Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice of Public Meeting and Public Review and Comment Perio 1 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC REV IEW AND COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT Notice of Public Meeting for the Proposed Huntington Beach Housing Element Amendment Date Time Location Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, 92648 The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated elements of the City's General Plan and was last updated in 2013 for the 2013-2021 planning period pursuant to California Government Code Section 65588. The Housing Element identifies and assesses the City's existing and projected housing needs and provides an inventory of constraints and resources relevant to meeting these needs. The housing element must also identify how the City will meet its share of the regional housing need, commonly referred to as RHNA. The City will be amending its 2013-2021 Housing Element to ensure that the City will continue to meet its RHNA goals for the remainder of the planning period. A City Council study session meeting is scheduled for the date and time listed above to discuss the Housing Element Amendment, including potential sites to accommodate the City's remaining share of the RHNA for lower income households. An opportunity for public comment will be provided at the study session. Notice of Public Comment Period: Subsequent to the study session, a draft of the Housing Element Amendment will be available for public review and comment for 30 days starting September 15, 2015 and ending October 14, 2015. The document will be available at the following locations: • Huntington Beach Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648; • Rodgers Seniors' Center, 1706 Orange Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648; • City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Huntington Beach, CA 92648; and • on the web: hftp://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/Departments/Planning/major/ Any person wishing to comment on the draft Housing Element Amendment may do so in writing by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 14, 2015 by providing written comments to Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager, City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. For further information, please contact Jennifer Villasenor at 714-374-1661 or ivillasenor(@surfcity- hb.org. Potential Sites to Accommodate the City of Huntington Beach Regional Housing Need (RHNA) I � � Heil Ave. Warner Ave. #3 i Talbert Ave. #2 f York own Ave. # Map Location 1 18700 Delaware (Main & Delaware) 2 18811 Florida(Main and Florida) 3 17631 Cameron (E of Beach, S of Slater) 4 19471 Beach (NWC Beach and Yorktown) 5 18431 Beach (Beach and Main) 6 16052 Beach(Beach and Stark) 9/8/2015 Huntington Beacri Housing Element Amendment I City Council Study Session September 8, 2015 Site Capacity Analysis (Oct `13 vs June `15) • In 2013, City demonstrated capacity that exceeded RHNA for all income levels • Vacant and underutilized sites can be credited towards lower income RHNA targets when zoned for the"default"density of 30 units/acre minimum • Vacant& underutilized sites in DTSP and BECSP provided capacity for 670 units at 30+ du/acre, providing majority of City's lower income site capacity • In May 2015,the City Council adopted amendments to the BECSP,which included a reduction in the allowable number of units that could be built within the specific plan area (i.e.—reduced capacity of the BECSP) • In June 2015, HCD rescinded City's certification of Housing Element October 2013 533 units 783 units YES Jan.2014—April 2015:97 Very Low/Low income units built or approved April 2015 436 units 783 units YES May 2015—BECSPAmendments Adopted;Reduction in Residential MAND(i.e.—site capacity) June 2015 436 units 26 units NO UPPLEMENTAt COMMUNICATiON Maeting Cate: 9- L — LIC 1 Agenda Item No. `5�fgt ` 9 8 2015 Housing Element Am,; Approach • The City must update the Housing Element to ensure that adequate sites remain available to meet the City's RHNA requirement • The amendment will include an Adequate Sites Program, which will need to identify sites to accommodate the remaining lower income RHNA • The Adequate Sites Program will include sites that meet specific criteria in order to be counted toward the City's 410 unit lower income RHNA shortfall Warner Ave_ Potential Sites An Isis Los Palos 3 en`px nro. , g S .. .� @ 1 filePor AVB. AV \� 6■ Newman Ave. - 13 14 P RR g � 10 £ t5 LL AlA a m manicAg 13 Gisl WG Ave. r.11 ■ -17 Ellis Ave. °1 �^SryD I 20 \Y 4 8 vwxroxra.e. 1 r� � 2 9/8/2015 Site Requirements State Law Qualifying Criteria to Make Up Sites Shortfall: Parcel large enough to accommodate minimum 16 units Residential permitted by-right (site plan review, no CUP) Allow min. "default density" of 30 du/acre for lower income credit At least 50% of 410 unit shortfall must be designated on exclusively residential sites (no mixed use) Other factors for site consideration: • Feasibility of implementing within time frame (by September 2016) • Pending project status • Minimize potential change of existing commercial, industrial or low density residential areas to high density residential • Residential already allowed use at default density (30 du/ac) • Minimize costs associated with implementation Clear path to HCD acceptance Warner Ave, " Los Patos Eame•,A.•. !_ s —rl Slater Ave. 4 Speer /y SLbr�Av!_ fl N¢wmao Ave. 5 0 [�� A m GaRkrO Ave- Ellis Ave. c 8 .,\ 20 ronnox+a.e. � 3 9/8/2015 Preliminary List of Qualifying Sites Map Location 1F # +I— S M1M Aw. a NY Aw A 18700 Delaware/18811 x Florida(Main& � Delaware) — B 18792 Delaware (Delaware S/of Main) w•A s sd,Aw. c C 17631 Cameron(E of Beach,S of Slater) T� D 19471 Beach(NWC Beach and Yorktown) % � JE E 18431 Beach(Beach pA A and Main) F 16052 Beach (Beach and Stark) a m A. 0 Sites A & B: Delaware and Florida Irw • Sites already identified in Housing Element ___ - -- - • Site analysis previously accepted by HCD • Not on primary —. commercial corridor ,. History of zoning on sites has allowed multi- family residential • Current zoning requires residential 1 • Combined capacity accommodates 193 units 4 9/8/2015 Site C: Cameron (south of Slater) • Site already identified in Housing Element as an underutilized site • Site analysis previously accepted by HCD • Capacity accommodates 39 units Site 1D: Beach and Yorkto`= • Site already identified in Housing Element as an underutilized site • Site analysis previously accepted by HCD • Capacity accommodates 22 units s 9/8/2015 Site E: Beach and Main FOR '�J —LEAS; 1 • Site already identified in Housing Element as a vacant site • Site analysis previously accepted by HCD • Capacity accommodates 24 units • Non-profit provider interest in providing extremely low income (<30%AMI) and veteran housing Site F: Beach and Stark H05 v e p9 E I elrTO» IN A, E 9 j' ai F P E6 �t Behind primary commercial corridor € ' • 5 acre commercial frontage +� along Beach would be retained r ; $ • Access would be from Stark and ; tt.�^d SIA� adjacent alley • Can accommodate majority of shortfall • Capacity for 395 units 6 9/8/2015 Potentiaf Capx �a.city Map Location Current Existing Assumed Site Realistic # Zoning H.E.Site tensity Acreage Unit Potential A Main/Delaware/ SP14 Underutilized 50 du/ac 2.86 143 Florida SitesA&B B 18792 Delaware SP14 Vacant Sites 50 du/ac 1.00 50 67 aft C 17631 Cameron SP14 Underutilized 50 du/ac 0.79 39 Site D D 19471 Beach SP14 Underutilized 50 du/ac 0.45 22 (NWC Beach and Site E Yorktown E 18431 Beach SP14 FVacantSite 31 du/ac 0.78 24 Beach and Main 66 F 1 16052 Beach SP14 N/A—new 68 du/ac 5.8 395 (Beach and site Stark Total Site Capacity 11.68 673 Adequate Sites Program would commit the City to accommodate the 410 unit lower income shortfall by designating a combination of the listed sites for residential uses subject to a Site Plan Review Other Housing Element Program Changes • The City must address parking for the sites selected to accommodate the shortfall — Parking requirement does not need to reflect the previous BECSP standards, but would be in line with the Citywide parking requirements #Bedroorns Current HBZS01Citywide Req. Current BECSP Parking Req. Studio/1 BR 1 min. 2 min. 2 BR 2 min. 2 min. 3 or more BR 2.5 min. 2.5 min Guest 0.51unit 0.51unit Average 2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit • Other changes would update the current Housing Element programs: reflect actions that the City has taken toward the Homeless Assistance and Extremely Low Income Housing programs 7 9/8/2015 Next Steps • Complete Draft Housing Element Amendment • Public Review and Comment Period - September 15, 2015 - October 14, 2015 • Concurrent HCD Review • Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings — October/November 2015 • Designation of Adequate Sites must be completed by September 2016 (within 3 years HE adoption) 8 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 124 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW McKenna Letter to City Council 9-8-15 Attachments: McKenna Itr to City Council re Workshop 9-8-2015(2) pdf From:Samantha Mouradian [mailto Samantha@agd-landuse com] On Behalf Of Amy Frellich Sent:Tuesday,September 08, 2015 123 PM To: Hardy,Jill, Sullivan, Dave, Delgleize, Barbara, O'Connell, Billy, Peterson, Erik, Posey, Mike, Fikes, Cathy Cc:Wilson, Fred, Dombo,Johanna, Gates, Michael, Frakes, Sandie, Hess, Scott, De Coite, Kim,Vigliotta, Mike, dmckenna@mckennacars com, Amy Freilich Subject: McKenna Letter to City Council 9-8-15 Good Afternoon Mayor Hardy and Councilmembers, I have attached a letter prepared by Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP on behalf of McKenna Automotive This letter that supplements our April 30, 2015 letter regarding the limitation of residential housing construction within the Corridor and particularly residential development on the property adjacent to the McKenna Automotive property and is being submitted to the City in connection with the City Council Meeting scheduled for 4 pm today to address a Proposed Amendment to the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element If you would like to discuss any of the content in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact my office Very truly yours, Amy Freilich Samantha Mouradian Receptionist ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP 12100 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1600 1 Los Angeles I CA 190025 Direct 310 254 9057 Main 310 209 8800 samantha@agd-landuse com This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for use by the addressees named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail,and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited If you have received this e-mail in error,please immediately notify this office at 310 209 8800 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof Please consider the environment before printing this email ' SUPPLEMENTAL COMM U IK Meeting gate: Lroz�L_ 1 Agenda Item No. \ oZ ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH &DELVAC LLP LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS o LITIGATION o MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY 12100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,SUITE 1600 AMY E FREILICH LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 Tel (310)209-8800 DIRECT DIAL (310)254-2260 Fax (310)209-8801 E-MAIL Amy@a�4GD-LandUse com WEB www AGD-LandUse com September 8, 2015 City of Huntington Beach Attn Mayor Jill Hardy and City Council 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re September 8 Workshop on Balancing Essential Commercial/ Automotive Economic Uses with Residential and Affordable Housing within the Beach and Edinser Specific Plan(`BECSP") Area("Corridor") Dear Mayor Hardy and Councilmembers This letter supplements our letter of April 30, 2015 with regard to the limitation of residential housing construction within the Corridor and particularly residential development on the 164 acre property adjacent to the automotive industrial/commercial use on the McKenna Automotive property and is being submitted to the City in connection with the above scheduled workshop McKenna"Surf City"Volkswagen("McKenna Automotive") has been serving the Huntington Beach community for over 40 years, and is the largest VW Orange County Dealer servicing the greater Los Angeles and Orange County Area, specializing in New and Certified Pre-Owned Volkswagen Cars, Volkswagen Service &Volkswagen parts McKenna Automotive is one of 10 dealerships within the Beach Boulevard Corridor(as compared with approximately 16 such dealerships just 10-15 years ago) McKenna is also the fee owner of a portion of the Kia dealership property, located next to the Volkswagen dealership As indicated in our April 30 letter, McKenna Automotive is extremely concerned about the impact of additional housing adjacent to its dealership locations and was supportive of the well- though- out City policy of reducing the MAND ("Cap") in the BECSP Corridor in order to avoid significant public health and safety impacts and detrimental impacts to auto services in the Corridor Apparently because of the recently filed Kennedy Commission lawsuit,which seeks to reaffirm the original 4500 unit Cap in the Corridor,1 the City Council has scheduled the September 8t' 1 A lawsuit was filed by the Kennedy Commission et al against the City seeking to invalidate the recent BECSP amendment,asserting that the City's action to reduce the MAND is inconsistent with the City's General Plan Housing Element and state law"because,among other things, it places a moratorium on the construction of affordable housing within the BECSP and creates a shortfall of sites available to meet the City's low-income housing need"(Kennedy Petition,¶1) The lawsuit asserts a laudable goal of implementing the City's required fair ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH &DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 2 workshop to again review how to address housing in the City, and appears on the verge of rescinding its action to restrict the MAND to 2100 and locating additional housing within the Corridor Yet, the City's workshop notice indicates that the City(1) is not reconsidering the zoning for the high intensity residential project adjacent to the McKenna Automotive properties so detrimental to Corridor automotive uses, and(b) instead, is promoting even further concentration of housing adjacent to and within a few blocks of the McKenna Automotive site As further described below, placing the entire City RHNA within the BECSP Corridor is inconsistent with City General Plan goals to encourage economic growth along the Corridor, will destroy the Corridor's economic and automotive mixed use character and will fail to meet the City's obligation to avoid an overconcentration of affordable housing The City should not be buffeted by the Kennedy Commission litigation or by claims of an adjoining property owner with no vested rights Instead of taking this action,McKenna Automotive urges the City to carefully consider at this workshop how it may (a) appropriately plan for affordable housing in the City without unconstitutionally over-concentrating that housing within the BECSP Corridor and (b) take action, clearly within its legislative authority, to stop the proliferation of housing adjacent to key economic drivers in the community, including McKenna Automotive. As it evaluates the locations for future housing in the City, we urge the City Council to focus on the rights of McKenna Automotive, an existing business in the community for over 40 years, and to give it equal or greater importance than those of an adjacent owner which—per its filed application—will create a public nuisance I. More housing in the Neighborhood Parking Segment of the BECSP Conflicts with General Plan Goals. The Neighborhood Parkway Segment has already been subject to construction of two of the major housing developments along the Corridor 104 affordable housing units—comprising more than 10% of the City's RHNA for very low and low-income housing—and 358 total units—comprising almost 20% of all of the housing approved to date in the BECSP and 26% of the City's 2014-2021 RHNA—are located in the "Neighborhood Parkway Segment" in which McKenna Automotive is located. Further housing development in this BECSP segment and adjacent to existing auto uses (which make up a substantial portion of this segment's uses) will be completely incompatible with the numerous auto dealerships, auto repair and similar uses in the Neighborhood Parkway Segment Yet, most of the new housing sites share of Regional Housing Need,but offers the City misguided, inappropriate and unconstitutional advice for implementing and balancing its diverse goals ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 3 selected by the City for consideration at its workshop are jammed into this area and a few blocks immediately surrounding it. Announced plans by an applicant to build a 165 unit residential project(not mixed-use as required by City zoning) adjacent to the McKenna Automotive site—at a density of over 100 units to the acre and with slightly more than half of the parking required by the zoning code— further threatens the automotive mixed use character of the Corridor and specifically threatens the viability of the McKenna Automotive business. As we have previously demonstrated, this proposed housing project (the application for which has been determined by the City to be incomplete as it violates numerous City zoning requirements) or any high density residential housing would create self-imposed public nuisance and health and safety impacts (parking and traffic congestion, lighting, noise, air quality degradation, vibration, and other potential nuisance factors)by forcing its construction in a location adjacent to the McKenna commercial and industrial uses and cause significant impacts upon McKenna Automotive which could force it to abandon its current automotive use II. More Housing in the Neighborhood Parkway Segment Will Have a Detrimental Effect on City Revenues. It is in the City's economic interest to avoid placing further housing in the Neighborhood Parkway Segment as well New car sales collectively provide 16% (approximately$5 4 million dollars per year) in sales tax revenue to the City As indicated in the City's proposed 2015/2016 budget "auto sales are the City's largest retail category contributing to the sales tax base each year" 8 of the top 25 sales generating businesses in the City are automotive businesses We have commissioned Kosmont Companies, a leading economic development advisory firm,to prepare a fiscal impact and economic benefit analysis of alternative uses on an existing site Their analysis demonstrates a threefold difference in fiscal revenue generation potential and an even more significant difference in job creation—approximately 3 jobs versus 60—when comparing residential and automotive uses for any given site along Beach Boulevard. Their study also notes that residential is more expensive from a fiscal expenditure perspective, including police and fire services, than is automotive or other retail use The Kosmont analysis also discloses that with the exception of motor vehicle and parts dealers and certain a few other categories of retail uses (Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book&Music Stores, General Merchandise Stores) for which retail sales show a surplus, the City is experience a retail sales leakage.2 As Z Overall retail sales in the City are lower than retail spending potential based on households and average household income,suggesting that the City is likely leaking a portion of Huntington Beach resident retail purchases to other jurisdictions,while surrounding cities include Westminster,Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa,Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Anaheim are experiencing overall retail sales surplus(i e capture of consumer retail spending) ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 4 such the auto sale and parts industry is a crucial driver of revenues for the City We would expect that a potential loss of 2 of its 10 existing Beach Boulevard dealerships due to placement of residential uses should be of critical concern to the City As the Kosmont study also indicates • Careful consideration should be given to new development on Beach Boulevard(e g residential, mixed-use) with respect to the potential effects on existing adjacent businesses, particularly automotive businesses as the top sales tax revenue driver for the City (16% of total sales, 8 of top 25 sales tax generating businesses). • Existing automotive dealerships on the Boulevard have indicated incompatibility and negative consequences on their businesses from new adjacent residential uses, including parking, noise, lighting, time of operations and other related effects • Because the automotive retail sector benefits from a"critical mass" factor as a result of being grouped within "auto malls" adjacent to one another(such as Beach Boulevard of Cars), retention and/or expansion of existing dealerships and potential attraction of new ones is an important consideration for the City in retaining its existing tax base III. The City Can Resolve These Issues and Avoid Challenge by McKenna Automotive By the adoption of an amendment to the BECSP in April, 2015, the City has, after exhaustive study and review of staff, expert and community input, comprehensively determined that excessive proliferation of housing within the BECSP Corridor, if left to continue, would irreversibly destroy the Corridor's commercial and automotive mixed use character, essential to the sound economy of the City The City accordingly amended the prior BECSP by reducing the previously authorized Cap of 4500 residential housing units to 2100 units, which taking into account the existing or vested 1900 units, left 200 units of new construction capacity In taking this action,the City appropriately determined that reducing the number of housing units within the Corridor met all of the City's General Plan goals, objectives, policies and strategies The City recognized the need to balance housing and affordable housing requirements with other fundamental City policies, including the stated goals of its General Plan to promote economic development, and the constitutionally mandated obligation Oust reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year)to avoid overconcentration of affordable housing within a specific corridor of the City as required by state and federal law Such balance cannot be achieved if the economic sector of the Corridor is threatened or abandoned If the City reverses its course and accommodates additional sites in the Corridor for residential housing (affordable and market rate)beyond its 2100 MAND cap, despite already having ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 5 authorized 1900 units in the Corridor, or, in particular allows 165 units out of the 200 units allowed under its amended MAND cap to be placed next to the McKenna dealership,the City may put McKenna Automotive in a no-win situation in which McKenna will face a public nuisance and will be forced to defend against violations of law, including taking, substantive due process and federal and state violations of fair housing laws resulting from the City's concentration of all of its lower income housing needs within a single corridor To avoid this potential litigation, McKenna Automotive recommends that the City prohibit any further non-vested residential units within the Neighborhood Parkway Segment of the BECSP (the area of Beach Boulevard from approximately Main Street to Adams Avenue) and/or(b) remove the ability of any applicant to apply for residential uses adjacent to existing automotive uses, on the basis that such location would be a detriment to public health and safety To accomplish this, the City could adopt one of the following approaches, each of with is fully within the legislative authority of the City to enact A (1) Amend and reduce the BECSP Cap to the existing 1900 built and vested residential units, or (2) Retain the 2100 Cap, but either prohibit any further non-vested residential units within the Beach Boulevard Neighborhood Parkway Segment or adjacent to automotive uses and/or deny any CUP for proposed use of residential units adjacent to automotive uses, whether or not within the Neighborhood Parkway segment of the BECSP, B Zone and plan for the remainder of its RHNA affordable housing needs outside of the Corridor, within the City's remaining land areas, which areas are wholly adequate to meet such RHNA needs, and C Prepare an economic evaluation of the viability of further attracting retail development and job use within the Corridor IV. Facts Necessary to Understand in Resolving Conflict in City Goals A. Authorizing Residential Projects in the Neighborhood Parkway Segment of the BECSP is in Direct Conflict with the Land Use Element of the General Plan The City has ample grounds to remove housing from the BECSP and in particular adjacent to M auto dealerships and other automotive uses The Land Use Element of the General Plan clearly recognizes the conflict created by placing high density residential development adjacent to auto establishments and large retail/commercial/industrial land uses and actively seeks to avoid placing such land uses side by side ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 6 Building high density residential uses, including but not limited to the announced plans by an applicant to build a residential housing project of 165 residential units adjacent to the McKenna Automotive site, will quickly lead to a conflict between the existing large automotive and retail/commercial/mdustnal businesses and the residents of the project, leading to public nuisance lawsuits between the residents of the project and the automotive and other large retail/commercial/mdustnal businesses, as well as possible litigation against the City for inconsistency with the General and Specific Plans, denial of state and federal fair housing acts, denial of substantive due process and inverse condemnation The City's General Plan Land Use Element definitively provides • LU 10 1 5. Require that buildings,parking, and vehicular access be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods • LU 10 16 Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards • LU 11 15 Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. • LU 12 15 Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the d enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls, e location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts • (II-LU-7) C EXISTING LAND USE CONFLICTS There are several areas of the City in which the juxtaposition of residential uses with commercial or industrial uses has resulted in conflicts (Figure LU-4) These areas are described below ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 7 Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street, Clay Avenue, Gothard Street- This area contains low density, medium density, and high density residential uses adjacent to heavy manufacturing uses At this time, no manufacturing use poses a problem, however, a future manufacturing use as permitted by zoning may create a land use conflict with the residential uses Magnolia Street, Warner Avenue - The northwestern area of this intersection contains industrial uses adjacent to a school, low density, and high density residential uses The mix of industrial uses adjacent to noise sensitive uses create noise impacts on the noise sensitive uses (II-LU-11) ISSUES 7 In some areas of the City,residential units are incompatibly located in commercial and industrial districts and create conflicts with adjoining uses Thus, building residential development adjacent to McKenna's automotive, commercial and industrial repair land use is not consistent with the General Plan Development of high density, multi-family residential use adjacent to commercial/industrial automotive facilities would create non-mitigatable health and safety impacts upon (1)the residents of the adjacent multi-family building, consisting of substantial air quality issues, operational hazards, light, noise, vibration, and long operating hours, that would negatively affect the health and safety of those potential residents, and (2) the existing automotive uses which would face public nuisance suits and degradation of their economic viability essential to the City's fiscal viability B. Conflict with the Specific Plan In light of the recent hearings on the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan amendment, it became readily apparent that there is a conflict in land uses within the Specific Plan between auto and other large retail uses and high density residential development that has been occurring in specific areas along these corridors To avoid this conflict, it is essential that the City direct placement of remaining lower income and other housing units, whether witlun the BECSP or in remaining areas in the City to locations most beneficial to the City and future residents, and one that does not negatively impact the economic vitality and future economic development of the City We note the following points with respect to the Specific Plan's approach to resolving these conflicts in favor of auto use 1 The Neighborhood Parkway Segment of the Specific Plan is an area that contains predominantly auto dealerships and repair uses, and other large commercial uses, and the ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 8 Specific Plan clearly targets the preservation of existing automotive uses Additional housing development in this area is in conflict with Strategic Priority No 5 of the Specific Plan, which provides • Support the Continued Presence and Expansion of Auto-Dealerships along Beach Boulevard • Permit existing auto dealerships to expand anywhere on the corridor • Encourage new auto sales dealership development along segments closer to I-405 • Work with existing auto dealerships to investigate the potential for off-site over flow fleet storage and to support the retention, expansion and eventual clustering of the auto dealership offerings along Beach Boulevard 2 High density residential uses will be highly incompatible with these uses The Specific Plan amendment requires residential uses within this segment to obtain a conditional use permit and to meet the standard that"the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood and will not adversely affect the General Plan" This standard cannot be met for housing developed adjacent to automotive and repair uses 3 There is a need to preserve and permit expansion for high revenue generating economic uses within the City and to preserve land area in which such uses can be maintained The Specific Plan recognizes this by promoting high density housing along Edinger Avenue, not Beach—"Along Edinger Avenue in particular, promote the development of dense,high quality housing formats " (SP Section 1 3) 4 There are numerous places along the Beach and Edinger Corridor in which housing can be developed and the goals of the Specific Plan achieved without conflict with the economic goals of the City but the Neighborhood Parkway Segment is not one of those areas Housing along Beach Boulevard in this segment creates health safety and welfare risks to future residents, due to the high volume of automobile vehicle sales and repair, which includes bright night lighting, noise, regulated hazardous materials use, vibration and potential for air quality impacts Further, the Neighborhood Parkway Segment of Beach Boulevard contains large commercial uses that are automobile dependent, so walkability will not be furthered by placing housing in this segment The City has been proactive in meeting its RHNA need There is extensive development of housing in the City, and there are numerous areas outside of the Corridor in which housing can be developed We urge the City to recognize that the construction of additional housing along the Neighborhood Parkway Segment of the City is inconsistent with its own Specific Plan requirements ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 9 V. Statutory and Constitutional Issues Relating to placing all of the City's RHNA Affordable Housing within the BECSP Corridor A. Under the California Fair Housing Act, the City is not required to waive its land use regulations applicable to a project, if the project creates a health and safety violation concerning the neighborhood or adjoining property As noted above, the development of high density, multi-family residential use adjacent to commercial/industrial automotive facilities would create non-mitigatable public health and safety impacts upon the residents of the adjacent multi-family buildings, consisting of substantial air quality issues, operational hazards, light, noise, vibration, and long operating hours, that would negatively affect the health and safety of those potential residents Thus, the City can demonstrate a valid health and safety violation concerning the neighborhood or adjoining property negating the need to allow a high density, multi-family residential use adjacent to automotive and other large scale commercial/industrial uses. There is authority for the City to deny these proposed uses For example, in Shea Homes Ltd Partnership v County of Alameda, 110 Cal App 4t 1246 (2013),the Court ruled that the County properly denied a developer's request for a density bonus for lower income housing within an inappropriate area, where there was sufficient land available for affordable housing in other areas B Additional high density housing units placed within the Neighborhood Parkway Segment of the Specific Plan, including the proposed 165-unit residential development adjacent to the McKenna Automotive property and use, will require substantial parking space concessions and incentives in order to meet current City requirements Indeed,the incomplete CUP application for the 165- unit project requests a 40%reduction in BECSP parking requirements, purportedly based upon California Government Code § 65915 (the Density Bonus law) on the ground that the project is entitled to the parking concessions or incentives as an affordable housing project protected by the California Density Bonus law In fact, no high density housing project with the BECSP, including but not limited to the proposed 165 units of this proposed project, can fulfill the prerequisite requirements of the density bonus law, which specifically provides that such incentives and concessions are available only when the applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development. Since there is no maximum allowable residential density within the BECSP, no density bonus is required and therefore no concession or incentive is available for parking reductions. Indeed to grant such concessions would only increase the traffic congestion and other nuisance factors implicit in building residential dwellings adjacent to automotive uses C Limiting affordable housing to within the BECSP (as proposed by the Kennedy Commission litigation) violates federal and state fair housing law by concentrating minority low ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 10 income housing within a single area of the City Notwithstanding the allegations of the Kennedy Commission petition, concentrating development of affordable housing for racial minorities solely within a single area of the City, the BECSP, constitutes a violation of California and federal fair housing law The City has an extensive minority racial population requiring the furnishing of appropriate affordable housing under California law Under federal law, the City must identify the following factors to determine whether the concentration of lower income dwelling units within the BECSP constitutes undue racial concentration See Shannon v US Dept of HUD, 436 F 2d 809 (3rd Cir 1970), setting forth a number of the following factors (among others) to be considered • What procedures were used in considering the effects on racial concentration when it made a choice of site or of type of housing? • How has the City historically reacted to proposals for low income housing outside areas of racial concentration? • Where is low income housing, both public and publicly assisted, now located in the geographic area of the City? O Where is middle income and luxury housing, In particular middle income and luxury housing with federal mortgage insurance guarantees, located in the geographic area of the City? • Have the zoning and other land use regulations of the City had the effect of confining low income housing to certain areas, and if so how has this effected racial concentration? • Are there alternative available sites? Similar requirements are identified in the U S Supreme Court case of Texas Dept of Housing& Community Affairs v Inclusive Communities Project, Inc , _U S _(June 25, 2015) See also Walker v Dept of Housing& Urban Development, 402 F 3d 532 (5d' Cir 2005), establishing that violations of the federal fair housing act (Title VIII) can be established by a showing of disparate treatment of, and impacts upon, racial minorities by the concentration of lower income housing Preparing to address all of these factors, and others relating to specific sites, requires extensive analysis and studies of population, minority population, and concentration of minority housing, in order to amend housing element distribution to meet the current 2014-2021 regional housing needs assessment in accordance with federal and state constitutional and statutory requirements. ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach September 8, 2015 Page 11 VI. Conclusion At its workshop, the City, in determining its future course, should be conscious of meeting its lower income housing needs 1 In accordance with the goal and objectives already spelled out in its General and BECSP Specific Plan, requiring balance in the location for future housing with the economic needs of the City,particularly in protecting its extensive automotive use establishments, including but not limited to McKenna Automotive, 2 By protecting the health and safety of residents of high density housing by assuring that such housing will not be built adjacent to automotive commercial/industrial uses which could create significant public nuisance impacts on the residents, and 3 By complying with federal and state law in avoiding the concentration of lower income housing within the single corridor of the BECSP, but rather locating such housing within the entirety of the City On behalf of McKenna Automotive, we urge you to carefully consider these fundamental principles in your September 8 workshop Very truly yours, Amy E Freilich cc Michael Gates, Esq Michael Vigliotta, Esq Mr Fred Wilson Mr Scott Hess Danny McKenna F