The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDenial of Site Plan Review 11-004 and Variance 12-004 - Casa of HuntingtonBeach ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building_Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 NOTICE OF ACTION June 4, 2013 Sean Pate CEO, The Pate Foundation 3070 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 . SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004/VARIANCE NO. 12-004—APPEAL- (CASA RINCON) APPLICANT: Sean Pate, CEO, The Pate Foundation PROPERTY OWNER: Morrie Golcheh, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025 REQUEST: SPR: To permit the construction of an approximately 10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach & Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14). The proposed project consists of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq. ft./unit), 5 two-bedroom units (843 sq. ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and 9 four-bedroom units (1,224 sq. ft./unit) including a 693 square foot, two- story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit (a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls on top of two to five feet high retaining walls (total 8 to 13 feet) in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 square feet; and (c) eliminate the private entry type requirement from the project design. LOCATION: 18431 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DATE OF ACTION: June 3, 2013 On Monday, June 3, 2013, the Huntington Beach City Council took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Notice of Action:SPR 11-004/VAR 12-004 June 4,2013 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Rosemary Medel, the project planner, at (714) 374-1684 or via email at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org, or the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincere) ,� Scott Hes , AICP Director of Planning and Building SH:JJ:RM:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial—SPR 11-004NAR 12-004 c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Joan Flynn, City Clerk Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-0041 VARIANCE NO. 12-004 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified Program EIR No. 08-008 for the BECSP. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2009. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for residential projects within the parameters of that specific plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project no additional environmental review is required. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004: 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code because the proposed development does not enhance the vacant land as part of an integrated development within Town Center Neighborhood District, which is the most urbanized segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. 2. The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because the project has not accounted for the impacts of the adjacent multiple family developments as evidenced by designing the emergency vehicle access only from the overcrowded alley. The location of the balconies and windows on the west side of the project are oriented towards the second story windows of the adjacent development creating potential privacy issues. The proximity of these balconies has the potential to generate excessive noise to the adjacent residential developments as they are not sufficiently recessed in the structure to reduce or mitigate sound. Lack of a master planned development creates further issues of circulation and shared parking. Additionally, the quality of architectural design is not in keeping with the quality of design required by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the area. Rooflines and use of materials do not complement surrounding or recently approved projects in the vicinity. Therefore, because of these design issues the project has the potential to be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The project will adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan and Five Points area because access to the site from the public alley does not provide efficient circulation in order to address the parking conflicts of the adjacent multiple family developments gaining access to their garages, utilizing the alley for additional parking, which may result in inadequate emergency vehicle access from the alley to the subject site. Integrated mixed use projects account for shared parking opportunities. Because this development would be a stand-alone project, the opportunity for shared parking is not available and therefore will burden the already under-parked surrounding residential developments. G:\RCA\NOA\13\06-03-13 SPR 11-004_VAR 12-004 (Casa Rincon) Attachment 1.1 4. The project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and other applicable regulations because the project does not provide the required public open space in an area that is accessible to the public on a 24 hour basis. The required common lobby entrance design type is not incorporated into the architecture of the building. The proposed perimeter privacy wall height exceeds the height permitted within the Specific Plan by over two feet without proposing solutions to reduce the visual impact of the walls with better design or grading solutions, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE NO. 12-004: 1. The granting of Variance No. 12-004 to permit perimeter privacy walls at eight feet high in lieu of the maximum height of six feet as required by the Specific Plan, 925 square feet of public open space in lieu of the required 1,200 square feet, and eliminate the private entry type design requirement from the residential building design will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The Specific Plan requires residential developments of twenty units or more to provide public open space. Eliminating the requirement of public open space, while maintaining the proposed number of units does not constitute an undue hardship. Consequently, the requested variance would be the first request within the recently adopted BECSP. Similar variances have not been granted to other Specific Plan properties within the same district that contain similar development constraints. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the Specific Plan is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. While the project site has a grade difference from Beach Blvd to the rear of the site, the Specific Plan encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. Therefore, if the adjacent parcels were consolidated into a master development there would be sufficient onsite circulation to accommodate emergency vehicles, address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation and there would be the opportunity for shared parking to accommodate the residential development. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is not necessary in order to allow for the construction of a residential project on this site. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan requires that a property meet certain minimum development requirements such as those imposed for open space types, open space location, maximum fence height and private entry types of buildings. In this case, the project does not comply with the applicable public open space types for design or location. The design does not incorporate a common entry type design into the building and exceeds the allowable fence height along the north, south and east property lines. G:\RCA\NOA\13\06-03-13 SPR 11-004_VAR 12-004(Casa Rincon) Attachment 1.2 t,4 Dept.ID PL13-012 Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date:6/3/2013 �y �Z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION F. MEETING DATE: 6/3/2013 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Deny Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 (Casa Rincon) located at 18431 Beach Blvd. Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004. The Site Plan Review analyzes a request for the development of a four-story, 24-unit affordable housing apartment project within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). The Variance includes requests to exceed the allowable wall heights, reduce open space and eliminate the private entry type from the building design. The applicant, Sean Pate with the Pate Foundation, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the requests on March 26, 2013. The Planning Commission and sstaff recommend that the City Council deny Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 because the proposed project is inconsistent with the BECSP and does not comply with critical design components of the Specific Plan or Urban Design Guidelines. Financial Impact: Not applicable Planning Commission and Staff Recommended_Action: Deny Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 with findings for denial. Planninq Commission Action on March 26, 2013 The motion made by Peterson seconded by Bixby to deny Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 carried by the following vote: AYES: Dingwall, Peterson, Bixby, Kalmick, Franklin, Pinchiff NOES: Mandic ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Item 9. - I HB -240- Dept.ID PL13-012 Page 2 of 6 Meeting Date:6/3/2013 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue SPR No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 and direct staff accordingly." 2. "Approve SPR No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 with findings for approval." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Sean Pate, CEO of the Pate Foundation, 575 Anton Blvd., Ste 1100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Property Owner: Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Property Management, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 350, Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 18431 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (northwest corner of Beach Blvd. and Main St. adjacent to Allen Tire and Denny's Restaurant) Site Plan Review No. 11-004 represents a request to permit the construction of 24 affordable apartment units in a four-story structure with an overall height of 50 feet and an at-grade parking structure within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). The project also includes a 693 square foot, two-story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. Variance No. 12-004 represents a request to permit the following: a) Eight feet of block/wrought iron on top of two to five feet high retaining walls (total 8 to 13 feet) on the north, east and south property lines in lieu of the maximum height of six feet permitted by the Specific Plan; b) A reduction in public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. required to 925 square feet as proposed; and c) Elimination of the residential building private entry requirement from the project design. The project site is a .78 acre (approximately 34,284 sq. ft.) vacant property zoned for mixed use located adjacent to the northwest corner of the intersection of Ellis Avenue, Main Street and Beach Boulevard. The surrounding properties are a mix of multi-family residential and commercial properties (Attachment No. 2). The composition of proposed residential units is summarized below: Residential Unit Type Number of Units Size One-Bedroom 4 615 sq. ft. Two-Bedroom 5 823 sq. ft. Three-Bedroom 6 1,028 sq. ft. Four-Bedroom 9 1,224 sq. ft. Total 24 10,900 sq. ft. HB -241- Item 9. - 2 Dept. ID PL13-012 Page 3 of 6 Meeting Date:6/3/2013 All of the units are proposed to be affordable to very low and low income households. The affordability component of the project is in compliance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Access to the project will be from a single driveway located on Beach Boulevard and an existing public alley at the rear of the property. The property currently slopes approximately five feet from the highest point along Beach Boulevard to an existing retaining wall at the rear/west property line. The applicant proposes to further excavate the site to level the gradient consistent with the alley at the rear of the property in order to provide vehicular access to the alley. New retaining walls ranging in height from two to five feet with six to eight foot high walls above (total 8 to 13 foot wall heights) are proposed on the north, south and east property lines. With the proposed excavation and new retaining walls, the project results in a 13 foot grade differential between the front of the property (Beach Boulevard) to the rear of the property (existing alley). B. BACKGROUND: Zoning Administrator Actions: On September 5, 2012, a public hearing was held before the Zoning Administrator (ZA). Staff described the proposal and identified that the project does not conform to the issues related to design, open space, fence heights and overall vision of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Staff stated that the BECSP was adopted in March 2010 to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. The BECSP is intended to guide future development and initiate the transformation of the corridors from commercial strip centers, in many cases underutilized and underperforming, to a pattern of centers and segments with development standards and regulations that reflect the vision of a particular area. Because the project lacked compliance with development standards, did not comply with the vision of the BECSP, and the applicant did not submit variance request for deviations from the code, staff did not recommend approval of the site plan review application. During the public hearing, the general manager for Allen Tire spoke in opposition of the project stating that the community building would obstruct visibility of the Allen Tire building. The ZA offered to continue the application to a date uncertain in order to resolve the issues or consider applying for a variance. The applicant asked that the application be continued. On October 15, 2012, staff received a letter from Wayne Deitz of Global Premier Development (applicant) stating that they will be applying for a Variance with no design changes from the plans presented at the September 5, 2012, ZA meeting (Attachment No. 3). On November 21, 2012, a public hearing was held before the ZA for consideration of Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004. The variance included a deviation request from height of perimeter privacy walls, open space reduction and elimination of building entry type requirement. Staff received an email in support of the project from the adjacent property owner of Allen Tires, Ron Beard but Mr. Beard later stated he does not support any building at the front along Beach Blvd. After discussion, the ZA denied Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 with findings for denial. On December 3, 2012, an appeal of the ZA's decision was filed by Mr. Sean Pate. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This item was scheduled for the February 26, 2013, Planning Commission meeting and was continued at the request of the applicant in order to gather additional project related information. On March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Two people spoke at the public hearing, Mr. Sean Pate, (applicant) and Mr. M. A. Hanna, Chairman Emeritus Global Premier Development. Mr. Pate stated that he had worked on the project for over two years but was not Item 9. - 3 HB -242- Dept.ID PL13-012 Page 4 of 6 Meeting Date:6/3/2013 aware of the various issues associated with the project. Mr. Hanna informed the Planning Commission that they had hired a well known architectural firm to design the project and believed it met the standards of the Specific Plan. He indicated that State law allows for variances and he believes the findings can be made to support his variance request. The Planning Commission asked if the Fire Department would have any problems responding to emergency calls to this site. Fire responded that navigating the site is difficult but aerial access can be achieved. The primary concern is with access to the west area of the site. However, Fire Department's code requirement will ensure compliance with fire suppression and safety. The Planning Commission inquired about the target market for the project. The applicant stated that the 100 percent affordable housing project will target low and very low income levels. After discussion, the Planning Commission denied Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12- 004 with findings for denial. D. APPEAL: An appeal was filed by the applicant on April 4, 2013, (Attachment No. 3) regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004. The appeal letter does not raise any new issues than those analyzed in the February 26, 2013, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 4). E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Site Plan Review No. 12-01 Overview Compatibility The project has not been designed for integration and connectivity to future adjacent development because of the substantial grade differences proposed along the north, south and east property lines. The high walls that will surround the project create physical barriers in contrast with the primary goal of the BECSP to integrate projects for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity. Balconies designed along the west elevation have the potential to create privacy issues as they are not sufficiently recessed or designed in a manner to maximize privacy and reduce potential noise, which creates less compatibility with the adjacent residential developments to the west. The applicant's proposed site excavation to accommodate emergency vehicles from the alley to Beach Boulevard is proposed because there is not sufficient room to provide a complete looped emergency accessway on-site along with the proposed structures. Additionally, potential conflicts with emergency vehicle access exist because the adjacent residential development utilizes the alley for additional parking. The proposed excavation results in incompatible design issues, such as greater retaining walls on the perimeter of the site and increased traffic to the alley. Because the project completely isolates adjacent BECSP parcels, it is evident that the lack of a master planned development creates further adverse issues related to circulation and shared parking opportunities. Staff finds that the project is not compatible with adjacent uses. Architecture The proposed architecture is institutional in nature as it lacks articulation, variation of materials, recesses and projections, varying roof lines, and overall architectural character. The primary entrance to the lobby does not incorporate design elements required by the BECSP such as columns, lighting, and varying materials, which all help to identify the entrance for residents and visitors alike by creating a clearly defined formal entrance. HB -243- Item 9. - 4 Dept. ID PL13-012 Page 5 of 6 Meeting Date:6/3/2013 The BECSP Form Based Code implements a process that deliberately results in structural placement, setbacks, structural articulation, public and private open space that creates a more pedestrian friendly walkable environment in an urban setting. The proposed housing project fails to meet the design standards of both the BECSP and the Urban Design Guidelines as follows: BECSP- The Five Points District Segment states the following: • Infill development on underutilized properties would be composed of the types of coherent arrangements of building and streets, and blocks that are presently lacking in this centrally located district. • New apartments, condominiums, and professional and medical office buildings would face public sidewalks with lobby entrances, shop fronts, and attractively detailed facades. Urban Design Guidelines Excerpt- Design Objectives from Chapter 3 Multi-Family Residential. • Create visual interest and individual unit identity, while maintaining a sense of harmony and human scale building proportions along street frontages and other portions of the project exposed to public view • Provide adequate open space, parking and privacy • The arrangement of structures, circulation and open spaces should recognize the particular characteristics of the site and should relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function scale, character and materials. In developed areas, new projects should meet or exceed the standards of quality which have been set by surrounding development. When compared to the quality of developments recently approved for the BECSP such as the 274 unit Beach and Ellis Mixed Use project (Elan Apartments), the 173 unit Beach Walk residential project, and more recently, the Oceana 100 affordable housing unit project, all have met and have excelled in the quality of the project design, use of materials, structural articulation and provision of open space. Due to the basic building materials proposed, lack of structural articulation, and physical appearance of retaining walls topped with additional walls, staff finds that the project does not meet the goals and objective of the BECSP and Urban Design Guidelines. Variances The project does not meet the minimum development standards regulating public open space, provision of a common building entry for the 24 proposed units, and maximum wall height. There are no special circumstances applicable to this property that the strict application of the Specific Plan would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in this district. While the project site has a grade difference, the BECSP encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. As mentioned, various parcels in different districts with the BECSP have been approved for development and none have requested variances. Therefore, the granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. There is no evidence of an undue hardship preventing the applicant from redesigning the proposed project, meeting minimum open space requirements, providing a common entry, and reducing the proposed wall heights to meet minimum code requirements. Therefore, staff does not support the proposed variance request. Summary Item 9. - 5 HB -244- Dept. ID PL13-012 Page 6 of 6 Meeting Date:6/3/2013 Many of these compatibility, design, and variance issues could be resolved if the scope and intensity of the proposed project were reduced, or if the site was developed concurrently with adjacent parcels as a master planned area. Either of these solutions would allow the applicant to address these issues and provide a project in compliance with the General Plan, the BECSP, and the City's Urban Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends denial of Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 for the following reasons: - The project is inconsistent with the General Plan as the project does not enhance the vacant land as part of the most urbanized district within the BECSP — Town Center Neighborhood District. - The Design of the structures and proposed retaining walls do not enhance or complement adjacent properties or those projects recently approved in the Beach Blvd segment of the BECSP. - The stand-alone project does not provide the opportunity for shared parking, which is an integral component of mixed use development for this district. - The project site layout and architecture is not consistent with good zoning practice, does not implement of the goals of the BECSP, and does not conform to the standards and regulations set forth in the development code. - The project does not comply with critical design components of the BECSP, or the City's Urban Design Guidelines regarding public open space and structural articulation. - The aforementioned Variances constitute the granting of a special privilege and there is no evidence to support a finding of an undue hardship. - There are no special circumstances applicable to the property and the strict application of the Specific Plan does not deprive the subject property privileges enjoyed by other properties in this district. - The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in the Certified Program EIR No. 08-008 for the BECSP. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2009. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for residential projects within the parameters of that specific plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project no additional environmental review is required. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance economic development Attachment(s): 1. Suggested Findings for Denial of Site Plan Review No. 11-004/Variance No. 12-004 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations dated June 28, 2012 3. Appeal Letter from Mr. Sean Pate dated April 4, 2013 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 2013 5. Power Point Presentation HB -245- Item 9. - 6 ATTACHMENT # 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 VARIANCE NO. 12-004 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified Program EIR No. 08-008 for the BECSP. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2009. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for residential projects within the parameters of that specific plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project no additional environmental review is required. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004: 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code because the proposed development does not enhance the vacant land as part of an integrated development within Town Center Neighborhood District, which is the most urbanized segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. 2. The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because the project has not accounted for the impacts of the adjacent multiple family developments as evidenced by designing the emergency vehicle access only from the overcrowded alley. The location of the balconies and windows on the west side of the project are oriented towards the second story windows of the adjacent development creating potential privacy issues. The proximity of these balconies has the potential to generate excessive noise to the adjacent residential developments as they are not sufficiently recessed in the structure to reduce or mitigate sound. Lack of a master planned development creates further issues of circulation and shared parking. Additionally, the quality of architectural design is not in keeping with the quality of design required by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the area. Rooflines and use of materials do not complement surrounding or recently approved projects in the vicinity. Therefore,because of these design issues the project has the potential to be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The project will adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan and Five Points area because access to the site from the public alley does not provide efficient circulation in order to address the parking conflicts of the adjacent multiple family developments gaining access to their garages, utilizing the alley for additional parking, which may result in inadequate emergency vehicle access from the alley to the subject site. Integrated mixed use projects account for shared parking opportunities. Because this development would be a stand-alone project, the opportunity for shared HB -247- Item 9. - 8 parking is not available and therefore will burden the already under-parked surrounding residential developments. 4. The project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and other applicable regulations because the project does not provide the required public open space in an area that is accessible to the public on a 24 hour basis. The required common lobby entrance design type is not incorporated into the architecture of the building. The proposed perimeter privacy wall height exceeds the height permitted within the Specific Plan by over two feet without proposing solutions to reduce the visual impact of the walls with better design or grading solutions. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - VARIANCE NO. 12-004: 1. The granting of Variance No. 12-004 to permit perimeter privacy walls at eight feet high in lieu of the maximum height of six feet as required by the Specific Plan, 925 square feet of public open space in lieu of the required 1,200 square feet, and eliminate the private entry type design requirement from the residential building design will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The Specific Plan requires residential developments of twenty units or more to provide public open space. Eliminating the requirement of public open space, while maintaining the proposed number of units does not constitute an undue hardship. Consequently, the requested variance would be the first request within the recently adopted BECSP. Similar variances have not been granted to other Specific Plan properties within the same district that contain similar development constraints. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the Specific Plan is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. While the project site has a grade difference from Beach Blvd to the rear of the site, the Specific Plan encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. Therefore, if the adjacent parcels were consolidated into a master development there would be sufficient onsite circulation to accommodate emergency vehicles, address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation and there would be the opportunity for shared parking to accommodate the residential development. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is not necessary in order to allow for the construction of a residential project on this site. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan requires that a property meet certain minimum development requirements such as those imposed for open space types, open space location, maximum fence height and private entry types of buildings. In this case, the project does not comply with the applicable public open space types for design or location. The design does not incorporate a common entry type design into the building and exceeds the allowable fence height along the north, south and east property lines. Item 9. - 9 HB -248- ATTACHMENT #2 i p!q1 - �� f :'�f s f �•''s^ 01 11.It �1.:.'�`F2 I.' e1- i ry+'x�j{>'3 s NO f51S . b r� ,} ?, ` :Y,: a •'°I '� t I rll' 16 .� I t r• e {v r�,SW- Pt:'1 � :. tAM., ft IJt ,� I .. M •_ Ylr tF �y,:'t .I` i r t+ + �i � ! Y �):: i+.;. �I'� ( Ilfy(,�:.j +.. .. I,�i� I I ,. °!!k, ',;0.,I r I .+`�� p "�� 'h ••I�,1 � I �>i+,'�.. ;r� �� '�+�4�t�,' �, - f � N' i lef�. f ,.f.,. � �-,w��;�+„£: iG v 4{i'� ,-.�...�+ ;�.i"t t "��•/ �l FI f..}(MIT � ��'�, .i� ,= urtr fy, I N (i r I M,� ., � . i : .i ,i , ��y; ,.,,a i °1y� �I il: �A i.� 1 K}� v ''t . : C�ir1+�Y A7. 'f G� t r �r .. nJ 4 { 1 N,. � f i sus 's �u�,t l 'I f r$ .�. .5 € .;6a ..,.i _ ,,.�+aJ� nr "3 PRO Ix( �� i a+1„;''�+'°F te .Xf'-k .�.. { 77, PRO 45� _a_ ............ ^� ; ;i s + ,' s �tua�s,- yk -- 1 f r t f r "{ r ",-:Y 3 t t•• �9/ L�. X, STRUCTURED PARK,,,., AT GRADE — LOBBY PROJECT ENTRY - -- WITN 3 FLOORS OF UNITS ABOVE SI E SUP'MAR4 SITE AREA 136,6GG SF (in.70 A() DENSITY ±11 OU/AC -- - -=�=-=—=--^---------•---------------------- -• - -- - UNIT SUM 1A R _ RAMP DOWN 4 4U 4 9 2 BD 5 IBX __—k`--. i li 3 80 6 . .- ---- "---- -- ---" - -- -- - 6 BD 9 TOTAL 26 HE PC OPEN n SPACE PARKING SUMMARY _ -- I _ a !i a' -- )-----------------nN.n-ter-- ;y m Z BD- S X 1.3 = 7.3 a - ; 3 BD- 6 X 1.5 = 9 4 BO• 4KI.S = ll.f GUEST_ 31 X .2_= 1.8 TOTAL - _— 713 PROVIDED 39 SETBACKS ROPY `ii - � I , REQUIRED 516E O' (10' WINDOWS) .....Z STDAY COMMUNITY/ ALLFT f' LEASING BUILOIN6 PROVIDED FRONT 1' N x• � --��I i I SIDE 10' ALLET 16' PARKING GARAGE - 0UILOING_HEIGHT ENTAT �' - Da i ALLDWFO 6 STORIES I: �r PROPOSED 1 STORIES 'i[E IEfiIDAi DA fAt[i FI.1 IN IYINIXG XE1GMi FDfA3(Xi A AE110INIlAI nN.a - i m OPEN SPACE REQUIRED COMMON SO SFrUNIT (I,200 SI) D i a PRIVATE 60 3flUNiT PROVIDED • COMMON 50 SF/UNIT (1,200 SF) 1.} ,, PAIYATE 60 SF/UNIT �3fn 4 VICINITY MAP G io w No C A S A R I N C 0 N SITE, PLAN A1 .0 TINGTON ,. GLOBAL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT H U N B E A C H. C A Architecture+Planning fa ' 17922 Fitch 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250 A(e i a nn-.m 1[IiFX AEA 1A.3AI Irvine,CA 92614 1 Irvine,CA 92614 _ 949,8512133 (949)222-8149 Nt9Y•com { + 3 M, I� www.globeipmmierdevelopment.com L.6 I M H� N r-+ CD t E 2'-1', 9'A 1/2' 11'-1 114' f 2 9'-0 1/2'. __.� 9'4 114" 10`11 UZI ,r I . Deck \ Deck .. e2..1. .i Bedroom I ! b Bedroom 2 t9'-te'a 11'R• IMestef Bedroom i Living Room Living Room .-._ 11-e•x 12.A. A• R Dining"it. - � t Dlning/Kitrhen d 1 \ 1P-5-0-- I_ ! 12-5'•13'-T Bathroom Master _ - � ealhraam � d - Balh I i v 0'-2374' ,4'-101/2-'I, 9'-912- 0'-23/4" 4'-e 1/r. / 9'-e 127 2'-/9'F, 6-e Yr. A PLAN I PLAN 2 415 5F (Net Rentable) B43 SF (Net Rentable) 9 CASH R I N C 0 N UNIT PLANS I & 2 A3 0 GLOBAL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, (A Architecture+Planning 17922 Fitch 2010 Main Street.Suite 1250 1 1 n i a toil-xen n.rieeeaR 10,tut Irvine,CA 614 Irvine,CA 92614 49.851 2133 /I (949)222-9119 ktgy.com www.g)o6alpremierdevelopment.com i I ' � - Deck . Deck _ .\ Tv-o•xe'-s. az e.r. Bedroom 3 _ 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 2 g l x 10-9• Bedroom 2 - - Llving x Master Bedroom it-rx nP-a• i°'fi•x ne'-°• Living Room Master Bedroom r.m z Tr a• Laun F ;� LINEN La Lujn Master - Master i Bath nlDlning M DininglKltchen - ia'a•zir-s W �z.r�zxr.z Bathroom Bath - Bedroom Bathroom W.I.C. L�J i ,1 I _ - -- -.. , _.-... 4 I I PLAN 3 PLAN 4 1026 SF (Net Rentable) 1114 SF (Net Rentable) o z a e C A S A R I N C O N UNIT PLANS 3. .& 4 A3. 1 GLOBAL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Architecture+Planning 2g1g Main Street,Suite 1250 t r n T A un-ew unennea w,tell 17922 Fitch 0 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92614 949.851.2133 1 t (949)222-9119 ktgy.com F-1 www.globelpremierdsv iopmant.corn 4 R eat 14 of H^� CD i ( 1 {{ — i I Community Room 31'1'x 31'1' f I i ...Cr TM t✓� - - Lobby Lea91nA Office _ Tach Room Women e 13'-o'M 31 L' III{Ullf _ y Elevator ' d Elevator - - - - 1 Down ` r; _ Men'. - j Storage _ i I FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 566 SE 1189 SE o 3 4 e CA S A R INC O N COMMUNITY BUILDING PLANS A3.2 GLOBAL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH, CA Architecture+Planning j 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250 3 r c r n 3ei i.om nnrxrce rr.vn 17922 Fitch y i Irvine,CA 92614 i Irvine,CA 92614 949.851.2133 (949)222-9119 ktgy.com 1 www.globalpremierclevelopmenLcom 3t 5 4 3 I 6 2 � ax f t Materials Front (Beach Blvd) t. stucco 2. Siding 3. Horizontal Metal Railing 4. Decorative Light Fixture 5. Dark Window Frames 6i'1totefront '. Cl7 Yl R?woo � e r Back (Alley) a s C A S H R I N C 0 N ELEVATIONS A4.0 GLOBAL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON B E A C H, C A Architecture+Planning 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250 r s G r x un.usr snnnIn n,M, 17922 Fitch Irvine,CA 92614 ''tt Irvine,CA 92614 949.851.2133 ( 49)222-9119 F� ktgy.com www.globalpremierdevelopment.com of f�Rns,�' e24 r+ CD 1 3 2 I Left (Denny's) Right (Drive Aisle) 2 (! 6 4 I 6 2 t0 , 10-1 N ' Materials I. Stucco M 2. Siding 3. Horizontal Metal Railing It e 4. Decorative Light Fixture 5. Dark Window Frames co 6. Storefront +i Community Building Back Community Building Front C A S A RINCON ELEVATIONS A4. I GLOB .. U N T I N G T O N BEACH Are 2133+Plannin®;GLOBAL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT H , C A chit 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250 r t e a nn-oou ternnut n,ion 17922 Fitch 1 v tll, Irvine,CA 92614 949.85a,CA 9 (949)222.9119 gy.c m www.globalpromierdevelopmenl.com :�.- is °t " Arm ,+" «nr'ce _.,itryd. k.'i .v.acG-w nk25 �a i�,� T 1 T � � � 011 i'6 a ,.. �. � � f;. � tiQ€ �� `` a�� A C+��ry 9i�':S.r RiA•, ,r��., � ri 4� i o '�i k F�.,,,�� n`� • a TYKE, I v� f "-'� u•, r� :; �i b4 ^ r q$� �`• � ysi.e .� a 2�.�. ��, � ,�'v k '�3 MM MAX Am" }°h a' t � �"• � SAY f ft u�+�e� ti.?� j n�.:. �+ i 1 1 1 1 a w 9 h q; I 1` VT R +II Y ys xre ii in F YGI 4� d RRff p S 5 s �a 1141, rflJy77�vj 111 ' :1Mh1 •V 1 1 "t a 1 'Y iY y t'l -.. 1 t y Y * z s ► w fink $ ; hL Ali ll iAll gyp' ,f S f t f 1, — �6?Yyp n"�'- 1_t.'7'i1t zw.a.;- ^+�`+•` i .��a rY.C�.r. k..,{+5, t'��'�,y. x .:' :$_'i" '• �.,."�ai�r•t�.r� y t�� `7 1 y�F.�r.� rF t`^'��'� ��' c'�. ..�"k'.r ""K_ .��'gs �-7s t r,l i?� ru.,rg e ?d� � rn "_".." �.�'13•'`"", i - r:^,i+�§ y{ : # tom, s;'. 'C t `dN t4 "irrta �tl plea �..• .,; .,.•42 s; wc fit. : .[�,'� m�-n 7 .... .xi 1.� � ,gyp►rr F d4 �' dv .i L i .x u �Y; •,tir�. .. ..,, t. n -, '""'_•-— ��r 4 ^'T8 C a.eyyye! .��.. f.,.-e ..�. ,-. s ,nr m i kr4: o-"•`•_. ..,, GC m'�tl';�A��.', rK k�¢2r .a N'pk"4 � seLT .; - '�.? ,uy,r +n �,w"• t �� ':,l,.r�,� �,t�', ' �' +S �i{+�.t�a.-yy7,�.*s � :,', a��J swr ��. 2i'T IT s r �� " 4sti ►' ICI r)a ifl.R "r fill 2, t67r FJ �i.l �4`r`Ei"+at�r�s� s ,,.�'`i,�•' �'.,�1� "1 b� �k t_'r l��;. ,v �� 1�1�i� tf'��}�j �.F•.�,• y p^�,.�. 3an,3✓;, ,,:.._ a t � 4 7+�'�a t ��"o grhM a �� : �� 'r ^'y'.+•a�_ r _ 1 �,,I�y� }� �,� `� �° ��j�� ( ( d o >�+'L�j F F x tl w . . :�+ wS c � I'�. ,,:RN r U �r hfr - �'-•"_a r s Fag p � �q�� r t.:f a °+s �r "*�e,,ra �x��{ .., �°'�4,p€ a b.N^l t•, 4r�, W��'�`v sky ''r�F�{ �,�^ss, 't j� �� S, s' h i ;• s �f tissa{��'�r, �9 tq� t rt �l x '4 � ,k. s �'� "Z`t� t:. 1 II 1 e � 1 s +,.geet-7 a G _..•,,tip J`rr.-+--rv,ar , =4 .-�..�' i5. i'' .s` ...:, 1 fi <u- m,J r�°la 'sr�,ti =s,y'•�v,�r`h.of T �' t } r?.;r. �r v.. ,s.r'fi5,:,=n. .4Y-a wd�/nm" n* " --_ 11 5 �iiri�� x.- r+ "T.l'' 7 Z,J ,au .+ ?•. ` ',��'r t r.n.�"..� r,y �5 r� S`4[ i-.. , r a - -•-,� a ; i � u2 � r � � -. p ---c >,.-�' W 1 -��n p f F ..i3.7r.�,rn� �> �` } ..Yi�.��'��::-s _• � ��a "�'• 4•� `�AW '.++'...max.w ,:_r r•�,,,,�� " �i f tiq r;I 7 �ti.—....._� ._.;"`�'..-n�--a,--.,.»:. V � r 1 1 • �q frna`c yAg .: .°a.;caaalL� � •,.; t �Fl l fo� �.a+----•^�;,,,t„ . �+"Q � r' { rx r,.rm �,.."�A -•... ••).�,uy itr 1� � � t .. Axlrye, ... .... .... 77 .Ff¢!t pi e� f� •n 6n{ t u All Vi" E WAPT .r v. ;i G -.;.i;l'•:fi+J � 'k1 5.,aF � All; ; P 3t F��i� yt 'n1 r9+ qtf/J� Yye fiJ. "gay t4v ��1"r I49 I� �a�tJ , y� r '.l! 1, 1• I 51 F P S ! 1 r mll y�ry 6R1k'"+ ,y 11y ! t y� •• ri 4 .. , t •ap v -ate r A... �' 1� ,ry :4 � � - 1: F --r �i':'� ° ;;: C4'kw i MT Rx4 ��.t �`""7- �'�i r ..Rap•# �t}�x '1�,)#�^ '�.. F" 4 T � � ��I! � ".�tfl" ;��. r#, �y�d��6�1*�.SI � ep;. §+ ��h:, T'•1i, �� t' i if i� - >I'�Ij �I �� # � `Iri 9'.'�f��A/1,{ 1 ^ �'.r;Y.4''.. *i,.•� vi '1?7,� .T. �ttl,y ra.fp r,'., 'c"t'T'mMr t k., t°.�'f h a:' t ,.?, YI �I-rS"k '�,: p. fit:y,a `/iY,al. eut lt!'�I• !� ;�1., 4� r jl��.��r�i��•'�� ' �*pf' ""°,�ae�� {�t t a i 5}Y #:1 i t �.� l,•� de,:>8+mr w�,.'f•47 Ha��4 a..�Aa, •"i�' ' �K�,��"�"`� :��. i 1 1 1 5 5J 116 IMAM of Rm �'��, Jrt� d:�e,'�y�..�. `�rl Phi,}'.. I ., ti n;,.�- �ii'? 1 ,x - f!I 16>a`.i"... ri4�`t,9. �� 3 �� I' �. x,8 ��e K%�:t�•f. d� a 1 r nu�r .. ) at r hr IF 1 f N • 1 r 1 1 1 __ .'��`yr' # "': �°�;�..� A ��my]1 �a�10 I� ' �� I •yt b^J�� ',c ,�-1r�4�� {a , MIT 1 Pl tc,i k p T�d /J �.. ti �#� Ifs. 5 't .id'7SI�R G ':�t ell,p�1,.^.IFtA n �l;��'� '��= ��}!•it4tt ��)I� � I � �I "i ri`j�� I�'4''� vq'�v;'N Rpp'"I f t �1 _ I r r' r ab� h T s 6 t ,r; �'� _yi Fx'"I� ,� � �•M�'J a^ � f,i�l� �� i �� ra�7� r I , t�� „��.: + �;. ��y ,. �� ..1},•� I ` d �v ^f .c+'r„ Y k F.�ik'kP L �11 d� n,Ft"'Y t -. �°'9I t.1"�.� ,Yit�_.�a,._.. t d,,. z .. @:&,�.1�" ...�,kg�-"�ax �.4;, a ., " + ,.r>te,,_ „�:. ,. .,. {.`�n�'�.,,,t �+r;.a! i _ a � dn.•,./ . � Eka'P9p G a EC ffi k�i&'&'J rw t i iK '+'yY �ylt r 1 s I t c I 17 G� �Lla f _ .v4.rk � t t• O' i a• n=k P W wnnhl h.nm Pe�'m ti.,61 ab.p 9. w.arx.N srMwXlrt¢ b'" Reelde Abel RMeA y-•uwy...nb«n mr.wlnnx, upMw xrpxw w..wwr.wl pawx.P.wx w+nww.v.Xr ..NMg.Wapwx�axp qn -- ® iwm^^ha.Nswhw4rvN pwp.wr rX..roew w dANDSCAPE «--- _ w• tia a.P _ r. e.awabrwK„a A 1�F4C#hT CTLME PL-ANNINCa " r a%e.rlxwMwmb.,b I ¢.wxeriwe.Mw. gie.tlmrwO.wrhwrY 4M Ib NIpY,w�rww hberi, '�� bMM..NnN'wW�6rA�.• .�n'4.Mo1M f"Y VW d.n. - � %ex i IISfYB Tk rM x.pq a...wnvN,e' Iswowufub 121M1Nblulh. C. Mw.l7 . CCMe+ Awwhwnp.kYwkr.s .•yyW �.V l.n q.M. II•i:%. .� WW�xDlrr�wgPM YY'. h..x.!n W.mJMwO.- r i 0 we.. 1111 � m e...w..Mgu.• { eXn.nwa xNi..14VwTno MVl. cc laWx jI f nis.n lxw.wV4 Ev,�,xm aruxxe wN �/} w ` i c ��wrxn rti.nbnw► ,74fIeA7 Tiro 9bn�7oe �^•e� r �t1FalBlilB. pnei+W OT+IONP%iwM bb r+tl W uppixrvhrmbw.rxr.r .u.tfaml.. R�p�Ha XlP.lf+mr. b.k,eynnlM«c..Wl.a.:w r9'wFw. .n Mhwnw i rXhXR .�rr,swn�bN.l�.ti f.wq R.N..a..r.x. � I Rwpnm hrdxi.G.,n or.Nlx. �..y ---- Prerrr,InarvPlansrigPolette 1 y.mx.nr.R r.fq.rt4.r 14rYmi rYe.pr.Ab.wS.u.� _ wY..M1.m.a a.mr, dpr..�r r.sV.Nar hnwr.w.x.nwA.raww eprxxnrnemnnb wx. Few"� e'er Cosa BItlCQfI,_ l..a..r•qs.. Fm�C d.l;y fxx.wren r�fne.�e�wF,• b..dieVwe LwP��b.. rA'r �.pfr. r4..Xrt ..di.GA wr..4w+,«hbw w,wxv x..wn •,Ywp. ti APer6l.enle JOB r V ., c.b�X. �wrfV.. NaAm• .V•r Vsns >QN a..bw Hr.Wr.wr xnxm¢ s.n.w.V.nw•�e. n..w. Ob3.l Prcmilbr ..X,.(r+s I1bVNeire.ied `Yw+,wwe..a .x.wprX�r _ lOxrwrvi.a lw,nr f1iSXlh.x i e.e hnx.wr. ,m �. lnlilOenx.Xwn hwn.xlm,.n Nrti„rr.r o.nny'e u,.n.. c:�r�na.�..,.r ..•ra. jrpn%.w Vr•ra,%ryMhM ..anr.+V!•*..� rplw,faXr,.blxlwe ±.rwmfnn...r.rfw- tac+ N Mo Hiles L_andreepc Con ept _ ^^�:�^�•'+• r:w>�a.n :ai .. nWwq wMwbq�lh...•wA ' 4 .Nenbb fir ebwWn M,X�. eXbxw,ana..N NrM w�rnwtlab e..x..n rxvwbw h...ip. •_•• eawr.h.M.rN brbWW�r m _ N xw.uXb wlwb.BXF...r' i+� � PrVMPIP Ie,r Landec" w%�.a t.�innYwa�• .M1Mn "WNL•nn.r>• p rtX,:._W/� wV..rw..M. Nm.tb.wp.xr wxllrwbx.W4r¢inrpx�xn.�iw ~WrtN.. Pw Ffw nr.Mn ]. IYM.9w.W�.rXrnrwlarea.enle.4nbM .x.rNw.e h ae.d«nM eXelrynn.n.gim 4d+olu. r.w.+iww n.vrrrMr}er+..I xi m.N�'ilm�ukm reh H.cb AYrN+Xwu% � rRUI { ww�...wrw �w�s�x ,raw rw.,...wb w.a,nws....,.wy rn'y' r. mh.b.. •i.�+�"'"' am .wr ..wrw•w.r+..n •^b.r...wrw-.•r-.Xe�lr ww. ...wx. w IsaWfv.. .ar+A.r..ww..rNweuw..xwf.e gAyaw,... �� w. _r�.......:«u•r..w..,w.�.,�.w........ err..,.... ,..rw .,>d., .. X.xn.rtlbm.x.rNrpVyµr•.VnNnswrr M.rrm.m f.•�WM1nr•I.n h.n a....wren MlNib Oww � eM.M �.".X Nb••rv' pr Vrwew..w.rwMm..►i ,rwx r,. p"W.rw• n �h.r.rrix w.rwxns w.wiM�. lwr.rr.r+.+..we. en..A+ � A4: T. %wn.fxa. 4wlu.wiWwnan.rMWh _. - +WwiA6�X xnq,x�irv.wxw x_M'_' �h...,. eaLlaoe__.! -N NP.wMM q..¢+.. p,6wµriy5wrwl 4rnp.xnwl.urWhMM W .. ww..m..ewr¢.wa .•.+,•=h•wrn.lwwwwnrrw l..:wiw.ra. pffNf*my NioMhm Nata �-�-.-- `Pm iMw..N..mnxra+�w.x +nnnrw a : n"W4 Vsq�ni.tf.oNm .nl w. lay.arn%a.p.Pl•I.wpw i.o.a.Xr.M rr wy.pr. -N.I: Trr 1 ion.q..«r...M1a„e..aN.. .ywww.w ne..w-..:a � hw..Kb...nhe.N.w.n.nw.a..wown P•.+•aN�.Mwe..l..h w.wr..e..n BLUE AMT-M .rgfw,ngn�MAaax.pM,rvAh��w N�F��W.�yX.h.M M.w wlM rn.r.mMex.Hsr,w.w.,.w.vn �� M�rV,.�iM�.Y.�•.Yer n.�a�b.rMM� rY.n 1 xa LO f-r 4NwpJF.varpi�n.luarP+lw..Pon r.M..p.X� sXe'•IW y�Jy .n.IM.xs1..1xW w1M+UaVe.v.9/.�... yp.yy .w��.�yq A� ATTACHMENT #3 i ® City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov jgp9,P a Office of the City Clerk t Joan L.Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Public Works Commission Decision or Police Department Decision/Action Date: April 4,2013 To: Planning and Building Department City Attorney City Council Office Administration Public Works Department Police Department(only if Police related item) Filed by: Sean Pate, Global Premier Development, Casa Rincon Associates, LLP Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Site Plan Review No. 11-04/Variance No. 12-04 (Casa Rincon) Findings of Denial Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: $3,383.00(Received in Planning Department) Completed by: Rebecca Ross,Senior Deputy City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ♦ Waitakere,New Zealand HB -265- Item 9. - 26 Finance Department Receipt April 04,2013 Sean Pate Receipt Number 269049 Global Premier Development Cashier 2010 Main St.#1250 Batch# 20130404000PC2244 Irvine CA 92614 Dept.of Issuance Planning Department Amount Paid $3,383.00 Permit/License# 20110130 Payment Method Check Amount Outstanding $0.00 Fee Amount Paid Appeal To CC-Other $3,253.00 i Automation Fee $130.00 UkaD- �Cx4e�--e, Li �,'2 D C)k Sm Ck- ffe Y)/k(,ems u C) Me- N�e V� ccA-r-) i i Review Permits Status Online: Visit: www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/permitonlilne Questions? Business License: (714) 536-5267 Item 9. - 27 inning&Building: (714) 536-5241 xB -266- Casa Rincon Associates, L.P. Thursday, April 04,2013 City of Huntington Beach Secretary of the Planning Commission APR 0 4 2013 PO Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 1' r r,;nrlhlg RE: Site Plan Review No. 11-04/Variance No. 12-04(Casa Rincon) Findings for Denial Dear Secretary of the Planning Commission, This letter is written in response to the letter dated November 21,2012 in regards to the above referenced matter attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Please accept this letter and payment as our appeal to the findings listed as Attachment No, 1 Findings for Denial Site Plan Review No. 11-04 Variance No. 12- 04. Findings for Denial-Site Plan Review No. 11-04: 1. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding as we have made every effort to incorporate the proposed project as is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(BECSP). This includes but is not limited to development of the current site with future development of the Denny's and Allen Tire Shop in mind once able to acquire. All future development and proposed overlays comport with the BECSP in mind. We have made every attempt to acquire and combine these parcels as presented to staff and as discussed in the February 13,2012 Economic Development Committee EDC meeting but it is economically impossible at such time. Please reference said discussion in the minutes from this EDC meeting. 2. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding on the grounds we have made every attempt to accommodate these desires from the city but the city does not offer any suggestions to solve these issues. We have spent over$100,000 redesigning this project multiple times every time staff came back with a new concern. We are happy to work with the city and have shown every good effort to meet this requirement,we are happy to comport with the city requirements as this finding but the city simply won't tell us what specifically they want and it is not financially feasible for us to keep guessing. It is clear that the city has certain desires and an open line of communication would solve this issue. It is simply not there.On 3/26/2013,at the Planning hearing,staff finally articulated their desires and even went so far as to incorporate a visual presentation. We told the Planning Commissioners that we were willing to work with staff to solve these issues and asked for a continuance to do so. But our request was subsequently denied. 3. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our o answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. w _, 7 4. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see--our answer to Finding 1 and Finding 2 also incorporated herein by reference. �- Findings for Denial-Variance No. 12-04: w c.n 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250,Irvine,CA 92614 == o Phone: 949-222-9119 Fax: 949-271-4565 xB -267- Item 9. - 28 Casa Rinc®n .Associates, L.P. 1. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to Finding 1 incorporated herein by reference. Further,this parcel is unique in shape and virtually impossible to design anything that meets all of the specific plan requirements and is still at the same time economically feasible for any project. This parcel will either be expanded back by Allen Tire which they have expressed an interest in acquiring and does not comport with the BECSP or can be expanded forward after acquiring Allen Tire which is incorporated into the present design. A variance of such request is reasonable and consistent with the BECSP as we have proposed. 2. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. 3. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. "Section 65915 (1)defines"concession or incentive" as a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission. Examples include a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and reduction in parking ratios. Approval of mixed use zoning is a "concession" if the non-residential use is compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area. In addition,the developer may propose other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in"identifiable,financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions" -S81818 Q&A If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-777-6938. Sincerely, an Pate ° CEO of The Pate Foundation Managing General Partner i I 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250,Irvine,CA 92614 Phone:949-222-9119 Fax:949-271-4565 Item 9. - 29 HB -268- i i i i Exhibit 1 HB -269- Item 9. - 30 J� Huntington Beach Planning Commission • 2000 MAIM STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION March 27,2013 Sean Pate CEO of The Pate Foundation 3070 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-04NARIANCE NO. 12-04'—APPEAL- CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 26, 2013 MEETING(CASA RINCON) APPLICANT: Sean Pate, CEO of The Pate Foundation PROPERTY OWNER: Morrie Golcheh, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025 REQUEST: SPR:To permit the construction of an approximately.10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach &Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(SP 14). The project will consist of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq. ft./unit), 5 two- bedroom units (843 sq.ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and 9 four-bedroom units(1,224 sq. ft./unit) including a 693-square foot,two-story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit (a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 square feet; and (c)eliminate the private entry type requirement from the project design, LOCATION: 18431 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DATE OF ACTION: March 26, 2013 On Tuesday, March 26,2013, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten(10)calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant,the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, i i i Phone 714-536-5271 Pax 714-374-1540 www,surfoity-hb.org Item 9. - 31 HB -270- Notice of Action:SPR 11-004Nhi.12-004 March 27,2013 Page 2 Seven Hundred Sixty-Three Dollars ($1,763.00)if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Three Eighty- Three Dollars ($3,383.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is Friday, April 5, 2013, at 5:00 PIVI. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Govemmenf Code §66020. if you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Rosemary Medel,the project planner, at(714) 374-1684 or via entail at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org, or the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: Ade Janiuls, Acting Planning Manager SH:JJ:RM:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial—SPR 11-004NAR 12-004 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Paul D'Alessandro, Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Carnahan, Inspection Manager Rosemary Medel,Associate Planner Property Owner Project File I I HB -271- Item 9. 32 i ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 VARIANCE NO. 12-004 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified Program EIR No. 08-008 for the BECSP. The EIR was certified by.the Planning Commission on December 8, 2009. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for residential projects within the parameters of that specific plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would .not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan-project. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project no additional environmental review is required. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL--SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004: 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code because the proposed development does not enhance the vacant land as part of an integrated development within Town Center Neighborhood District,which is the most urbanized segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. 2. The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the Vicinity because the project has not accounted for the impacts-of the adjacent multiple family developments as evidenced- by designing the emergency vehicle access only from the overcrowded alley. The location of the balconies and windows on the west side of the project are oriented towards the second story windows of the adjacent development creating potential privacy issues. The proximity of these balconies has the potential to generate excessive noise to the adjacent residential developments as they are not sufficiently recessed in the structure to reduce or mitigate sound. Lack of a master planned development creates further issues of circulation and shared parking. Additionally, the quality of architectural design is not in keeping with the quality of design required by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the area. Rooflines and use of materials do not complement surrounding or recently approved projects in the vicinity. Therefore, because of these design issues the project has the potential to be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The project will adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan and Five Points area because access to the site from the public alley does not provide efficient circulation in order to address the parking conflicts of the adjacent multiple family developments gaining access to their garages, utilizing the alley for additional parking, which may result in inadequate emergency vehicle access from the alley to the subject site. Integrated mixed use projects account for shared parking opportunities. Because this development would be GAMNOM13101-25-11 CUP 10-028(Bomburger) Attachment 1A Item 9. - 33 Hs -272- a stand-alone project, the opportunity for shared parking is not available and therefore will burden the already under-parked surrounding residential developments. 4. The project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and other applicable regulations because the project does not provide the required public open space in an area that is accessible to the public on a 24 hour basis. The required common lobby entrance design type is not incorporated into the architecture of the building. The proposed perimeter privacy wall height exceeds the height permitted within the Specific Plan by over two feet without proposing solutions to reduce the visual impact of the walls with better design or grading solutions. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-VARIANCE NO. 12-004: 1. The granting of Variance No. 12-004 to permit perimeter privacy walls at eight feet high in .lieu of the maximum height of six feet as required by the Specific Plan, 925 square feet of public open space in lieu of the required 1,200 square feet, and eliminate the private entry type design requirement from the residential building design will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The Specific Plan requires residential developments of twenty units or more to provide public open space. Eliminating the requirement of public open space, while maintaining the proposed number of units does not constitute an undue hardship. Consequently, the requested variance would be the first request within the recently adopted BECSP. Similar variances have not been granted to other Specific Plan properties within the same district that contain similar development constraints. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the Specific Plan is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. While the project site has a grade difference from Beach Blvd to the rear of the site, the Specific Plan encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. Therefore, if the adjacent parcels were consolidated into a master development there would be sufficient onsite circulation to accommodate emergency vehicles, address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation and there would be the opportunity for shared parking to accommodate the residential development. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is not necessary in order to allow for the construction of a residential project on this site. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan requires that a property meet certain minimum development requirements such as those imposed for open space types, open space location, maximum fence height and private entry types of buildings. In this case,the project does.not comply with the applicable public open space types for design or location. The design does not incorporate a common entry type design into the building and exceeds the allowable fence height along the north, south and east property lines. G:1PC1NOA113101-25-11 CUP 10-028(Bomburger) attachment 1.2 HB -273- Item 9. - 34 ATTACHMENT #4 Item 9. . 35 uu ._.4 1fl City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINUON BEACH - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building BY: Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner DATE: February 26, 2013 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 AND VARIANCE NO. 12-004 (CASA RINCON) -APPEAL APPLICANT: Sean Pate, CEO of The Pate Foundation, 575 Anton Blvd., Ste 1100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PROPERTY OWNER: Morrie Golcheh, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025 LOCATION: 18431 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (northwest corner of Beach and Main Street adjacent to Allen Tire and Denny's Restaurant) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Site Plan Review No. 11-004 represents a request for the following: - Develop an approximately 10,900 square foot, four-story 24 unit affordable housing apartment project within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). e Variance No. 12-004 represents a request for the following: - Permit 8 foot high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted - Permit a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 square feet. Permit eliminating the "Private Entry Type"requirement from the project design. • StafT s Recommendation: Deny Site Plan Review No. 11-004 based upon the following: - Inconsistent with the General Plan as the project does not enhance the vacant land as part of the most urbanized district within the BECSP—Town Center Neighborhood District. Design of structures and proposed retaining walls do not enhance or complement adjacent properties or those projects recently approved in the Beach Blvd segment of the BECSP. The stand-alone project does not provide the opportunity for shared parking, which is an integral component of mixed use development for this district. Project site layout and architecture is not consistent with good zoning practice and implementation of the goals of the BECSP and conformance to the standards and regulations set forth in the development code. - The project does not comply with critical design components of the BECSP and the Urban Design Guidelines regarding public open space and structural articulation. Staff s Recommendation: Deny Variance No. 12-004 based upon the following: HB -275- Item 9. - 36 M""MON ■■■fo:.. ■■■■■■10 �■■■■■ low ------------ � ;��■■■■ 77, iI V p � z • - There are no special circumstances applicable to the property and the strict application of the Specific Plan does not deprive the subject property privileges enjoyed by other properties in this district. - The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 with suggested findings of denial (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Continue Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Approve Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 with findings for approval." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review No. 11-004 represents a request to permit the construction of 24 affordable apartment housing units in a four-story structure with an overall height of 50 feet, and an at-grade garage parking within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). The project also includes a 693 square foot, two-story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. Variance No. 12-004 represents a request to permit the following: a) 8 feet of block/wrought iron on top of 5 ft high retaining walls on the north, east and south property lines in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. required to 925 square feet proposed; and c) eliminate the residential building private entry type requirement from the project design. The project site is a .78 acre (approximately 34,284 sq. ft.) vacant mixed use property, located adjacent to the northwest corner of the Ellis Avenue,Main Street and Beach Boulevard intersection. The surrounding properties are a mix of multi-family residential and commercial properties (Attachment No. 2). The composition of proposed residential units is summarized below: Residential Unit Type Number of Units Size One-Bedroom 4 615 sq. ft. Two-Bedroom 5 823 sq. ft. Three-Bedroom 6 1,028 sq. ft. Four-Bedroom 9 1,224 sq. ft. Total 24 10,900 sq. ft. PC Staff Report—2/26/2013 H B 277- (13 sr06SPR 11-004NA Item 9. - 3 8 The proposed project will provide a 100 percent affordable housing project. The affordability component of the project is in compliance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Access to the project will be from one driveway from Beach Boulevard and the existing public alley at the rear of the property. The property currently slopes approximately five feet from the highest point along Beach Boulevard to an existing retaining wall at the rear/west property line. The applicant proposes to further excavate the site to level the gradient consistent with the alley at the rear in order to provide emergency access to the alley. New five foot high retaining walls with eight foot high walls above (total 13 foot wall height) are proposed on the north, south and east property lines. With the proposed excavation and new retaining walls, the project results in a 13 foot grade differential from Beach Boulevard to the rear alley. Zonin,a Administrator Actions: On September 5, 2012, a public hearing was held before the Zoning Administrator (ZA). The ZA reviewed the applicant's request for the development of 24 affordable housing units and a two-story community building. Staff described the proposal and identified that the project does not conform to the issues related to design, open space, fence heights and overall vision of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Staff stated that the BECSP was adopted in March 2010 to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. The BECSP is intended to guide future development and initiate the transformation of the corridors from commercial strip centers, in many cases underutilized and underperforming, to a pattern of centers and segments with development standards and regulations that reflect the vision of a particular area. Because the project lacked compliance with development standards, did not comply with the vision of the BECSP, .and the applicant did not submit variance request for deviations from the code, staff did not recommend approval of the site plan review application. During the public hearing, the general manager for Allen Tire spoke in opposition of the project stating that the community building would obstruct visibility of the Allen Tire building. The ZA offered to continue the application to a date uncertain in order to resolve the issues or consider applying for a variance. The applicant asked that the application be continued. On October 15, 2012, staff received a letter from Wayne Deitz of Global Premier Development (applicant) informing us that they will be applying for a Variance with no changes from what was presented at the September 5, 2012 ZA meeting (Attachment No. 3). On November 21, 2012, a public hearing was held before the ZA for consideration of Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004. The variance included a deviation request from height of perimeter privacy walls, open space reduction and elimination of building entry type requirement. Staff received an email in support of the project from the adjacent property owner of Allen Tires, Ron Beard but Mr. Beard later stated he does not support any building at the front along Beach Blvd. (Attachment No. 4). After discussion, the ZA denied Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 7). Appeal: On December 3, 2012, an appeal of the ZA's decision was filed by Mr. Sean Pate, CEO of The Pate Foundation (applicant/Global Premier Development) (Attachment No. 5). The reasons for the appeal Item 9. - 39 port—2/26/2013 HB -278- (13sr06SPR 11-004NAR 12-004) include objections to the findings for denial of both Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12- 004. The applicant believes the project has been designed to comply with the development standards of the BECSP through building articulation, use of materials and the color palette. The appellant states that because of the uniqueness of the parcel shape it is virtually impossible to design a project that meets all of the Specific Plan requirements that is at the same time economically feasible. ISSUES: Subject Property Land Use,Zoning, and General Plan Desiznations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN,` ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: M-sp-d (Mixed Use— SP-14 (Beach and Edinger Vacant Land Specific Plan Overlay— Corridors Specific Plan) Design Overlay) North of Subject M-sp-d SP-14 (Beach and Edinger General Property Corridors Specific Plan) Commercial and Residential East (across Beach M-sp-d SP 14 (Beach and Edinger General Blvd.) and south of Corridors Specific Plan) Commercial Subject Property (across Beach Blvd.) West of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM(Residential Medium Multi-Family Property: Medium Density) Density) Residential General Plan Conformance: The General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay - Design Overlay (lvl-sp-d). The project is not consistent with the following General Plan goals,policies and objectives: A. Land Use Element Goal L U 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Goal LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 11.1.4: Require the incorporation of adequate onsite open space and recreational facilities to serve the needs of the residents in mixed use development projects. Policy LU 11.1.5: 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. B. Circulation Element PC Staff Report—2/26/2013 HB -279- (13sr06SPR 1 I-004NA Item 9. - 40 Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. C. Growth Management Element Policy GM 1.1.7: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security. D. Urban Design Element Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. Obiective UD 1.3: Strengthen the visual character of the City's street hierarchy in order to clarify the City's structure and improve Citywide identity. Policy UD 1.1.3: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City. The Town Center Neighborhood District features the City's widest range of contemporary housing types and a broad range of uses. The proposed architecture is not in keeping with the quality of architecture envisioned in the Specific Plan because there is minimal structural articulation. The visual image of the City is not enhanced with the proposed project as lack of varying roof lines and limited exterior materials do not complement surrounding properties or the recently approved projects in the vicinity. Although future vehicular access to the south has been designed at the rear area of the project, the proposed transition is awkward as vehicles would need to maneuver around on-site landscaping and parallel parking spaces. Reciprocal access across the north property line would be precluded due to the significant grade difference. Pedestrian access is limited to the alley and Beach Boulevard. The variance request for reduced open space area minimizes the recreational area for residents and the public to enjoy. The orientation of the balconies and the lack of a master planned development create further issues of privacy, circulation and lack of shared parking. Potential circulation conflicts remain because the adjacent multiple family development gains access to their garages from the alley and as such could potentially result in inadequate emergency vehicle access to the subject site. Zoning Compliance: A zonuig conformance matrix provides an overview of the project's conformance to the significant development standards of the BECSP (Attachment No. 8). Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. A detailed discussion of the project's design is provided in the Analysis section of this staff report. Item 9. - 41 -port—2/26/2013 HB -280- (13sr06SPR 11-004NAR 12-004) Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified Program EIR No. 08-008 for the BECSP. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2009. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines,which states that when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for residential projects within the parameters of that specific plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project no additional environmental review is required. Environmental Board: Not applicable Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable Design Review Board: Not applicable Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services, Economic Development, Police and Planning and Building have reviewed the proposed project and provided comments and recommendations. City Code Requirements of the applicable provisions of the BECSP and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal Code were provided to the applicant in the early stages of review and are attached to this report for informational purposes only (Attachment No. 6). Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on February 14, 2013, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the project site as well as interested parties. Communications received during the Zoning Administrator public hearing process are described herein and attached to this report. As of February 20, 2013, no further communications regarding Site Plan Review No. 11-004Nariance No. 12-004 have been received. Application Processin,-Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Appeal Filed December 3, 2012 NIA PC Staff Report—2/26/2013 HB -281- (13sr06SPR 11-004NO Item 9. - 42 ANALYSIS: Compatibility The project has not been designed for integration and connectivity to future adjacent development because of the substantial grade differences proposed along the north, south and east property lines. The high walls that will surround the project create physical barriers in contrast with the primary goal of the BECSP to integrate projects for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity. Balconies designed along the west elevation have the potential to create privacy issues as they are not sufficiently recessed or designed in a manner to maximize privacy and reduce potential noise, which creates less compatibility with the adjacent residential developments to the west. The applicant's proposed site excavation to accommodate emergency vehicles from the alley to Beach Boulevard is proposed because there is not sufficient room to provide a complete looped emergency accessway on-site along with the proposed structures. Additionally, potential conflicts with emergency vehicle access exist because the adjacent residential development utilizes the alley for additional parking. The proposed excavation results in incompatible design issues, such as greater retaining walls on the perimeter of the site and increased traffic to the alley. Because the project completely isolates adjacent BECSP parcels, it is evident that the lack of a master planned development creates further adverse issues related to circulation and shared parking opportunities. Staff finds that the project is not compatible with adjacent uses. Architecture The proposed architecture is institutional in nature as it lacks articulation, variation of materials, recesses and projections, varying roof lines, and overall architectural character. The primary entrance to the lobby does not incorporate design elements required by the BECSP such as columns, lighting, and varying materials, which all help to identify the entrance for residents and visitors alike by creating a clearly defined formal entrance. The BECSP Form Based Code implements a process that deliberately results in structural placement, setbacks, structural articulation, public and private open space that creates a more pedestrian friendly walkable environment in an urban setting. The proposed housing project fails to meet the design standards of both the BECSP and the Urban Design Guidelines as follows: BECSP- The Five Points District Segment states the following: • Infill development on underutilized properties would be composed of the types of coherent arrangements of building and streets, and blocks that are presently lacking in this centrally located district. New apartments, condominiums, and professional and medical office buildings would face public sidewalks with lobby entrances, shop fronts, and attractively detailed facades. Urban Design Guidelines Excerpt-Design Objectives from Chapter 3 Multi-Family Residential: • Create visual interest and individual unit identity, while maintaining a sense of harmony and human scale building proportions along street frontages and other portions of the project exposed to public view ® Provide adequate open space, parking and privacy Item 9. - 43-port—2/26/2013 HB -282- (13sr06SPR 11-004NAR 12-004) • The arrangement of structures, circulation and open spaces should recognize the particular characteristics of the site and should relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function scale, character and materials. In developed areas, new projects should meet or exceed the standards of quality which have been set by surrounding development. When compared to the quality of developments recently approved for the BECSP such as the 274 unit Beach and Ellis Mixed Use project(Elan Apartments),the 173 unit Beach Walk residential project, and more recently,the Oceana 100 affordable housing unit project, all have met and have excelled in the quality of the project design, use of materials, structural articulation and provision of open space. Due to the basic building materials proposed, lack of structural articulation, and physical appearance of retaining walls topped with additional walls, staff finds that the proj ect does not meet the goals and objective of the BECSP and Urban Design Guidelines. Variances The project does not meet the minimum development standards regulating public open space, provision of a common building entry for the 24 proposed units, and maximum wall height. There are no special circumstances applicable to this property that the strict application of the Specific Plan would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in this district. While the project site has a grade difference, the BECSP encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. As mentioned, various parcels in different districts with the BECSP have been approved for development and none have requested variances. Therefore, the granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. There is no evidence of an undue hardship preventing the applicant from redesigning the proposed project, meeting minimum open space requirements, providing a common entry, and reducing the proposed wall heights to meet minimum code requirements. Therefore, staff does not support the proposed variance request. SUMIVLA-RY: Many of these compatibility, design, and variance issues could be resolved if the scope and intensity of the proposed project was reduced or if the site was developed concurrently with adjacent parcels as a master planned area Either of these solutions would allow the applicant to address these issues and provide a project in compliance with the General Plan, the BECSP, and the Urban Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends denial of Site Plan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 because the proj ect: - Inconsistent with the General Plan as the project does not enhance the vacant land as part of the most urbanized district within the BECSP-Town Center Neighborhood District. - Design of structures and proposed retaining walls do not enhance or complement adjacent properties or those projects recently approved in the Beach Blvd segment of the BECSP. - The stand-alone project does not provide the opportunity for shared parking, which is an integral component of mixed use development for this district. - Project site layout and architecture is not consistent with good zoning practice and implementation of the goals of the BECSP and conformance to the standards and regulations set forth in the development code. PC Staff Report-2/26/2013 HB -283- (13sr06SPR 11-004NAItem 9. - 44 - The project does not comply with critical design components of the BECSP and the Urban Design Guideline regarding public open space and structural articulation. - The aforementioned Variances constitute the granting of a special privilege and there is no evidence of an undue hardship. - There are no special circumstances applicable to the property and the strict application of the Specific Plan does not deprive the subject properly privileges enjoyed by other properties in this district. - The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. ATTACHMENTS: 3. Global Premier Development, Inc. letter dated October 15, 2012 4. Email in opposition from Ron Beard, Property Owner 18455 Beach Blvd. (Allen Tire Site) 5. Appeal Letter received December 3, 2012 6. Code Requirements Letter dated December 6, 2011 (for information purposes only) 7. Zoning Administrator Notice of Action- SPR No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 dated November 21, 2012 8. Project Conformance Matrix SH:JJ:nn Item 9. - 45 eport-2/26/2013 HB -284- (13sr06SPR 11-004NAR 12-004) (o ' a r 0 Pre m ier De` er PM , Inc. October 15, 2012 Rosemary Medel—Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: Site Plan Review No, 11-004 and Variance No. 12-004 Dear Mrs. Medel, Please accept this letter as Casa Rincon respectfully request to return to the Zoning, Administrator for consideration of Site flan Review No. 11-004 and Variance No. 12- 004 with no changes from what was presented at the Wednesday, September 5, 2012, Zoning Administrator meeting. 1f you have any questions feel free to contact me at 949-222-9119. Sincerely, Wayne Deitz 2010 gfainStreet,.Suite 1250*Imine Cafifomia 92614 Of ics(949)222-9119 Tax(949)222-0942 HB -285- Item 9. - 46 Medel, Rosemary From: Ron Beard [RonBeard@seproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:38 PM To: Ron Beard; Slifman, Simone; Fritzal, Kellee; Medel, Rosemary Subject: reversal of support To: City of Huntington Beach Rosemary Medel RE: Site Plan Review no 11-04/Variance No. 12-04 Dear Rosemary, With respect to the proposal, please be advised that as the adjacent property owner, I DO NOT support and endorse the plan. I did not realize that there would be buildings on the front of the property, and given that the two driveways are immediately adjacent, it would be a huge safety hazard for the customers driving in and out of the Allen Tire building. The sight line needs to be completely unobstructed; plus, it would make no sense to block the visibility of a sales tax generator with housing. I am only supportive if the buildings are in the REAR of the property. Realistically, the site has been vacant for years, and it's not a good commercial site. I do realize that the City envisioned a "bigger plan" for the corner, but as discussed so many times with so many developers as well as the City,the plan is not economically feasible or viable for me. I have a very good 9,000 sq.ft. building on my corner, and it's never going to make sense to raze it and contribute the land to some joint venture. The residual value to the land is well over$200/sq. ft.when you consider the capitalized value of an income stream from the building. Then, I would have down time for 1.5-2 years, brokers fees, leasing fees, and risk. Ultimately,it puts the land residual value at over$250/foot that I'd have to achieve to justify a project like the one on the SE corner of Beach/Main. That is just not going to happen. Hence, I've recently extended the Allen Tire lease for a longterm. Kindly share this opinion and support if the buildings are in the rear,and not in front with whomever needs it for the hearing. Respectfully, Ronald P. Beard Southland Equities 15 Corporate Plaza Dr.,#240 Newport Beach, CA 92660-1300 949-706-0500 ronbeard@seproperties.com Ronald P. Beard Southland Equities 15 Corporate Plaza Dr.,#240 Newport Beach, CA 92660-1300 949-706-0500 ronbeard@seproperties.com From: Ron Beard Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:04 AM Item 9. - 47 HB -286- To: 'Simone Slifman (simone.slifman@surfcity-hb.org)'; 'kfritzal@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: FW: Variance No 12-04 Kellee and Simone, I wanted you to understand this, and to know that I appreciate our frank conversations. Rosemary is out of the office, so will you kindly forward this to whomever else who needs to see it. Respectfully, Ronald P. Beard Southland Equities 15 Corporate Plaza Dr.,#240 Newport Beach,CA 92660-1300 949-706-0500 ronbeard@seproperties.com From: Ron Beard Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:55 AM To: 'Rosemary Medel (medelr@surfcity-hb.orq)' Subject: Variance No 12-04 To: City of Huntington Beach Rosemary Medel RE: Site Plan Review no 11-04/Variance No. 12-04 Dear Rosemary, With respect to the proposal, please be advised that as the adjacent property owner, I support and endorse the plan. Realistically, the site has been vacant for years,and it's not a good commercial site. I do realize that the City envisioned a "bigger plan" for the corner, but as discussed so many times with so many developers as well as the City,the plan is not economically feasible or viable for me. I have a very good 9,000 sq.ft. building on my corner, and it's never going to make sense to raze it and contribute the land to some joint venture. The residual value to the land is well over$200/sq. ft. when you consider the capitalized value of an income stream from the building. Then, I would have down time for 1.5-2 years, brokers fees, leasing fees, and risk. Ultimately, it puts the land residual value at over$250/foot that I'd have to achieve to justify a project like the one on the SE corner of Beach/ Main. That is just not going to happen. Hence, I've recently extended the Allen Tire lease for a long term. Kindly share this opinion and support with whomever needs it for the hearing. Respectfully, Ronald P. Beard Southland Equities 15 Corporate Plaza Dr.,#240 Newport Beach, CA 92660-1300 949-706-0500 ronbeard@seproperties.com HB -287- Item 9. - 48 Casa Rincon Associates, L.P. December 3, 2012 i City of Huntington Beach VED Secretary of the Planning Commission PO Box 190 DEQ 0 3 ZOIZ Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dept.of F'lanmin0 Building, RE: Site Plan Review No.11-04/Variance No.12-04(Casa Rincon) Findings for Denial Dear Secretary of the Planning Commission, j This letter is written in response to the letter dated November 21,2012 in regards to the above referenced matter attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Please accept this letter and payment as our appeal to the findings listed as Attachment No, 1 Findings for Denial Site Plan Review No.11-04 Variance No. 12- 04. Findings for Denial-Site Plan Review No. 11-04: 1. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding as we have made every effort to incorporate the proposed project as is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(BECSP). This includes but is not limited to development of the current site with future development of the Denny's and Allenrre Shop in mind once able to acquire. All future development and proposed overlays comport with the BECSP in mind. We have made every attempt to acquire and combine these parcels as presented to staff and as discussed in the February 13, 2012 Economic Development Committee EDC meeting but it is economically impossible at such time. Please reference said discussion in the minutes from this EDC meeting. 2. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding on the grounds we have made every attempt to accommodate these desires from the city but the city does not offer any suggestions to solve these issues. We have spent over$100,000 redesigning this project multiple times every time staff came back with a new concern. We are happy to work with the city and have shown every good effort to meet this requirement,we are happy to comport with the city requirements as this finding but the city simply won't tell us what specifically they want and it is not financially feasible for us to keep guessing. It is clear that the city has certain desires and an open line of communication would solve this issue. It is simply not there. 3. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. 4. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to.Finding 1 and Finding 2 also incorporated herein by reference. Findings for Denial-Variance No. 12-04: 1. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to Finding 1 incorporated herein by reference. Further,this parcel is unique in shape and 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250,Irvine,CA 92614 Phone: 949-222-9119 Fax:949-271-4565 Item 9. - 49 HB -288- Casa Rincon Associates, L.P. . l virtually impossible to design anything that meets all of the specific plan requirements and is still at the same time economically feasible for any project. This parcel will either be expanded back by Allen Tire which they have expressed an interest in acquiring and does not comport with the BECSP or can be expanded forward after acquiring Allen Tire which is incorporated into the present design. A variance of such request is reasonable and consistent with the BECSP as we have proposed. 2. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. 3. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-777-6938. Sincerely, an Pate CEO of The Pate Foundation Managing General Partner 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250,Irvine,CA 92614 Phone:949-222-9119 Fax:949-271-4565 HB -289- Item 9. - 50 ---- --.... . ... OFFICE of the ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ISTRATOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH m CALIFORNIA � titiNe�Nev.vn.irk.v/vrv�.rN.veviv�✓wi+✓.V/�/+VrYNN/�+NNrV.vNNNNr�NIs P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (7 4)536-5271 NOTICE OF ACTION November 21, 2012 Sean T. Pate, CEO,The Pate Foundation,. 575 Anton Blvd., Ste 1100, : Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-041 VARIANCE NO. 12-04 (CASA RINCON) APPLICANT: Wayne Dietz, Global Premier Development, 2100 Main Street, Ste 125C, Irvine, CA 92614 REQUEST, EA: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and identified within the certified Beach and Edinger Program EIR No, 08-008, SPR:To permit the construction of an approximately 10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach &Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14). The project will consist of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq, ft.lunit), 5 two-bedroom units (843 sq. ftJunit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq.ft./unit)and 9 four- bedroom units (1,224 sq, ftJunit)including a 693 square foot,two- story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit(a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq, ft.to 925 square feet; and (c) eliminating the private entry type requirement from the project design. PROPERTY OWNER: Moore Goicheh, Progressive Real Estate, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite No. 350, Los Angeles, CA 9DD25 LOCATION: 18431 Beach Boulevard, 92648(Northwest corner of Main Street and Beach Boulevard) PROJECT PLANNER: Rosemary Medel DATE OF ACTION: November 21, 2012 On Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator took action on. your application, and your application was Denied. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. { i Item 9. - 51 HB -290- ......... i I i Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within fen (10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's i action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal, Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen Dollars ($1,917.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Two Thousand Five Hundred One Dollars ($2,501.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case,the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is December 3, 201.2. ! Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. if you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code§66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Rosemary Medel, the project planner at (714) 374-16B4 or via email I at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org or the Department of Planning and Building Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271, Sincerely, Uy Ramos Zoning Administrator j i RR:RM:j d Attachment C. Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A_Wilson, City Manager Scott Mess, Director of Planning and Building Herb Fauland, Planning Manager VViliiam H.Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Debbie DeBow, Principal Engineer Mark Carnahan, Inspection Manager Jim Brown, Fire Protection Analyst Joe Morelli, Fire Protection Analyst Moore Golaheh Project File HB -291- Item 9. - 52 c i i ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-04 VARIANCE NO. 12-04 i FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—SiTE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-04: i s 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code because the proposed development does not enhance the vacant land as part of an integrated development within Town Center Neighborhood District, which is the most urbanized segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(BECSP)_ i 2. The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because the project has not accounted for the impacts to the adjacent multiple family developments as evidenced by designing the emergency vehicle access only from the overcrowded alley. The location of the balconies and windows on the west side of the project are oriented towards the second story windows of the adjacent development creating potential privacy issues. The proximity of these balconies has the potential to generate excessive noise to the adjacent residential developments as they are not sufficiently recessed in the structure to reduce or mitigate sound. Lack of a master planned development creates further issues of circulation and shared parking. Additionally, the quality cf architectural design is not in keeping with the quality of design required by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the area. Proposed rooflines and materials do not complement surrounding or recently approved projects in the vicinity, Therefore, because of these design issues the project has the potential to be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The project will adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan and Five Points area-because access to the site from the public alley does not provide efficient circulation in 1 order to address the parking conflicts of the adjacent multiple family developments gaining access to their garages and utilizing the alley for additional parking, which may result in j inadequate emergency vehicle access from the alley to the subject site. Integrated mixed use projects account for shared parldng opportunities. Because this development would be a stand-alone project, the opportunity for shared parking is not available and therefore will burden the already under-parked surrounding residential developments. i i 4. The project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors _Specific Plan and other applicable regulations because the project does not provide the required public open space in an area that is accessible to the public on a 24 hour basis. A specific entry design type required by the BECSP is not incorporated into the architecture of the building. The proposed perimeter privacy wall height exceeds the height permitted within the Specific Ilan by over two feet without proposing solutions to reduce the visual impact of the walls with better design or grading solutions. G;ZA\ZALTRS\12\SPR 11-04;VAR 12-04(Casa Rincon).doc Attachment 1.1 I I Item 9. - 53 HB -292- - ..... ........... . i FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-VARIANCE NO.12-04: i 1. The granting of Variance No. 12-04 to permit perimeter privacy-walls at eight feet high in lieu of the maximum height of six feet as required by the Specific Tian, 925 square feet of public open space in lieu of the required 1,200 square feet, and eliminate the private entry type design requirement from the residential building design will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone ciassification. The Specific Plan requires residential developments of twenty units or more to provide public open space. Reducing the proposed number of units in order to meet the public open space requirement does not constitute an undue hardship. Consequently, the requested variance would be the first request of this type within the recently adopted BECSP. Similar variances have not been granted to other Specific Plan i properties within the same district that contain similar development constraints. i 2, There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property. Therefore, the strict application of the Specific Plan is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. While the project site has a grade difference from Beach Blvd to the rear of the site, the Specific Plan encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. Therefore, if the adjacent parcels were consolidated into a master development there would be sufficient onsite circulation to accommodate emergency vehicles, address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation and there would be the opportunity i for shared parking to accommodate the residential development. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more i substantial property rights. The requested variance Is not necessary in order to allow for the construction of a residential project on this site. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specic Plan requires that a property meet certain minimum development requirements such as those imposed for open space types, open space location, maximum fence height and i private entry types of buildings. In this case, the project does not comply with the applicable public open space types for design or location. The design does not incorporate a common entry type design into the building and exceeds the allowable fence height along the north, south and east property lines. i G:7-AIZALTRS112lSPR 11-04;VAR 12-04(Casa Rincon).doc Attachment 1.2 HB -293- - Item 9. - 54 Citvof Huntington Beach z-� rtir ` fy" 2(}UO MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING w-%Nrw.huntngtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Division 714,536.5271 714.536.5241 December 6, 2011 ' Ryan Mordohl, Global Premier Development 2010 Main Street, Ste 1250 Irvine, CA 92614 SUBJECT: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS (SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 11- DOS—18431 BEACH BOULEVARD) Dear Mr. Mordohl, Attached please find applicable code requirements for the subject project. The Planning Division has completed its list of code requirements based on your September 12, 2011 submittal. The applicable city policies, standard plans, and the BECSP development and use requirements are incorporated, excerpted from the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting.process and various stages of project implementation. It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any"conditions of approval' adopted by the Director of Planning and Building. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change,the list may also change. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the BECSP and i Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org or 714- 374-16B4 and/or the respective source department(contact person below). Sincerely, Rosemar7Mdel, Associate Planner Enclosure(s) Planning Division Requirements 714 374-1684 Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Building Division Requirements 714 374-1792 Jason Kelley,Planning Division. Fire Department 714 536-5564 Mark Carnahan, Building Division Steve Bogart—Pub[ic Works Dept 714 374-1692 Item 9. - 55 1413 -294- J� HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUN NGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: November 10, 2011 PROJECT NAME, Casa Rincon Apartments PLANNING i APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-0130 ENTITLEMENTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW 11-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11-006 DATE OF PLANS: September 12, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 18431 BEACH BLVD PLAN REVIEWER: ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714)374-1684 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT OF SP 14. PROPOSED ARE 1 TO 4 BEDROOM UNITS, FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT PROVING AT GRADE 39 PARKING STALLS, RECREATIONAL CENTER AND OUTDOOR COMMON AREA. INGRESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM BEACH BLVD. FIRE ACCESS WILL BE FROM BOTH BEACH BLVD AND THE PUBLIC ALLEY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING DENNY'S SITE. PLEASE NOTE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL GRADE DIFFERENCE AT THE WEST(REAR) PROPERTY LINE, NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. The Planning and Building Department has reviewed the proposed project submittal. The following are comments or concerns that need to be discussed or corrected prior to Site Plan Review approval: 1. A color board shall be provided depicting exact color palette and materials. 2. Provide exact dimensions of balconies on plans including total square footage per Plan Type. See 2.8 Architecture Regulations of SP 14, Section 4) Facade Guidelines- b) Fagade HB -295- Item 9. - 56 Page 2of5 Composition. A balcony must be a minimum of four (4) feet in any direction and pursuant to Section 2.8-4 Fagade Guideline, shall not project further than two feet from face of building. 3. Open Space behind Community Building does not meet the intent of Public Open Space, which requires that public open space be accessible from Public Sidewalk. Consider transferring a portion of the public open space square footage to the front of the building pursuant to Section 2.4.2 Private Frontage Types. 4. Top and Base elements shall be pursuant to Book 11, Chapter 2.8 Architectural Regulations page 70-84. Also see BECSP Reference Volume-March 2010, http://www.huntingtonbeachca.go /files/users/planninq/SP14 Reference Vol.pdf 5. The south and north side of Community Building shall be enhanced with windows and fagade treatment as they are both visible to Beach Blvd. 6. Architectural design of the Community Building and Lobby Building do not depict a complementary design. z Suppart wall of the Community Building is not designed as a substantial breezeway design pursuant to Section 2.4.7 b. 8. The plans do not depict potential for signage. How will signage be used? 9. Plans do not depict the location of backflow devices or transformers. 10.Section drawing shall illustrate grade along east &west of both primary driveway and the most western section of the site adjacent to public alley including a north and south section drawing between building and public alley. 11.Block wall height as viewed from Beach Blvd is of concern. The following are standard Code Requirements that shall: be implemented: i 1. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, applicant shall be adhered to all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 2. The development shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter,Article 1) 3. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 4. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $50 for the posting of a Notice of Exemption/Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's/Zoning Administrator's action. (California Code Section 15094) 5. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO and SP 14. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator. (HBZSO Section 232.04) 6. Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (HBZSO Chapter 231) Item 9. - 57 HB -296- Page 3 of 5 7. The site plan shall include all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (HBZSO Section 230.76 and Section 2.4.2,x--SP 14) 8. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (SP 14, Sec. 2.6.8 Open Space Landscaping, 7, iv). 9. The site plan and elevations shall Include the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items. if located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. (SP 14, Sec. 2.8 Architecture Regulations) i 10.All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a time-dock or photo-sensor system. (HBZSO z31.1 s.c) 11. Project data information shall include the flood zone, base flood elevation and lowest building floor elevation(s) per NAVD88 datum. (HBZSO Section 222.10.F) i i 12. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 231.20 — Bicycle Parking. (HBZSO Section 231.20). Requirements (b): Multiple-Family Residential Uses: One bicycle space for every four units. Facility Design Standards: Bicycle parking facilities shall include provision for locking of bicycles, either in lockers or in secure racks in which the bicycle i frame and wheels may be locked by the user. Bicycle spaces shall be conveniently located and protected from damage by automobiles. Based on the size of the building a minimum of 6 bicycle stalls are required. 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04)1 b. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). (CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15304). Trees are located along the northern property line, however the exact number is difficult to determine based on the density of the vegetation. Applicant shall provide exact replacement count. c. 'Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 232.04.D) d. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (SP 14) HB -297- Item 9. - 58 Page 4 of 5 e. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (HBZSO Section 232.06.A) f. The Consulting Arborst (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arborlst report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution-4545) OR A Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees. Said Arborst signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution No. 4545) 14. Prior to submittal for building permits for residential type structures on the subject property, whether attached or'detached, shall be constructed in compliance with e 6tate acou-stical standards s 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 and plans, prepared under the supervision of a i person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). (General Plan Policy N 1.2.1) 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable offer for reciprocal access along the southerly and northerly properties). The location and width of the accessway shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attomey as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (HBZSO Section 231.181.E.4) b. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230.26 of the ZSO. (SP 14, Sec. 2.2.3) c. A gated entryway (access control devices) plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard No. 403. In addition, the i gated entryway plan shall be reviewed by the United States Postal Service. Prior to the installation of any gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Fire and Public Works Departments. (HBZSO Section 231.18.D.8) 16. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance shall be adhered to. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) a. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until a Certificate of Occupancy has been approved by the Planning i Item 9. - 59 HB -298- Page 5 of 5 Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department for occupancy of residential units and detached community building. (HBMC 17.04.036) 17. The Development Services Departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's /Zoning Administrator's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission /Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. (HBZSO Section 241.18) i 18 SPR 11-004 shall not become effective until the appeal period following the approval of the entitlement has elapsed. (HBZSO Section 241.14) 19. All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO and SP 14. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. ! (HBZSO Chapter 233) 1 I i I i i i HB -299- Item 9. - 60 I J1 HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2011 i PROJECT NAME: CASA RINCON APARTMENTS ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-130 PROJECT LOCATION: 18431 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 374-16841 rmedei@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST . i TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5531I dmaresh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT OF SP 14. PROPOSED ARE 1 TO 4 BEDROOM UNITS, FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT PROVING AT GRADE 39 PARKING STALLS, RECREATIONAL CENTER AND OUTDOOR COMMON AREA. INGRESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM BEACH BLVD. FIRE ACCESS WILL BE FROM BOTH BEACH BLVD AND THE PUBLIC ALLEY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY WILL BE LOCATED ALONG TH REAR PROPERTY LINE CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING DENNY'S SITE. PLEASE NOTE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL GRADE DIFFERENCE AT THE WEST (REAR) PROPERTY LINE, NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated September 16, 2011. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions { regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer-Fire: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST. f PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Fire Hydrants are required. Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. Plans shall be submitted to Item 9. - 61 HB -300- - Page 3 of 3 extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOX@ Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification #403- KNOX® Fire Department Access in the building plan notes. (FD) Building Construction Exit Signs And EX-ft PC-1 Ll I Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION: i i a. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition. (FD) b. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) i OTHER: a. Discovery of additional sail contamination or underground pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) i b. Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 51h floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfelty-hb.org if you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at (714) 536-5411, SAPreventlonll-Deveiopmerini-Planning Department-Planning Applications, CUP s12011 CUP'slBeach 18431 Casa Rincon PA#11-130 10- 10-11 Wdoc HB -301- Item 9. - 62 i J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUhMNGTGN BEACH DATE: September 22, 2011 PROJECT NAME: Casa Rincon Apartments PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-0130 ENTITLEMENTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 11-006 DATE OF PLANS. 1�2' 2011 { PROJECT LOCATION: 18431 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT PLANNER: ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, RE TELEPHONEtE-MAIL: (714) 872-6123/khoa@csgengr.com k PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT OF SP 14. PROPOSED ARE 1 TO 4 BEDROOM UNITS, FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT PROVING AT GRADE 30 PARKING STALLS, RECREATIONAL CENTER AND OUTDOOR COMMON AREA, INGRESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM BEACH BLVD. FIRE ACCESS WILL BE FROM BOTH BEACH BLVD AND THE PUBLIC ALLEY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING DENNY'S SITE. PLEASE NOTE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL GRADE DIFFERENCE AT THE WEST(REAR) PROPERTY LINE, NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is Intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and Implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: i 1. None Item 9. - 63 FIB -302- Page 2 of 2 [!. CODE ISSUES BASED CAN PLANS&DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adopted by the City at the time of permit application submittal. Currently they are 2010 California Building Code (CBC),2010 California Mechanical Code(CMC),2010 California Plumbing Code(CPC),2010 California Electrical Code(CEC), 2010 California Energy Code,2010 California Green Building Standards and The Huntington Beach Municipal Code(HBMC). Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to issuance of building permit 2. Provide building code analysis including type of construction, allowable area and height,occupancy group requirements and means of egress per the CBC. a. Submit building analyses to ascertain building sizes, construction types,set back,and frontage issues to be used in justifying building areas. All submittals to date do not have this information which is critical or probe of f . b. For mixed use and occupancy, please see Section 508 for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. c. The frontage for both proposed development becomes critical in assessing allowable area. d. For parking garages please see section 406 for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. e. For openings in exterior walls, please comply with Table 705.9. f. Submit exit analysis. g. For elevators please see section 709.14 and chapter 30. h. The exit enclosure shall comply with Section 1022. 3. Provide compliance to disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11A and 11B of CBC. 4. Recommendation: Please contact me or our office to review preliminary code analyses to examine any possible building code Issue that may arise. i HB -303- Item 9. - 64 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2011 PROJECT NAME: CASA RINCON APARTMENTS ENTITLEMENTS. SPR 11-04, EA 11-06 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2011-0130 DATE OF PLANS: PROJECT LOCATION: 18431 BEACH BLVD. PROJECT PLANNER., ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHON-FlE-MAIL: 714-374-16841 RMEDEL(a)SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER 1 TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374--1692/SBOGART(u)SURFCITY-HB.ORG t i PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO ANALYZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A REQUEST TO PERMIT A 24-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), i Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans(Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public 1 Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. if you have any questions regarding -these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: _ 1. A Legal Description and Plot Plan of the required dedications shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer and submitted to Publlc Works for review and approval. 2. The following dedications to the State of California shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (BECSP) a. A 2-foot right-af-way dedication for pedestrian access and public utilities along the Beach Boulevard frontage is required for a 10 foot curb to property line width per the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan street development standards. l , F s , i Item 9. - 65 HB -304- r i I t Page 2 of 5 i l 3. The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (ZSO 230.084A) a. A 24-foot public storm drain easement along the entire length of the new onsite public stoma drain pipeline, per Public Works Standard Plan No. 300- 4_ A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be'submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in the public alley westerly of the subject site. (ZSO 234.84) b. A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the CaHfomia Plumbing Code (CPC)and Uniform Fire Code(UFC). (MC 14.08.020) c. A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards_ (ZSO 232) d. Separate backfiow protection devices shall be installed per matter Division Standards for domestic,irrigation, and fire water services_ (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) e_ If fire sprinklers are required by the Fire Department for the proposed development, a separate dedicated fire service line shall be installed. (ZSO 230.84) E f An onsite storm drain shall be constructed per the subject project's final approved hydrology and hydraulics study, City Standards and per the City adopted 2005 Master Plan of Drainage. (ZSO 255.04A) f 5. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and Caltrans for review and approval. (MC 17.051ZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the � plan: i . a.. The proposed driveway on Beach Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. Proposed driveway approaches on Beach Boulevard shall be constructed per Caltrans Standards. i 6. The developer shall submit for approval by the Fire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water , analyses to ensure that fire service connection from the point of connection to City water main to the i backflow protection device satisfies Water Division standard requirements; and also to verify that on- F, site pipeline diameter is adequately sized to satisfy fire flow requirement. 7. The city has approved the Beach/Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, which will ultimately require the existing 8-inch waterline in Beach Boulevard to be upsized to a 12-inch waterline. While the existing l 8-inch waterline may provide water service and fire flow to the property at this time, the ultimate I utpsizing of the public waterline will require some form of impact fees to be paid by the property for the proposed development at the time of issuance of the Grading Permit.The impact fees have yet to be determined at this time.(Beach/Edinger Corridor Speck Plan). 8. The Property Owner(s) shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of i Huntington Beach, for maintenance and control of the area within the public storm drain pipeline easement, which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement, hardscape improvements, structures, etc., if the public storm drain pipeline anchor appurtenances require repair or maintenance. The Property Owner(s) shall be responsible for repair and replacement of any enhanced paving, hardscape improvements, andlar structures due to work performed by the City in l 3 t HB -305- Item 9. - 66 - I Page 3 of 5 the maintenance and repair of public storm drain pipeline. This agreement shall also absolve the City of any liability should the onsite public storm drain pipeline (along its entire length) should leak, break, fail, etc. and cause any damage to the subject property and/or private onsite structure. 9. Hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100 year storms and back to back storms shall be analyzed). In addition, this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis. The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency.The hydrologic and hydraulic analysis shall include, but not be limited to facilities sizing, limits of attenuation, downstream impacts and other related design features_ Runoff shall be limited to existing-25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analyses shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25- year storm as determined bythe hydrology study. s an option, the developer low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm water ' t system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (ZSO 230.84) f 10.A sewer study shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. A fourteen (14)-day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study. The sanitary sewer system shall be designed and constructed to serve the development, including any offsite fmprovements necessary to i accommodate any increased flow associated with the project The location and number of monitoring test sites, not to exceed three, to be determined by the Public Works Department, (ZSO t 230.84/MC 14.36.010) ' 11.Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance i of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-D009-DWQ) [General Construction Permit] by providing a copy of the Notice of intent (NOI) submitted to the State of California Water � Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste f Discharge Identification (WtDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National I Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance.A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City. (DAMP) � 12.A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQNiP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030)[MS4 Permit] prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and I acceptance. The WQMP shall address Section Xll of the MS4 Permit and all current surface water i quality issues. f 13.The project WQMP shall include the following: l 1 3. Low Impact Development. i b. Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable.)_ c. Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected [mpervious areas, creating reduced or "zero dischargeA areas, and conserving natural areas. F f Item 9. - 67 HB -306- 1 Pap 4 of b {. 1 i t d_ tncorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area } Management Plan. (DAMP) e. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. I £ Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. : g. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-terra operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment 1 Control BMPs. 's i i. Includes an Operations and Maintenance(O&M)Plan for all structural BMPs. j. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance. After acceptance, two copies of the final report shall be returned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: i L The 1 V by 17'Site Plan in .TIFF format(400 by 400 dpi minimum). 11. The remainder of the complete WQMP in .PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner's certification sheet, inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet, appendices, attachments and all educational material. k. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file. 14. Indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices l (BMPs) on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP. The WQMP shall folioed the City of Huntington Beach; Project Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated ,tune 2006. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. l 15.A suitable location, as approved by the City, shall be depicted on the grading plan for the necessary trash enclosure(s). The area shall be paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on i from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, and screened or wailed to prevent off-site transport of trash. The trash enclosure area shall be covered or roofed with a solid, impervious material. Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited. If feasible,the trash enclosure area shall be connected into the sanitary sewer_ (DAMP) i 16.A detailed soils and geologicaUseismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed 1 recommendations for grading, over excavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of i adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (MC 17,05.150) i 17.The applicant's gradinglerosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (AQMD Rule 403) { 18.The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding l this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be I available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible far ensuring compliance with the conditions 1 i _z HB -307- Item 9. - 68 1 i Page 5 of 6 herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, regarding grading and construction activities, and 41-800- CUTSMOG"in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No.403. i 19.The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 20.An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (MC 12.38.0101MC 14,36.030) 21.An Encroachment Pen-nit is required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way. 22.The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck Maul route With the Department of Public i Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05.210) 23. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (California ` 1 Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Wind Erosion WE-1) i 24.All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p-m.,andshall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (MC 17.05) 25.Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-1/MC 17.05) 26.The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (California Stormwater BMP ! Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1)(DAMP) ' 1 ` 27. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (DAMP)' 28. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (DAMP) i 29, Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise ! to surrounding areas. (AQMD Rule 403) 30.Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (DAMP) { 31.All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, j soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. (DAMP) ..: . ........ . THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO € ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 32,A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. (MC 17.05) f Item 9. - 69 HB -308- 1 ' Page 6of6 ' 1 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL I INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 33. Complete all improvements as shown an the approved grading and improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 5 34.The required right-of-way and easement dedications shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office and copies provided to Public Works. 35. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17,64) F 36.Ali applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the city web site at ` http:/Iwww surfcity-hb org/files/usersli)ublic, works/fee schedule.pdf_ (ZSO 240.06JZSO 250.16) 37,Traffic Impact Fees for this residential development shall be paid for each net new daily vehicle trip the project generates. The current Traffic Impact Fee Rate is$168 per net new trip. This project is forecast to generate 144 net new trips fora Traffic Impact Fee of$24,192.00. The Traffic Impact Fee rate is adjusted annually DecemberFees paid after December wrill be based on e adjusted fee rate. 38.Prior to grading or building permit close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy,the applicant shall: a. Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans acid specifications. b. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed_ c. demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. d. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WOMP are available for the future occupiers. T f i f i i F j f t 4• F i i l t F i. } i i i f HB -309- Item 9. - 70 OFFICE of the ZONING ADMINISTRATOR J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BLEACH - CALIFORNIA O NAfNNNNNNNNNNNN'NNNNNNNNN'NN'NNNNNNN NP..N�JNN' . P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (7I4) 536-5271 NOTICE OF ACTION November 21, 2012 Sean T. Pate, CEO, The Pate Foundation, 575 Anton Blvd., Ste 1100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SH pt n�i'l pr-111P1nf itn 11 g4QfgDIAAIr`= Mn 17_f1A (rACA RINCON) APPLICANT: Wayne Dietz, Global Premier Development, 2100 Main Street, Ste 1250, Irvine, CA 92614 REQUEST: EA: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and identified within the certified Beach and Edinger Program EIR No. 08-008. SPR:To permit the construction of an approximately 10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach & Edinger Corridors Specific i Plan (SP 14). The project will consist of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq. ft./unit), 5 two-bedroom units (843 sq. ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq.ft./unit) and 9 four- bedroom units(1,224 sq. ft,/unit) including a 693 square foot,two- story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit (a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public I open space from a minimum 1,200 sq, ft. to 925 square feet; and (c) eliminating the private entry type requirement from the project design. PROPERTY OWNER: Moore Golcheh, Progressive Real Estate, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite No. 350, Los Angeles, CA 90025 LOCATION: 18431 Beach Boulevard, 92648 (Northwest cornea of Main Street and Beach Boulevard) PROJECT PLANNER: Rosemary Mede[ DATE OF ACTION: November 21, 2012 On Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator took action on your application, and your application was Denied. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Item 9. - 71 HB -310- ------------- i Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen Dollars ($1,917.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Two Thousand Five Hundred One Dollars ($2,501.00) if the appeal is filed by any tither party. in your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is December 3, 2012. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notir� of Action If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Rosemary Medel, the project planner at (714) 374-1684 or via email at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org or the Department of Planning and Building Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, icXLRamos Zoning Administrator RR;RM:jd Attachment c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Herb Fauland, Planning Manager William H. Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Debbie DeBow, Principal Engineer Mark Carnahan, inspection Manager Jim Brown, Fire Protection Analyst Joe Morelli, Fire Protection Analyst Moore Golcheh Project File HB -311- Item 9. - 72 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 } FINDINGS FOR DENIAL € SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 11-04 VARIANCE NO. 12-04 i FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW(NO. 11-04: I i 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code because the proposed development does not enhance the vacant land as part of an integrated development within Town Center Neighborhood District, which is the i LPf Friingernrrianre_Cnnniflr an izBE—R) 2. The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because the project has not accounted for the impacts to the adjacent multiple family developments as evidenced by designing the emergency vehicle access only from the overcrowded alley. The location of the balconies and windows on the west side of the project are oriented towards the second story windows of the adjacent development creating potential privacy issues. The proximity of these balconies has the potential to generate excessive noise to the adjacent residential developments as they are not sufficiently recessed in the structure to reduce or mitigate sound. Lack of a master planned I development creates further issues of circulation and shared parking. Additionally, the quality of architectural design is not in keeping with the quality of design required by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the area. Proposed rooflines and materials do not complement surrounding or recently approved projects in the vicinity. Therefore, because of these design issues the project has the potential to be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The project will adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan and Five Points area-because access to the site from the public alley does not provide efficient circulation in order to address the parking conflicts of the adjacent multiple family developments gaining access to their garages and utilizing the alley for additional parking, which may result in inadequate emergency vehicle access from the alley to the subject site. Integrated mixed use projects account for shared parking opportunities. Because this development would be a stand-alone project, the opportunity for shared parking is not available and therefore will burden the already under-parked surrounding residential developments. 4. The project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and other applicable regulations because the project does not provide the required public open space in an area that is accessible to the public on a 24 hour basis. A specific entry design type required by the BECSP is not incorporated into the architecture of the building. The proposed perimeter privacy wall height exceeds the height permitted within the Specific Plan by over two feet without proposing solutions to reduce the i visual impact of the walls with better design or grading solutions. i i G_ZA\ZALTRW21SPR 11-04;VAR 12-04(Casa Rincon).doc Attachment 1.1 i Item 9. - 73 HB -312- FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-VARIANCE NO. 12-04: j 1. The granting of Variance No. 12-04 to permit perimeter privacy-walls at eight feet high in lieu of the maximum height of six feet as required by the Specific Plan, 925 square feet of public open space in lieu of the required 1,200 square feet, and eliminate the private entry type design requirement from the residential building design will constitute a grant of special . privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The Specific Plan requires residential developments of twenty units or more to provide public open space. Reducing the proposed number of units in order to meet the public open space requirement does not constitute an undue hardship, Consequently, the requested variance would be the first request of this type within the recently adopted BECSP. Similar variances have not been granted to other Specific Plan properties within the same district that contain similar development constraints. I 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, Therefore, the strict application of the Specific Plan is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. While the project site has a grade difference from Beach Blvd to the rear of the site, the Specific Plan encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. Therefore, if the adjacent parcels were consolidated into a master development there would be sufficient onsite circulation to accommodate emergency vehicles, address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation and there would be the opportunity for shared parking to accommodate the residential development. j 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is not necessary in order to allow for the construction of a residential project on this site. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan requires that a property meet certain minimum development requirements such as those imposed for open space types, open space location, maximum fence height and private entry types of buildings. In this case, the project does not comply with the applicable public open space types for design or location. The design does not incorporate a common entry type design into the building and exceeds the allowable fence height along the north, south and east property lines. i f F ' t j i 1 G:ZA\ZALTRS11Z SF1R 11-04,VAR 12-04(Casa Rineon)_doc Attachment 1.2 H13 -313- Item 9. - 74 f ATTACHMENT NO. 8 ZONING MATRIX CASA RINCON — 18431 BEACH BLVD. Provision Town Center-Neighborhood Proposed Project 2.2 Use Regulations Residential and various commercial 24 Multi-family Residential Apartments permitted 2.2.2`Speciat Retail n/a N/A Configuration 22.3Affordable"Housing 10 0 Required for 3 or more units 24 Affordable units(100%) 2.3.2 Height&" Min. 2 Stories; Max. 6 stories(4 stories 4 Stories Special Bldg: Height 65 ft back from PL) 2 3:3>Length Max. 300' along a street or open space 162 ft. 2.3.4,Special Bwlding Limited Corner Building 120 ft max N/A Length length 2 3 5 Build"'g ma� Beach Blvd. 3L:2H to 5L:2H Beach Blvd. 3L:2H (volume Proportions).• All other streets 1L:3H to 3L:1H (Lacks Building Massing articulation) (Ratio of Length to Height) 2 4 1 Bu O dding rientation:-, , Orientation to street or open space Community Building oriented to Beach to Streets required 2 4.21, 1 Shopfronts, arcade,forecourt, grand No Private Frontage Type Proposed* portico,common lobby, stoop, terraced a. Private Frontage flush permitted 2 4 3':.Fro6t,Set6ack(east Beach Blvd.0 ft. min/10 ft. max 3 ft. along Beach Bled.)"' _- 2.4.4`Sid e.Yard"Seth"ack Min w/living space windows 10 ft. 10 ft. (Residential) (notthand south-property h.nes): Min w/out living space windows—0 ft. 3 ft. (Community Bldg) 24 5'_Rear Setback_jwest plj Min. 10 ft. 10 ft. on West (public alley) 2 4 �Alley.;setbacky(west pl)" Min 5 ft. 10 ft. on West (public alley)6 24 7•_FroW e coverage Beach Blvd. 90% Min. (54 ft) 93 % (57 ft) 2 4 8_Space btwribjdgs Min. 20 ft. 180 ft. Item 9. - 75 HB -314- Provision Town Center-Neighborhood Proposed Project 2 4.9.Build to corner N/A N/A 2 5.1`lmprovements to 4) Beach Blvd.—Palm Tree Blvd. (typical 4 ft. parkway—6 ft.sidewalk existing streets configuration) 6 ft. parkway—6 ft.sidewalk 7) Ellis Ave.—Neighborhood Street 2.5.2.Proposecl-str.eets N/A N/A 2.,5.3 Max. Block size 2,400 linear feet max N/A(new street not created) 2.5A Street Connectivity N/A N/A 2'5.5,East-West Street N/A N/A Connection 2.5.6.Residential Transition N/A N/A Boundary 2 5 7_Street types new N/A N/A street design 2.6.1 Provision of public - 50 sf/1000 sf retail 925 sq.ft. open space 100 sf/1000 sf office 50 sf/residential unit Total required: 1,200 sq.ft. 2 .6.2Special Pubfic:Open ,:'` N/A N/A Space 2 6'3 Provision of Private Equivalent of minimum of 60 sf per unit 1,536 sq. ft. provided Open Space 1,440 sq.ft. required 2:6.4!Public Open Space- Park, Linear Green, Square, Plaza, Play Ground Type Types Courtyard, Passage, Paseo, Pocket Park/Playground Permitted (behind building) 2.6.5 Private Open Space Private Yard Balconies and Patios provided Types 2.6.6--Stormwater mgmt. Source control and site design required Provided—WQMP Required to ensure compliance 2.6.7Stormwater.BMP Required Provided-WQMP tyPes- xs -31 s- Item 9. - 76 Provision Town Center-Neighborhood Proposed Project 26.8.4 b)Open Space Screening Wing Walls and Fences 8 ft.*(on top of 5 ft high retaining walls Landscaping for a total height of 13 ft.) Max. 6 ft (including retaining walls) 2.6.9 Setback Area Required Complies with setback landscaping and Landscape ypes perimeter landscaping 2.7:2 Parking Types Surface lot rear, wrapped ground level, Surface Parking Rear wrapped all levels, partially submerged/structure permitted; Residential =34 Guest= 3 Total Provided— 39 stalls Total Required = 37 2.8.1 Fagade Height Top/Base required Needs stronger defined elements 2.8.1 Arch. Elements Required Limited use of materials Regulations *VARIANCES REQUESTED Item 9. - 77 HB -316- ATTACHMENT #5 5/20/2013 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 and VARIANCE NO. 12-004 CASA RINCON PROJECT City Council Meeting June 3, 2,013 Applicant/Appellant: Sean Pate quest: --------- • SPR No.11-004:for i00% affordable housing project proposed near the , _ northwest corner of Beach Blvd/Ellis Ave./Main ' Street • 24 Residential Units (io,9oo sq.ft.) • 693 sq. ft.two-story N m . Community Buildinga �' 4 0 Km- 0.�78 acre site � " - 1 - - - 1 Item 9. - 79 HB -3 1 s- 5/20/2013 Request • 4 Var.No.u,-oo (� • Permit 8 ft perimeter walls on top of 5 ft. high retaining walls ; • Reduce public open space from 1,200 sq ft.to 925 a s q• • Eliminate private s entry type from main building - u 4 t y ti a--'M—A - �P 9 light(Drive Aide) - MOM ILM JA'X (• LL J r, � ' I' 'mot �"t�.;a a �a F4 �I ! ' J �L� e ..is xs -3319- Item 9. - 80 5/20/2013 arious Actions • November 21, 2012; ZA denied proposed project • December 3, 2012; Mr. Sean Pate, CEO, Pate Foundation filed appeal • March 26, 2013; Planning Commission denied proposed project • April 4, 2013; Mr. Sean Pate filed appeal ® Reason for both Appeals: • Objections to the findings for denial of both the Site Plan Review No.11-004 and Variance No. 12-004. • Applicant believes project is designed to comply with development standards of BECSP and the City's Urban Design Guidelines. a n Review o. - • Primary issues: • Compatibility: Grade , differential,future • - s - 1 development,connectivity, barriers created by walls, -_-.- privacy issues by balconies, increased traffic in alley DI -•rN� y'€'- `" ` 6 3 Item 9. - 81 HB -320- 5/20/2013 Site Pla 1-004 (cont'd) • Architecture: Institutional,basic building materials,a range of 8-13 ft.high r perimeter walls, lacksI.t varying roof lines,a Y primary entrance,and architectural character. • Quality does not _ compare to other x approved BECSP OCEANA(91 UNRS/ioo•t AFFORDABLE PROTECT) projects. f Variance No. 12-004 • Does not meet minimum development standards regarding public open space, building entry type and maximum wall height. • No special circumstances applicable that deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in this district. • Granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. HB -321- Item 9. - 82 5/20/2013 RE • Compatibility,design,and variance issues could be resolved • reducing scope and intensity,or • developing concurrentlywith adjacent parcels • Either of these solutions allow the applicant to address issues and comply with General Plan, BECSP, and Urban Design Guidelines. • Deny Site Plan Review No.n-o04 and Variance No.12-004 with suggested findings of denial because: • Inconsistent with General Plan • Design of structures and walls do not enhance or complement adjacent properties or recently approved projects within BECSP RECOMMENDATION (c®nt'd) • Stand-alone project does not provide opportunity for shared parking • Site layout and critical design components do not comply with BECSP or Urban Design Guidelines for public open space and building articulation • Variances constitute the granting of a special privilege and no evidence of an undue hardship • No special circumstances applicable to this property,and application of Specific Plan does not deprive the project of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the district • Granting of the variances not necessary to preserve one or more substantial property rights 5 Item 9. - 83 HB -322- 5/20/2013 END HB -323- Item 9. - 84 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS.HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 3, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-04NARIANCE NO. 12-04. (CASA RINCON) Appel lant/Applicant: Sean Pate, The Pate Foundation Property Owner: Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Real Estate Request: SPR. To permit the construction of an approximately 10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach & Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14). The project will consist of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq. ft./unit), 5 two-bedroom units (843 sq. ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and 9 four-bedroom units (1,224 sq. ft./unit) including a 693 square foot, two-story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit (a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 square feet; and (c) eliminate the private entry type requirement from the project design. Location: 18431 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City Contact: Rosemary Medel NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item # 1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item #1 would not have any significant environmental effect and a mitigation monitoring program is required pursuant to EIR No. 08-008. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office or online at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov on Thursday, May 30, 2013. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and GALEGALS\CITY COUNCIL\2013\060313 (Casa Rincon).doc Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ G:ALEGALS\CITY COUNCIL\2013\060313 (Casa Rincon).doc CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: 0 S� V DEPARTMENT: a J MEETING DATE: -�KQ �. (3 CONTACT: - PHONE: N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (0--'Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached? Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published_ 3. Number of days between publications — n a �d oa w�,�w� x ww }�w�o�ap a�}anb!}3 08��'�� b��tq�� rQ!�W� � Z�e�o ��anblt3 9 Z j az!s laq-el 157-341-01 157-341-02 157-341-04 Vanags Marls E Vanags Eduard Reincke Lisa Marie 1510 N State College Blvd 1510 N State College Blvd Po Box 34056 Anaheim, CA J2806-1207 Anaheim, CA 92806-1207 Las Vegas, NV 89133-4056 157-341-05 157-341-06 : , 157-341-11 P A Poon &Son Inc P A Poon &Son Inc Newman Swanna O 2010 Trust 2950 Harbor Blvd 18822 Beach Blvd#103 1915 Mariners Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626-3936 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2055 ! Newport Beach, CA 92660-4608 157-341-12 157-341-13 157-341-14 Santana Jose A Dien Anthony J & Keely A Kaneko Tamio 6426 Forester Dr 10263 Oriole Ave 6561 Vesper Cir Huntington Beach,.CA 92648-6613 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7423 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2950 157-341-15 157-341-16 ;'I' 157-341=17 Hernandez Mia Rae & Michael Houchen Jerry D :! Smekal Marie A 18391 Patterson Ln 7451 Warner Ave#E-321 8902 Crescent Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1600 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5494 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2206 is 157-341-18 I 157-341-19 157-341-21 Jeffries Christopher G Liu Chunghomg Richard&Wang 1 : Orange County Water District Hsing141 18331 Patterson Ln#1 Po Box 3882 Po Box 8300 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1692 I ; j West Lafayette, IN 47996-3882 I Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300 157-471-05 159-031-01 Ili 159-031-08 Greystar- Dan Milich Knka Llc Turner Joseph A 444 South Cedros Avenue Ste. 172 18255 Beach Blvd 18427 Beach Blvd Solana Beach, CA 92075 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1351 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 159-031-10 159-031-12 159-031-13 Sunny Investments Lic Wallach Fern & Eckhouse.Arnold M ; ' Patel Dilip &Ranjan 15 Corporate Plaza Dr#240 3811 Spanish Oaks Dr 1459 Forestview Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660-1300 West Bloomfield, MI 48323-1867 Brea, CA 92821-2043 I � 159-031-14 159-031-15 I 159-031-17 R3 Properties 3 Smith Darin P Beard Ronald P 41 Via Malona 5402 Old Pirate Dr 15 Corporate Plaza Dr#240 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-4882 ' ! Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3608 Newport Beach, CA 92660-1300 159-031-18 159-031-22 159-031-24 Five Point Plaza Llc Nicholson Leslie &Audrey Llc " Trident r'ropei les 10537 Santa Monica Blvd#300 419 El Modena Ave 461 S Glassell St Los Angeles, CA 90025-4999 Newport Beach, CA 92663-5112 , ; i Orange, CA 92866-19D5 159-032-01 159-032-02 159-032-03 Schindler Richard Jr&Janice Ho Dung H Hsu.Jack C 17791 Santa Gertrudes Cir i 7871 Ellis Ave 17 Ravendale FDuntain Valley, CA 92708-5022 Huntington Beach, CA'92648-1663 i i Irvine, CA 92602-2450 c..Gtin�ia a o nrma mm v av i iRn/R1 Rn pg`g/ g /uany cane aJ, i� dwoo ww x ww�� ewao ap'aa bi 3 - el�� 159-032-04 159-041-10 159-041-11 Dean Mohammed & Bobbie Martignoni Paul & Patricia Herst Melvin E 18 Lewis 18362 Pammy Ln 18372 Pammy Ln Irvine, CA 92620-3362 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1434 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1434 159-041-12 159-041-13 159-041-14 Gangemi Linda J Alvarez Fidencio De Leon Lamberto A& Elvinta R 18382 Pammy Ln 18262 Pammy Ln 18402 Pammy Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1434 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1432 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1436 159-041-15 159-042-01 159-042-02 Brown.Dan S Mena Jose R Sr&Carmen T Summers Family Trust 18412 Pammy Ln 7842 Franklin Dr 7181 Carlton Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1436 Huntington Beach, CA.92648-1420 Westminster, CA 92683-6101 159-042-03 159-042-16 159-042-17 Vitale Mark R Ursino Arlene B Lee William W 7822 Franklin Dr 1621 Quail Run 20402 Graystone Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1420 Santa Ana, CA 92705-7513 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5332 - i 159-042-18 159-101-03 159-102-01 Lin Frank Thsai-ten Sarm Five Points Plaza Llc G &M Oil Co Llc 6821 Scenic Bay Dr 10500 Ne Sth St#850 16868 A Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2619 Bellevue,WA 98004-4352 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 4831 159-102-43 930-034-35 930-034-36 Beach Center Partners Llc&Sheldon Huntington Monterey Owners Boodman Philip Steven Association 7284 Ainsley Dr 2301 Dupont Dr#100 25871 Paseo Real Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6870 Irvine, CA 92612-7503 Monterey, CA 93940-6644 930-034-45 930-034-47 930-034-57 Hb Office Lic Thomas Keith Van Dyke Adam 13924 Seal Beach Blvd#c 9834 Oscar Cir 18377 Beach Blvd#326 Seal Beach, CA 90740-5376 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-4616 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 930-034-62 Viefhaus & Schneider Lip 18377 Beach Blvd#331 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5694 I b I size�' x��5,� compg i le wTi 1 very©151 ,�8 0 '/� �p�. 0 �P (( tiouet � rPtnlats�'(r�'_ �uPPr��fi��ea�recA�V�itib6A!$1fi0 f� ®JOAV Dane a0 i}edwoo ww Zg x ww 5 jewj_o}a aganb'13 ® any j algi�edwoo / xlaq 930-034-37 930-034-38 9 30-0 34-39 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 103 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 104 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 9 30-034-40 930-034-41 9 30-0 34-42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 106 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 108 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 930-034--43 930-034-44 930-034-45 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 209 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 210 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 211 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 930-034-46 930-034-47 930-034-48 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 212 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 214 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 215 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 930-034-49 930-034-50 930-034 51 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 216 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 219 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 220 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 930-034-52 930-034-53 930-034-54 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 222 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 32-2 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 323 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 930-034-55 930-034-56 930-034-58 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 324 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 325 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 327 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 930-034-59 930-034-60 930-034 61 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 328 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 329 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 330 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1350 930-034-63 ()rr,�nanf Occupant 18364 Beach Blvd 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 333 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1 3 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5694 / /� label size 1„'x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery�5160/8160 �/// /� _0 / boue4?d M .1t x KAMq�b%%'Wec�IA 4q0/8160 Y 09 Gg/p Gg®tiany oane algljedwoo willLg x ww gZ jewjoj ap 91janbll3 09 i 0 9 i8/09 9®tiany yziM algljedwoc„8/g Z x„i azls lagel 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18563 Main St 18567 Main St 18569 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18573 Main St 18575 Main St 18577 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18583 Main 18579 Main St 18581 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 1 159-091-04 159-091-04 59-0 91-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18589 Main St 18591 Main St 18587 Main St Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington 1 159-1 Q2-01 159-102-43 59-1 Q1-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18501 Beach Blvd 18541 Beach Blvd Unit 101 18501 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-17D9 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2053 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-80Q2 159-102-43 159-102-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18561 Beach Blvd 18575 Beach Blvd 18541 Beach Blvd Unit 102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-8002 159-102-43 159-1 Q2-43 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18581 Beach Blvd 18583 Beach Blvd 18585 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 1 159-102-43 159-102-43 59-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18595 Beach Blvd 18607 Beach Blvd 18631 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 1 15 9-102-43 159-102-4 3 59-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant Beach Blvd 18637 Beach Blvd 18639 Beach Blvd 18635 Bea Huntington Beach, ch 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2D54 1 930-034-35 930-Q34-36 59-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18645 Beach Blvd 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 10D 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2054 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1349 6/3 //� label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery°5160/8760 1/,Q.� Etiquette t� tr xtir'��irY� llec° 0/8160 // 89k8%D c®��tia�y 09AE 99 cig-dwoo ww Zg x ww gZ Lwjo 9p�a%b#11 ME 159-032-01 159-032-02 159-032-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7872 Fox Cir Unit 4 7871 Ellis Ave Unit 1 7871 Ellis Ave Unit 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1456 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1663 159-032-02 159-032-02 159-032-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7871 Ellis Ave Unit 3 7871 Ellis Ave Unit 4 7861 Ellis Ave Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1662 159-032-03 159-032-03 159-032-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7861 Ellis Ave Unit 2 7861 Ellis Ave Unit 3 7861 Ellis Ave Unit 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1662 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1662 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1662 159-032-04 159-032-04 159-032-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7862 Fox Cir Unit 1 7862 Fox Cir Unit 2 7862 Fox Cir Unit 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1457 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1457 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1457 15 9-032-04 159-042-02 159-042-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7862 Fox Cir Unit 4 7832 Franklin Dr 7821 Ellis Ave Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1457 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1420 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1659 1 159-042-16 159-042-16 59-042-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7821 Ellis Ave Unit 2 7821 Ellis Ave Unit 3 7821 Ellis Ave Unit 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1659 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1659 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1659 159-042-17 159-042-17 159-042-17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7831 Ellis Ave Unit 1 7831 Ellis Ave Unit 2 7831 Ellis Ave Unit 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1660 159-042-17 159-042-18 159-042-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7831 Ellis Ave Unit 4 7841 Ellis Ave Unit 1 7841 Ellis Ave Unit 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1661 Huntington Beach, CA 9 2648-1 66 1 1 159-042-18 159-091-04 59-042-18 Occupant Occupant Oa:upant 7841 Ellis Ave Unit 4 18543 Main St 7841 Ellis Ave Unit 3 tington Beach, CA 92648-1661 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1661 Hun 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18551 Main St 18557 Main St 18545 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 65 1 60/8 1 60 i / / ._O l/ (p biquett 44%44t'� x��r1�t �n`�a i �Q�I �e i1'0/8160 1/ `�` ca:... ..x..a..c.....-...a n�..... ,c�....» ..a:u.,........ t.......,laic;en rol cn 0919/091g®fuand oaAc alggdwop ww L9 x ww gZ tcwjoj ap @Uanblt3 09 09 9/0M@ band qt!m algljcdwoo,,E/g Z x,j azls lagcl 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 12 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 14 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1473 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1473 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1473 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 16 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 17 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 18 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1474 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1474 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1474 i 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 19 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit.2 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 20 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1474 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1470 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1474 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 21 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 3 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1474 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1470 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1471 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 5 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 6 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1471 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1471 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1471 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 8 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 9 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1472 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1472 Huntington Beach, CA 9 264 8-1 345 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 10 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 11 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1481 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1482 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1482 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 14 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 15 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 16 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1482 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1482 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1467 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 17 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 18 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 19 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1467 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1467 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1467 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant . Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 2 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 20 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 21 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1480 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1468 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1468 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 95160/8160 0g/o [% n�Gy®oanRM d x Will Ie wo a a�an�ti#t o eeIwI511%L6� n/ x;; t aq-fsa1matjzdwoX 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 3 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 4 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1480 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-148D Huntington Beach, CA 9.2648-1480 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 6 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 7 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1480 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1481 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1481 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7882 Beachpoint Cir Bldg B Unit 9 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 1 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1481 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1475 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1477 1 159-031-24 159-031-24 59-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 11 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 12 7912.Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 14 .Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1477 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1477 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1477 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 15 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 16 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 17 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1478 Huntington Beach, CA 9264871478 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1478 159-031-24 15 9-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant ir Bldg A Unit 2 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 18 7912 Beachppoint C each tCA192648-1dg A t479 Huntington Beach,t 19 7912 Beachpoint CCA 92648-1475 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1478 Huntington 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 21 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 3 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 20 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1475 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1479 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1479 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 4 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 5 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1475 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1476 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1476 1 15 9-031-24 159-031-24 59-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant Bldg A Unit 8 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 9 H unti 7912 Beachpoint Cir Bldg A Unit 7 unti Beachpoint Dint Cir g ngton Beach, CA 92648-1476 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1477 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1476 159-032-01 159-032-01 159-032-01 O Occupant Occupant Occupant 7872 Fox Cir Unit 1 7872 Fox Cir Unit 2 7872 Fox Cir Unit 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1456 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1456 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1456 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 I:tiquett `�a�f�f t'2'� x 9e"tMffi�i' awco lid �0/8160 {� r:; .• +F At T ,—,+nc r car ati" n, or4Mroicn any Dane ai11"i` tluaoo uaua L x Will }eua.10 a a anbiil t!r / a o anyinn a gi�Bdwoo„ x;, azls a e 159-031-14 159-031-14 159-031-15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18442 Steep Ln Unit 3 18442 Steep Ln Unit 4 18432 Steep Ln Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1459 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1459 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1458 159-031-15 159-031-15 159-031-15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18432 Steep Ln Unit 2 18432 Steep Ln Unit 3 18432 Steep Ln Unit 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1458 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1458 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1458 159-031-22 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18361 Beach Blvd 18351 Beach Blvd Unit A 18351 Beach Blvd Unit B Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1310 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1346 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1346 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit C 18351 Beach Blvd Unit D 18351 Beach Blvd Unit E Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1346 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1346 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1347 159-0 31-24 159-031-24 159-0 31-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit F 18351 Beach Blvd Unit G 18351 Beach Blvd Unit H Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1347 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit 1 18351 Beach Blvd Unit J 19351 Beach Blvd Unit K Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1348 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Beach Blvd Unit L 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 1 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1492 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1492 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 3 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 4 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1469 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1469 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1469 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 6 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 7 7872 Beachpoint Cir Bldg C Unit 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1469 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1469 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1491 159-031-24 159-031-24 159-031-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 1 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 10 7881 Beachpoint Cir Bldg D Unit 11 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1470 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1472 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1472 {[G}}44iQue ej ss++iiize],:xyy W c�pat p�e�wlt Ave �v��y/� gigue 0 fnrm9 9r;mm v R7 mmmm nnjmh0t,�Olin,ZIva I 0918/0919®luany oane apipedwoo ww L9 x ww g3 pewio}ap 9jjanbi13 anb.13 09L2/0919®tiany gilts alglt-edwoo„8/9 Z x„t azls laq-ei 157-341-01 157-341-01 157-341-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18344 Beach Blvd 18346 Beach Blvd 18348 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 157-341-01 157-341-01 157-341-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18350 Beach Blvd 18352 Beach Blvd 18354 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1 3 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 157-341-01 157-341-01 157-341-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18356 Beach Blvd 18358 Beach Blvd 18360 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1 3 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1 3 1 1 157-341-01 157-341=05 157-341-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18362 Beach Blvd 18400 Beach Blvd 18462 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1311 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1 3 1 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1312 157-341-07 157-341-08 157-341-11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8031 Ellis Ave 8041 Ellis Ave 18441 Patterson Ln Unit A Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1 7 1 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1719 Newport Beach, CA 92646-1678 157-341-11 157-341-11 157-341-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18441 Patterson Ln Unit B 18441 Patterson Ln Unit C 18421 Patterson Ln Newport Beach, CA 92646-1678 Newport Beach, CA 92646-1678 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1660 157-341-12 157-341-12 157-341-13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18425 Patterson Ln 18431 Patterson Ln 18409 Patterson Ln Unit A Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1676 157-341-13 157-341-13 157-341-14 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18409 Patterson Ln Unit B 18411 Patterson Ln 18401 Patterson Ln Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1676 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1662 157-341-14 157-341-15 157-341-15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18401 Patterson Ln Unit2 18391 Patterson Ln Unit 101 18391 Patterson Ln Unit 102 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1662 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1600 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1600 157-341-16 157-341-16 157-341-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 3 � Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1674 Huntington Bea ch, CA 92646-1674 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1674 label size 1='x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 _O L/ EtiquettN@lt Wt'25giWi 69 tMWW"1 i%°�1� 1�0/8160 (/ I ti / D9 8/D ffllfjrl��jlWUW03 x ww U'jj�i9fOnjiliq Qr� 157-341-16 157-341-17 157-341-17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18381 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 1 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 2 Huntington Beach, CA 9 2646-1 6 74 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1672 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1672 157-341-17 157-341-17 157-341-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18371 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1672 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1672 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1696 157-341-18 157-341-18 157-341-19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18361 Patterson Ln Unit 4 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1696 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1696 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1694 157-341-19 157-341-19 157-341-19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 2 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 3 18351 Patterson Ln Unit 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1694 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1694 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1694 157-341-22 157-341-22 159-031-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18451 Patterson Ln Unit 101 18451 Patterson Ln Unit 102 18421 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1720 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1720 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 159-031-08 159-031-08 159-031-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18423 Beach Blvd 18423 Beach Blvd Unit 112 18425 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 159-031-08 159-031-10 159-031-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18429 Beach Blvd 18477 Beach Blvd 7901 Ellis Ave Unit 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 West Bloomfield, MI 92648-1665 159-031-12 159-031-12 159-031-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7901 Ellis Ave Unit 2 7901 Ellis Ave Unit 3 7901 Ellis Ave Unit 4 West Bloomfield, MI 92648-1665 West Bloomfield, MI 92648-1665 West Bloomfield, MI 92648-1665 159-031-13 159-031-13 159-031-13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7891 Ellis Ave Unit 1 7891 Ellis Ave Unit 2 7891 Ellis Ave Unit 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1664 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1664 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1664 159-031-13 159-031-14 159-031-14 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7891 Ellis Ave Unit 4 18442 Steep Ln Unit 1 18442 Steep Ln Unit 2 c Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1664 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1459 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1459 fie size 7 gc t x / °comti�b e w.ithvery0 1� 1 r/ -�' / �� 091.8/09G9®tiany oane alggedwop ww L9 x ww 9Z tewaoj ap 91janbl13 0919/09190 tiany ql!m algitedwoo„g/9 Z x j azls lagel ` 2 HB Chamber of Commerce President l Orange County Assoc.of Realtors 5 2134.Main St#100 Dave Stefanides Huntington Beach Tomorrow President Huntington Beach, CA 92648 25552 La Paz Rd PO Box 865 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newland House Museum Pres/HB l�E c' Historical Society Historic Resources Board Chair Dept. of Transportation, Dist 12 19341 Worchester Ln 3337 Michaelson Dr 19820 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Irvine, CA 92612 Huntington Beach Post Office y� Sean Pate Morrie Golcheh New Growth Coordinator Pate Foundation 6771 Warner Ave 3070 Bristol St, Suite 400 10537 Santa Monica Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Los Angeles, CA 90025 i / label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 1p 1/3 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 {� / t i plL7vE°RT'{1�S1`1UG flaff'�A(�I 'E Printed by,0602 Patricia Gamino May 16.2013,3:07-pm F gY0 $s Salesperson: � Qo$.F�ic>i�leles ;a Phan: Ad W 355064N w I�IfiQtrll$�Q11" , K F'itoner ' (714)536-5227 'Sta> date 05 23 13Se50 340 �� r � . r Harr e: City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) Stop'date. 05-23-13 B�116d 6i" 15.00 TGN Inch � f � . address PO Box 784 InserttoriiCeywarri` t 1 Huntington Beac..GA 92648 F tate.co a &Legai Huntington Beach Ad typo Liner Ttakerl Ciy 0602 Patricia Gamino z -- — t " JN 7 'Ac6t# C000070479 &SS 13000 Legal Notices u CropnGe $120. TCN HBi tV i1C8:" 120'00 CiteF(71 Of Huntington Beach-Clerk's O �t $ _ mt Due $120.00 'y �F Esparza - _ �- E I -Nate. A0*u,Y+OueF � t dx; 374-1557 ian9 dui a dirM1S Ad Copy: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 3, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11- 04/VARIANCE NO. 12- 04. (CASA RINCON) Appellant/A plicant. Sean Pate, The Pate Foundation Property Owner:Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Real Estate Request:SPR:To permit the construction of an approximately 10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach & Edinger Corridors Spe- cific Plan (SP 14). The project will consist of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bed- room units(615 sq. ft./ unit), 5 two-bedroom units (843 sq. ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and 9 four-bedroom units (1,224 sq. ft./unit) including a 693 square foot, two-story com- munity recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet, VAR: To permit(a)8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet per- mitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 ad proof pg.i --- .�g�� Printed by:0602 Patricia Gamino May 16,2013,3:07 pm illG$ > gi Salesperson: 7 f 7 Phone: Ad k 35506426 a, square feet: and (c) eliminate the private entry type requirement from the project design. Location: 18431 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City Contact-. Rosemary Medel NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item#1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. it was determined that item #1 would not have any significant environmental effect and a mitigation monitoring program is required pursuant to EIR No. 08- D08. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Plan- ning. and Building De- partment, or by tele- phoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Hun- tington Beach,California 92648, for inspection by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office or online a t http://www.huntington eac ca.gov on TFiurs- aynay, 3tT,2013. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence deliv- ered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.if there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536.5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. loan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 20W Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,Cali- fornia 92648 714-536-5227 http:// h u m i n gt o nFeacftca.gov/ _FIRu ,c ommen s, .................. --- ad proof pg.2 --- PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING afproject will consist of 24 copy of the staff report fordable housing units will be available to in- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL containing .-4 one- terested parties at the OF THE bedroom units (615 sq. City Clerk's Office or ft./unit),5 two-bedroom online at http://www. - CITY OFHUNTINGTON units (843 sq. ft./unit), huntin ton . STATE OF CALIFORNIA) BEACH 6 three-bedroom units e��v On NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and urs ay,may ,2013. ) SS�+ EN that on Monday, 9 four-bedroom units ALL INTERESTED PER- S.7. June 3, 2013, .at 6:00 .(1,224 sq. ft./unit) in- SONS are invited to at- ee '' `, �/ `e p.m. in the City Council cluding a 693 square tend said hearing and COUNTY ®F ®RAIV�� ) Chambers, 2000' Main foot, two-story commu express opinions orsub- u� Street, Huntington nity recreation building mit evidence for or Beach, the City.Council with an overall height of against the application will hold a public hear- 33 feet.VAR:To permit as outlined above.If you ing on the following (a) 8 feet high perim- challenge the City Coun- planning and zoning etr privacy walls in lieu cil's action in court;you am a citizen of the United States and a item: of a maximum Height of may be limited toe rais- resident of the Count of Los Angeles; I O I..APPEAL OF.SITE 6 feet permitted; (b) a ing only those issues y g PLAN REVIEW NO. II_ reduction in required you or someone else 04/VARIANCE NO. l2_ public open space from raised at the' public am over the age of eighteen years, and 04. (CASA RINCON) minimum 1,200 sq.,ft. hearing described in this Appellant/Applicant: to 925 square feet; and notice,or,in written cor- not a party to or interested in the notice Sean Pate, The Pate (c)eliminate the private respondence delivered Foundation Propperty entry type -requirement to the City at, or prior published. I am a principal clerk of the Owner: Morrie Golcheh, from the project design. to,the public hearing. If. Progressive Real Estate Location: 18431 Beach there are any further HUNTINGTON BEACH Blvd., Huntington questions please call the Request: SPR: To per- Beach, CA 92648 City Planning and Building, INDEPENDENT which was adjudged a mit the construction of Contact: Rosemary Department of (714) r g an approximately 10,900 Medel ) 536-5271 and refer to square foot, four-story newspaper .of general. circulation on affordable housing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- the above items. Direct apartment project with EN NOTICE IS HEREBY your written communi- September 29, 1961, case A6214, and an overall height of 50 GIVEN that the initial cations .to the City feet, within the Town environmental assess- Clerk. June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the Center Neighborhood ment for Item #,1 was Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk Cityof Huntington Beach,: Count of Segment of Beach & processed and comp let- City of Huntington Beach ry Edinger Corridors Spe- ed in accordance with 2000 Main Street,2nd cific Plan (SP 14).,The the .California Environ- Floor Orange, and the State of California. mental Quality Act. It Huntington Beach, was determined that , California 92648 Attached to this Affidavit is a true and Item #1 would not have 714-536-5227 - complete copy as was printed and any significant ennd a mental effect and a huntingtonbeachcajZov/ mitigation monitoring u is omments published on the following date($); program is required pur- --- suant to EIR No.08-008. This environmental as- sessment is on file at. Thursday, May 23, 2013 the City of. Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street,and is certify (or declare) :under, penalty available for public.in- spection and comment of perjury that the foregoing is true by contacting the Plag- uing and Building De- and correct. parting(,' or by telew phoning(714)536-5271.271. ON FILE: A copy,of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building. Department, 2000 Main Street, Hun- Executed on May 29, 2013 nia 92 Beach, insCalpec- tion 92648, for inspec- tion by the public. A at Los Angeles, California Signature City of Huntington Beach 200o Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov R ® Office of the City Clerk 9 ` Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Public Works Commission Decision or Police Department Decision/Action Date: April 4, 2013 To: Planning and Building Department City Attorney City Council Office Administration Public Works Department Police Department(only if Police related item) Filed by: Sean Pate, Global Premier Development, Casa Rincon Associates, LLP Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Site Plan Review No. 11-04/Variance No. 12-04 (Casa Rincon) Findings of Denial Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: $3,383.00 (Received in Planning Department) Completed by: Rebecca Ross,Senior Deputy City Clerk YERTISING IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ♦ Waitakere, New Zealand Finance Department Receipt April 04,2013 Sean Pate Receipt Number 269049 Global Premier Development Cashier 2010 Main St. #1250 ]Batch# 20130404000PC2244 Irvine CA 92614 Dept. of Issuance Planning Department Amount Paid $3,383.00 Permit/License# 20110130 Payment Method Check Amount Outstanding $0.00 Fee Amount Paid Appeal To CC-Other $3,253.00 Automation Fee $130.00 es-Q- -cp YNA-P-V\ E Review Permits Status Online: Visit: www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/perynitonlilne Questions? Business License: (714) 536-5267 Planning & Building: (714) 536-5241 Casa Rinc®n Associates, L.P. Thursday, April 04, 2013 City of Huntington Beach F(7, " Secretary of the Planning Commission APR 0 4 2013 PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 �-,�inning Building RE: Site Plan Review No. 11-04/Variance No. 12-04(Casa Rincon) Findings for Denial Dear Secretary of the Planning Commission, This letter is written in response to the letter dated November 21, 2012 in regards to the above referenced matter attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Please accept this letter and payment as our appeal to the findings listed as Attachment No. 1 Findings for Denial Site Plan Review No. 11-04 Variance No. 12- 04. Findings for Denial -Site Plan Review No. 11-04: 1. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding as we have made every effort to incorporate the proposed project as is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). This includes but is not limited to development of the current site with future development of the Denny's and Allen Tire Shop in mind once able to acquire. All future development and proposed overlays comport with the BECSP in mind. We have made every attempt to acquire and combine these parcels as presented to staff and as discussed in the February 13, 2012 Economic Development Committee EDC meeting but it is economically impossible at such time. Please reference said discussion in the minutes from this EDC meeting. 2. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding on the grounds we have made every attempt to accommodate these desires from the city but the city does not offer any suggestions to solve these issues. We have spent over$100,000 redesigning this project multiple times every time staff came back with a new concern. We are happy to work with the city and have shown every good effort to meet this requirement, we are happy to comport with the city requirements as this finding but the city simply won't tell us what specifically they want and it is not financially feasible for us to keep guessing. It is clear that the city has certain desires and an open line of communication would solve this issue. It is simply not there. On 3/26/2013, at the Planning hearing, staff finally articulated their desires and even went so far as to incorporate a visual presentation. We told the Planning Commissioners that we were willing to work with staff to solve these issues and asked for a continuance to do so. But our request was subsequently denied. 3. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. v„ -0 4. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see-our answer to Finding 1 and Finding 2 also incorporated herein by reference. -x Findings for Denial -Variance No. 12-04: C—n 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250, Irvine,CA 92614 Phone: 949-222-9119 Fax: 949-271-4565 Casa Rincon Associates, L.P. 1. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to Finding 1 incorporated herein by reference. Further,this parcel is unique in shape and virtually impossible to design anything that meets all of the specific plan requirements and is still at the same time economically feasible for any project. This parcel will either be expanded back by Allen Tire which they have expressed an interest in acquiring and does not comport with the BECSP or can be expanded forward after acquiring Allen Tire which is incorporated into the present design. A variance of such request is reasonable and consistent with the BECSP as we have proposed. 2. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. 3. Please see Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. We object to this finding. Please see our answer to finding 1 also incorporated herein by reference. "Section 65915 (1) defines "concession or incentive" as a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission. Examples include a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and reduction in parking ratios. Approval of mixed use zoning is a "concession" if the non-residential use is compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area. In addition,the developer may propose other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in "identifiable,financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions" -581818 Q&A If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-777-6938. Sincerely, an Pate CEO of The Pate Foundation Managing General Partner 2010 Main Street,Suite 1250,Irvine,CA 92614 Phone: 949-222-9119 Fax: 949-271-4565 HoHuntington Beach Planning Commission ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION March 27, 2013 Sean Pate CEO of The Pate Foundation 3070 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-04NARIANCE NO. 12-04—APPEAL- CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 26, 2013 MEETING (CASA RINCON) APPLICANT: Sean Pate, CEO of The Pate Foundation PROPERTY OWNER: Morrie Golcheh, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025 REQUEST: SPR: To permit the construction of an approximately,10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach & Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14). The project will consist of 24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq. ft./unit), 5 two- bedroom units (843 sq. ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and 9 four-bedroom units (1,224 sq. ft./unit) including a 693 square foot, two-story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit (a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 square feet; and (c) eliminate the private entry type requirement from the project design. LOCATION: 18431 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DATE OF ACTION: March 26, 2013 On Tuesday, March 26, 2013, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfolty-hb.org Notice of Action:SPR 11-0041Vh„ 12-004 March 27,2013 Page 2 Seven Hundred Sixty-Three Dollars ($1,763.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Three Eighty- Three Dollars ($3,383.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is Friday, April 5, 2013, at 5:00 PM. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Rosemary Medel, the project planner, at (714) 374-1684 or via email at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org, or the Planning and Building Department at(714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: Jade Jarrids, Acting Planning Manager SH:JJ:RM:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial—SPR 11-004NAR 12-004 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Paul D'Alessandro, Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Carnahan, Inspection Manager Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File Exhibit 1 Huntington Beach Planning Commission ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION March 27, 2013 Sean Pate CEO of The Pate Foundation 3070 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-04/VARIANCE NO. 12-04—APPEAL- CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 26, 2013 MEETING (CASA RINCON) APPLICANT: Sean Pate, CEO of The Pate Foundation PROPERTY OWNER: Morrie Golcheh, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025 REQUEST: SPR: To permit the construction of an approximately.10,900 square foot, four-story affordable housing apartment project with an overall height of 50 feet within the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of Beach & Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14). The project will consist of.24 affordable housing units containing 4 one-bedroom units (615 sq. ft./unit), 5 two- bedroom units (843 sq. ft./unit), 6 three-bedroom units (1,028 sq. ft./unit) and 9 four-bedroom units (1,224 sq. ft./unit) including a 693 square foot, two-story community recreation building with an overall height of 33 feet. VAR: To permit (a) 8 feet high perimeter privacy walls in lieu of a maximum height of 6 feet permitted; (b) a reduction in required public open space from a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. to 925 square feet; and (c) eliminate the private entry type requirement from the project design. LOCATION: 18431 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DATE OF ACTION: March 26, 2013 On Tuesday, March 26, 2013, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.sui-fcity-hb.org Notice of Action: SPR 11-004/Vht,12-004 March 27,2013 Page 2 Seven Hundred Sixty-Three Dollars ($1;763.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Three Eighty- Three Dollars ($3,383.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is Friday, April 5, 2013, at 5:00 PM. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code§66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Rosemary Medel, the project planner, at (714) 374-1684 or via email at rmedel@surfcity-hb.org, or the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: Jade Jar i6s, Acting Planning Manager SH:JJ:RM:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial—SPR 11-004NAR 12-004 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Paul D'Alessandro, Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Carnahan, Inspection Manager Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004 VARIANCE NO. 12-004 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified Program EIR No. 08-008 for the BECSP. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2009. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for residential projects within the parameters of that specific plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project no additional environmental review is required. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-004: 1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code because the proposed development does not enhance the vacant land as part of an integrated development within Town Center Neighborhood District, which is the most urbanized segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. 2. The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity because the project has not accounted for the impacts of the adjacent multiple family developments as evidenced- by designing the emergency vehicle access only from the overcrowded alley. The location of the balconies and windows on the west side of the project are oriented towards the second story windows of the adjacent development creating potential privacy issues. The proximity of these balconies has the potential to generate excessive noise to the adjacent residential developments as they are not sufficiently recessed in the structure to reduce or mitigate sound. Lack of a master planned development creates further issues of circulation and shared parking. Additionally, the quality of architectural design is not in keeping with the quality of design required by the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the area. Rooflines and use of materials do not complement surrounding or recently approved projects in the vicinity. Therefore, because of these design issues the project has the potential to be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The project will adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan and Five Points area because access to the site from the public alley does not provide efficient circulation in order to address the parking conflicts of the adjacent multiple family developments gaining access to their garages, utilizing the alley for additional parking, which may result in inadequate emergency vehicle access from the alley to the subject site. Integrated mixed use projects account for shared parking opportunities. Because this development would be GAPCINOA\13\01-25-11 CUP 10-028(Bomburger) Attachment 1.1 a stand-alone project, the opportunity for shared parking is not available and therefore will burden the already under-parked surrounding residential developments. 4. The project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and other applicable regulations because the project does not provide the required public open space in an area that is accessible to the public on a 24 hour basis. The required common lobby entrance design type is not incorporated into the architecture of the building. The proposed perimeter privacy wall height exceeds the height permitted within the Specific Plan by over two feet without proposing solutions to reduce the visual impact of the walls with better design or grading solutions. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE NO. 12-004: 1. The granting of Variance No. 12-004 to permit perimeter privacy walls at eight feet high in lieu of the maximum height of six feet as required by the Specific Plan, 925 square feet of public open space in lieu of the required 1,200 square feet, and eliminate the private entry type design requirement from the residential building design will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The Specific Plan requires residential developments of twenty units or more to provide public open space. Eliminating the requirement of public open space, while maintaining the proposed number of units does not constitute an undue hardship. Consequently, the requested variance would be the first request within the recently adopted BECSP. Similar variances have not been granted to other Specific Plan properties within the same district that contain similar development constraints. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the Specific Plan is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. While the project site has a grade difference from Beach Blvd to the rear of the site, the Specific Plan encourages the consolidation of parcels in order to create more integrated projects meeting the goals of the Specific Plan. Therefore, if the adjacent parcels were consolidated into a master development there would be sufficient onsite circulation to accommodate emergency vehicles; address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation and there would be the opportunity for shared parking to accommodate the residential development. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is not necessary in order to allow for the construction of a residential project on this site. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan requires that a property meet certain minimum development requirements such as those imposed for open space types, open space location, maximum fence height and private entry types of buildings. In this case, the project does not comply with the applicable public open space types for design or location. The design does not incorporate a common entry type design into the building and exceeds the allowable fence height along the north, south and east property lines. GAPC\NOA\1M1-25-11 CUP 10-028(Bomburger) Attachment 1.2