
percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density
unc:er the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the
general plan.
This project received a 50 percent density bonus (76 units were
allowed under the R3 zoning, 501 of 76, or 36 units, were granted by
the density bonus: 76 + 38 = 114 total units). The Government Code
only required the City to grant a 25 percent density bonus, not a 50
percent density bonus. In addition, a special permit was granted to
allow for a reduced setback on the southern edge of the property.
PROJECT HISTORY:
During the public hearing on January 22, 1986, for the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, the Planning Commission conceptually
approved a Draft Development Agreement submitted by the applicant
and recommended that'the City Council execute the agreement. A copy
of the Draft Development Agreement Is attached to this report. The
development agreement established the number of units which were to
be.nade affordable.and the length of time that they must remain
Affordable.. The agreement as submitted by the applicant was
modified by the Planning Commission and was approved in concept by
the following vote:
Staff >Report 6/3/86 -2-- (5?56d )
MOTION._ WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECO11D `BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE j
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IN CONCEPT, AS AMENDED,'AND`RECOMMEND
IT.TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWI NG' VOTE:.I
AYES... Rowe,` Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,_
Mi rjahangi r
NOES: None
ABSENT: None `.
'ABSTAIN: None
It should "be.'noted that the Draft Development Agreement reflected a
.150 unit project as..originally proposed by the applicant. The
Planning Commission approved a 114 unit project and modified the
numbers. in the draft agreement for affordable housing accordingly.
The provision relating to the affordability of units conceptually
approved by the Planning Commission was:
'Provision ofAffordable Units
-1. Wi,th appropriate City approval, participant shall be
allowedo provide `a maximum of thirty eight (38) affordable
units in addition to the seventy six (76) market rate units.
These additional units will be provided in a manner consistent
with affordable"payment criteria derived from the latest
estimated Orange County Median income figure as reported by the.
Center; for Economic Research at Chapman College.
'-2. Participant. shall establish a means to insure, with City
Council, that -said units remain affordable for a period of
thirty (30) years.
The issue of what percentage of the 38 affordable units should be
made.avail.able to ow income and what percentage to moderate income
households was not addressed in the Draft Development Agreement
.conceptually approved by the Manning Commission.
It should also be noted.that this public hearing was advertised for
.the.General Plan.Amendment and zone Change. It was not a public
..hearing for the purpose of considering a Development Agreement as
required by Resolution.5390. The public hearing on June 3, 1986,
will.fulfill, .this requirement.
Another public hearing was held on April 1, 1906, to consider
-.Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12 for this project. The provision of
affordable units was,again discussed by the Commissioners. However,
the. -discussion centered around the affordable units which were to be
-provided to fulfill the requirements of the Mortgage Revenue Bond
Financing Program (20 of -the total units within.the project).
Staff Report 6/3/86 -3— (5256d)
N
-A.:straw vote"was taken to see if the Commissioners felt that -the
applicant should -provide the affordable units required by'the bond..
- financing (22 units) in addition to the affordable units which were
= included in the Draft DevelopmennT Agreement conceptually approved by
�;the;Commission on January 221 1986.(38 units). A motion to combine
thetwo requirements for a total o.f"60 affordable units was denied
by the Planning Commission. Chairman Livengood noted after the
straw vote.was taken, and the motion failed, that the applicant
'`would be required to provide 20% affordable units for the bond
'financing. No mention was made by the Chairman of the 38 density
bonus units which were conceptually approved by the Commission on
January.22, 1986.
The decision of the Planning Commission on Conditional Use Permit
No. 86-12 regarding the number of affordable units was appealed to
the City Council by Mayor Mandic. On May 1, 1986, the Mayor
withdrew his appeal stating in writing that "...after studying the
issues, I believe the number of affordable units can be handled
between staff,and the developer as the final plan is approved."
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DEVELOPME14T AGREEMENT:
On May 30, 1986, the applicant submitted a revised Agreement to the
City. The applicant proposes to provide 25 percent of the total
number of the units, or 28.total units, as affordable units.
VSnould the applicant be successful in receiving the bond financing,
20 percent of the.project, or 22 units, will meet the bond financing
affordable requirements. The remaining six units would be made
availab-le to low and moderate income households (50% for low and 50%
for moderate).
:Should the applicant not receive bond financing, 25 percent of the
project.would be affordable, 50 percent o; the affordable units for
low.income and 50 percent for moderate income households. The
affordability requirements would be based on the County Median
Income as established by.Chapman College. (A report detailing the
affordable housing -criteria used by the County and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is attached to this staff
report.)
'The following chart illustrates some of the previous actions taken
relating to the provision of affordable housing for this project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
JANUARY 22, 1986
Staff Report - '6/3/86 -4-
per bond financing
22 requirements
low income per the granting
3._8 of the density bonus
60
LAST STATEMENTS BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
ON APRIL 11 1986
1.1 As per the bond
11 financing requirements
22
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IF
BOND FINANCING IS USED
11 Very low*
11 Low*
3 Low income
3 Moderate income
28 25% of the total project
ssumes the passage of fir, 3838
APPLICANT'S PROPOSA14 IF BOND FINANCING
IS NOT USED
Low income
Moderate income
25% of total project
not by.the County.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Agreement
submitted by the applicant with the following modifications:
1. Should the applicant be successful in obtaining the Mortgage
Revenue Pond Financing, those affordable units required by the
bond financing will he subject to the strict requirements of
the federal program.
Those additional affordable units which do not fall under the
bond program shall be made affordable to persons of low and
moderate income (50 percent for low income ane 50 percent for
moderate income).
The affordable rent rate shall be set at the time a certificate
of occupancy is issued for the project. This affordable rent
shall be based on the County Median Income as established by
Chapman, College. All future rent.increases for these units for
a.period of 30 years shall be directly tied to the Consumer
Price .Index (CPI).
Should'themapplicant not be successful in obtaining the
mortgage revenue bond financing, all 28 affordable units (25
percent of the project) shall be subject to the aforementioned
- conditions. regarding future rent increases tied to the Consumer
Price Index ,(CPI).
2. The'time period of affordability for all affordable units not
covered by the bond.financing shall be 30 years.
3. The Agreement shall be legally binding for all future property
-owners for. a. period of 30 years. The Agreement shall be
recorded with the County Recorder in order to put any potential
buyer on constructive notice.
Staff .'Report 6/3/86 -6- t 5256d) _,
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. Twenty-five percent (28 units) of the senior apartment project
shall be affordable based upon the granting of an additional 25
percent density bonus over and above the requirement of Section
65915 of the Government Code and the granting of a special
permit allowing a reduced side yard setback along the southern
edge of the property.
2. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
General Plan.
3. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the senior
residential land use district in which the property is located.
4. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare and good land use practice.
5. The execution of the Development Agreement will not be
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare.
6. The execution of the Development Agreement will not adversely
affect the orderly development of property values.
5.0 ALTERNIATIVE ACTIONS:
Condition the project to include 38 affordable units. Should the
applicant be crar.tec bond financing, these units not covered by the
bond financing shall be affordable to low and moderate income
households (50 percent low, 50 percent moderate) based on the County
Median income established by Chapman College. Said units shall
remain affordable for a period of 30 years.
Should the applicant receive no mortgage revenue bond financing all
38 units shall be made affordable to low and moderate income
households (50 percent low, 50 percent moderate) based on the County
Mediae. Income established by Chapman Coll,:ce. Said units shall
remain affordable for a period of 30 years.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Affordable Housina Criteria
.2. Planning Commission minutes dated January 221 1966
3. Draft Development Agreement
4. P1anning.Commission minutes dated April 1, 1986
S.. Revised Development Agreement dated Pay 30, 1986
JWP:GO:kla
(S256d)
'
ti
4
r
REMAINDER
OF
ITEM
TO
BE
COPIED
FOR
REGULAR
AGENDA
PACKET
-
R
.
I
r
n r
J
.AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRITERIA
The current (April 1986) Orange County median income as prepared by
Chapman College for the County of Orange is $42,600 (this is based
ona family of four): Low income households earn 80 percent of the
median income. Moderate income households earn 120 percent of the
median income. Affordable rents are calculated as 30 percent of the
monthly household income. Therefore, the affordable rents would be
as follows:
Low income households .852.00 per month
Moderate income households li278.00 per month
The applicant has also been induced for mortgage revenue bond
financing by the City Council. (This is a statement of intent and
not a commitment to sell bonds.) Mortgage revenue bond financing
requires that 20 percent of the units be made affordable. There is
a bill passed by the Senate (HR 3838) pending in the House which
would require 10 percent of the units be made affordable to low
income households and 10 percent made affordable to very low income
households. (Very low income household earn less than 50 percent of
the median income.) Because the bond financing is a federal
program, the median income figures used are prepared by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The pending
legislation (HR 3838) would calculate the low income rental figure
based on a average household size of 4 persons. However, the very
low income figure would be adjusted for family size by households.
The latest HUD figure (January 1986) for the County median income is
$36,800. Affordable rents based on the HUD figures would be as
follows:
Low.income households $735.00 per month
Very low income households
Family
size of 1
Family
size of 2
Family
size of 3
Family
size of 4
$322.00
per
month
'367.00
per
month
.413.00
per
month
459.00
per
month
:It should be noted that this legislation is pending. No mortgage
revenue bonds have been sold this year because there are no set
standards in place. The developer must comply with the standards
which are in effect at the time the bonds are actually sold.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
:.C=-1LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2.1 AND ADMINISTRAT%VE ITEM
•4 . 1)/ZONE,-,CHP►NGE.-NO:"J85-=15 '(CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 1985
AND JANUARY 7, 1986)
�A22licant: Meadowland LTD
This item was continued from the ,January 71 1986 meeting due to tie
votes.on the. approval of the General Plan designation.
Environmental Impact Report 85-2 was approved, however.
Staff made its presentation. The Planning Commission's concern at
the January 7 meeting was that if a Medium High Density Residential
land use designation was approved on the site, then the applicant
could apply at a later date to have the SR suffix removed from the
zoning and then build a regular R3 project. The Planning Commission
was looking for some way to guarantee that only a Senior project
would be built on the site.
Staff researched methods of achieving this goal and recommended.that
a new General Plan Land Use designation of Medium High Density
Senior Residential be created and then applied to the subject
property. The only zoning.which would he consistent with this
designation would be R2 or R3 zoning when combined with the SR
suffix. Any attempt to remove the SR suffix would then require a
concurrent General Plan amendment for a change to a non -Senior
'Residential land use designation. Staff feels that this requirement
will provide ample protection from future attempts to build
non -Senior projects ar.d that it will be of value on Area 2.1 of this
.mendment as well as on future projects in other areas.
In order to implement the new designation staff has added Section
4.1 to Land Use Element Amendment 65-3. This new section
administratively creates the new Land Use designation. Creation of
the new designation has been advertised under Negative. Declaration
No. 86-1.. To approve this designation the Planning Commission will
need to open the Public Hearing on Area 4.1 of the amendment and
approve the Negative declaration.
Since the Land Use Element Amendment and EIR 85-2 have always
addressed the possibility of a Medium High Density land use -
designation and R3 zoning, there is no need to re -process the
"document before applying the new Medium High Density Senior
Residential designation to the subject property. There is also no
need to re -open the Public Kea_ring on Area 2.1.
Staff.has provided new Resolution 1349(c) for adoption of the Medium
Hi h none it Senior Resi"dential land 9 us-2 desi nation and the Y 1
- 9
application of that'desiSnation to Area 2.1. Staff recommends the
.approval.of Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 with the adoption of
this'resolution.
4
e
•
For concurrent zone Change`85-15, staff continues to recommend
approval of (Q)R3-SR zoning through the approval of Zone Case
85-15(B). The Q would require Design Review Hoard approval of the
building plans for the site. Staff further recommends that a second
condition be placed on the Q to limit total units on the site to 114
aftera density bonus. Findings for approval of the Zone Change are
contained on Page 4 of the December 3, 1985 Staff Report.
THE ~PUBLIC HEARING (ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4. 1) WAS OPENED
There was no one present to speak for or against Administrative Item
4.1 and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Porter questioned whether there is a necessity for the
designation of a density. Does the State Code govern the
establishment of these districts?
Mr.. Sangster, Attorney, stated that the General Plan sets forth
general parameters but it doesn't break things down into specific
zoning districts. our own zoning code, Division 9, establishes the
districts in the different general plan areas. (Example: General
Plan ray be residential, our code would break it down to R11 R2, R3
or add the Q, etc. )
Commissioner Porter then asked if there is a designation for 'Senior
Residential? Does the State require that there be a density
designation? Can Senior Residential be an area designation in the
General Plan irrespective of the density that is going to apply?
Mr.. Sangster, Attorney, replied that it has been the normal practice
in general planning to apply some density guidelines to General Plan
areas,
Hal Sirzons, Staff, stated that in the residential land use
designations in the General Plan, each desigration does specify
densitylimits. There isn't anything, however, that prevents one
from establishing a senior residential designation. There are other
designations that are not intensity specific.
Commissioner Porter asked if there was a provision in the State bode
that requires that residential intensity be specified in some form.
"This designation should be broad as opposed to narrow.'
Mr. Sangst-ir re,,,lied that the General Plan statute in the Government
Code does not _equire that density be pinpointed, but instead can be
merely general guideline.
-Mr. Livengood explained that the resolution was doing two things.
It is establishing a new Medium --High Density Senior Residential Land
Use'Designation and, as a trailer on that, the 3.09 acres located on
the aestside of Springdale Street would be given that designation.
.It should be -a two-step process. One step would be a resolution to
establish the new 'designation "Medium High Density Senior
PC Minutes 1/22/86 .-4-- ( 4124d
Residential" and the second step would be to,determine if that is
what'we want for that acreage. These are being tied into together
and they are two different decision making processes.
Commissioner Winchell questioned the verbage of any of the land use
designations. Does it state which zones are compatible with that
land use designation? If we show a Senior Residential Land Use
Designation, ;;an we show which zones (i.e., P.1, R21 R3 or R4) are
compatible with it? Would it be decided which zone we put on a
particular piece of property at the zoning level?. If so, it leaves
it entirely open to the zoning discretion and then at the time that
the project cones for a conditional use permit there would be a
'discussion as to whether there wound be a`density bonus. Do you see
any impact in doing it in this matter?
Jeanine Frank, staff, replied, 'We had not considered leaving it.
that flexible but it can be done that way. 'de considered that a
Medium or Medium -High density designation would be compatible with
the Medium -High Senior Residential suffix but we could place just a
`'Senior Residential District in the General Plan rather than tying it
down.to a density if you prefer to have that flexibility.
Commissioner Schumache. wanted to clarify her interpretation which
follows: 'If we do a Land Use Amendment, where we take existing
property and change it to R2 or R3 with an SR (Senior Residential)
suffix on it, in the future if that developer cannot develop that
senior housing project, it goes all the way back to square one.
What will it revert to?
Staff replied: 'If the developer wants to remove the SR he has to
come in for a general plan amendment (which would include a public
hearing and approximately a 4-month process).
Commissioner Schumacher felt that this would give the protection
that the Commission was looking for.
Commissioner Porter recommended that two separate resolutions be
adopted as opposed to having them both combined on one. Two would
be more appropriate.
.MOTION WAS :BADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY .MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4.1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1349, WHEREAS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND
USE AMENDMENT - THAT A NEW SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION BE
ESTABLISHED, AND STRIKE THE MEDIUM DENSITY.
Erskine'questoned why Mr. Porter wanted Medium Density struck out
prior to the Senior Residential.
Porter replied, 'To indicate that Senior Residential is compatible
with all residential zoning.'
a
s
Commissioner Erskine questioned whether future Planning Commissions
or City Councils would understand what these words meant. He felt
that it should be worded in equivalent land use language so that
someone looking at this in the future would know what it meant.
Commissioner Schumacher feels that two different resolutions were
needed, whereas a Senior Residential land use designation is being
created. An explanation should be included in the resolution
describing the Senior Residential land use designation. She would
like to see this resolution made very clear, so that any attempt to
remove the SR would force the developer to start over.
Staff was requested to prepare, for approval, a second resolution
that would address only the creation of the Senior Residential land
use'designation'and then add that wording to the resolution,
explaining what the new designation does, and then transfer the
wording from the amendment into the resolution.
Chairman Livengood, entered for the record, the resolution prepared
by the concerned residents. Their feelings were that seniors should
be locked into not more than Medium Density because it would allow
more impact to the neighborhood.
MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4.1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1349 WITH SENIOR
DESIGNATION, 141TH ADDITIONAL WORDING TO BE TAKEN FROM SECTION 4.1 OF
THE LAND USE ELEMENT 85-3 CLARIFYING THE OPERATION OF THE SENIOR
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: ;None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood suggested that the Commission approach the
following items in this order: First, look at the conceptual plan
for the proposed Meadowland Project for Seniors on Springdale and
determine the number of units to allow for that project and then
back into the other items that need taken care of (Land Use Element
85-3, Item 2.1, and Zone Change 85--15).
Staff reminded Chairman Livengood that the Commission also had to
approve Negative Declaration 86-1.
PC Minutes '1/22/86
MOTION'WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE LAND
USL ELEMENT 85-3 WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86--1 BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood asked staff for clarification on a Preliminary
Soils Report regarding the water level which was submitted by the
applicant.
Staff explained that the applicant commissioned a report on the site
and that the report indicated that the water level was below the
level proposed for the subterranean garage. Testing went to a depth
of 16 to 17 feet below Grade. There was also a lab test to
determine the compressibility of soils between 10 feet and 17 feet
to determine what kind of footings would be required.
Commission Livengood also questioned staff concerning the sewers in
that area and the impact that this project would have on them.
Staff stated that the Sanitation District felt that since this is a
seniors project and the density is lower in a senior project that it
would not be a problem.
A straw vote was then taken to see what size project the Commission
wanted to allow for this site. The applicant is requesting 148
units with subterranean parking. ';'he staff is recommending 114 with
surface parking.
The majority of the Commissioners preferred 114 units with surface
parking. They felt that this would be the best protection for the
residents in that area.
Commissioner Rowe questioned the estimate of the intensity of use.
It was explained to him that a survey was taken of other senior
projects in the State and other states. It is estimated that only
20% of. the units in a project such as this will be occupied by 2
people.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE AREA
1.1,.REDESIGNATING THE 3.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
SPRINGDALE STREET APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE
FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO SENIOR RESIDENTIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Chairman Livengood asked staff what the recommendation was on the
zone change.
Staff's recommendation was Q-R3-SR. Staff also recommended that
wording be added for conditions on the IQ* to require Deign Review
Board approval of tha construction drawings for the project, and to
establish a maximum number of units of 114 after a density bonus.
MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE ZONE
CHANGE 85-15 WITH ADDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: Nor:e
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85--15:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the
Planning Commission.
2. The proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent
properl•ies upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed project.
3. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm
drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate
the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned
land uses in the ara.
a. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant
adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments, and recreational resources.
5.. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted
nor. 'the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed.
PC Minutes. - 1/22/86 --8-- (4124d)
Staff recommended the following changes to the Developer Agreement:
Ftes onsibilities of Partici ant - A. Should read ... With appropriate
City approve , participant s a l be allowed to build a maximum of
one hundred fourteen (114) Senior Citizens rental units...
provisionof Affordable Units - 1. Should reac...With appropriate
i y approval, participant shall be allowed to provide a maximum of
thirty-eight (38) affordable units in addition to the seventy-six
(76) market rate units......
?. Should read... Participant sha.11 establish a means to insure,
with City Council, that said units remain affordable for thirty (30)
years.
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPER AGREEMEt IN CONCEPT, AS AMEtiDED, AND RECOMMEND
IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None,
MOTION PASSED
C 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64
A olicant: Avelma Zeno
Conditio Use Permit. No. 85-64 is a request to add a second un'
to an exe exist single family home generally located on the n
side of Slater venue, east of Beach Boulevard. A revi site pla
p n
was submitted by � e applicant on January 22, 1986, ,51oving the
greenhouse and close in the den.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental r tions in effect at this time the
subject request is categorical empt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Q ity Act
i
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA OPENED
Mr...Zenol the a icant, was present to speak 'n support of the
project and t answer any questions. He stated at he has lived in
the subject esidence since 1963 with his father a mother. His
father.'r ently passed away. He is getting married ortly and is
`planni'' to continue living.in the residence. The hou is being
remo led.so that the residence can be shared, allowing 'ivacy for
bo his,,mother and for himself and his new bride. He sub 'tied new
ans,. for :staff's review, eliminating the green�iouse and cl et in
the "den, :'originally included on his plans.
PC Minutes 1/22/86 -9- (4124d)
DEVF.LOnIMEIiT AGIREIEMENT
'this ��c�reement is entered into on
bv, and between the City Council of the City of Huntin-riton Beach, a oulbic
body, corporate and politic (hereinafter called the "City"), and .,Mcadowland
.Ltd., a partnership (hereinafter c�311ed the "Particip�int") . The City and
participant covenant and agree as `ollows;
1. Subject of Agrecment
A.• purpose of Prirvement;
The purpose of this agrei2ment is to condition the approval of lone
Chanr=e B-85-15 for the develcai.u�ont ,Ind uses of the c�roject area, hereinafter
called the "site", ( see attachme-nt Pto.l.) . This aarcoment is entered
into For the purvoses
of development,
-inc:;
not
for speculation in
land.
The development of
the site pur.stiant
'-o
this
agreement, and the
fulfillment
of the aarecuient, are in 'the best interests of the City of Huntington
Beach and the hoalth, safety and welfare of its residents, and is in
accord w`:h the puiibc purposes and provisions of applicable Federal,
State and local laws and requirements under which the project has been
undertaken.
B.'The project area
The project area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, California
the .exact boundaries of which are specifically described in City Council
Ordinance No. which instrument is incorporated he
by
reference and that portion encompassing the site as delineated on
i attachment No. 1 which is made a part hereof.
` `C.' Parties 'to the Agreement
1. The..'City of Huntington Beach
Ar1"MHM FN�"
The City of ffuntinaton neach i s a public body, ct,rporate ttnd politic,
exerc:isinq governme► tLal functions and powers, cr+iani,:ed and (: istincl
tinder the laws of the State of California.
'rho principal office of the city is lo(.-aLed at 2000 Main Street,
Huntinnton Beach, California 926.18.
2. The participant
The participant is a partner ship, duly formed under the1, of the
State of California.
11.Responsibi.;.ities of Participant
A. Total number of units
With .ippr.opriate City approval, participant shrill be allowed to
build a maximum of one hundred Fifty (150) Sttinior. Citizens rental units •
and one (1) mana(lers unit.
A. provision of Affordable units
1. With appropriate City approval, participant ;hall be. allowed to ,
provide a maximum of forty four k,14) affordable units in addition to the
•f1e�.111.1nr1C'�.j and six (106) m,irket rage units. These additional units will
ba pruvi-Iod in a manner consistent with affordable payment criteria derived
from the latest estimated Orancje County medi.,�n income figure as reported
by the Center for Economic' Re se:trch at Chapman Col lcoe.
2. participant shall establish a means to insure, with City Council,
that said units remain affordable for a specified tier iod of time established
by the time limits set forth in the proposed financing or when the areas
vacancy factor exceeds 6%, whichever is sooner.
C.'Senior Citizens Apartments
With appropriate City approval, participant shall. covenarit.that 'units
will remain.Senior Citizens apartments for the economic and physical 1ife ' '
of tiie project.
D. Due Di11,tence by Dartici.natit
After the execution of this document by the City, the participant shall
promptly begin and thercaf:ter di 1 icrr_ntly pursue to completion the
construction of the improvements and development or the Site.
Comm�ssiondr Livengood felt"that a continuance was not in`order. He
felt;��that enough 'time had been spent :`o`n this item. The .alternative
action suggested by staff to grant the applicant a two month
extension'of time to'comply with applicable conditions and if not
complied with eo revoke the permit, would be the best decision.
commissioner.Schumacher-feels that this is an archaeological site
and since no road has been put in that the site is being degraded
and is deteriorating, and that if all conditions could not be
complied with that the permit should be revoked. `She felt that two
weeks would be sufficient time to comply'with all conditions.
A ;MOTION„WAS .MADE, B,Y. ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE
CONDITIONAL.USE PERMIT NO.'85-21 TO THE AFRIL 151 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO RECONSIDER REVOCATION AT THAT TIME, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MOTION PASSED
Rowe, Winchell,
Livengood
None
None
Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir
C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 66--12
In February 1986 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment
and Zone_ Change for this property. Both the Planning Commission and
City Council reviewed a conceptual site plan, floor plans and
building elevations for this senior citizens apartment project.
The applicant has slightly modified the unit mix of the project.
Ten of the one bedroom plus den units have been converted into two
bedroom units. The applicant notes that market research has shown a
demand for two bedroom senior units for husband/wife or
senior/relative. The parking provided reflects this change in the
plan.
The applicant originally submitted the General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change request in September of 1985.
The.Conceptual Plans were reviewed by staff according to the
requirements of the Senior Residential Development Standards
(Article 932.51. The SR suffix is added to the base zoning
designation. Developments must comply with the SR standards for all
requirements listed in that section of the code, and, where silent,
the underlying base'district.
For this particular project the underlying zoning is R3.
.Preliminary plan'check of the conceptual plans was based on the
standards of the SR, and, where silent, the R3 zone,
PC'Minutes 7 4/l/86 -6- (4599d)
The conditional use permit requires a much more in --depth plan
:check. Under close scrutiny, `staf•f ;determined that this pro,ject
needed to `comply with the -SR standards, the R3. standards when the 'SR
was silent, and the Apartment Standards (Article 932).
The R3 district states than when nine or more units are proposed for
construction a use permit from the Board'of ZoningAdjustments be
obtained and the developer must comply with the criteria contained
..in the current standards for apartment development.
It is staff's interpretation that although this project does riot
require a use permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustments, the
apartment standard criteria should sill be used instead of.the R3
standards when the SR code is silent on a particular development.
requirement. Staff.feels that the intent of using the apartment
standards for. nine'or-more units is strongly related to the size of
the proposed development, not to the requirement of obtaining a use
permit.
In-deptyh plan check using the SR, R3 and Apartment Standards
revealed a_deficiency in the southern side yard setback. Staff has
addressed this issue in regard to the applicant's request for a
special permit.
'ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the
environmental impact of the proposed project. This environmental
impact report has been approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Dan Neveau, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the
project and all of staff's findings. He announced that the special
bond fund has been approved for the project.
Dean Albright addressed his concerns with the project. He is
concerned about the gasoline that might have leaked upgrade from the
project and also the problem of asbestos removal from the existing
buildings on site. -He suggested that more stringent rules, e.g. the
wet fibers glove operation set by the Federal government, be used
when removing any asbestos.
Elizabeth Short, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She
feels that the project is too intense and that there should be no
variances or special permits issued.
Jim Radle, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels
that the developer is not complying with all of the rules, and that
there should be at lease a 90 foot setback on the west side of the
..site. He also feels that large trees should be planted for privacy.
x
Charles Tittle, resident, spoke <:in oppos{ition to' the project.. He
feels that the rents 'are too high:for,,seniors and that in order to
satisfy...the occupancy rate that non --seniors would move into the
development.
Lance Berry, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels
that.the density bonus.granted is too hi h and that parking would be
a major problem. He handed out 'a list o resident's concerns to the
Commission.
Richard Short, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He
went over; Articles and Regulations with staff on parking, setbacks,
density,.and intensity. He feels that the project needs more guest
parking spaces.
Dan Neveau was allowed to address the concerns of the residents. He
stated that .the AQMD had determined that the site was safe in
regards to the asbestos, and that upon their inspection, no asbestos
was seen. State approved removal would be used. He explained that
the project originally started with 151 units and it was now a 114
unit project and that he felt that he was complying with all of the
concerns and issues. 'He stated that the price of the rentals would
range from the mid $400's to $780.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hearing was closed.
Staff stated that the project is in full compliance with all of the
codes except those for which the special permit was requested.
Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the density of the project
was compatible with others in the County.
Some 'of the concerns discussed by the, Commissioners were guest
parking, trash enclosures and their impact on the surrounding
neighborhood, pest control during destruction, setbacks at south end
of project, a more detailed landscape plan, and the density bonus
and affordable income units. The conditions were addressed and
modified to satisfy most of the concerns.
Commissioner Porter felt the project should be continued to make
major revisions to the plans in order to comply with setbacks at the
south end of the property.
Commissioner Winchell. felt that with a density bonus there should be
more than 20% affordable income units (10% being low income). She
wanted at least 50% (38 units -- 49% low, 18 medium income).
(4599d)
<A MOTI4N 'WAS MADE .BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL'.'•USE :PERMIT NO. 86-12 : WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS 'OF 'APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
;!AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mir jahangi r
NOES: Winchell, Porter
ABSENT: ' No•ne
-ABSTAIN: None
MOTIOl PISSED
FINDIBGS FOR APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not
6e detrimental to:
a. The ;general welfare of person:: residing or working in the
vicinity;
6. Property and improvements in the vicinity 'of such use or
building.
.2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely
Affect 'the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land
Use.
4. -.The project will consist of 113 senior units and 1 manager's unit,
'for a total of 114 units.
5. Buildings on the site shall not exceed 30 feet in height as
ceasured from the curb.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMIT:
1. The proposed development will promote better living conditions and
environments by having single story units adjacent to the single
family homes to the south to increase privacy for the adjacent
residents.
2. The proposed development utilizes land -planning techniques which
Include tasteful types of architecture, landscaping, site layout
and design.
3. The,proposed development will benefit the general health, welfare,
safety, and convenience of the neighborhood and the City in
general, and will not be a detriment to or degrade property values
in such neighborhoods and the City.
40 'A special permit shall be granted for the use of hammer -head ?
turnarounds within the project.
5. A ;,special permit shall "tie granted to allow for a .20 foot interior
side yard setback on the southern property line in lieu of the 50
foot setback required inthe Apartment Standards so that a
stepping down of,the building form can occur.
6. A special `permit shall.be granted to allow for the construction of
an 8 foot high wall along the western and southern property lines.
FINDINGS FDENSITY BONUS:
1. The capacities.of the City and County water, sewer and storm drain
systems are adequate.or will be.adeqquate to accommodate the
proposed increase in`density as well as all other planned land
uses in the area.
2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant
adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments, and recreational resources.
3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted
nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed.
4. A 50 percent density bonus (38 additional units) shall be granted
to allow for the development of a total of 114 units.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dared
March 24, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout subject
to a revised site plan being submitted depicting the modifications
described herein:
a. Eleven handicapped parking spaces shall be provided within the
security gate.
b. The project shall include a total of 114 units (113 senior
units and 1 manager's unit). The Design Review Board shall
recommend which unit shall be removed.
c. The setback along the southern interior property line shall be
increased to 20 feet to provide greater privacy to the
residents of single family homes to the south.
d. parking spaces along the western boundary of the property
shall be 17 feet in length. An additional 2 feet of
landscaping shall be added along the western property line.
e. The floor plan for Unit A shall be revised so that the minimum
dimension of the balcony/patio shall be 6 feet.
�'PC Minutes -- 4/l/86-10-- ( 4599d )
.21. prior to issuanceHof'building`permits, the applicant shall submit
the following.plans:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of'Development:
Services and,Public Works for review and approval The
Landscape Plan shall come back to the Planning Commission for
review and approval.
b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. said plan shall indicate
screening'of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall
delineate the type of material proposed to screen said
equipment.
c. -Development Agreement shall be prepared pursuant to the
Government Code and those procedures adopted by the City
Council for such agreements (Resolution No. 5390).
The development agreement shall include a program to insure
that adequate provision has been made to insure that each unit
shall be occupied by at least one person sixty years of age or
older. No persons under the age of forty-five shall be
permitted as full time residents of the project.
d. 'Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County Vector
Control District.
e. Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval (grade not to exceed one-half percent).
3. The` development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department.
4. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27')
in width and shall be of radius type construction.
5. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department
shall be installed throughout the complex.
6. A wet combination stand pipe.system approved by the Fire
Department shall be installed in all stairways.
I. An automatic alarm system approved by the Fire Department shall be
installed throughout. The system shall include the following
features:
a. Water flow and valve tamper detection
b. Trouble signal
c. voice con.munication
d. Graphic annunciation
e. Manual pulls
PC.minutes 4/l/86
(4599d )
8. Elevators must be sized 6' 8- wide by 4' 3- deep to accommodate
the use of an ambulance gurney.
9.. Trash chute locations and systems must be approved'by the Fire
:Department.
10. Fir `e hydrants (3) approved by the Fire Department s1:all be
installed pursuant to Public Works sta*ndards..:;:Each fire hydrant
shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 1,500 gallons per
minute and together must provide an over all fire flow of 31500
gall�ohs per minute.
11. Fire -lanes are to posted and signed to comply with Fire Department
standards.
.12. All roads,are,to be installed prior to the commencement of the
combustible construction with.all weather driving surfaces
constructed to the standards and specifications of the Pub"lic
Works Department.
13. Fire extinguishers shall be installed to comply with Huntington
Beach Fire Code standards.
14. The curb on the west side of Springdale, north and south of the
entrance to the project (to Meadowlark), shall be painted red to
restrict any vehicular parking to insure adequate intersection
visibility as per Public Works recommendations.
15. Fire hydrants installed on site shall be dedicated to the City.
16. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall
be completed within twelve (12) morLhs from issuance of building
permit.
17. All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be
low -profile, monument -type signs.
18. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities, water heaters, and central heating units.
19. Prior to and during the demolition of the existing metal sheds on
the site the applicant shall meet all Rule 10H requirements and
other State and Health standards for asbestos removal as set forth
by._the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Federal
Regulations.
20. An eight foot high masonry wall shall be constructed of uniform
design and material along the western and southern edge of the
property. The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners to
replace or repair any dilapidated rear yard walls.
21. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets.
PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -12- (4599d)
49
•
220 All` -building spoils,'such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus 'or unusable material, shall be 'disposed of at an
off --site facility equipped to handle them.
23. The 'structures on the subject property, whether attached or
detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State
.acoustical standards seIt forth for units that lie within the 60
CNEL contours of the property. Evidence'of compliance shall
consist'of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared
under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acoustical engineering, with'the application for building
permit(s).
24. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent 'spillage' onto adjacent
properties.
25. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils
Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and
laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties,
foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities.
26. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall
be installed as approved by the Building Division.
27. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this
Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or of
the `Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.
28. The security gate system must open a minimum of 24 feet. The
gates installation must cr,:nply with Fire Department Standard 403.
29. The turning radius from the central parking area to the parking
area leading to the north and south areas must be a 17 foot by 45
foot turning radius.
30. Should any underground tanks be discovered on site, tke tanks
shall be removed to comply with the Orange County Environmental
Health Standards.
C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2
zone. Change No. 86-2 is a request to change the zone from (Q)R2-PD,
Qualified Medium I Density Residential -Planned Development,. to R2-SR on a
portion of the development (Medium Density Residential - Senior),
Conditional 'Use Permit No. 86-2 is a request to build 96 senior
residential condominiums on property zoned R4-SR and that portion being
rezoned to (Q)R2-SR.
PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -13-
(4599d)
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the day of
1986, is by and between the CITY C0014CIL of
the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a'public body, corporate and politic
(the "City" herein), and VILLAGES PARTNIERSHIP, a General Partnership,
("Participant" herein).
WHEREAS, the preparation by Participant, approval by the City,
and subsequent recordation of a Development Agreement has been im-
posed by the City as a condition of approval of Participant'a Zone
Case IB-85-15, Ordinance No. 2821-B and Conditional Use Permit No.
86-12 for the development and use of the project area; and,
WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into for the purpose of
setting forth the total number of units and continued affordability
of such units for said project; and,
WHEREAS, the fulfillment of this Agreement and the development
of the site pursuant to this Agreement are in the best interests of
the City and the health, safety and welfare of its residents, and
in accordance with public purposes and provisions of applicable Feder,
al, State and local laws and requirements.
NOWt THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties,
as follows:
1. PROJECT AREA/SITE: The project area consists of approxi-
mately 3.09.gross acres, generally located west of Springdale Street
-1-
OKM ENT
•
Publish June 5, 1986
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF.ARUIG
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR A 114 UNIT SENIOR. CITIZEN APARTMENT COMPLEX
(MEADOWLAND LTD)
Y GIVEEEN that the Huntington Beach City Ccuncil Kill hold a
NOTICE IS. i4j�m
public hearing in the Council Chamber. at the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main'Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and
at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below.
t
DATE: Monday, June 16, 1986
TLC: 7:30 P. H.
SUBJECT: Development Agreement - Meadowland Ltd.
LOCATION: west side of Svingdale, 760 feet south of Edinger Avenue
PE0P0S.12.: To execute a development reement between the City and the
applicant for an approved i4' -,nit senior apartment complex.
ENyikoirmL,NTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 85-2 a, ping the
environmental effects of said project i; - previously
been adopted by the City Council.
ON PILE: A copy of the proposed development agreement is on file
in the Department of Development Services.
ALL IHTI1�E51'ED PFASOt�S are invited to attend said hearing and express
opin.iors 'or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
-Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTLHGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Phone (714) 536-5405
140TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR A 114 UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMEN~ ..'".FLEX
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planr ng Commission
will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at t. Huntington
Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, :alifornia,
on the date and at the time indicated below to receive ann' consider
the statements of all persons who wish to be heard rela-ive- to the
application described below.
DATE/TIME : June .3�1 1986 - T.-00 Lam
7
APPLICANT: Meadowland Ltd.
LOCATION: West side of Springdale, 760 feet south of Edinger
Avenue.
REQUEST: To execute a development agreement between the City and
the applicant for an approved 114 unit senior apartment
complex.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development agreement is on file
in the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for
inspection by the public.
ALL INTERESTED F-ERSONS ar: invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above, If there are any further questions please call
Gayle O'Brien, Assistant Planner at 536-5271.
James W. Palin, Secretary
Huntington Beach Planning Commission r,
(5200d-5)
u f
i}146 504 31 ,. ,.4146-123-Q6 8146-121'-03
Mar E. Tt•ac ` ' a" th M. Ilol t t. nn M. Stanbra t
y Y• f r� 17) y � L2��
6031 11 1isr.Ae' s;Dr.. _.QSi Chipper Ln. a • j951:.Me`a"dovlark Dr.
• Hunt in-gtnn Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
#146-505-01 #146-123-07 0146-121-04
i
"Jacqueline Cordary Ngoc Sy Tra.. Ho Van Cao
2323 McBride Ln. 051 16272 Chipper Ln.
` 16252`"Angler.Ln. , PP
Huntington`Beach, CA 92647 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
#1'46-263-09 #146-123-08 0146-121-05
'Pedro C. Herrera Walter S. Steward Steven D. Brown
6207 Nome Ave. 162;2 Fairway l.n. 16252 Chipper Ln. ,
Bell. CA 90201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
f
i
#146-263-10 0146-123-09 #146-121-06 �
.,Dept. 'of Vets Affairs John G. Woodhouse Darley R. Short
w l Snead, Dr. 16262 Fairway I.n. 16242 Chipper Ln.
Aluntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntingtoo Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
#146-263-11
146-123-10 0146-121-07
Charles J 6 J Hooper Rosemary Esther Shaw tares Y. Radle �
5881 Snead Dr. 16242 Fairway Ln. 16222 Chipper Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Ruptington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
4146-263-12 0146-123-11 44146-121-08
Richard L. Smi 0 Jiro 4 Deborah Bases Wa i Wan Ku
5891 Snead.Cr. 16232 Fairway Ln. 10381 Magnolia Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 11untingtrn Ss�ach, CA ?2649 Anaheim, CA 92804
0146-123-01 0146-123-12 0146-121-09
Janes 1l. Jehnson Daniel R. Prohacka Donald .. .1opkins
16181 Chipper.Ln. 5652 brighten Dr. 1C192 Chipper Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92644 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 '
# 146-123-02 0146-123-11 # 146-122-01
Clrnet.L. CrosFnn Geoege W. Randall Marshall G. Curtis
16201 Chipper Ln. 16202 Fairway Ln. _11972 Meadowlatk Dr.
Huntington.Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 �
ti
0146-123-03 0146-123-14 0146-122-02
is 'William L. Berry Uarothy J. Laurie Wayne J. Mcltullen
15211 Chipper Ln. 16192 Fairway Ln. 5962 Meadowlark Dr.
Euntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington. Beech, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
_ '0146-122-03
#1a6-123-04 .I46 121-01
Tic+athy G. Murphy i.ahce J. Berry orge N. Kanakis
16231,'Chipper Ln. 5971 1leadovlark Dr. 5952 Meadowlark Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach. CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
#146-123-05 0146-121-02 #1!6-122-04.
JohnRoethlisberiter Elton L. Beckwith Richard Renna
16241 Chipper Ln. 5961 Meadowlark Dr. 594.2 Meadowlark Dr.: -
lluntinton`Beach, CA 92644 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington B-ach,.CA 92649 ,
1146763-'13
#146-421-02
tg146-501-06
'Jalal flonahietchadi
1b142 .Chipper. Ln.
'zmes_F. Rodney
;L .24-1 Angler.. Ln.
� �i" -i� r� �
"Donald Charroin.
�.le16211. Angler Ln.
• Hiihtington Beach, CA 92649.
Huntington„Bcar.h,
CA 92647
Huntington Beach CA' 92647
01'4'6-263-14
0146=421-03
0146-501-07
`Edna:d.J. Rouggau -
George R. Taylor
Clifford A. Gritz'
1ti152 Chipper Ln.
16281 Angler Ln.
16221- Angler.'Ln .
Hwitington:Beacti CA 92649
Huntington Beach,
CA 92647.
Huntington Beach, CA .9264
#1467263-15
0146-421-04
0146-501-08
Michael J.,{Spagnoli
Robert D. Elliott
Carlene E. Lancaster
16162 Chipper Ln.
16291 Angler Ln.
16231 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach,'. CA 92649
Huntington Beach,
CA 92647
Huntington Beach, CA 9264
0146-263-16
Rufus Borne
8385 Sweetwater• Circle
'Huntington Beach, CA 92646
0146-422-01
John T. Harduvel
16262 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92.647
#145-265-n1 0146-422-02
Douglas C. Wheeler La June Sykes
16152 Fairway Ln. 16272 Angler I.n.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
#146-265-02 0146-422-03
Erika.Sayward Leroy F. Fritz, Jr.
16162 Fairway Ln. 16282 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
0146-265-03
Jesse Jacobs
16172,Fairway Ln.
'Huntington Beach, CA 92649
#146-265-04
Richard .F.. Robinson
16171 Chipper Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
0146-265-05
AR 1Arnha h Agnnc_
0146-501-01
Tnrstfen D. Grinaper
16151 Angler I.n.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
01 46-501-02
Gerald R. Finlev
16161 Angler I.n.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
0146-501-03
Henry Helton
16171 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 9264:
#146-501-04
John J. McNamara
161.81 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
0146-501-05
Bert S. llakayama
16201 Angler I.n.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
0146-501-09
Paul Yiyasaki.
16241 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA
0146-501-10
Herman J. Zimmernan
16251 Angler Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA
#146-502-01
Eddie Ford
6001 Softwind Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA
0146-502-02
Robert A. Horton
6021 Softw!nd Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA
0146-502-03
Robert CheeV
6031 Softwind Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA
4146-503-01
Emanuel Glass
6032 Softwind Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA
0146-503-31
Lloyd R. Hill
6031 Montecito Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA
0146-504-01.
Ra;•mond Tourgeman
6032 Montecito Dr.
Huntington.Beach, CA
92647
92647
92647
92647
92647
92647
i,
92647
s
146-122' 05
, z
Ronald- B. 4toWlera
1b011 Tre ark 'Cir.
Wettnitnster, CA 92683 -
s
it146=122=06
a'tricia L. Powell
i
423 `LgureL Rd.
;
Yeadon,r A 19050
;
#146-122-07
Joseph 1rovat
„16382 Magelfan' Ln...
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
�
0146-122-11
,Richard L.-Bottorff
!
5911 Per'Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92640
0146-122-12
Paul R. Bridgman
5921 Far Cir.
Huntington Reach. CA 92649
,
A146-122-13
}
John C. Marony
5941.Par Cir.
'
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
#146-122-14
Robert W. Tussey
5951 Par Cir.
11un•z ington Beach, CA 92649
�1r.6-12=-15
Mohta-;h Shalikar
5961,Par Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
0146-112-27
.Huntington Vi 11age
,8693.Wilphire Rlvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
j..
f146-26318
Carl A. Stutnnai�, Jr.
515 W. Lambert Rd.
Brea, CA 92621
0146-511-12 _
Lamplighter ApartmentR
555.R. Ocenn.Blvd., 042O
L Ong, Beach$ 'CA'90802
r