HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear - Conditional Use Permit 94-39/ND 94-22 - BOWEN CO Date/Time 09/26/2001 11:44:07 AM City of Huntington Beach Page 1
Office of the City Clerk
Records
Ref Category Subject Entered Status Document Expires Box ID Label
120.25 10/04/1996 Active 8755 Ad Hoc Committee - Re: Low Income Senior Apts-
Yorktown Av& Lake St- (Bowen Court) 9/3/96
420.40 01/07/1998 Active 10025 Pub Hear- CUP 94-39/ND 94-22 - BOWEN COURT
PROJECT- Lake/Yorktown-senior apt proj 6/2/97
ME 600.30 07/13/2001 Active 06/04/2061 16862 MERIT HOUSING CORPORATION-Disposition &
Development Agreement (DDA) -Lease of Real Property
1982-1986 Lake Street Bowen Court Senior Affordable
Housing Facility Res 2001-34, 320 &321 6/4/01 X: 6/4/61
ME 600.30 09/15/1999 Active 14339 MERIT HOUSING INCORPORATED-Option Agreement-
Bowen Court Senior Apartments-Agency Res. 301-
Affordable Housing-Yorktown Ave./Lake St. 7/6/99
OR 600.30 12/04/1995 Active 6256 ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -
Bowen Court Senior Apartments-Yorktown Ave./Lake St. -
Option Agreement & Negotiate DDA &A Home Program
Funding Agreement 12/4/95
RE 600.30 07/28/1997 Active 9339 RETIREMENT HOUSING FOUNDATION - option agrmt-
construction senior apts- Bowen Court Senior Apartments-
corner Lake St and Yorktown Ave 7/21/97
Total Records Detailed: 6
06/02/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 11
There being no one to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or
written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to:
A. Adopt Resolution No. 97-11 (R) which includes revised language clarifying the location of
the Oceancrest Project as part of General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 Attachment No. 1 to
the Request For Council Action dated June 2, 1997 - "A Resolution Of the City Council Of
The City Of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment
No. 96-3 And Negative Declaration No. 96-4."
and
B. Adopt Resolution No. 97-12 (R) which clarifies the location of the Oceancrest project as
part of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2 Attachment No. 2 to the Request For
Council Action dated June 2, 1997 - "A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of
Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-3;.Zoning Map
(With Revised General Plan Amendment No. 96-3; Negative Declaration No. 96-4) And
Requesting Its Certification By The California Coastal Commission."
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: (Harman absent from the room)
(CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING (BOWEN COURT) SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE
STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE -APPEAL FILED BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
—� DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39 -APPEAL GRANTED - PROJECT
APPROVED (420.40)
The Mayor announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant/Appellant: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Economic Development
Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for a 23 unit, two (2) story senior
apartment project designated solely for very low-income seniors. The applicant has submitted
a modified request to construct a 21 unit project consisting entirely of one (1) bedroom units
designated for very low-income seniors. The request includes a density bonus for 21 units in
lieu of 17 units permitted under the present zoning.
Location: 1968 Lake Street (southeast corner at Yorktown Avenue)
42
Page 12 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/02/97
Environmental Status: This item was processed and completed in accordance with the
California Quality Act. It was determined that the item with mitigation would not have any
significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Prior to
acting on the appeal, the City Council must review and act on the negative declaration.
Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and
posted.
The following communications had been provided to the City Council in their packets:
Communication received May 29, 1997 from E. Brinker in opposition
Communication received May 30, 1997 from Councilmember Garofalo regarding an alternative
project
The City Administrator referred to a communication that the City Clerk has on file regarding his
disclosure of property (residence) in the Redevelopment Project Area of which the proposed
Bowen Court Project is to be located. He informed Council that even though not required by
law, he prefers not to be involved in this project and would absent himself from the proceedings.
The City Administrator stated that to assist the City Council, Ray Silver, Assistant City
Administrator, will serve in his place.
Councilmember Julien stated that pursuant to Section 33130.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code, she was submitting her disclosure of the fact that her residence was in the
Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area. Councilmember Julien abstained from
participation in the proceedings.
Councilmember Garofalo stated that he has office space in a commercial center in the project
area; however, this is not the type of interest that requires disclosure.
The Community Development Director presented a staff report including a slide presentation.
Linda Niles, Senior Planner, presented a report that included subjects relative to zoning
compliance action by the Planning Commission, history of the project relative to the appeal filed
by the Economic Development Department, information on the revised project, including density
bonus, compatibility issues, surrounding land uses, and the staff recommendations for the
project.
Economic Development Director Biggs presented a staff report which included background
information on the project.
Steve Wraight, Architect, representing Wraight Architects, reviewed the architectural plans
using wall mounted illustrations. He reviewed the.chart titled Bowen Court Land Use Intensity
Comparison.
Linda Boone, Orange Housing Development Corporation, addressed Council regarding their
purpose in building Bowen Court. She stated that Council will be very proud that it is built
during their tenure.
43
r
Page 14 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/02/97
MARY JO JEFFES, President of the Council on Aging, asked if the Council does do the project,
could it be taken elsewhere to provide more housing. She questioned what time frame was set
forth by the Chevron Company on the property.
RUTH BERGLAND spoke in support of the housing project and stated that senior income will
not allow $600 - $700 per month rent. She stated that she would like to move to this project
and begin a little community work. Ms. Bergland informed Council that there is a long waiting
list for affordable housing.
ADRIA MOLINO, Administrator of Emerald Cove, informed Council of the income requirements
for Emerald Cove. She stated that there was a two and one-half to three year wait to move to
Emerald Cove.
SARA ADLER, resident of Emerald Cove, stated that she worked at the Senior Outreach
Center for four years and is well aware of the need. She stated she was pleased to be a
resident of Emerald Cove and that she is involved in the Braille Institute.
GAIL BOND stated that her mother is a low-income senior and that investment loss and
medical cost left her with a fixed income; that when property value went up, it had a bad effect
on renters. She stated that her mother is very happy at Emerald Cove. Ms. Bond informed
Council that there is a need for this type of housing.
SUZANNE VALKER stated that the property owners were never advised verbally about this
low-income project. She stated that this project will bring down property values and cause
traffic problems.
STEVE OLIM stated opposition to the proposed project, citing that rentals on Delaware Street
in the area are not maintained and that the people at the Huntington Classics and Pacific Park
are not willing to take this chance. He stated that seniors in this community have higher
disposable income than others. Mr. Olim questioned whether the entry age would be 55 years
old or 62 years old.
LINDA PFLUGHAUPT stated that she believed the comparisons provided by the Economic
Development Director were not correct. She referred to the staff report to support her
contention. Ms. Pflughaupt requested that action be delayed until further study can be made.
MILT INBODY presented reasons in opposition to the proposed project, including the past
action by the developer which he believes was not legal. He stated that if Council is going to
approve the project, that it be for 13 units. He requested that the vote be postponed until a
commission can be formed.
GAYLE INBODY stated her opposition to the project as she believes it will adversely affect her
property value.
DARLENE DUNN read a letter from Beric Christensen in opposition to the proposed project.
She stated that she also lived on the street where the project will be located and that she and
her family will feel the impact of the people who will live there.
45
06/02/97 -City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 15
CAROLE THOMAS stated that she was at first in favor of the Bowen Court Project; however,
she now opposes it. She stated that she believes this development should be built elsewhere
in the city.
BOB ECK stated that most residents who bought in the Huntington Classics did not know this
project would be built. He stated that he believed the issue is that the project should be further
reviewed to see if there are alternatives.
There being no one further to speak on the matter and there being no further protests filed,
either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor.
Economic Development Director Biggs informed Council that the minimum age is 62.
Discussion was held between the City Council and the Community Development Director,
Economic Development Director, and the Assistant City Administrator regarding aspects of the
matter, including the fact that a Draft Affordable Housing Strategy would be presented to
Council to meet their backlog of affordable housing requirements.
The Assistant City Administrator clarified other aspects pertaining to the comments made
during the public comments portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Garofalo spoke regarding issues, including his alternative proposal set forth in
his communication dated May 29, 1997 regarding alternative affordable housing project in lieu
of proposed Bowen Court project.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to continue decision to Tuesday,
September 2, 1997.
Assistant City Administrator Silver, in response to Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff as to why this
requirement was not known earlier, stated that he will attempt to explain; however, he was not
employed by the city at that time.
In response to Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff, the Economic Development Director reported on
alternative sites, stating they were limited unless the Council wanted a rezone of the Huntington
Center area; there were three units available in the Oakview area; the Waterfront area could be
utilized; and a small parcel at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway would accommodate a few
units. He spoke regarding the backlog of affordable housing units needed. He stated that
mobile home units would not count toward the backlog.
Economic Development Director Biggs stated that there was a deadline to apply for the
Section 202 Loan and if it is continued to September 2, 1997, the city will miss the opportunity.
He reported on issues relative to the deed restriction.
The Community Development Director stated that the Pacific Ranch Development across the
street had a one-time affordable housing requirement when it was built.
Economic Development Director Biggs responded to Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff regarding the
effect on the project of just approving 13 units.
46
Page 16 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/02/97
Following discussion, the motion made by Garofalo, second Green to continue the decision to
September 2, 1997 was withdrawn.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green that the project be approved for 13 units
contingent upon the Section 202 funding.
In response to the Mayor, Councilmember Garofalo stated that if the funding is not approved,
the Council would go back to 21 units or 30 units or whatever Council wants to do.
Economic Development Director Biggs stated that a condition of approval that funds would
have to be spent to develop the Section 202 application and he believes the lowered number of
units will make the city less competitive if not uncompetitive for the Section 202 funding.
Reed Flory, Principal Consultant, Flory and Associates, reported at Council's request regarding
the opportunity of the city getting approval for Section 202 federal funding for 13 units. He
stated that on-site management will not be able to be accommodated for a project of only 13
units. He stated that without Section 202 funding that in addition to land, roughly $300,000 will
be necessary.
Mayor Bauer asked if there had been a violation of the Redevelopment Law by not having an
Affordable Housing Program ordinance. He stated that he had been informed that the
developer was allowed, contrary to Redevelopment Law, to build this particular project which is
in a Redevelopment Area without some form of affordable housing. The Assistant City
Administrator responded as to the events that had occurred such as if the developer had
completed building the last five units on the property which the city had purchased and no units
had been constructed for affordable housing and if the city had not merged its Redevelopment
areas and if Assemby Bill (AB) 1290 had not passed there would have been a serious problem
in conflict with Redevelopment law, but because we got the land, there was not a violation. The
Assistant City Administrator stated that if the city had not bought land that this would be true
and that if this is not built, the city would incur cost.
Mayor Bauer stated that it is his understanding that prior to land acquisition as this project was
moving forward, because the Council did not agree with affordable housing that the project was
built without any affordable housing proposal, that prior to the merger of the five
Redevelopment Project areas that for whatever reason, the then City Council did not do it and
were in technical violation of the law. He asked the Assistant City Administrator if he
understood this to be correct and the Assistant City Administrator stated that we would have
been in violation if some affordable housing was not constructed. The Mayor stated that the
situation was bailed out by the city which bought the land. The Mayor stated that the problem
with giving back the land, which is not the motion on the floor currently, is that the city
theoretically could lose up to all the money unless the original owner of the property was going
to be kind to the city and make the city some kind of deal. He asked the Assistant City
Administrator if this is a fair statement and the Assistant City Administrator stated that there
would be an added penalty and cost the Redevelopment Agency additional funds. The Mayor
asked the Assistant City Administrator whether even if the city took all the opportunities in all
the Redevelopment locations under the current combinations and built up to the maximum
allowed by law, the city would still not be in compliance with Affordable Housing. The Assistant
City Administrator concurred.
47
A ,
06/02/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 17
The Mayor spoke regarding the difficulty of the city being knowingly in violation of the law. He
stated that Redevelopment is wonderful but the piper must be paid and for whatever reason the
piper was not paid in the past. He spoke further regarding the matter, including his concern
that the city has no land available to buy other land to satisfy the requirement as there is no
money available to buy the land to satisfy the requirement.
At the request of the Mayor, the Economic Development Director commented on the proposed
Affordable Housing Policy being developed by staff which may be financially problematic as
units may have to be done on a two-for-one basis outside the Redevelopment area.
In response to Councilmember Garofalo, Mr. Flory clarified his estimated figures.
The City Clerk requested clarification of Councilmember Garofalo's motion:
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration
No. 94-22 as amended for 13 units and to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 as
modified by the City Council with Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval.
The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Green, Garofalo
NOES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
A motion was made by Sullivan, second Dettloff to:
A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 94-22 with Findings and Mitigation Measures as set forth
in Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated June 2, 1997.
and
B. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 as modified by the applicant for 21 units with
Findings and Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Request for
Council Action dated June 2, 1997.
Councilmember Garofalo stated if the motion is denied, he would make a motion, second
Green to move for a 90 day continuance of the issue to September 2, 1997.
At the request of Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff, the Community Development Director reported on
what she believed could be accomplished by such continuance. Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff
spoke further regarding the project.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan
NOES: Green, Garofalo
ABSENT: Julien
48
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
SS.
County of Orange }
I am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am PUBLIC;NOTICE meht#{Qr10 4_9,,s re raised m e public hearing
que§t l's orilvA1 clarify•the described In this notice, or
over the age of eighteen ears, and not a I NOdTICEtOF. fy;(L site locatron Location ,n written corres ondence
g g Y PUBLIC,HEARING * _M NorttiwesbG;corner o Palm p y
fn -.- , delivered to the -it at, or
party to or interested. in the below 1 BEF0RENTHE Avenue an Seaposmt prwrito thegpubuchoaring.
CITYCOUNCIL ' * Streei Project Planner yr If.there 'zre an further
As.:_ r y,
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of o1="Tg�HEirC1,TY�o �COtt'MM. questions pease call the
NOTICE IS HERcBY 4
NUNTINGTONaBEACH t ur Ptannmg Diwswn.`at 536•
A GNEN that,anInitial'envl
NOiTICE ISHEREBY . ..ter+ 527e1A and .refer to the
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a roomnm!`"enal4assessment-tor above dem Dlreci = our
GIVEN�that�oh SMoridayy unic•. Y
newspaper of general circulation printed June 2 1997�at�700!P.Mj1ln lt. _# 1 was processed viritteh communications to
I' p r P the GityCouncil Chambers and completed. In ace theClty Clerk.
and published in the City of Huntington nla,Qnce wlih the Captor . _
2000�iMaln Street Hunting w,or Connl"e Brockway;
tonrBeach the Clt Council rna-idg ty Act It was de "
Y � Ctty Glerk, Clty of Hun-
termmed that Item # 1
will-hold a pubkc.heanng ..1 J t(ngton Beach, 2000
Beach, County of Orange, State of one the.ffollowing planningt with mitigation wouhd 12 -
and z"o`ningtttem"s tFt have-'any signj Ican�nw Mahn ceet,2nd Floor,y
California and that attached Notice is a A CONDITIONAW.jUSEtronmental-e'ffe`cts'and.yhat' HuntingtonBeach Gal=
PERMIT NO 94.39/;NEGA a nit...... negative deccla ttornla g2848 744 )
true and complete co a$ Was printed TIVE °DECLARATION NOS ration?is warranted. Prior o 536-5227
P copy P `s4 22;QBOWEN COURTS a c acUngi on the appeal; tie "
-( ) ( � Published Huntington
and published in the Huntington Beach APPEAL` )R Applicant/�AparC'ty Council must rI'ewBeach�F uo ni�n Valley In
pellant dyoHuntlhgton and;act on the negatiXe dependen't7Me 21997
declaration.. This envl Y 054 729:.
BeachYkDepartment ofdEco ....� r .
and Fountain Valle issues of said I ronmental assessment Ise
y I nomad Development�xRe# ilea thCdyfwHun'
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: q g,1CoMdstpmslsontsr�`dee. lnalgtington: Be�ach's'Goinm niiyr
form Z3Zunrtf two(2)ystgry�Deve�fopme tDepaent
2000"_Main Street and. is .
se`nl'or(;{apartment project j
availablt-for pubIictlnspe
designatedksolely�for;�very�tlon`and mo ment=b
low Income seniors The 4 Y t
{Applicant has submitted a tactng thee ommuAt'
I(modified request to°con i4bpment�Departmenl; org y
struct a 21 urnt'profectrcon t by telepponin- (71 53t%
Ma 22 1997 slsti`n`g entlrely'ot one„(f 1 ) 5271
y i bedroomR'uniti''d0 0natad NOTICE.. IS HEREB;Y
for eve wincomese GIVEN thatYheltem #2 is u
located In the appelliable
nwrs,T e request Included +
tunsdictIon of theCoa'stal
a denslty bonus for_-21 Zone Finalreylew andap
units In Ilea ofj,7 unitsrper proyal uby Uie!ACalifornibi:
miffed:under `the present
zoning ZLrocat%n _-1968-- Coast I If Ohe"'rey sed}fan t
declare, under penalty of perjury, that Lake Street" ( sout•hw'est q x�r
gua a Is a rovedj-_
Comer atY,orktown Avenue C 9- .*PR
the foregoing is true and correct. ) Proe tt'1Plaan a Wayne oast Program Amend-
Carva ho �s. I„� i merit No. 96-2 wlll be tor-
? GEr b�"pIgi "_1 warded to the California_;
AMENDMENTr�NO tf96a32;wwI Coastal Commlsslonl"+If
LOCAL"COAST+AL JPR`O briagriction.
GRAM AMENDA`MENT NOt'r 1 ON4 [LIE: A copy of the;
Executed on May 22, 199�_ 96Y2s(':04CEANCREST �A" proposed request Is on file
pllcanf"'rOceancrest;P n In theelS Clerk,4s Office
at Costa Mesa, California. nets'I uest-On Ap 1 11r'2000tMam Street�HurttIF] ,
1997�fhe"Callfornla�Coasat I ton:;�BeachCallfxornla �
Commisslon stalfi'tie t92648 :tor, nspection
quested claniicatwn iela} the )WIC.,A copygOf th
bve tb�lhe,,site--loc o o !treo6rt well be avallableylr
8,:proposed Eoastal'Ele'i to-mteres- ' a-]Re $trythe
City Clerk i Office
ALL INTERESTaED.�,PE��
SONS are�mvttedrto attend•"t
`LO-204— sauij heanngandjjezpiessi
�opinions oc ,submd;.•evi Ott
Bence to o agamsf;aiti M.
Signature application a0 o'utl1_-
above If you:C_ Menge-the`a
Gity3 Gounclls- actionk;,m,,I
'court you.may�,be Iimltedt_;
tosraisingyonlythose-Issues `
s
• ",you_=�or;�someo.ne -else.
City of Huntington Beach
, 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Director 536-5582
Housing 536-5542
Redevelopment 536-5582
Fax (714)375-5087
August 23, 1996
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2rd Floor y�
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 <;
-`A - n
SUBJECT. Notice of Redevelopment Agency Intent to Appeal
CP
Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 94-39
(Bowen Court-Lake Street Seniors)
Dear Ms. Brockway: "
This letter serves as the required notice of the Redevelopment Agency's intent to
appeal the August 13, 1996, denial of the entitlement application for this project to
the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. The findings for denial were, in our
opinion, inadequate and not consistent with the facts presented in the Conditional
Use Permit. We expect to present the item to these bodies in approximately ninety
(90) days after reviewing the project with neighboring residents. Paul D'
Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney, has confirmed that the filing fee for the appeal
is waived for City departments.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at ext. 5909; or Stephen
Kohler at ext. 5457.
Sincerely,
00 C',
David C. Biggs
Economic Development Director
DCB:GAB:gab
xc: Stephen Kohler, Project Manager DRUG USE
A. Gregory Brown , Development Specialist Is
G:\B rown\Bowen\appeal2.doc
August 21, 1996
Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk
CMC
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Brockway:
This is to adamantly oppose the Bowen Court low income project at Lake and Yorktown. Our
family literally lives right across the street at 1945 Lake. We have a ten year old daughter and one
of the last things we need in this neighborhood is more traffic. It's dangerous enough for my
daughter to even think about riding her bike around here. It's incredibly naive to think that senior
citizens at the age of 55 will not generate more traffic and noise pollution. I literally have to wear
ear plugs to bed as it is.
There is no guarantee you won't end up with several people living in one unit compounding the
entire situation. Who will be maintaining the property? We have enough problems close by on
Uttica Street. We don't need more. As it is right now, I can't allow my daughter to walk to Smith
School because she is frightened by the kind of people she sees walking down Uttica. We need to
uphold the integrity of the area,not add to the degradation of it.
This is our third house within a mile radius in the last 18 years...we owned a house at 605 18"St.,
and 625 17t`St. We thought our move to Lake Street was a move up. Clearly what we paid for
this.piece of property would indicate as much. This home was to be our last home and the one in
which we would retire. Clearly,with this development,we would be forced to rethink our life long
plans. The housing market has suffered enough...the last thing we need is to have property value
decline in our fine neighborhood. My intention was not to pay half a million dollars to have a
LOW income development literally at my front door.
To allow such a development on this piece of property would be a complete disservice to the
residents of this community that pay high taxes to live here. I like to think we,along with our
neighbors, are the kind of families our fine city should support...not slap in the face and chase out.
We're the kind of people that make a conscious decision not to spend our dollars in another city in
order to help the City of Huntington Beach. My husband and I are both professionals and are the
kind of citizens that take the well being and future of this city to heart. Even in light of the serious
problems we have had(i.e. July 4''fires and riots,drugs being sold on the street,to name a couple)
we are proud to say we live in Huntington Beach. It's hard to imagine this city could do something
like this to the exact citizens that they should be supporting.
THE BOWEN PROJECT CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPENM!
X!I% z
c, r
S'icerely,
J
Charles L. Ramey
Darlene Dunn =~ _—
August 22, 1996
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Dear Elected Officials,
It was shocking for my wife and I earlier this month when we learned that the Bowen Court project was
being presented for vote as a 23-unit(high density),very low income, senior citizens complex. For two
years we have been led to believe that no more than 17 units would be built. This is based on a
compromise we citizens on Lake Street arrived at with the Economic Development Department(EDD)
during the summer of 1994,and is the maximum allowed by code.
BACKGROUND
1) My wife and I began negotiations with the developer to purchase our home at 1918 Lake Street during
the summer of 1993. We moved in during December, 1993. During all of the legal negotiations we were
told the property in question would be developed as five homes similar to our own. We were also shown
drawings and a scale model of all phases of development.
2) During the spring of 1994 we learned that the property had been sold by the developer to the city
"because he could not afford to complete the project." The city would build a senior citizens complex.
3) During the summer of 1994 my neighbors and I were invited to a EDD planning session. When we
learned the scope of the project we were alarmed at the lack of visitor parking spaces and refused to accept
the project with more than 17 units. An EDD representative made the sarcastic comment that the project
probably could not be sold to a developer without more units. But,we left this meeting with 17 units as
our position.
4) I was not invited to any future EDD meetings. I did not even receive a notice about the August 13,
1996 Planning Commission Meeting. Two assumptions: a)My point of view did not fit with the EDD
needs. A project that could not sell would be a black eye for them politically. They needed the 23 units.
They didn't need us there to"hinder"their progress at planning meetings. b)My property is just barely
outside of 300 feet if you measure from the center of the land in question. I conveniently did not need to
be notified that the project was about to be presented for approval.
5) We never were told that the project was for"very low income." Now we have serious concerns about
its fit on the same block as homes that range in price from $350,000 to$500,000. IT DOES NOT FIT!
My home is my investment of a lifetime. What happened to proper disclosure by my developer?
CURRENT POSITION
We have transgressed from being supportive of a 17 unit complex to being 100%against any development
of this land by EDD. We don't trust them. They have been the sleaziest group I have ever been directly
associated with. Huntington Beach does not need to be represented by a group with this kind of reputation.
Sipcerely,
Tony Imento
1918 Lake Street, Huntington Beach,CA 92648
A•.
August 22, 1996
City Council Members
C/O Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92649
Dear. City Council Members:
I am writing to express my opinion with regard to the proposed use of the empty lots at
the intersection of Yorktown and Lake streets. I am aware of a multiple low-income
housing project before the Council and I would like to express my family's strong
objection to the use the property in this manner.
I aml resident of the`Huntington Classics because my family was attracted to the consistent
single-family nature of the neighborhood. I would be extremely disappointed with the
Council and the planning process if the multiple-housing project were to be built.
I see this use of the land as negatively impacting the value of my property and the
surrounding environment.
The empty lots should be developed as single-family residences to preserve one of the few
neighborhoods in downtown Huntington Beach with newer homes.
Thank-you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Randy and Linda Pflughaupt
19SI Pine Street
Huntington Beach, California
1•." .V�S
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
C t , .
August 22, 1996 HUFT1NGN-I!, _i_,'-.Cii CIF.
AUG 26 L 2s P11 '96
To: Members of the City Council of Huntington Beach
From: Mark and Donna Heisler
1966 Lake Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
We live at 1966 Lake St., which is right next door to the vacant lot on
the comer of Lake and Yorktown. We agree that it is somewhat of an
eyesore and something needs to be done. What we totally disagree with is
the planned development of a 23 unit low-income senior housing. We have
nothing against senior citizens or even seniors on fixed incomes or low
income seniors. But we do not feel that the property in question is the place
to build such housing, especially 23 units. Traffic would undoubtedly be
increased to a significant level-at least 23 more cars would be coming and
going as well as cars of visitors. Such increased vehicular traffic in such a
confined area would impact the area and especially us a great deal.
Besides traffic there are many other considerations including upkeep,
maintenance, aesthetics, and not least of all property values for the
neighborhood. Such a development does not fit in nor belong with houses
valued in the half million dollar range.
The developer of the Classics originally promised houses on that
property. The planning commission also agreed houses should be built.
We implore you not to approve the Bowen Courts Project!
Yours Truly,
August 21, 1996
a
City Council of Huntington Beach
r
2000 Main St. � 'a x.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Council Members:
X s
We urge you not to approve the construction of the proposed Bowen Court very low incQie
apartments at the comer of Lake Street and Yorktown. We own and live in our home which is vet► ,
near this proposed development. Our concerns are related to the effect this development will lik ly
have on our neighborhood and the lifestyle we've come to enjoy and appreciate.
Before we list our concerns, we also feel there are some very important unanswered questions that
we, as residents,should have answered:
• Realizing the Economic Development Department is attempting to achieve certain goals, what
has this organization done in the way of exploring other options? Has using an existing
structure been examined? What other Huntington Beach sites, which would be significantly less
impacted by this type of development, have been considered? This is a big city; our goveming
body portrays a high level of intelligence;what does it take to explore other options and share the
findings with us?
• Since the majority of the Classics residents feel this type of project is going to be detrimental to
our neighborhood,why doesn't the EDD provide us with some examples of what they have done
in the past? Pictures and testimonials from neighbors would be a good start. Is it any wonder we
feel this is being forced on us for no other reason than it may be the path of least resistance?
(Although,we will do what we can to provide a lot more resistance!)
• We have nothing against very low income seniors, or the architecture of the proposed project, or
the EDD's ideals. In fact,just about the only positive aspect of all this is that some "blending in"
consideration was given to the architectural plan. (That, however, is a very small portion in
relation to the large negative picture.) We very strongly object to the implementation of providing
this very low income housing. We doubt that those who are pushing this would welcome a
crowded building in their neighborhood, either. Why hasn't common sense prevailed? Why has
it even gone this far?
• It appears the governing body of Huntington Beach is inconsistent in implementing its goals to
improve this area. The block between Delaware and Beach has been undergoing major
improvements in the recent past. Isn't the Bowen project directly at odds with your goal to make
that area wider,safer, cleaner and more attractive?
These are the neighborhood and lifestyle concerns we have: �.
• Residents and their visitors will park on Lake Street in front of our home. Parking for 23 units is
provided with 27 spaces. What is to stop the residents of the apartments from allowing relatives,
who require parking spaces, to move in? Surely visitor parking alone will exceed more than the 4
extra spaces. How many of these vehicles are likely to be old and dilapidated? Will the front of
our homes look like a junk yarn? The density of the proposed 23 units is way over the density of
the original proposal of 5 more houses.
August 21, 1996
• Does it make sense to put a low-income development right next to homes that are valued (and
taxed) at a range of$400,00.00 to $600,00.00? What will this development do to the value of
our homes? This proposed building under the proposed management structure has a huge
potential to be what we consider an "eyesore". Can you guarantee that our home will not lose
value due to this unsightly building close by? What can the city do to guarantee that the
development will be appropriately maintained for the next 30 years? All that I have to do is look
toward Beach Boulevard to see many examples of terribly run down apartments.
• We already have traffic problems at the comer of Yorktown and Lake. This development will
only make matters worse, especially when many additional cars will be parked on Lake Street
near the comer.
• The overwhelming majority of Huntington Classics home owners are against this development.
Our city's Planning Commission has already unanimously voted to deny the building of this
project.
Why doesn't the city sell the proposed property to a developer for the purpose of building 5 new
single family homes? This was the city's original plan.
Sincerely,
Chris Insley V
Zm"beOy Ins
1932 Lake Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714)960-1282
2
RECEIVED
C-M f�LEKK
August 26, 1996 HUNTINGTq: &LIF.
�I `
Auc 26 23 Ri °9b
City Clerk
Connie Brockway, CMC
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Brockway:
We are writing to you as a home owner on Pine Street and feel enormously concerned
regarding the proposed development of 23 low income apartments to be built on
property owned by the City on the corner of Yorktown and Lake St.
As you are aware, this will only bring down the value of the single family dwellings
which now stand in the immediate area. When we purchased our home we were not told
of any intended low income multi unit development.
In the best interest of the neighborhood the City should sell its property to a developer
who will build 5 new SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES just as the City had orginally planned
and permitted the property for. The new homes should be in the style and price structure
of the now existing homes in the neighborhood.
If the City allows the low income apartments to be built-Is the City going to guarantee
that our property will not devalue ? If it does devalue will the City reimburse us for the
difference in price on what the value would have been if low income housing had not
been built?
Before any decisions are made, please review carefully the negative impact all this would
mean. There is other land which the City owns which would be more suitable for a
development such as this.
Thank you for your taking the time to consider this matter.
Sincerely,
txu C
Bill and Susan MacLaren
1907 Pine Street
RECEIVED
C!T`.' CLERK
CITY ;fir
HUNTiI;G+.;ii :---r_.(:i tip+_IF.
AUG 26 9 3 Gib 'SG
To: Huntington Beach City Council
From: Beric Christiansen
1941 Lake st .
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject : Proposed Very Low .Income Housing at Lake/Yorktown
The proposed very low income. housing proposed for the corner of
Lake Street and Yorktown does not have the support of the
residents of the Huntington Classics or the Pacific Ranch
community as. shown by the opposition expressed at the planning
commission meeting on August 13 . This proposed project has been
championed by the Economic Development department without either
the input or support of those living in the neighborhood.
We have not been notified of meetings and have not been allowed
to voice our opposition while plans were drawn and decisions
made . There are numerous drawbacks to the construction of this
project that will dramatically impact the residents of the area.
Economic Development is portraying this project as one that will
be filled with senior citizens who will live alone, have no
visitors , won' t have two cars and will sit quietly at home by
themselves causing no noise, traffic .or other problems that will
arise when you crowd 23 units in this small a space. Apparently,
the city employees proposing this project have .not viewed any
other very low income housing in their recent past .
The proposed project is a high density housing project on five
small single family home lots in the middle of single family
homes and condominiums . If you have viewed this site adjacent to
the civic center you have seen just how little land is there . One -
is forced to ask why it is so important to build these very low
income housing units at this particular location in the middle of
some of the nicest new housing in Huntington Beach.
Some of the questions that my neighbors and I are asking in
regard to this project are listed below and form the basis for
the opposition to this proposed development .
1 . Why high density, very low income housing in the
middle of this particular single family dwelling
neighborhood?
2 . Who will ensure that these units will be maintained
to area standards? Just look at the poorly maintained
multifamily units just to the east for the answer .
3 . Where will these people park and where will their
guests and long term visitors park with only four extra.
spaces?
4. Do we need a higher level of traffic at this - inter-
section as it is already busy even at night?
5 . Why does Economic Development see this project as
so important for very low income housing when other
units have not been built in the city?
6 . Who will control who lives in these units how many
people are actually in the unit and the ages of the
long term visitors and family members? Do you believe
that the absentee investors will care?
7 . Who designed this project and . sold it as acceptable to
the adjacent residents when we were not notified of
planning meetings and no architectural review committee
was ever established for the Huntington Classics as
required in the .disclosure documents?
8. Who is looking out for the legal rights of those who
purchased homes in the Huntington Classics prior to
January 1994 . These people believed that they were
buying houses in an area of single family homes as
originally approved for development by the city?
The original plan that was used in their decision
to purchase in this neighborhood should be honored.
Very low income housing projects have not produced the results
predicted in any other parts of the country that I am familiar
with. Why do people think that this project will be the
exception? The fact that the city now owns this land should not
be the reason for proceeding with this development . Economic
Development has appealed this project to the city council even
though the project was unanimously rejected at the planning
meeting. I ask that you vote to reject this project , sell the
lots and complete the single family home project that was
originally approved by the city.
%&,ncerely,
ric M Christiansen
•-r
N z
a� n
N r TRim
W �.o
C7->
Thomas and Carolyn Minton
1925 Lake Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
August 26, 1996
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main St.
d
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Economic Redevelopment Appeal
Yorktown-Lake Street
Low Income Senior Housing
Dear Council Members:
The Planning Commission denied the Economic Redevelopment Department's request for
building 23 low income senior housing units at Yorktown and Late St. As residents of
Lake St., we want to voice our opposition to the Appeal by Economic Redevelopment.
Most of the residents of Huntington Classics were not involved in the present design
process. Several of us were in discussions in the summer.of 1994 with Barbara Kiser, the
Construction Company, and the architects. Since then we have not been informed of any
meetings with the City.
We have the same concerns today as we did in 1994. The high density in a low density
area, lack of parking and maintenance guarantee of the property are the key reasons for
opposition to this plan. Huntington Classics are expensive homes and this plan does not
enhance the value of this neighborhood. Most of us had no idea of the sale of the 5
homesites to City in December 1993, which was after three fourths of the homes were
already sold.
We do not want this property used for low income senior citizen housing. We would
prefer that the land be used for homes of similar appearance and value as was designed in
the beginning.
Very truly yours,
—1;4�y gwv�-," 4tk VLt�--
Thomas Minton Carolyn Minton
LOUI S G. & JOAN M.GOETZ
1941 PINE ST.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 8/23/96
CITY COUNCIL
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK
2000 MAIN ST.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
RECONSTRUCTION OF 23 LOW INCOME APARTMENTS AT LAKE &
YORKTO WN
As neighbors at the Huntington Classic I am opposed to the construction of the
planned low-income apartment complex for the following reasons:
We purchased our home in 1994 at the Huntington Classics because we like to
live in a quiet neighborhood of single family homes.The planned 23 units would
contribute to more noise and traffic in the area .
Our homes are well maintained and there is no guarantee that the same will be
the case at the planned 23 units.
We are concerned that as a consequence our property values will go down and we
are being pealized in the case that the construction is approved.
rn
� Z
C.0
Ga _<
CD
Cr)
i
CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK
Please include my letter in the city council packet for the
September 3rd meeting regarding the Bowen Court project on
Yorktown and Lake Streets
Thank you,
Linda Christiansen
1941 Lake Street
960-8198
d
To : Huntington Beach City Council
From: Linda Christiansen
1941 Lake Street
Regarding : Bowen Court Apts . (Yorktown and Lake Streets)
My name is Linda Christiansen. I live at 1941 Lake Street
which is just across the street from the proposed Bowen Court
property .
The master bedrooms of our Huntington Classic homes are
located on the front of each house , overlooking Lake Street .
I would like you to know that the traffic noise that we have
right now is steady and annoying . Cars go by all day from
early morning until late at night . We get all the high school
traffic , civic center traffic , shopping center traffic , etc . ,
etc . Because we have no parking to the rear of our homes , all
guest and overflow parking is on Lake Street . Car doors are
slamming and people are talking below our bedroom windows as
early as 5 : 00 a . m.
Looking out , I can see -that VERY SMALL lot on the corner
of Lake and Yorktown. I can ' t imagine that ANYONE would consider
squeezing so many people. and automobiles into such a tiny area,
adding to the congestion , traffic noise and parking. problems
that already exist . How could the EDD seriously consider such
a plan? The lot is CLEARLY T0O SMALL ! ! !
I beg you to consider the existing noise and congestion ,
as well as the lack of adequate parking . These units should
be built on a larger , more suitable piece of property. Putting
23units on this tiny lot shows a total lack of concern for .our .
neighborhood , and I am shocked that the:;EDD would even consider
it .
0 -�
� �_
J �'
Ly
ur w '
�C.7 Y
may__ _
U1
z �
x
SUSAN KASULKA LARRY H. KASULKA, PHD,PE
1952 Lake Street FAX: (714) 960-2069
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Mail: FFSS08A0 Prodigy Com
TEL: (714) 960-0068
x
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ,,
%MS CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ref: "Mitigated Negative Declaration 94-22" & "Conditional Use Permit 94-39" m
Dear City Council Members:
As a home owner of a Huntington Classic home, I wish to express most emphatically
my opinion against your support of this project.
My husband and I have lived over 20 years in Huntington Beach, and have earned
our livelihood within the confines of the city, my husband held the position of Vice-
president at McDonnell Douglas. We have a lot of interaction with many, many other
residents, and while Huntington Beach friends and co-workers agree that Huntington
Beach is a wonderful city there is increasing concern that our city government should
keep striving to maintain the high standards so we can all enjoy the quality of life here.
The conversations around town often include discussions in which long time residents
express the hopes that our City Council and Planning Commission should strive to
protect our interests, above that of a profit motive for a few citizens that indeed are
most likely not of our community.
It is not clear to me, as a taxpayer, why the City of Huntington Beach is involving itself
in real estate development. If the city has an obligation to provide this type of project,
they should strive to locate it in an area of similar projects, of which I know there are
many in the city.
It is patently obvious to me, as it must be to all residents of Huntington Classics and
Pacific Ranch that, should this project be approved the values of these homes would
plummet. If the Council appears to arbitrarily allow such devaluation and rezoning to
occur with no consideration for its citizens who have worked and saved for their
homes, you are well on the way to discouraging families from buying quality houses
here. It seems but a short leap from that, to having lower cost homes proliferate and
tax incomes for the City shrinking and starting the downward spiral.
When our home was purchased we were given a disclosure form (copy of this
disclosure provided at the Aug. 13. meeting). The meeting of Aug. 13 with an agenda
to change zoning on the property was a violation of this disclosure statement of the
City's responsibility.
I would like to reiterate to the Council that we had not been informed about the
pending plan proposed until just 3 or 4 days prior to the Aug. 13 meeting. Huntington
Classic Homes disclosure has been in a constant state of zoning downgrade by the
City. The City did not inform us of previous motions regarding this property, nor did the
city honor the the commitment to Huntington Classics to have reviews and approval of
the Huntington Classics Architectural Board. I have been told, previous buyers in
Huntington Classics received a disclosure saying the land would be zoned for 5 single
family homes. To find that the City does not live up to the disclosures and does not
inform the interested parties, but continues to allow the zoning to be downgraded,
seems to me, at best, unfair.
My husband is a Professional Engineer in the State of California and is of the opinion
that the proposed redevelopment plans were in significant violation of zoning codes,
especially in regards to the narrowing and elimination of alleyways.
My views are those of the majority that attended Aug. 13, but I would like to take issue
with just some of the arguments used by the other side:
1.That the city is a diligent watchdog in keeping all H.B. properties attractive and well
maintained (a drive along Golden West north of Yorktown or along Main St. might
argue this point for us). That people in subsidized low cost housing (rentals) will show
the same pride of ownership as those currently residing in the half million dollar
homes. Again I refer the proponents of this theory to take an evening stroll along the
Slater/Beach area.
2. 1 really had to laugh at the description of the aged 55+ set, that we were told were
always quiet, and in fact they seldom left the homes. Quite a shocking description for
me and many of us -1 guess I'll stop going out and trade in my car for a walker, but
unless you buy that argument-parking, car space and additional traffic is another
definite problem for this project.
My interest in the City of Huntington Beach is anything, but casual, for it is here we
have lived and worked and raised our family. How upset were we about the
proposals? Well I can only tell you we never stayed throughout the Aug. 13 meeting,
because my husband felt unwell and within 30 minutes was being rushed to
Huntington Beach Hospital by the paramedics suffering a heart attack. Fortunately he
is doing well, but I cannot subject him to more stress, so I have taken up the
challenge to fight this proposal and its proponents.
I am sure as members of the City Council, that each of you has the best interest of the
city at heart, I urge you to take the high road, seek out motives, and come to the same
conclusions as the Planning Committee who unanimously turned down this unsound
proposal..
Yours Truly
Susan Kasulka �'
RECEIVED
[:I,T`; CLERK
1937 Pine Street HUNT INGTl)- _ ,�C ` L1F.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _
AUG 27 3 54 PH `96
August 26, 1996
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear City Council Members:
DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE STREET AT YORKTOWN
We are writing in opposition to the development of 23 low income apartments at this location.
Residents of the Huntington Classics and Pacific Ranch deserve to have homes of similar
economic value built on this site. We do not object to seniors, but we do object to low-income
housing.
Due to our attendance at the Planning Commission meeting on August 12, 1996, we are now
aware that the land was originally zoned to have 5 single family homes on it. We are concerned
that property values will decline as a result of building 23 low income apartments and also that
the property will not be maintained with a sense of pride of ownership.
We recommend that the City sell the property to a local developer to build five single family
houses as was originally planned and permitted. The Economic Development Department needs
to find a suitable lot to build low income apartments. There are certainly plenty of empty lots
in Huntington Beach which would work better for low income housing.
We urge the City Council to deny the appeal of the Redevelopment Agency and support the
decision of the Planning Commission not to approve the permit for construction.
Sincerely,
John and Carole Thomas
JT:ct
EDATE ( M�: D
r
ISSU
I�III�II®::::::::::::�.EATI (OAT .O.....SURANG :::::: :::>:<:>::;::: :::»::;:::::::::': ::::::>>;::::: ::>::::>::::::: :>:=:>r::::: :::::::::::::::::: : ::: ::°::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::::' >':t:::::: :>s:':::::::: ;....
05103/95
...........................................
PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND
CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE.HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE
DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE
CROWELL INSURANCE AGENCY POLICIES BELOW.
>____ _ _
A DIVISION OF AOV . ..-........ ...................._......._.... ..................................................................__........................-.-....-....-
43 CORPORATE PARK, SUITE 200 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
IRVINE CA 92714
...................._-.___-.........._.._-...........------........_........._..........._........._................ .._....-.................-...
COMPANY
ETTER A Design Prof. Ins. Co.
..........................................--........._--.-.........................._.._......................._..-...........................-_..........-...
COMPANY B
........ .............................................................. LETTER
INSURED
i............................._...........__.--_...-......................-........._...-_...........-..............-...............................-.......-....
COMPANY C
Withee Malcolm Partnership LETTER
_-..........._........ .............................._._......._......... _............_.....-.................-_.-...........I.....-.-.......
1983 W 190th St # 200 COMPANY D
Torrance CA 90505 LETTER
_...................................._._..._._......._..........-_._............................-......................................_...........
......-
COMPANY E
LETTER
COIf .:..:.................................................. _
....................................................................................................:::::: ::::............................:................................. :::: ::VE:::::R:.THE POLICY PERIOD::::....:...........:.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOWHAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FO
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
_.................._..__....................._............-........._................................. __........._...,.-.-......................-._....-.._-......._........... - ._-...-..........................-........... .......... ..............
CO POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION
TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LIMITS
LTR: DATE (MM/DD/YY) DATE(MM/DD/YY)
......................_..............-.............---..-..........-.................. - ......... ---_-_---...........-...-..---_i .._............ -... ;_.._.-.....--..---..---.... ?.._...... ........... ........ -.-...._... .._._...
GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE S
:.........................................................................................
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS-COMPIOP AGG. S
...... _ -_.................. .. ...... ......... ........
CLAIMS MADE OCCUR. : PERSONAL&ADV.INJURY S
......:. .................... .....................................
OWNER'S&CONTRACTOR'S PROT. EACH OCCURRENCE S
.-...... .........................
........................
FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) S
......... .......................................................: .....................................................................................
MED.EXPENSE(Any one person)S
_.._........... ...... ................ :.._.................-...-_....,................................................,-...._.............-..-._-..._._...
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE
IT
ANY AUTO :LIM S
.........................:.....:......................................
ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
SCHEDULED AUTOS i(Per person) S
_.............__................
HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
NON-OWNED AUTOS Ap � (Per eccdenp
_ _................ ............. ._..........-...................
GARAGE LIABILITY
PROPERTY DAMAGE S
_ . _ r _ -- ... .. _.. ........
EXCESS LIABILITY ' 0
:EACH OCCURRENCE S
UMBRELLA FORM :AGGREGATE............................;:5...................................
i
;'
`
:.
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
... ......................................................................
STATUTORY LIMITS
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
i ;EACH ACCIDENT S
:. AND
DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT S
EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY .. ...................................................
DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE S
......:.......................................................................................................................................:...................................................................;.........................................................................................
OTHER
A ' Professional Liability* PL000102.01 04/05/95 04105/96 PER CLAIM AND 1000000
:ANNUAL AGGREGATE
......:.......................................................................................................................................:.............................................................................................................................................................
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSADCATIONSNEHICLESSPECW ITEMS
*TEN DAY NOTICE IN THE EVENT OF NONPAYMENT. *FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE THE AGGREGATE
RE: SENIOR APARTMENTS - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR ALL
COVERED CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY PERIOD.
THE LIMIT WILL BE REDUCED BY PAYMENTS FOR
INDEMNITY AND EXPENSE.
::CE EICA'fE:::IiOI+OER...........................................::>::>;::::::::::>::::s::>::::>:::>::>::»»>:«:;::>....... ...........................................................................
:...... .....................................................................................................................::::::::::::::::::.:...........................
..........
..........................................................:.:.:..............::::::::::::.:::.:::.::::.:::::::.
.................................................................................................
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
:? EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL-ENB5W&ff9—
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH E MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT./S. KOHLER #># LEFT, B
2000 MAIN ST.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
:;::?;:AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT 7
S. Gradias
::::::::::::::::::::.:::.::::::.::::; . :::::::::...::::::...........:.:...:::::::.:::::..........:...:tJ1C01 ::CblP....DfITEOr1990:..
ISSUE DATE MM D
»' 'CEFfIP(CA7E.. ...lNSVFEANG ................................................:...:................ .::
0510 3I95
PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND
CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE
DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE
CROWELL INSURANCE AGENCY POLICIES BELOW.
ADIVISION OF AOV ...._................................_..................-............._.-....-.................._.........................-._................._..-
43 CORPORATE PARK, SUITE 200 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
IRVINE CA 92714
COMPANY A Design Prof. Ins. Co.
LETTER
........................................._... -........................ .-............-.................._.......................-.......-......._-......
...............................................................................................................................:
COMPANY B
INSURED LETTER
_.................................................._-........_......... ........... ........... -..............................................
COMPANY C
Withee Malcolm Partnership LETTER
................ ..................... ... ............ - ..._._......-......-....-....................._............-..-......_........-....
..._.
1983 W 190th St # 200 COMPANY D
Torrance CA 90505 LE FER
.................................-............................................-..._...-.............................................._....................
COMPANY E
LETTER
R .
coil .............:::................::: ....:......:.........
..............................................................................:::::. �...:::......::::::. L::.� V::::::...........................::::::. :. .. :::NAMED.ABOVE:F:::R THE POLICY
.... .... ::.
.THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THEINSURED 0 C 0
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
.........................._.............._ ....---.............................--------......_......_......................_.....--..,...__.........-.-.-............................ ......... ......... ...-........_....-.............-...........-...............-.
CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS
LTR: DATE (MM/DD/YY) DATE(MM/DD/YY)
..................... ........ ..-- - .......... -. ......... -...... .......-._ ..............................;.....--..-.-. _............ - ......... - ....-..... _.... ... -
GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE E
.........5..................
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG.
CLAIMS MADE : OCCUR. : PERSONAL&ADV.INJURY S
.....:. ......... ...... ............ .................. ....................................
OWNER'S&CONTRACTOR'S PROT. EACH OCCURRENCE $
.................................. ....................................
FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) S
...............................................................................
MED.EXPENSE(Anyone person)'.$
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY .._-.-...._................ __..-...................._....._...... _..... _-..-....._...._.. COMBINED SINGLE.._...........- ....._._.._._.._.__..........-
ANY AUTO LIMIT3
ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
SCHEDULED AUTOS :(Per person)
$
_.............._..................- ................_..............
-.-
HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
NON-OWNED AUTOS S 1 Chi 1•
APrtO b •ten , f,'• r ecc
GARAGE LIABILITY n�-
e denT) S
": E: PROPERTY DAMAGE S
EXCESS LIABILITY 1 _' :EACH OCCURRENCE $
/l /— ............................:._...................................
UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE
n /
{WWs
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM /
:............................ ....................................:.............. . ............. ............................. ........................... ............................ .... ......... .............
;:. . ..
WORKER'S COMPENSATION E STATUTORY LIMITS
:......... ......................... ........
AND EACH ACCIDENT _
.......................................................................................
DISEASE-POLICY LIMB $
EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ... .................................................
DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE S
......................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................................
OTHER
A Professional Liability* PL000102.01 04/05/95 04/05/96 ::PER CLAM AND 1000000
:ANNUAL AGGREGATE
......:.......................................................................................................................................:.............................................................................................................................................................
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSIVEHICLES!SPECIAL ITEMS
*TEN DAY NOTICE IN THE EVENT OF NONPAYMENT. *FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE THE AGGREGATE
RE: SENIOR APARTMENTS - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR ALL
COVERED CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY PERIOD.
THE LIMIT WILL BE REDUCED BY PAYMENTS FOR
INDEMNITY AND EXPENSE.
LANCE
::: C ::: OLDER::;::>:::<:::;:;:..»::»::>::>:::>::::>::::::::<::::::::::>:::::::>......................................... LLiE7[�V: «:>::::::>:>:::><:> :::;:::;`:::>::::.............................................:;::>::>:::::::>::>:>:::::
:..::::::::.:..........:....................................................................................................... .::::. ............
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
xx
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL^EA—
CITE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT.1S. KOHLER LEFT, B
2000 MAIN ST.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
:;:AUTHORED REPRESENTAT 7
S. Gradias -�--w
......:<:::<::> :::::::<:::::<::::::::s :::;> ; >><:<:>::>>: ::;;:>;;;;:: ;:i>:<;:< ::::<:::« >:: ><? ;:<::::::::<.... ::;>;:: ::><>:;:::::::Ski:.CORA::'CORPOF::: : :::.::::..:A...........:::..:.......:...::. T3..................
C53
LARRY H. KASULKA Ph.D. P.E. - C 0(7"T4)f6 A0611
1952 Lake Street FAX(714) 96W204
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Mail: FFSS08B@ProdigxNonF
14 October 1996
F )�a.,^�m
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
%MS CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK C
2000 Main Street, m
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ref: "Mitigated Negative Declaration 94-22" & "Conditional Use Permit 94-39"
Dear City Council Members:
By current definition I am one of your senior citizens, an over 55. My wife and I have worked all
our lives and have just retired so we are now in our `Golden Years'. We are long time residents
of Huntington Beach, we have worked, owned a business and raised our children here in
Huntington Beach. So it is here over the years we have planned and saved for our retirement.
No ! I'm not writing to ask for an advanced reservation in the proposed plan- instead I would like
to point out that if you are 55+ or 25 those who have invested so heavily in our homes deserve
your consideration. Clearly what is proposed is going to be detrimental to the value of our
homes. Not just the 2 or 3 homes adjacent to the project but all the homes on Pine & Park too,
since comparable values are always the criteria for house prices.
At the Aug. 13 meeting, I listened as proponents of this project expounded the virtues of having
seniors 'because they are quiet and they never go out'. I don't know about that! As one of the
over 55 crowd I'm neither solitary or quiet! I'm not about to trade in my car for a walker and I
would certainly expect each of the 23 units residents to be visited by children and grandchildren
and yes-even friends. This brings up what I perceive to be another problem-TRAFFIC. The
proposal before you advocates changing the zoning, eliminating the through alley (to allow for
more units). This will put the burden of much new traffic into an already problem alley. At this
point that alley is used only by the 14 houses on the east side of Lake St. As one of those
residents, let me describe the problem. Lake St, being a busy street, ending 1/4 block from the
busy intersection with Yorktown where most drivers turn left, necessitating a left turn lane. If
you are driving south on Lake it is quite tricky to negotiate the left turn into the alley, as the
double yellow line does not break to allow you into the turning lane until you are adjacent to the
alley. Oncoming traffic on Lake Street often swing early into the turn lane with often hair-raising
results (just last week an accident occurred at the alley entry, well demonstrating the problem
that already exists at this point). Drive here yourself and you will see the problem, or perhaps
check it out with our Chief of Police Ron Lowenberg, who also lives on the east side of Lake.
Adding 23 units (potentially 46 additional cars and drivers) would certainly exacerbate the
problem.
What I have outlined to you are the problems of -depreciating value of our homes (Materially
Detrimental), the additional noise and traffic caused by the adding of almost 50 new residents
on this already congested corner (Both an Environmental and Safety Issue).
am not able to attend your Oct. 16 meeting on this subject, since my doctors have forbid me to
do so, since I suffered a heart attack on Aug. 13 due to the stress of the last meeting on this
subject. However I still believe this to be an important subject and an indication of the direction
in which the City Council will lead our city in the future. Therefore I have taken the time to read
the 'Adopted Redevelopment Plans' comparing it to the reference and would like to point out
to you the following important points:
1. Para. 3.3 (Private Use) " ...The number of dwelling units will be in accordance with the
provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City" NOTE: The key phrase here
is in conformance with the zoning ordinance of the city. At the 13 August meeting with the HB
Planning Commission (PC) it was obvious to me and the PC these were being violated by the
proposed plan.
2. Para 3.4 (Construction)"All construction...shall comply with all applicable and state and
local laws ...and zoning codes of the city of HB."NOTE: Again, it is my position (and apparently
the HB PC) that the proposed plan described at the 13 August PC Meeting violated this
requirement as well.
3. Para 3.4 (Limitation of Building Density) " The number of buildings in the Project Area will
be consistent with building intensity permitted pursuant to existing or revised local zoning
ordinance for the City of HB and the Plan."NOTE: The 13 August meeting proposed a rezoning
deviation to allow 23 units on a site originally zoned for 5 single family dwellings. Again, a
blatant violation of the requirements and contrary to the best interest of HB.
4. Para 3.4 (Open Space, Landscaping and Parking) "An approximate amount of open space
is to be provided in the Project Area as required by City codes and ordinances and the Plan.
Within the Project Area, both public and private streets, public and private parking and private
streets shall be provided for in each development consistent with or exceeding City codes and
ordinances in effect from time to time and this Plan. In all areas sufficient space, including open
spaces, shall be maintained between buildings and structures to provide adequate light, air and
privacy." NOTE: The proposed 13 August plan violated as a minimum the criteria for open
space, access to public and private streets ( a safety issue as noted previously), parking and
private streets. Again, variations were requested that would provide significant environmental
and safety concerns. Certainly not in the best interest of HB.
5. Para 3.4 (Minor Variations)" Permitting a Minor Variation will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property...within or outside the Project Area."NOTE: The
August 13 Proposed Plan made it clear to me, other concerned citizens at the meeting and the
HB PC that there was more than adequate evidence that significant violations of the
requirements were being presented for adoption. It was clear that based on this, and the other
items mentioned that the unanimous decision by the HB PC was the only correct decision
available to these representatives of the City. They the HB Planning Commission and the
concerned citizens recognized that there were major problems in these areas. It was also
pointed out by me at that meeting that these types of concerns were recognized by the City and
the previous owners of Huntington Beach Classics such that in the sales contract for the city
there is a provision for the Huntington Beach Classics current home owners to have approval
authority over any proposed City Plan to protect these type of violations and variances being
allowed.
I am a California licensed professional engineer with a doctorate in business-not a qualified city
planner, but like most of us I am a concerned, responsible citizens well able to grasp the
problems of the proposal.
In closing I would like to point out that this proposal has already been unanimously turned down
by the planning committee, we should listen to them!
I certainly still have questions in my mind -not yet answered-questions like why is the city so
anxious to foist this plan upon its fair city? Clearly we need much help and guidance from you,
the City Council.'
A Concerned Citizer
Larry-"asulka
President's Commission on Executive Exchange XX (1990)
Vice President/General Manager- McDonnell Douglas Corporation (Retired 4/96)
Doctorate- Business Administration (1995)
California Professional Engineering License-CS303 (1976)
�� �� �
�'�``��;,� ���� -ram,�
,�� �� �
�- ---«
J� City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Director 536-5582
Housing 536-5542
Redevelopment 536-5582
Fax (714) 375-5087
August 23, 1996
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2rd Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT. Notice of Redevelopment Agency Intent to Appeal
Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 94-39
(Bowen Court-Lake Street Seniors) "
Dear Ms. Brockway:
This letter serves as the required notice of the Redevelopment Agency's intent to
appeal the August 13, 1996, denial of the entitlement application for this project to
the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. The findings for denial were, in our
opinion, inadequate and not consistent with the facts presented in the Conditional
Use Permit. We expect to present the item to these bodies in approximately ninety
(90) days after reviewing the project with neighboring residents. Paul D'
Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney, has confirmed that the filing fee for the appeal
is waived for City departments.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at ext. 5909; or Stephen
Kohler at ext. 5457.
Sincerely,
C,
David C. Biggs
Economic Development Director
DCB:GAB:gab
xc: Stephen Kohler, Project Manager
A. Gregory Brown , Development Specialist
G:\Brown\Bowen\appea12.doc
` 11 JtS 7_
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE - �a.P,�e�,.- (.�►�, ,
i
i
November is, 1996
� x
o �
i s �
Mr. David C. Biggs can x
Director of Economic Development
City of Huntington Beach -� �r"-'
2000 Main Street
^ o
City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3 n
cz
Re: Bowen Court Project
Corner of Lake Street & Yorktown
Re-development District
Dear Mr. Biggs:
The Huntington Classics Architectural and Landscape Committee
represent 81 homeowners. it is the almost unanimous opinion of the
homeowners, that the building of Bowen Court Project is not wanted
in the development and feel that it should be located elsewhere in
this community where it better represents the surrounding economic
community.
The Department of Economic Development did not follow a correct
procedure of notification and should not go further with this
project.
However, this letter does not relate to whether the project should
or should not be built. This letter comments on the plans as
submitted to this committee, and this is the first submittal . Your
architect paid no attention to previous limited homeowner input.
These comments are being submitted to the City of Huntington Beach
by the architectural committee of the Huntington Classics as a
representative of the ,,.development. It is expected that these
comments will be reviewed by the city' s Economic Development
Department. We anticipate meetings in the near future to discuss
the proposed Bowen Court development and resolve the Current
differences between the owners of the Huntington Classics and the
City.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 2 of 5
DENSITY
Density of the project is too great. The number of individual
apartment units at 23 is far too many for a single family
neighborhood.
Thirteen (13) units would still be too many, however, this is what
is required and is the maximum amount that should be constructed.
This number meets codes for your requirements .
PARKING
The parking is insufficient for 13 units . There should be 13
garages and 13 individual spaces at the east rear of the project.
There should not be any carport parking allowed. All 13 primary
spaces to be in garages.
The parking that is outside must have a handicap spot for auto and
for vans.
LIGHTING
The entire parking area and garage area to be illuminated using
pole lights that do not wash into neighboring areas .
All walkways inside 13 unit complex to have high candle foot
lighting to discourage vandalism and robbery.
LAYOUT
We suggest the 13 units be designed to allow for a drive area that
opens to a cul-de-sac on the north end. This accomplishes several
needs :
1 . Fire department 26 foot access drive and turn around area
that is required.
2 . Allows for parking of extra cars off site on the access
drive.
. 3 . Garages may be in the front of the units to lower risk of
crime.
All driveways/access drives should be dedicated to the City to
ensure city maintenance of street surface.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 3 of 5
GARAGES
Some of the garages currently do not have enough space to exit and
turn around. Modify so this does not occur on new 13 unit plan.
The garages should be single unit for safety & security reasons .
One unit; one garage. If two cars are pulled into one garage, how
does one control storage safety and security. All doors should be
operable by mechanical door openers.
The garages shown and carport that are on the south side of project
face directly onto the neighbor' s living room windows, the front
door, and other areas on both the first and second floor. This
will cause the neighbor to suffer through a great deal more noise
and discomfort. This cannot be tolerated.
UNIT SIZE
2 bedroom units are not acceptable . They allow renters to bring in
boyfriends, girlfriends, kids, and others that are not suppose to
live at this 13 unit complex.
STAIRWAYS/ELEVATORS
All stairways should be interior stairways that lead through a
common hallway to doors. The 13 units would not require second
floors if planned out correctly.
If stairs are used, for security and visual due to distress, the
stairs should be inside..
Elevators, if second floors are used, should be installed. Seniors
deserve to use the mechanical system to go to a second floor. This
complex will discriminate against those with difficulty going
upstairs, if no elevator is installed. Thirteen units should
eliminate need for stairs and elevators.
if stairs are outside, they must be maintained and constructed to
provide safety to the users. All handicap codes must comply.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 4 of 5
I
i
EXTERIOR/LANDSCAPING
Any units that face Lake Street and the south driveway must have
walls and appointments using brick, stone granite, slate, and
stacked horizontal stone to match the neighborhood.
No wood shingles are allowed on any building facing Lake and the
driveway.
All landscaping trees to be 35_ gallon box trees being a minimum of
15 feet tall. Type of trees must be submitted to the committee
prior to design.
All landscaping shrubs shall be 15 gallon size, and all low shrubs
must be 5 gallon size. All flowering ground cover must be annuals
and changed each season where they face Lake Street and driveway at
south.
All grass to be Marathon II or better rolled material.
The two trees you show on the neighbor' s lot should be put in as
you show on drawings the lot to south of project.
The 5 city trees should be 35 gallon size boxed.
All landscaping must be guaranteed for a period of 1 year after
installation and must be replaced and guaranteed by contract.
There are not enough trash areas . The 6' high walls must be of
concrete block covered with stone, slate, or. brick. Two should be
used for 13 units and should be spaced to be served by City trash
collection trucks.
The interiors of the complex walkway should have superior lighting
to discourage crime. Handicap access is a consideration for all
areas off site. No blind corners or dead ends .
There should be a complete handicap access from all parts of
project to the bus stop on Yorktown. This is per code. You should
always keep in mind that a handicap person could sue the city for
lack of access!
All roofs should match Huntington Classics' materials or be
identical .
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
I -
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
i November 15, 1996
Page 5 of 5
{
All walls to be not continuous. They must be broken up by
pilasters and have cap materials.
The irrigation system and drainage system must be more adequate
than normal . The soils are clay and drainage almost impossible.
7
All electrical, telephone, cable, and gas meters must be installed
at the east/north end of project. No 'exposed utilities may be
visible from Lake . or the south driveway. All utilities- to be
underground.
Mail boxes should be placed at rear near the east side of project.
The buildings must fully comply with handicap codes .
All slabs for 13 units to be post tensioned and meet 1994 code for
earthquake.
ENFORCEMENT RULES
1. Only one person per unit. 13 maximum per coinplex.
2 . Maintenance of outside of the 13 units shall be done by
painting the exterior every 5 years completely.
3 . Bird screening must be done around roof areas.
4 . All trees must be trimmed every 2 years. Yard maintained
once per week and grass cut once per week. Fertilize
twice a year.
5 . No boat storage. No RV vehicles are allowed to be parked
on site.
All buildings and yard walls to meet 1994 UBC or later UBC codes .
All seismic requirements to follow UBC codes for garages and
buildings .
Thank you for your review of the committee' s comments. We expect
to hear from you in the next few weeks to review our concerns .
Since sly.
•
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
I
I
i
i HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
i
J
I
I nn
i
11
i
i,
r
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
El�p ro ed ❑ Co dition II Ap rove ❑ D nie City Clerk's Sig-6atuef
Council Meeting Date: It 2, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-29
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
I
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, Assistant City Administrator
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALCON, Community Development Directo � —
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 94-22 (BOWEN COURT)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,
Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by the applicant, the Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development, of the Planning Commission's denial of Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 94-22. and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39, a request to develop
a 23 unit, two story senior apartment complex, designated for very low income seniors at the
southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street. The applicant believes the findings
for denial are inadequate and inconsistent with the facts presented. Subsequent to the
appeal, the applicant revised the project to 21 units.
The Planning Commission denied the request and recommends denial finding that the
project's density is not compatible with the adjacent single family residences, and that the
project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living in the area
(Recommended Action A). Staff recommends approval of the modified request
(Recommended Action B) because it is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land
uses and it will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. In addition, it will
provide 21 long term affordable housing units for very low income seniors in accordance with
the City's Housing Element of the General Plan.
Funding Source: Not applicable.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
Recommended Action:
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Deny Negative Declaration No. 94-22 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 with findings
for denial (Attachment No. 4)."
Planning Commission Action on August 13, 1996:
THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 94-22 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39, WITH FINDINGS FOR
DENIAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, HOLDEN, KERINS, SPEAKER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: GORMAN, TILLOTSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 94-22 with findings and mitigation measures
(Attachment No. 1)", and
2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 as modified by the applicant for 21 units,
with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)."
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22 and Conditional Use Permit No.
94-39 as modified by the City Council with findings and revised conditions of approval"
2. "Refer Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-
39 back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised 21 unit project."
3. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22 and Conditional Use Permit No.
94-39 and direct staff accordingly."
CD97-29.DOC -2- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant/
Appellant: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Economic Development, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Location: 1968 Lake Street (Southeast corner at Yorktown Avenue)
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 represents a modified request to construct a 21 unit senior
apartment project designated for very low income seniors (income levels are based on the
Orange County median income). The request includes a 24% density bonus for 4 additional
units above the maximum 17 units permitted under the present zoning.
The previous proposal was a two story, 23 unit project consisting of 19, one bedroom units
and 4, two bedroom units. The revised project will continue to be two stories in height, and
will consist of 21, 565 square foot, one bedroom units. The 2 units eliminated from the
original project include the second floor unit at the southwest corner of the project site, near
the intersection of Lake Street and the alley, and the unit that abutted the community room to
the east. The modified plan will further reduce the building bulk and soften the entry into the
alley from Lake Street. The removal of the lower level unit will provide a larger interior
courtyard for the senior residents.
The reduction in units and bedrooms is proposed because it results in a better design and
moves in the direction of the lower unit count desired by the neighbors. It allows some
modification to the project facade that make it appear more like the facades of the adjacent
single family homes in the Huntington Classics subdivision. Additionally, the two bedroom
units were included in the original proposal to enhance tax credit financing which is no longer
a financing option on this project.
The project will be restricted to seniors earning less than 50% of the county median income
and will remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years.
B. BACKGROUND
The Huntington Classics had received entitlements and had started construction when the
Redevelopment Agency became aware that the affordable housing requirements had not
been met by the project. This situation was the genesis of talks with the developer over the
acquisition of the site.
CD97-29.DOC -3- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
Three meetings were held with the Redevelopment Committee (predecessor to the
Economic Development Committee) to discuss the Classics project and the Agency's
housing dilemma. Two meetings were held prior to the negotiation (June 2, 1993) and
purchase (December 1, 1993)of the site; the third meeting was held well after the purchase
of the site (September 9, 1994).
On June 21, 1993, the Redevelopment Agency directed staff to negotiate the purchase of
the subject site from Pacific Coast Homes, developer of the Huntington Classics project.
The reasons for acquiring the property included meeting the affordable housing obligations
for the Classics project as well as the obligation for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment
Project Area.
On December 20, 1993, as part of a regular legally noticed public hearing, the
Redevelopment Agency approved a purchase agreement for the subject property. The
Agency agreed upon a purchase price of$885,000. The staff report included an analysis of
how the final value was determined, as well as the purchase agreement and related
documents. Included in the purchase agreement was a deed restriction that prohibits the
resale of the property by the Agency and requires that the property be deeded back to the
previous owner (or its successor in interest) for no consideration if the site is not used for
affordable senior housing.
Staff was informed by the Classics developer that disclosure notices were given to
purchasers of the Classics homes who were buying after negotiations with the Agency were
underway. This notice (Attachment No. 11) explained that an affordable senior project of up
to 25 units could be built in the future by the Agency.
The City wrote to Chevron Land (Pacific Coast Homes was a subsidiary of Chevron) on
November 1, 1996 after speaking with Dennis O'Conner of Chevron Land about the deed
restriction (Attachment No. 12). Mr. O'Conner indicated that the restriction could be
removed or modified but not without substantial monetary consideration. Mr. O'Conner
confirmed that at the time of the original negotiations, it was felt that the restriction was
needed to prevent a windfall profit to the Agency or its usurping a private market opportunity
from the seller.
Staff believes that the resale of the land either back to Chevron Land or to some other party,
will result in a estimated loss of$300,000 in market value from the original purchase price of
$885,000 and will cost an additional $200,000 to remove the existing resale and use
restriction.
Further, the affordable housing obligation that was created by the development of the
Huntington Classics will still have to be met by the Agency, preferably within the project
area. The Agency could satisfy its obligation outside of the project area on a two for one
basis.
CD97-29.DOC -4- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
requested these exceptions in exchange for the project's long term affordability. Staff
supported these minor exceptions for the same reason.
During -the public hearing, there were ten people who testified on the proposed project.
Eight people spoke in opposition of the project, and brought up concerns that the project's
density was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, potential traffic was too high
for the area, the parking for the project was insufficient, and the project would have a
negative impact on the surrounding property values. In addition, area residents were
concerned that the senior apartment complex would not be maintained at the same quality
level as the single family residential properties in the area. Two people spoke in support of
the project, stating the vacant lot was an eyesore and that senior housing was a need in the
community. Furthermore, they noted that a senior apartment project would be a good
neighboring use because seniors were generally quiet neighbors.
A question raised at the meeting was why the Redevelopment Agency selected this
particular property for the project. Staff responded by explaining that this was the only site
available in the project area to satisfy the affordable housing requirement for the Huntington
Classics project.
Following the public testimony and further discussion, the Planning Commission denied the
request on a 5-0 vote. The Commission found that the project density was not compatible
with the adjacent single family residences, and that the project would be detrimental to the
general welfare of persons living in the area.
D. REASONS FOR APPEAL:
The Economic Development Department appealed the Planning Commission's denial, citing
that the findings for denial adopted by the Planning Commission, were inadequate and
inconsistent with the facts presented (see Attachment No. 3). The appellant feels that the
project's overall design is compatible with the adjacent single family homes as the same
architect and architectural elements were used in the design of the project. The floor area,
number of residents, and number of cars in the project will be similar to the surrounding
neighborhood. The appellant also believes the senior affordable project would not be
detrimental to the surrounding property values because evidence of other senior affordable
projects has shown that they have not reduced property values in the area and do not create
excessive noise or traffic (see Attachment No. 13).
E. REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING REQUIREMENTS:
Redevelopment law requires that fifteen (15) percent of all housing developed in a
redevelopment project area without Agency assistance be made affordable to low and
moderate income persons. Of that 15%, forty percent (40%) must be reserved for very low
income households. Thirty percent (30%) of any housing built in a project area with Agency
CD97-29.DOC -6- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
On October 16, 1996, two months after the application was denied by the Planning
Commission, Economic Development and Community Development staff met with the
surrounding neighborhood to discuss the project. At the meeting, a thorough presentation of
the proposal took place, and many questions were asked by the 37 residents in attendance.
As discussed at the meeting, a set of project plans was given to a homeowner of the
Classics who was representing the Huntington Classics Architectural Review Committee
("Committee") which was established after the Planning Commission meeting of August 13,
1997. The Committee reviewed and commented on the plans.
On November 15, 1996, a letter from the Committee critiquing the project was received by
the Economic Development staff. The letter suggested a variety of changes, including a
request for a thirteen unit single story development on a cul-de-sac. City staff, together with
Orange Housing Development Company (OHDC) (the Agency's non profit partner), and
OHDC's architect (Steve Wraight) reviewed the comments and made the following changes
in response to several of the Committee's concerns - 1) two units were removed, bringing
the total number to 21 units; 2) the 4, two bedroom units were deleted; 3) four additional
open parking spaces for a total of eight will be provided; 4) the two story element on the
southwest elevation was reduced to one story; and 5) the common courtyard area was
enlarged (see Attachment No. 2 & 8).
On April 29, 1997, staff held a second community meeting to discuss the City's response to
the Committee's letter and to present the revised proposal to the residents. Staff explained
the affordable housing requirement and the options the City had in achieving their housing
goals. Staff also presented estimates for Agency subsidy on several different unit count
scenarios (Attachment No. 10). A set of four alternative site plans (all with 21 units) was
presented to the 14 area residents who attended the meeting (Attachment No. 2). The
residents were generally opposed to the proposal, again expressing the same concerns
raised at the Planning Commission meeting, including the project's increased density and
the potential impact the senior project would have on their property values. Staff indicated
that the property owner's concerns and suggestions would be relayed to the City Council
(Attachment No. 4) along with the revised 21 unit proposal.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
At the August 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission discussed
the 23 unit proposal. The request included a reduction in parking and private open space
requirements. Two of the 23 units were not provided with a covered space required by the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, the two bedroom units were provided with
42 square feet of private open space in lieu of a minimum 120 square feet. The applicant
CD97-29.DOC -5- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
assistance must be reserved for low and moderate income persons. Fifty percent (50%) of
these units must be available to very low income persons.
These requirements, referred to as "production" or "inclusionary" housing can be satisfied
within the project area which generated the obligation or outside of project areas. With the
recently completed redevelopment project area merger, the former project areas specific
obligations can now be satisfied anywhere in the merged project area. Providing these units
outside of a project area requires that the affordable requirement be satisfied on a two for
one basis, whereas providing them inside of the project area allows the Agency to count
units on a one-for-one basis.
Alternative sites and other affordable housing issues are summarized in Attachment No. 10.
At present, the minimum deficit of units that must be provided by the Agency is eighty-one
(81). With future expansion of the Waterfront and other redevelopment activities, this
number will rise.
F. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has analyzed the revised proposal submitted by the Department of Economic
Development for a 21 unit senior apartment project. The primary issue of concern with the
revised project is the density bonus. The elimination of two units reduces the density bonus
request from 35% (6 units) to 24% (4 units) over the 17 units permitted under the present
zoning. The original 23 unit proposal also included requests for reduced parking and private
open space standards as an incentive for providing long term affordability. The project
provided 21 covered parking spaces and four open spaces in lieu of 23 covered spaces (one
covered space per unit). In addition, the four (4), two bedroom units were provided with 42
square feet of private open space area in lieu of a minimum of 120 square feet. These
exceptions are no longer being requested with the modified 21 unit project.
Issues associated with the density bonus which would allow the density to be increased from
17 to 21 units include land use compatibility, traffic, parking, noise, public services/utilities,
property values, and project management, and they are discussed below.
Density Bonus/Incentives for Affordable Housing
State Law requires cities to grant density bonuses and/or allow deviations to development
standards as incentives to develop affordable housing units. The 24% density bonus will
allow 21 units which is anticipated to house approximately 21-24 seniors. In an effort to
comply with the City Housing Element and the State's "fair share" requirement, the City has
continued to promote the development of affordable housing. The request to provide 21
very low income units for seniors 55 and older is an opportunity for the City to not only work
toward complying with the City's Housing Element, but to meet the redevelopment project
area requirements by providing homes to senior citizens.
CD97-29.DOC -7- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
Compatibility
The proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the
multifamily uses northeast and southeast of the site, as well as the single family residential
uses to the south and southwest. No impacts to the Civic Center are anticipated from the
project. The density of the 21 unit senior project is 28 units per acre as allowed by the
density bonus. It compares with adjacent residential densities as follows: Huntington
Classics single family homes in the RMH-A zone (which allows 25 units per acre) is
developed with 7 units per acre; Pacific Ranch project developed with townhouse
condominiums in the RM zone (which allows 15 units per acre) is developed with 12 units
per acre; Villa Pacifica condominium project in the RM zone (15 units per acre) is developed
with 14 units per acre; and multi family rental properties to the southeast of the site and
located in the RMH-A zone (25 units per acre) are developed with 22 units per acre.
The project proposes a higher density, it is designed to be compatible with the Huntington
Classics by incorporating similar architectural elements, colors and materials. The modified
senior project will also be compatible in terms of height and building bulk, particularly with
the elimination of the two additional units. The Lake Street (front) elevation is designed to
appear as five separate structures with single story elements on three of the five elevations.
The project's living area, site coverage, parking, open space and anticipated occupancy will
be similar to five Huntington Classics residences (Attachment No. 10). For example, the
adjacent Huntington Classics project includes 81 three and four bedroom single family
homes that have an occupancy of approximately 2.7 persons per unit (based on 1990
Census data). If the project site was developed with five similar three or four bedroom units,
the number would calculate out to approximately 21 bedrooms and 14 persons in the same
area as the proposed senior project which will also have 21 bedrooms on the 0.75 net acre
parcel. The subject property serves as a transitional use between the densities of the
Classics and the projects with higher densities to the north and east.
Situated south of the site is a two (2) story, single family residence constructed as part of the
Huntington Classics project. The proposed project includes the vacation of a four (4) foot
wide strip of property to that adjacent property to the south for purposes of creating an
additional buffer between the residence and the existing east/west alley.
Parking/Access/Traffic
The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) specifies that one covered
parking space be provided for each senior apartment. The ZSO does not require any guest
parking to be provided. The project consists of 21 enclosed garage spaces, and an
additional eight (8) open parking spaces on adjacent City property (20 foot wide alley) along
the east side of the project.
CD97-29.DOC -8- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
The eight parking spaces on the adjacent City parcel will be used for guest parking. Staff
supports the use of the City parcel since a minimum of one parking space per unit (21) is
provided on site. Any proposed use approved on the City parcel, including any additional
guest spaces, would be required to be removed if the parcel is converted to a transportation
corridor.
The project drive aisles are on both public and private property. Staff recommends that the
drive approach onto the private property (see Attachment No. 2) be distinguished from the
public alley through the use of decorative paving or treatment. The off-set of the existing "T"
intersection at the east/west alley's easterly terminus and the decorative treatment at the
private drive entry will discourage motorists from driving into the senior project from the
north/south alley behind the Classics located on the east side of Lake Street.
The project's trip generation will not change the levels of service (LOS) on the intersections
or streets in the area.
Noise
The project site is located on the corner of two secondary arterial highways, and is within the
designated 60 CNEL noise contour. Noise generated from traffic was discussed during the
environmental review, which resulted in a recommended mitigation measure to install air
conditioning units in all of the units fronting Lake and Yorktown. This would allow the units
to be cooled in warm weather without opening the windows. In addition, the existing seven
foot high block wall along the Yorktown Avenue property line is to remain to minimize noise
impacts from traffic on Yorktown and limit the interior noise levels to a maximum 45 dB.
Furthermore, the developer will be required to submit an acoustical report demonstrating
compliance with the City's noise standards following the installation of the noise attenuation
devices.
Public Services/Utilities
During the environmental review of the project, the Department of Public Works indicated
that the proposed senior project can adequately be serviced by the City and County water,
sewer, and storm drain systems, without significantly impacting the overall service or system
(see Attachment No. 6). Furthermore, school enrollments and recreational resources will not
be impacted as a result of the project.
CD97-29.DOC -9- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
Prow Values
Concerns have been expressed at both public meetings by area homeowners that an
affordable rental housing project will cause a decline in property values. Studies done in
California in the past several years have shown that this argument is largely emotional and is
not based on any empirical data. Attached is a study conducted by the University of
California at Berkeley in 1993, (Attachment No. 13) that examined six affordable
developments owned by Bridges Housing in the Bay Area. Four of the six projects analyzed
were senior projects. Using rigorous statistical analysis, the study showed that surrounding
single family housing values in the areas under study were not adversely affected by
affordable rental projects. Experts in the affordable housing field would agree, however, that
a poorly designed or managed project could have a negative affect on property values. Staff
agrees that this would apply to any type of housing project. A key element to the proposed
Bowen Court project is its exceptional design and emphasis on using materials that match
the Huntington Classics. Exceptional management is another critical element to the success
of the proposed project.
Project Management
Orange Housing Development Corporation (OHDC) was selected by the Agency in 1994 as
the developer of the project after a competitive proposal process.. A nonprofit housing
organization located in Orange, OHDC owns many projects of varying sizes and types in
Orange County. OHDC enjoys an excellent reputation in Orange County because of its
insistence on quality product and use of high quality property management companies such
as Living Opportunities Management Company (LOMCO). LOMCO manages Emerald Cove
for the City and other affordable apartment developments in Huntington Beach.
If approved, the Agency and OHDC will enter into a Development and Disposition
Agreement (DDA) which will include the management and maintenance standards of the
project. Should any problems arise, the DDA will outline steps that must be followed by
OHDC to regain compliance. The agreement will be structured in a manner that will give the
Agency authority in its decision for a new owner and management team.
G. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on
May 21, 1997, and notices were sent to property owners of record within the Huntington
Classics project and property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property.
Notices of the two community meetings were sent to residents of Classics and property
owners within 300 feet of the project site. For the October 16, 1996 meeting, notices were
twice hand delivered to all of the Classics residents and mailed to property owners within
300 feet. At the request of the City Council and neighbors in attendance, notices for the
second community meeting held on April 29, 1997 were mailed to residents within 500 feet
of the site, including all Classics residents.
CD97-29.DOC -10- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
H. SUMMARY
Staff recommends the City Council approve the revised request for a 21 unit senior
apartment project, which includes a 24% density bonus for four (4) additional units, based
upon the following:
The use is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element of
the General Plan by providing affordable housing for seniors. The project will provide
21 long term affordable housing units for very low income seniors.
The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential
Medium High Density on the subject property.
With the recommended conditions imposed, the parking and access to the proposed
senior project will not negatively impact the adjacent single family residences or traffic
flow on Lake Street.
The project's site layout will preserve the potential transportation corridor along the
eastern property line.
The design of the proposed buildings will be architecturally compatible with the
Huntington Classics single family residential project also located in the Yorktown-Lake
Redevelopment Project area.
The senior project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and will serve as a
transitional area between the multi family projects to the north and east, and the single
family residences to the south.
Environmental Status:
Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a
level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 94-22 (Attachment No. 6) was prepared with mitigation measures
pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment
Quality Act (CEQA).
The project is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Special Studies zone.
During the review of Tract 13569 (Huntington Classics), which included the subject 0.75 acre
site, a geotechnical investigation was conducted by licensed geotechnical firm to determine
if any faulting had occurred on the property. The results of the fault trenching and field
exploration indicated that there was no evidence of faulting on the property. A statement
from the geotechnical engineer has been received confirming his findings (Attachment
No. 6).
CD97-29.DOC -11- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
I
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-3 also included mitigation requiring a monument in the
form of a plaque identifying Samuel R. Bowen, previous owner of the property and industrial
buildings on the site used for manufacturing of oil production and maintenance equipment.
The plaque is to describe the historical importance of the site.
The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 94-
22 for twenty (20) days commencing on February 16, 1995 and ending on March 8, 1995.
Comments were received from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board requesting a
discussion on possible toxic substances buried or in the soil on the site. A response and
errata has been included with the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Prior to action on Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39, it is necessary for the City Council to
review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22. Staff, in its initial study of the
project, is recommending that the mitigated negative declaration be approved with findings
and mitigation measures.
CD97-29.DOC -12- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-29
Attachment(sl:
City Clerk's
Page Number
........................ .................. ......
..................... ...
.......................................... ....
......................... ................. ......
.......................................... .....
......................... ................ ....
....................
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval (Staff recommendation)
2. Site Plan dated April 30, 1997, and Floor Plans and Elevations
........................ ................ .....
dated July 30, 1996
............................................ .....
_ .
3. Appeal letter
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 13, 1996 with
Findings for Denial (Planning Commission Recommendation)
5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 13, 1996
6. Negative Declaration No. 94-22
7. Letter from Huntington Classics Architectural and Landscape
Committee dated November 15, 1996
8. Response to Huntington Classics Architectural and Landscape
Committee dated April 18, 1997
9. Land Use Intensity Comparison
xx
10. Update of Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing
Obligations
11. Disclosure regarding City Development
12. Letter to Dennis O'Conner, Chevron Land, dated November 1,
1996
13. Studies on Affordable Housing and Neighboring Property Values
from Institute of Urban and Regional Development, State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development,
and Urban Land Institute
14. Letters in Support and Opposition
CD97-29.DOC -13- 05/22/97 3:26 PM
t
� ,� c o
��
_ _,
� � a
� v� W
•< e z,
"- W � _�
ten--.. .. d--.,.;;;,, .. ::..4 c-�.a�;>�?x __ a ..., ,_ .. .v-.94. '^3._ "",��'" wz--''--z �__� Y..�vYs4 ,a c
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 for the construction of a 21 unit, two.(2) story senior apartment
project with a 24% density bonus for four(4)units above the maximum 17 units permitted by code,
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor to
property and improvements in the area. The affordable senior apartment project is designed to be
compatible with the adjacent single family residences and will not result in a negative impact to the
surrounding properties. Furthermore,the project will be provided with the necessary infrastructure
and improvements, minimizing impacts to services to surrounding properties.
2. The proposed senior project, which includes a 24% density bonus, can be adequately serviced by the
City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems, without significantly impacting the overall
service or system. The Public Works Department has indicated that the existing utility systems will
accommodate the proposed 21 unit senior apartment project.
3. The proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities,
school enrollments, or recreational resources. The environmental review revealed that the project's
trip generation will not result in a change in the level of service (LOS) in the area. Furthermore,
school enrollments and recreational resources will not be negatively impacted by the project.
4. The granting of the proposed density bonus will not have an adverse impact on the physical character
of the surrounding area. The proposed project is compatible with the physical character of the area
and is consistent with the overall intent of the General Plan. The senior apartment project is designed
to be compatible with the single family residential tract to the south(Huntington Classics), while
providing affordable rents to very low income seniors.
5. The granting of the proposed density bonus is consistent with the overall intent of the General Plan.
The design of the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan by reserving the
20 foot wide City-owned parcel along the east property line as a future transportation corridor. In
addition, the project will be designated for very low income seniors for a minimum of 30 years.
Attachment-6/2/97 1 (CD97-29)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39:
1. The site plan received and dated April 30, 1997 and floor plans, and elevations received and dated
July 30, 1996 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. The north/south drive aisle shall include decorative treatment at the southerly end next to the
public alley to distinguish the private drive from the public alley.
b. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement)
c. Two units shall be eliminated on the elevations (second story unit at the southwest corner of the
project, and single story unit adjacent to the community room) as depicted on the site plan.
d. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers
on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric
transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults.
Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened
from view. (Code Requirement)
e. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be setback 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 screening must be submitted for review
and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement)
f. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and
similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally
designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally
compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with
required setbacks.
g. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps
shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties
and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations.
Attachment-6/2/97 2 (CD97-29)
2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the
working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,
mechanical and plumbing).
b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plan and the processing fee to the Planning
Division for addressing purposes.
c. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD).
d. Residential type structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be
constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set 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 person experienced in the
field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement)
e. The developer shall provide air conditioning units in every apartment within the 65 CNEL noise
contour. The developer shall have the option to use other methods such as double pane windows,
to mitigate noise impacts to the units. (Mitigation measure)
f. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the
building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory
testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining
walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe
and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement)
g. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface
acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development
shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report.
Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be
submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement)
h. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of
clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters
and central heating units.
i. The seven(7) foot high masonry block wall shall remain along the Yorktown Avenue property
line to mitigate arterial noise impacts to the project. (Mitigation measure)
Attachment-6/2/97 3 (CD97-29)
i
3. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed:
a. A grading plan, prepared by a Register Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. (PW)
b. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial
operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works.
(M)
c. The applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial
Stormwater Permit for construction activities from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Evidence that the permit has been obtained shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works,
City Engineer. (PW)
d. Blo.ckwall/fencing plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community
Development. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan
must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall
include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section
drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for
review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community
Development.
b. The applicant shall enter into a lease and/or license agreement with the City for use of the 20 foot
wide parcel, and shall comply with the following:
1) The applicant shall submit proof of insurance to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval by the City Attorney.
2) The applicant shall post a cash or surety bond with the City Treasurer to guarantee site
maintenance and insurance liability.
3) There shall be no storage or structures on the property.
4) The applicant shall be responsible for returning the site to its original condition, if deemed
necessary by the City, at the termination of the lease and/or license agreement.
Attachment-6/2/97 4 (CD97-29)
c. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and
approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape
Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed
Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant
materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an
irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of
approval. (PW)
d. The developer shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including
a single domestic water service connection, a separate irrigation water service connection,
backflow devices, and other appurtenance in accordance with the U.P.C., applicable City
Ordinances, Public Works Standards and Water Division Design criteria. These plans shall be
approved by the Public Works Water Division and the Huntington Beach Fire Department. (PW)
e. The public portion of the water system shall be located entirely within the public right of way. All
water system improvement not located within the public right of way shall be private, including
fire hydrants. (PW)
f. The water system shall be designed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's design
criteria and installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division Standard Plans and
specifications. (PW)
g. The developer shall abandon five one inch water services at the water main located within Lake
Street. These water services were recently installed for future domestic use on single family
residential homes, and are not the proper size or in the proper location for the proposed
development. (PW)
h. The developer shall use"drought tolerant"plants and turf for all common area landscaping. The
developer shall submit irrigation demands to ensure proper irrigation service sizing. (PW)
i. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by
more than one (1) foot. (PW)
j. Street lights shall be installed per Public Works standards. (PW)
k. A tract map consolidating the five (5) lots into.one parcel shall be submitted. The Final Map shall
be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with
the Department of Community Development. (PW)
1. The proposed alley dedication and vacation shall be included as part of the Tract Map
consolidation request.
Attachment-6/2/97 5 (CD97-29)
in. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to restrict the project to very low income seniors,
described as persons 55 years of age or older, earning income less than 50% of the County median.
The term of the restriction shall run a minimum of 30 years. The agreement shall be approved as
to form and content by the City Attorney and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. A copy
of recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development.
1
n. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for
employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent
properties will not be impacted by their location. The applicant shall obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works.
5. During construction, the applicant shall:
a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to
prevent dust raised when leaving the site:
b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment;
d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog
alerts);
e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts.
6. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall
be completed:
a. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Department of Community Development
identifying the type of noise attenuation used in the project, and compliance that the sound
attenuation achieve the City's noise standards. (Mitigation measure)
b. A plaque describing the historical importance of the site shall be constructed and donated to the
City. The plaque shall be located at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street.
(Mitigation measure)
c. All improvements (including landscaping)to the property shall be completed in accordance with
the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including:
1) Landscaping;
2) Install new water service. (PV )
Attachment-6/2/97 6 (CD97-29)
I
3) Fire extinguishers will be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire
Code Standards. (FD)
4) A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and
Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following:
a) water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection;
b) 24 hour supervision; and
c) smoke detectors (FD)
5) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD)
6) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of
the numbers will be sized a minimum of six(6) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-
half(1-1/2) inches. (FD)
7) Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and
marked to comply with City Specification No. 401. (FD)
8) On-site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire
Department. (FD)
9) An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire
Department regulations. (FD)
10)Security gates shall be designed to comply with City Specification No. 403. (FD)
d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by
the Community Development Department.
e: All building spoils, such a unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material,
shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them.
f. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City
Specification No. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD)
g. The project shall comply with all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085
and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD)
7. Within one (1) year from the final building permit approval (final inspection), the applicant shall
submit an annual report for review and approval by the Community Development and Economic
Development Departments. The report shall, at minimum, specify tenant information including
incomes, rents, length of leases, the project's vacancy rate, annual County median incomes, etc.
Attachment-6/2/97 7 (CD97-29)
8. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied
with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site
plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits
shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the
proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the
conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original
entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
l. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has
elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of
the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a
written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to
the expiration date.
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39, pursuant to
a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs.
4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. The developer will be responsible for the payment of
any additional fees adopted in the `upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. (PV)
5. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. (PV )
6. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the public right-of-way. (PW)
7. Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map by the City.
8. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
9. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building
Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,
and standards, except as noted herein.
10. The project shall comply with the current State accessible regulations as developed by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). (BLDG.)
11. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be
prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
Attachment-6/2/97 8 (CD97-29)
12. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of
Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the
County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2)
days of the Planning Commission's action.
Attachment-6/2/97 9 (CD97-29)
wn
al
• '�d(.141111111i ....� - � ilruuulluu �;��_+����
1p
19
101
man
• =�9 S i' Not—
i Fir.
S ih rr
. fir■■!�! S'si�{ •"•%�r `1.r i �,i� ! nl
ell
Emir TMIM
.�■i■iL� Y �'`..' �iG"..atlfii�� ail
''�'`' .�� _ :.� B;u■ _ Si■■■■■r!�%` ��' eels! _srl' 1 M:
i�
S/T� P`AN
N� ', 1� , G/NNIN?�'/Gang. l�Y? rt _ ewer t- _I ✓—.1. d.¢��v(p.��p .,�
avxear
600 SOFT. � f y ■
BR#2 g
O BEDROOM
a..i
r oo
DINING
nxo DINING Rr
s,e
O t D0 LIVING
BR#1 LIVING — - - LIVING BEDROOM �7�J UtJ
rxn n`ars -.x a rrRw rirR rr li' DINING
II
ZiLLLL—
✓�
ay.
D
715 SQ.FT. 565 SQ.FT. d 565 SQ.FT.
1e,
WRAIGHT
ARCHITECTS
ORANGE HOUSING 'Bowen Courts. . DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
30 NOVEMBER 95
i®'�I r�� _I NOT � T
¢1
WM
W.t AM
BAST ELE 1/�T/ON ,�.
_
III -.....__ �
!
yr �r�+i., i 1. �,.i �■■ .1 .S� er, ■1�F� y.i� /,, ( �11{'<r'l� ''/
�illil�llllllllllllllllllllll�� � ��''' --�'�,�' . ,-. - ..�� . ._�'►� . _ _��
YORKTOWN EL�1//:�TION
Ni r /.lfly�,
�.��♦1�l% 4
litEl
:. $r
P�I �
I
LAKE STR��T �lLr�l/l�T/ON
• - • - - • - . • � �
ira.rw� � srwswxK(77vJ. /+`iVVK'
'~ __ Ipuilil
7MN-
it rt7
ri
L i}h 6 c-s T is Fr B T
4M'srep
nvsHgc'. /MMr9
4—c .s7swaS•
SITE PLAN/PATIO WALLS&TRELLAGE PARKING PLAN/ACCESS
lJ 17
I I ��
EAST COURTYARD WALL ELEVATION
6.v/7 6 dwi7 S !'w?'f• .
K•� '
7M6 .— ... M.1Ks• —
p�� IC�IINS
4W7 0, a ntr 17-44e pwriay a r�.�r'.'�wv��. vroiu .r Ap. MIX,
LAKE STREET/PATIO WALLS&TRELLAGE
it
WRAIGHT
• STUDIES REQUESTED BY DRB ARCHITECTS
Bowen Courts ..
PFiWECT NO.9407.10
HHEUNTIpN�GTEN BEACH 9 JAM161ARv 95
ECONOMICNDEOVELOPMENT
me IIII(II t'�p �Igf, .i�dill
\�@�IIIIIIII(I�L :■�i�ii r = :i ■--
nunann■•
�� �:: tri.• j ... IAA
:.,.� �!•i,lliiiiiiili. �. - - i��ii�,.
like-
�,�..'.■� f_ •�(��: Illl if/1 1} _ MvFnla
9OK ■■::■■ ^� �f I unpin
■■::IT
..�
a ZtkL!%�_ t '��■
�t• m I■ m. I■....
n;mon■ ■■t��mnmu m�rnnm■ /\
RZ M I
i
t
�! 5
kN
_ -
Illlllllllil�• Y'7� Illllll -1- • ' -
,�; e: cuuuuii■. — �, � y "•, ��4 uwumu■
us,u
It
4"F �
X- 11
t �� ��' �fir_`e��1•��_•.
MW
I�i::i=' ' 4• '•:: !! •
._:• a a■■■ mmmmi%i 11 ^�■ � �■! ��
�� -Oi6 �_ n ��i:a��F.'j�iiii �;V��yA� •
..........
k a--
r
City o Huntington'Hunti ton Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 ^�
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Director 536-5582
Housing 536-5542
Redevelopment 536-5582 .
Fax (714) 375-5087 �x. ,
If
August 23, 1996
AUG 2 3199�
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk GD11 1UN!•t!D`y�LCFMENI
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2rd Floor _ y
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 G'
SUBJECT.• Notice of Redevelopment Agency Intent to Appeal _
G'
Planning Lommission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 94-39 ,
(Bowen Court-Lake Street Seniors)
Dear Ms. Brockway:
CJ '
This letter serves as the required notice of the Redevelopment Agency's intent to
appeal the August 13, 1996, denial of the entitlement application for this project to
the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. The findings for denial were, in our
opinion, inadequate and not consistent with the facts presented in the Conditional
Use Permit. We expect to present the item to these bodies in approximately ninety
(90) days after reviewing the project with neighboring residents. Paul D'
Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney, has confirmed that the filing fee for the appeal
is waived for City departments.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at ext. 5909; or Stephen
Kohler at ext. 5457.
Sincerely,
David C. Biggs
Economic Development Director
DCB:GAB:gab
xc: Stephen Kohler, Project Manager
A. Gregory Brown , Development Specialist
,G\Brown\Bowen\appea12.doc
� ��
`fir -� "; ..,,.�. T �'" �. ,:
�� _�: r
i
B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I
NO. 94-22 (BOWEN COURTS):
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Economic Development Department
LOCATION: 1968 Lake Street (southeast corner at Yorktown Avenue).
PROJECT
PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 and Negative Declaration No. 94-22, represent a
request by the Huntington Beach Department of Economic Development, to construct a
new, 23 unit, two (2) story, senior apartment project on a vacant 0.75 net acre site in the
Yorktown Lake Redevelopment Project Area. All 23 units will be restricted to very low
income seniors, earning an income less than 50% of the Orange County median. The
request includes a 33% density bonus to allow six(6)units above the maximum 17
permitted by code, and exceptions to parking and private open space requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I
The density bonus and relaxed development standards can be supported because of the
long term affordability on the property for very low income seniors. State Law requires
cities to adopt density bonus ordinances as an incentive for providing affordable housing.
`+ The City of Huntington Beach has an ordinance in effect that specifies these requirements.
The project's design, including site layout and building architecture are compatible with
the surrounding uses. The preservation of a future transportation corridor and the long
term affordability conforms with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the senior project with the density
bonus, and exceptions for reduced parking and reduced private open space, based upon
the following:
I
• The use is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element of
the General Plan by providing affordable housing for seniors. The project will provide
23 long term affordable housing units for very low income seniors.
• The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential
Medium High Density on the subject property.
i • With the recommended conditions imposed, the parking and access to the proposed
senior project will not impact the adjacent single family residences or traffic flow on
Lake Street.
• The project's site layout will preserve the potential transportation corridor along the
eastern property line.
PC Minutes-8/13/96 13 (p=055)
i
I
• The design of the proposed building will be architecturally compatible with the
Huntington Classics single family residential project also located in the Yorktown-
Lake Redevelopment Project area.
j • The senior project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and will serve as a
transitional area between the multi family projects to the north and east, and the single
family residences to the south:
Commissioner Kerins asked staff why the Redevelopment Agency chose this particular
property for the project. Staff stated that State Law requires cities to adopt density bonus
ordinances as an incentive for providing affordable housing, and the City has an ordinance
in effect that specifies these requirements. This piece of property was the only site
available in the area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
i
Larry Kasulka, Ph.D., 1952 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned
that this will have a negative impact on the value of his home.
Carole Thomas 1937 Pine spoke in support of the project, stating that a senior apartment
project would be a good neighboring use.
Lawrence Hutchens, 1932 Park Street, spoke in support of the project.
Steve Olim, 1931 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned that this will
have a negative impact on the value of his home.
Milton Inbody, 1921 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned that the
density is too high.
Carolyn Minton, 1925 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned that
density is too high and there is inadequate parking.
Bob Eck, 1927 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the project, requesting that a decision
be postponed until surrounding neighbors, developer and staff can meet and discuss the
project.
Maureen Wirtz, 1928 Pine Street, spoke in opposition to request, concerned that a senior
apartment complex will be unable to handle the upkeep of the property.
i
Tony Chimento, 1918 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned that
density is too high and there is inadequate parking.
I
Beric Christianson, 1941 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the request, concerned that
density and traffic volume will be too high.
PC Minutes-8/13/96 14 (p=055)
i
_ THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR
I AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed a continuance for this item in order to notify more property
owners and meet with them and the developer to discuss an alternative project, or denial
of the project to give the developer an opportunity to revise the project by reducing
density.
f A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECOND BY KERINS, TO DENY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-22 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 94-39 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Holden, Livengood, Kerins, Biddle, Speaker
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Gorman, Tillotson
ABSTAIN: None
i
MOTION PASSED
i
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39:
1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 for a 23 unit, two (2) story senior
i apartment project for very low income seniors, which includes a 33% density bonus (6
units above the max. 17 units permitted under the present zoning), and reduction in
parking and private open space requirements will be detrimental to the general welfare
of persons working or residing in the vicinity. The project's high density of 30
units/acre is higher than the surrounding area which consists of multi-family projects to
the north and east, and single family residences to the south. In addition, the project
will create negative traffic impacts to the Yorktown/Lake area.
i
2. The parking for the senior residential apartment project is not compatible with
surrounding single family residential homes. The proposed project only provides 23
ion-site parking spaces for 23 units where 25 spaces are required by code. In addition,
the use of the property for affordable senior housing at a density of 30 units/acre is not
compatible with the adjacent single family residences.
i
i
i
PC Minutes-8/13/96 15 (p=055)
HOW-
W W ,.
.......... ........
........ .... ....... ......... ........
'XXX, .......... ....... .............. .. .....
... ... ........ ... .......
X
.......... ommu I. "tin ...... ...
...... ....
iu.n. .. . ..: ... .......
........................ ift �`.�:� .... . .
............ .............
...........
...........
.......... 0.
..........
........ .... .
.. ...... .......
.......................... .... .. . ......
.............. ............ ... .
..... ........ . ......................................................................... ..........
:::.................
............................................... .............
X ...................... .........
.. ............. ..... .
X.:
X.
.........................................*** " ::,* .......
. .............. .. .......................
............ . ........
.............................. X ;.1-11''I'll", ...... .......
....... ...... .......... .... ...................... .................
... ...an
. ...............................
.................................... . ......... .........
............. .......... ............................. . ............ .........
. ........ I .... ........
.X ........
..................,"""',
....... .. . ... ..........
XX.
.... .... .. ..
.. . .......
............
............................... .. ....
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director .
BY: Wayne Carvalho, Assistant Planner*0
DATE: August 13, 1996
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 94-22 (BOWEN COURTS)
LOCATION: 1968 Lake Street (Southeast comer at Yorktown Avenue)
...............
X-Now—
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 and Negative Declaration No. 94-22, represent a request by the
Huntington Beach Department of Economic Development, to construct a new, 23 unit, two (2) story,
senior apartment project on a vacant 0.75 net acre site in the Yorktown Lake Redevelopment Project Area.
All 23 units will be restricted to very low income seniors, earning an income less than 50% of the Orange
County median. The request includes a 33% density bonus to allow six (6)units above the maximum 17
permitted by code, and exceptions to parking and private open space requirements.
The density bonus and relaxed development standards can be supported because of the long term
affordability on the property for very low income seniors. State Law requires cities to adopt density bonus
ordinances as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The City of Huntington Beach has an
ordinance in effect that specifies these requirements. The project's design, including site layout and
building architecture are compatible with the surrounding uses. The preservation of a future transportation
corridor and the long term affordability conforms with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the senior project with the density bonus, and
exceptions for reduced parking and reduced private open space, based upon the following:
• `The use is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan
by providing affordable housing for seniors. The project will provide 23 long term affordable housing
units for very low income seniors.
• The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium High
Density on the subject property.
• With the recommended conditions imposed, the parking and access to the proposed senior project will
not impact the adjacent single family residences or traffic flow on Lake Street.
• The project's site layout will preserve the potential transportation corridor along the eastern property
line.
+ The design of the proposed building will be architecturally compatible with the Huntington Classics
single family residential project also located in the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project area.
+ The senior project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and will serve as a transitional area
between the multi family projects to the north and east, and the single family residences to the south.
H
m
ARGM
MCMCFAE ..
v�J
CENTER
EDINGER
` ITSLCER
"EEL
WARNER
` — — .♦
♦
7
�(+• RT
• I 8
•♦ _ — a
.GARF[ELD
SITE ♦, r '
/YORIMWN
ADAMS
/INDIANAFOLIS
-tea
ATLANTA
J /
F_^ EM MD.T N HAMMTON
• BANNING
wx
4 /
J
AY /
/
/
14
'm CUP 94-39
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22"; and
2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 with findings and suggested conditions of approval."
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Economic Development, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PROPERTY
OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a 23 unit, two (2) story senior apartment project to be
designated solely for very low income seniors based on the Orange County median. The
request includes a 33% density bonus (6 units above the max. 17 units permitted under
the present zoning), and reduction in parking and private open space requirements.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
.. ... ...............
. _............
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZNTNC'r LAND USE
.. . .
Subject Property: RMH-25-d (Residential RMH-A O (Residential Vacant
Medium High Density- Medium-High-Small Lot
Special Design Standards) subdistrict-Oil Overlay)
North of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Pacific Ranch
Property Medium Density) Medium Density-Oil Condominium
(across Yorktown Overlay) complex
Ave.):
'East of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Villa Pacifica
Property: Medium Density) Medium Density-Oil Condominium
Overlay) complex
South of Subject RMH-25-d (Residential RMH-A O (Residential Single Family
Property: Medium High Density- Medium-High-Small Lot Residences
Special Design Standards) subdistrict-Oil Overlay) (Huntington Classics
West of Subject Public PS (Public-Semipublic) Huntington Beach
Property Civic Center
across Lake Street):
Staff Report-8/13/96 2 (PCSR205)
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 represents a request for the following:
1. To construct a 23 unit, two (2) story senior apartment project pursuant to Section 210.04 RL, RM,
RMH, RH and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance.
2. To permit a 33% density bonus to permit six (6) units above the maximum 17 allowed by code for
a total of 23 units pursuant to Section 210.04 RL, RM, RMH, RH and RMP Districts: Land Use
Controls and 230.14 Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
3. To permit 21 enclosed parking spaces on-site, and four(4) unenclosed parking spaces on an
adjacent City parcel, in lieu of a minimum 25 on-site parking spaces (23 covered and/or enclosed)
pursuant to Section 230.14 Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus and 231.04 Off-Street
Parking and Loading Spaces Required of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
4. To permit four (4), two bedroom units with 42 square feet of private open space in lieu of
minimum 120 square feet pursuant to Section 210.08 (E) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance.
5. To permit the limited use of the 20 foot wide undeveloped right-of-way along the east property
line.
The two (2) story project consists of nineteen, 565 square foot, one (1) bedroom units, and four (4), 715
square foot, two bedroom units on five parcels totaling 32,182 net square feet. All 23 units will be
restricted to very low income seniors, defined as persons aged 55 years or older, earning income less than
50% (very low) of the Orange County median. The applicant indicates that the project will remain
affordable for a minimum of thirty (30)years.
The initial estimates for maximum rents based on the Orange County median would be $390/month for a
one bedroom unit and $464/month for a two bedroom unit (see Attachment No. 4). According to the
applicant, the maximum income for qualified tenants in this project will be 40% of the county median,
which equates to $17,160 for a family of one, and 19,600 for a family of two, based on 1996 figures.
Access to the project's units and central courtyard will be secured with two (2) pedestrian gates located at
the front of the project, adjacent to Lake Street, and at the rear of the project. There will also be access
provided from the garages to the courtyard. The applicant indicates that limiting points of public access
will provide a more secure project for the senior tenants.
Staff Report-8/13/96 3 (PCSR205)
Vehicular access to the project will be provided from Lake Street via a 25 foot wide public alley located
along the south property line(Attachment No. 2). A private drive aisle (north/south direction) on the
project site will provide access to 15 of the 21 garages. The drive aisle is adjacent to a 20 foot wide City
parcel which was originally intended for an alley. The City parcel has been designated as a future
transporation corridor in the General Plan. The applicant intends to enter into a License Agreement with
the City for use of this property to provide four(4) open guest parking spaces and a gardening area for the
tenants. The applicant states that by not providing the additional four parking spaces on site, construction
costs will be reduced which ultimately reduces rent costs. With the use of the City parcel, the project will
provide one space for each unit (23 total) and two guest spaces for a total of 25 spaces.
The four(4), two (2) bedroom units which are situated toward the interior courtyard, do not provide the
minimum 120 square feet of private open space required by code. These units will provide a six(6) foot by
seven (7) foot (42 square foot) private patio/balcony area. The applicant has also requested an exception
be granted due to the large secured courtyard area that will serve the tenants, and because the reduced
standards directly relates to reduced construction costs and reduced rents for the seniors.
The applicant will be entering into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)with the Orange
Housing Development Corporation for the development of the project. The applicant has indicated that
the property was purchased for the sole purpose of providing senior affordable housing. The project will
house active seniors. The applicant believes the site's proximity to shopping at SeaCliff Village, Newland
Center, Five Points, and medical offices in the area, will be convenient for the senior tenants. Transit
services are also available with a bus stop adjacent to the site on Yorktown Avenue, and on Main Street
near the Civic Center.
ISSUES:
General Plan Conformance:
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium
High Density on the subject site. State Law allows densities to exceed zoning and general plan
designations when affordable housing is proposed. This project will provide 100% of the units for very
low income seniors. Therefore, the affordable units approved as part of the density bonus are consistent
with the General Plan. The project is also consistent with goals and policies of the Land Use Element by
providing for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and mentally chalenged, and
very low, low and moderate income families.
The proposed senior apartment project is also consistent with the goals and policies contained in Housing
Element of the General Plan by promoting housing which meets the special needs of elderly persons, while
utilizing incentives and granting density bonuses where feasible to encourage the production of low and
moderate income housing.
The adjacent City-owned parcel to the east of the subject site is designated in the General Plan as a
transportation corridor. It is a 20 foot wide strip that currently is an undeveloped public alley. The
proposed use of the property includes open parking spaces and a gardening area for use by tenants of the
residential apartment project. There will not be any structures. This is consistent with the General Plan
designation and will not preclude the future use of the property as a transportation corridor.
Staff Report-8/13/96 4 (PCSR205)
Zoning Compliance
This project is located in the RMH-A District (previous Oldtown District) and, with exception of the
requested density bonus, reduced parking and open space, the project complies with the requirements of
that zone. The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting a 33% density
bonus and exceptions for reduced parking and private-open space in return for providing affordable rental
housing for very low income seniors.
The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development
standards of Sections 210 and 231 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance:
.
Section Issue Re uired/Permitted Pro osed
210.06 Density Max. 17 units 23 units (33%bonus)*
1 unit/1900 sq.ft.
Building height Max. 3 5 ft. 25 ft.
Front setback Min.12 ft. 20 ft.
Side setback Min.3 ft. 5 ft.
Street side setback Min.S ft. 10 ft.
Rear setback Min.7.5 ft. 25 ft. 45 ft. including alley)
Site coverage Max. 50% 42%
16,091 sq.ft. 13,502 sq.ft.
210.08 Unit floor area Min. 450 sq.ft. 565-715 sq.ft.
Open space
Private
1 bedroom Min. 60 sq.ft., 6' dim. Min. 60 sq.ft.,6' dim.
2 bedroom Min 120 sq.ft., 6' dim. 42 sq.ft., 6' dim.*
Common Min. 2500 sq.ft. 8000+ sq.ft.
Clubhouse Min.400 sq.ft. 572 sq.ft.
231.04 Parking Spaces 25 total 25 total
23 covered 21 enclosed*
(4 open spaces on
adjacent City property)
* Conditional Use Permit Request/Affordable Housing Incentives
In 1989, the City approved Tract 13920, a six(6) lot single family residential subdivision. Lot No. 6,
located to the south of the alley(see Attachment No. 2), was developed as a single family residence as part
of the Huntington Classics project. If approved, the applicant will be required to request another tract map
to consolidate the remaining five lots into one.
Staff Report-8/13/96 5 (PCSR205)
Environmental Status:
Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper
design and engineering. Subsequently, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22 (Attachment No. 5) was
prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA).
The project is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Special Studies zone. During the
review of Tract 13569 (Huntington Classics), which included the subject 0.75 acre site, a geotechnical
investigation was conducted by licensed geotechnical firm to determine if any faulting had occurred on the
property. The results of the fault trenching and field exploration indicated that there was no evidence of
faulting on the property. A statement from the geotechnical engineer has been received confirming his
findings (see Attachment No. 5).
The EIR also included mitigation involving a monument in the form of a plaque identifying Samuel R.
Bowen, previous owner of the property and industrial buildings on the site used for manufacturing of oil
production and maintenance equipment. The plaque is to describe the historical importance of the site.
The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 94-22 for twenty
(20) days commencing on February 16, 1995 and ending on March 8, 1995. Comments were received
from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board requesting a discussion on possible toxic substances
buried or in the soil on the site. A response and errata has been included with the attached Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to
review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is
recommending that the mitigated negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures.
Coastal Status: Not applicable.
Redevelopment Status:
The project is located within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area. The Economic
Development Department, applicant, supports the request.
Design Review Board:
The Design Review Board was concerned that the project should be architecturally compatible with the
existing single family residences immediately to the south on Lake Street in order to blend in with the area.
The Board reviewed the design of the project, including the project's colors and materials, and is
recommending the Planning Commission approve the project with the recommendation that 1/3 of the wall
in front of Units 22 and 23 be offset a minimum of one foot to provide visual relief. The applicant has
since modified the plan to reflect the Board's recommendation.
Staff Report-8/13/96 6 (PCSR205)
Subdivision Committee: Not applicable.
Other Departments Concerns:
The Departments of Public Works, Police, Community Services, Economic Development and Fire, and
Building Division have reviewed the proposed.project and have recommended conditions which are
incorporated into the conditions of approval.
ANALYSIS:
The two major issues involved with the proposed senior affordable project include the density bonus, and
parking. Other important issues discussed below include reduced development standards as incentives for
long term affordability, land use compatibility, geological/seismic issues, public services/utilities, and noise.
Density Bonus/Incentives for Affordable Housin&
The 33% density bonus will allow 23 units which is anticipated to house approximately 40 seniors. In an
effort to comply with the City Housing Element and"fair share" requirement, the City has continued to
promote the development of affordable housing. State Law requires cities to grant density bonuses and/or
allow deviations to development standards as incentives to develop affordable housing units. The request
to provide 23 very low income units for seniors 55 and older is an opportunity for the City to not only
work toward complying with the City's Housing Element, but to provide homes to approximately 40 active
seniors.
The applicant indicates that the 23 units requested is needed in order for a feasible project. The reduced
parking and open space requirements are necessary to provide a viable project which will provide rents in
the very low income range. The density bonus, and exceptions to development standards can be supported
by staff based on the consistency with the goals and policies in the General Plan and the long term
affordability of the project.
Parkin&/Access
The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance specifies that one covered parking space be
provided for each senior apartment unit, and a total of 25 spaces be provided on-site based on the bedroom
count. Although the applicant is providing this, two spaces of the 23 are on adjacent City property. Staff
recommends two additional parking spaces be provided on-site. There are two areas where open parking
spaces can be provided with minor changes to the site plan. One space could be provided between the
north side of the.building and Yorktown right-of-way, and the other space near the southeast corner of the
apartment building adjacent to the trash enclosure (see Attachment No. 3). The applicant has agreed to
include the two open spaces as part of the project. The four parking spaces on the adjacent City parcel
(20 foot wide alley) will be used for a guest parking until such time a transportation system is proposed.
Staff supports the use of the City parcel provided a minimum of one parking space per unit (23) is
provided on site. Any use on the City parcel, including any additional guest spaces, would be required to
be removed if the parcel is converted to a transportation corridor.
Staff Report-8/13/96 7 (PCSR205)
Because the project's drive aisles are on both public and private property, staff recommends the drive
approach onto private property (see Attachment No. 3) be distinguished from the public alley through the
use of decorative paving or treatment. The off-set of the existing "T" intersection at the alley's easterly
terminus and the decorative treatment at the private drive entry will minimize motorists from driving north
of the alley separating the senior project from the Classics.
Open Space
The project's indefinite affordability for very low income seniors warrants the minor exception to private
open space. The four, two (2) bedroom units are located adjacent to the secured courtyard centrally
located in the project. Every tenant will have the opportunity to utilize the open patio areas and green
space in the private courtyard, as well as the community room toward the front of the project. Staff feels
the exception for reduced private patio areas on four units offsets the benefits received for long term
affordability. The addition of 23 senior affordable units to the City's housing stock complies with the goals
and policies of the City's Housing Element.
Compatibility
Situated south of the site is a two (2) story, single family residence constructed as part of the Huntington
Classics project. The proposed project includes vacating a four(4) foot wide strip of property to the
adjacent residence for landscaping purposes and to create a buffer between the residence and alley.
The proposed project will be compatible with the Huntington Classics by incorporating a similar design,
including architectural elements, colors and materials. The senior project will also be compatible in terms
of height and building bulk, with the Lake Street elevation (front) designed to appear as five separate
structures.
In addition, the adjacent Huntington Classics (81 units) are three and four bedroom single family homes
that occupy approximately 2.7 persons per unit (based on Census data)which would relate to
approximately 21 bedrooms with 18 persons in a comparable area. The senior project will have 27
bedrooms, six more than the Classics in a 0.75 acre area. The subject property serves as a transitional use
between the densities of the Classics and the projects with higher densities to the north and east.
Public Services/Utilities
During the environmental review of the project, the Department of Public Works indicated that the
proposed senior project can adequately be serviced by the City and County water, sewer, storm drain
systems, without significantly impacting the overall service or system (see Attachment No. 5). The
project's trip generation will not change the levels of service (LOS) in the area. Furthermore, school
enrollments and recreational resources will not be impacted as a result of the project.
Staff Report-8/13/96 8 (PCSR205)
Noise
The project site is located on a corner of two secondary arterial highways, and is within the designated 60
CNEL noise contour. Noise generated from traffic was discussed during the environmental review, which
resulted in recommended mitigation to install air conditioning units in all of the units fronting Lake and
Yorktown. In addition, the existing seven foot high block wall along the Yorktown Avenue property line
is to remain to minimize noise impacts and limit the interior noise levels to a maximum 45 dB.
Furthermore, the developer will be required to submit an acoustical report demonstrating compliance with
the City's noise standards following the installation of the noise attenuation devices.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the 23 unit senior apartment project, with the density
bonus for six(6) additional units, and reduced parking and private open space requirements, based upon
the following:
• The use is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan
by providing affordable housing for seniors. The project will provide 23 long term affordable housing
units for very low income seniors.
• The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium High
Density on the subject property.
• With the recommended conditions imposed, the parking and access to the proposed senior project will
not impact the adjacent single family residences or traffic flow on Lake Street.
• The project's site layout will preserve the potential transportation corridor along the eastern property
line.
• The design of the proposed building will be architecturally compatible with the Huntington Classics
single family residential project also located in the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project area.
• The senior project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and will serve as a transitional area
between the multi family projects to the north and east, and the single family residences to the south.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:
A. .`Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22, and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 with
findings for denial."
B. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39 and direct
staff accordingly."
ATTACHMENTS:
,
ftnozePiv
SH:WC:kjl
Staff Report-8/13/96 9 (PCSR205)
I
i
i
-ter
Ay
aawl IFM
n
- a
........................•:+:ii::::::i:::•:::•::::n.... :?• ....n. :. .:... .,.... .... ^:.... .... ...... ... 5....... .. i:.T:::TT}T:::'•"::::>{+{;:i::is4i::ii:::•::::i:::{:;:.....>...T. ...r...r....
v:+y:.;•.}'::::::::::0•:::::::::::::::LTT•:{:.}:.}xi•:{:.T::::••Tw:::.�::::::::x{4v::::.�:; .....................................:{�:..'?ti.}\•:.•:+.v:rr:::.
4:•T:•iT}TTi:•T::•T:•i}TTT:•T:vT:^T:?{•T}:•i:•TT:•}:^:•T:•T:4:^T:^:^:^T:4:4:h:8:8:?4:0:•T:•TT;v:}:;}T:}}}}::•::}::^:J:{v}}T}:TT:J:^:•T:•T:S•T}i: LT:T::::ti•:isv:• i:•TisiT}}i;{4i}}}:!•ii}T::T:•T:B:?•:5:......i'ri'r'riiiiiii':}{;:ii}:ivii}:i iiii}j'r'r:^:.�:{..:xi::•T}i:•i}:?{.
.:�} }:} n .. v,•. •':..: .. �'...:.:.:. .: :.•'. '+:::i. ;. :ii�::i: :. .: i::i::i::i::ii::::is•;:x:::•iT::i::i::i::r::....... ..
:}.i:.;ii:.i:.isL:.ii:.i:.i•.:{.i:?.iii:.:{•i;•;•i;•i;•i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.>;•i;•i;•i;•i;•: {.>i: :{.: {.}: ::.: .}: i:.i: :. :.i:.. :.i: .}:. :.. ;::.•i: :.: :.i :. •.i:.; .: :.}:. :.: .iii: •' .i:.i::.i:.i:.i:.:{•i::.iii:.i:.i:.i:.:{:.......... :•.f.
::::::::::::.{:.::.�:::}::.>.:>:.:.::::•.i:;•i;?is
{:.i:?.::.iii:.i:.i;•i:.::.}:.:•.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.::.::.i:.i:.>:.>:.>;•i;•i;•i;•ii;•i •?•i:: .iT .T: :.:.:{. �.> ..i:.i :.: .: .i:.:.i. .i:. :.i: .:.}. ..'.. ::. .i. .i• .:.. :.i:.: .:•: '..::.::.: .} i:{.ti:.ii:.ii:.>:{•T:....................... :. :.
••••••••••••••••••• ...........:::::::::4:4:•T:•T:JT:•T:•T:•TTis4T:4;T:{?4Ti:•iii:^T:•TT:4:•T:•T:•T:^:G:4:4:4:4:8:•T:4:6:4:4:4:•T:+•T:^:4:9:•T:4:^:4T:•?'G:^:4:+4:^:•T:B:+•:•i:•T:4T:•T:•T:•T:{{•i}Tni:{•isti•Ti:•TT:•:•T:•T}}};�:•}T:•T}:•T:•T::•i:{•T:L:?8T}:{>.4:•ti•T'v:>.•...........
:>.vvliiiii:>.ii?�ii:?�ii$:>.i�iiiii::;:;:$;:i}i::;:};:$}iii;:;:::;:}?i:?}+}:{:};:;:•,T:^:j;: ::
�iM} ��il�� ii �N?�F� � •::}::?t:�:::{�<'�'S�:�:tii,ti'ti :•,'r,,{Yi•�:{iv.'•ii}iiii:S:T:ti:::i:..
..f.......... ..5;.fv;r:v.
.risi•:<:;:'ii:�i:��ii$iii?{ii:�•is�:�iiii::i}}}}}}iiii::::i}i}i}iii;:j}ii:::{:};:•,:;:;:;:;:;:isii'rji::i;:i::}iiiiiiiiiii:isrii>.�:::::>y:yi}iiiiiiii:�:�i:C�iiiiiiii::iiii:T:ii:�:�'ri:�$i:iiii}j}iiiiiiii'r:<titi::i:::•:::±: ?:::?i:::•:•i::}?:i:•'r;:i'ry;:}ijiiiiii'ri+>.•T '
' :::::::}::TT:{•T:•TT;{•}:•T:iJT}:?n:{}•T:{}{{•T. ...: .: ':T' '.:�'.,:{.� '.:{ '{. is '.: :: ::?•T;•}' 'p:..:tiff: •: •^:•:•TTT:G}TTTT:•}:•:{y} ?:$i;:i;::�;:i;:j::
:4'•ff.•iT:{•:{vi:4}} e�� v:til+.i:'f?T:•T:•T:•T:+?•:•T:
1. Name of Proponent: City of Huntington Beach,
Department of Economic Development
Address: 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Phone Number: (714) 536-5582
2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: December 14, 1994
3. Concurrent Entitlement(s): Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39
Design Review Board No. 94-61
4. Proiect Location: 1968 Lake Street
Southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street
5. Proiect Description:
To permit the construction of a 23 unit, two (2) story, senior housing project
on an approximate 0.75 net acre site. The request includes a 20% density
bonus to allow 23 units in lieu of 19 units permitted by the existing RMH-A
(Residential Medium High Density) zoning designation. All 23 units are
designed as one (1)bedroom stacked flats, which will be constructed in six(6)
buildings (see Exhibit B). The project will be restricted to seniors with very
low income status (less than 50% of the median)based on annual Orange
County median income figures.
The project involves the vacation of a 20 foot wide alley by the City of
Huntington Beach along the eastern edge of the property. The alley right-of-
way is also designated as a Transportation Corridor by the City of Huntington
Beach which will be retained for future use. No structures are proposed to be
located within the corridor.
The subject site is part of an approved tract (Tr. 13569) which would have
allowed construction of five (5) single family residences. Approval of the
senior project will require consolidation of the five(5) lots into one (1).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.)
1. Earth.
Yes Maybe .No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X
b. . Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X
d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? _ X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? _ _ X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure,or similar hazards? X
Discussion: The project consists of construction of a 23 unit senior apartment project. Development
of the proposed project will require less than 42 cubic yards of grading, which will be balanced on-site, to
prepare the site for construction.
The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (see Exhibit C) which exposes
people and property to potential hazards associated with earthquakes. A geotechnical study completed by
Stoney-Miller Consultants in 1988 during the review of Tract 13569 revealed no evidence of active faulting
on-site. The study included exploratory borings and several fault trenches to evaluate the presence of
active segments of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone within the project site. However, due to the
. presence of man-made fill on the northern portion of the subject site, the geotechnical study was not able to
conclude whether active faulting occurred on site. To address the potential impacts from building on or
near a fault, or whether to allow construction at all, the site shall be field tested prior to action by the
Planning Commission.
Standard conditions of approval for projects in the special studies zone include the submittal of seismic
studies specifying structural requirements for the project. These specific studies are required pursuant to
the Alquist-Priolo Act. With the implementation of construction specified in the seismic studies, no
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation:
1. To address potential impacts from developing adjacent to an active fault, the applicant shall complete
a field study to determine whether a fault(s) is located on the site. The study shall be submitted and
approved by the Building Division prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Should the study
identify a fault of setback which will require redesign, the project would be required to be re-evaluated
by the Environmental Assessment Committee.
Environmental Checklist Page 2 EA 94-22
2. Air.
Yes Mavbe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X _
b. The creation of objectionable odors?. _ _ X
c. Alteration of air movement,moisture,or temperature,or any change in climate,either
locally or regionally? X
Discussion: The project may result in a short-term increase in construction-related emissions, lasting
for approximately nine (9) months. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered grading and
paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities. However, with the
implementation of conditions of approval minimizing dust, and emissions resulting from construction
equipment, no significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated.
Long-term operational emissions may increase slightly due to the approximate 138 additional vehicle trips
contributed by the project. However, the additional trips generated by the 23 senior apartments do not
exceed the SCAQNM thresholds for potentially significant air quality impacts. No significant air quality
impacts to the area are anticipated. For more detailed discussion regarding potential traffic impacts, please
refer to Item#13 Circulation.
3. Water.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents,or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or
fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate
and amount of surface runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X
e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality,including
but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water
supplies? _ X
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X
Environmental Checklist Page 3 EA 94-22
Discussion: The proposed project will result in the minor alteration of topography to facilitate
drainage of the site. The project site is currently vacant, unpaved property. The project will result in an
increase in the amount surface runoff due to an increase of impervious surfaces. Proposed drainage will
follow the natural gradient toward the southwest (Lake Street) section of the project. The Public Works
Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the existing storm drain system will
be able to accommodate the project's runoff.
The proposed project will require the installation of new water lines, and is anticipated to use
approximately 650 gallons of water per day. Based on discussions with the Public Works Department,
Water Division, the City has an adequate supply and facilities to provide the additional 650 gallons per day
without any significant impact to existing service levels.
The project area is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)Zone X which is not in the 100-year
floodplain and is not subject to flood insurance or floodproofing requirements. No adverse impacts
resulting from flooding or tidal waves are anticipated.
4. Plant Life.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(including trees,
shrubs, grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? _ _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature,unique,rare or
endangered species of plants? _ _ X
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? — _ X
d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X
I
Discussion: The vacant project site has been disturbed by previous earthmoving activities and does not
contain any plant or animal life. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any loss to plant or
animal life. No significant impacts to plant and animal life are anticipated.
5. . Animal Life.
Yes Maw No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds,land
animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms or insects)? _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals? _ X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? _ _ X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ X
Discussion: See discussion under item#4.
Environmental Checklist Page 4 EA 94-22
6. Noise.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
Discussion: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction due to the use of
heavy construction equipment, including jack hammers, graders, backhoes, and water, cement and dump
trucks. However, all construction noise will be required to comply with Chapter 8.40 Noise of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and through the implementation of and compliance with standard
conditions of approval, including restricted hours of construction, no significant noise impacts during
construction are anticipated.
Long-term noise impacts may occur as a result of the increase in approximately 138 trip-ends and
associated vehicular noise generated by the new project. In addition, the proximity.of the project site to
Yorktown Avenue will result in increased traffic noise to the new apartment units. The proposed buildings
will be setback approximately 60 feet from the existing residential units to the east. The buildings are
separated by a driveway and parking/garden area. The increased setback and existing six(6) foot high
masonry wall will provide an adequate noise buffer between the multi-family residences.
The shifting of the southerly alley five (5) feet to the north, by vacating four(4) feet of the existing alley to
the southerly property owner and accepting a five (5) foot wide alley dedication on the north side of the
alley will provide an additional buffer between the senior project and the existing single family residence
south of the site. The outdoor patio area for the single family residence is situated on the north side of the
home, and is enclosed by a six foot high fence. The new apartment units with garage doors facing south
will be setback approximately 3 8 feet from the existing single family residence (see Exhibit B). The
additional traffic and other associated noise sources from the new senior project on the single family
residence are considered to be negligible.
According to an acoustical analysis completed by Gordon Bricken& Associates (1988) for Tract 13569,
which included the subject property, the units along Yorktown Avenue will be located within the 65 CNEL
and 70 CNEL noise contours (see Exhibit D). In addition, the analysis indicated that the lot fronting
Yorktown would be exposed to greater than 45 CNEL interior noise levels. Suggested mitigation included
installation of a seven(7) foot high sound wall, which has already been installed, and air conditioning
systems for all units fronting the Lake and Yorktown. The air conditioning units will allow units to comply
with the interior noise limits by allowing residents to close their windows. The applicant will have other
options to mitigate the interior noise impacts.
In addition, the project site is located within the 75 CNEL noise contour for the Civic Center Heliport.
However, the heliport is only used for emergency operations. Because of the restricted use of the heliport
for emergency situations, and because the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code allows noise sources to vary
for a certain time within a specific hour, the potential for noise generated from helicopters landing or
departing from the Civic Center is not considered significant.
The project will be required to comply with the Noise Element of the General Plan, Uniform Building
Code, and City's Noise Code. With the implementation of the suggested mitigation, no significant noise
impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist Page 5 EA 94-22
Miti ation:
1. To minimize interior noise impacts to units fronting Yorktown and Lake, air conditioning units shall be
provided in every apartment unit within the identified 65 CNEL noise contour. In addition, the
applicant shall have the option to use other methods such as double pane windows, to mitigate noise
impacts to the units.
2. The seven(7) foot high masonry block wall shall remain along the Yorktown Avenue property line to
mitigate arterial noise impacts to the project.
3. To review compliance with the City's noise standards, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis
prior to occupancy of the first unit. The analysis shall identify the type of noise attenuation used in the
project, and shall verify that the sound attenuation achieve the noise standards.
7. Light and Glare.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X
Discussion: The development of a new 23 unit senior apartment project will result in new light
sources including street and residential lighting. The surrounding area is primarily built-out with single
family and multi-family residential units, with the exception of the Civic Center. The proposed project will
allow for development of similar types of residential units and will include lighting for parking and alley
areas, and walkway/stairway lighting. While the project will result in increased illumination in the area, the
project contribution to ambient lighting levels is not considered significant. With implementation of
standard conditions of approval requiring the directing of lights in a manner to prevent "spillage" onto
adjacent properties, and restricting use of glare producing/reflective materials, no adverse light and glare
impacts are anticipated.
S. Land Use.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? _ X _
Discussion: The project site was originally part of an approved tract map (Tr. 13569) in which five (5)
single family lots were approved on the subject property. The proposed construction of a 23 unit senior
apartment project includes a request for a 20% density bonus from the 19 units permitted under the present
zoning. With the proposed easterly alley vacation, 19 multi-family units would be permitted.
The proposed project is consistent with zoning designation of medium high density residential, and goals
and policies contained within the City's Housing Element by providing senior housing for very low income
individuals. In addition, the project complies with State Law which provides incentives such as density
bonuses, in return for affordable housing units.
The project's two (2) story architectural design, including colors and materials, will be compatible with the
single family residential buildings on Lake Street (Huntington Classics). No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated (see Exhibit E).
Environmental Checklist Page 6 EA 94-22
9. Natural Resources.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? _ _ X
Discussion: . Natural gas will be provided to the residences by the Southern California Gas Company.
The project will not result in a significant increase in the rate of use of any natural or non-renewable energy
resource. The existing Southern California Gas Co. facilities in the area are adequate to accommodate the
additional development. No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated.
10. Risk of Upset.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not
limited to oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? _ X _
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
an emergency evacuation plan? _ X
Discussion: The proposed construction of 23 new senior apartments will not involve the use of any
hazardous materials and will not result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans.
The project site is within the recommended five (5) minute response area from Lake Fire Station. The
project will also be required to comply with standard ADA requirements for disabled persons.
The project site is also located within the Methane zone which may potentially expose occupants to
explosion hazards. However, the proposed development will be required to comply with standard Fire
Department methane regulations. No significant impacts resulting from hazardous materials or emergency
access are anticipated.
.11. Po ulation.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of
the human population of an area? X
Discussion: The proposed project involves the construction of a 23 unit senior apartment project on a
0.75 acre vacant site. Based on information received by the City's Housing Division, approximately 40
persons (1.75 persons/unit) are expected to occupy the new apartments. No significant adverse population
impacts resulting from the development are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist Page 7 EA 94-22
12. Housing.
Yes Maybe No
EWillthe proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed project will provide 23 additional apartment units, all of which
will be set aside for very low income seniors. Very low income is defined as families earning up to 50 % of
:the Orange County median income for any given year. Based on 1995 HUD information, the median family
income for a family of one (1) in Huntington Beach is $41,400; for a family of two (2) is $47,300. As a
result, very low income families would earn $20,700 for a family of one (1) and $23,650 for a family of two
(2), of which not more than 30% can be allocated toward rent. The project will increase housing
opportunities for the elderly with fixed incomes, which is consistent with goals contained in the City's
Housing Element. No significant adverse impacts to the existing housing stock are anticipated.
13. Transportation/Circulation.
Yes Abe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new off-site parking? _ X _
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ X _
e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? _ _ X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? _ X _
Discussion: Based on information received by the City's Traffic Division, the proposed project will
generate approximately 6 trips per unit for a total of 138 additional daily trips. The project will have a
negligible impact to circulation levels of service in the area, and will not change the level of service(LOS)
for the links and intersection in the area. Lake Street will remain with a LOS "A," and Yorktown Avenue
and the intersection of Yorktown and Lake will remain with a Level of Service`B." On-street parking is
restricted as both Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue are redcurbed adjacent to the project. A public bus
stop located adjacent to the project on Yorktown Avenue also provides easy access to public transportation
for the residents.
The proposed project will gain vehicle access via an alley south of the project, off Lake Street (see Exhibit
A). No access from Yorktown will be provided. Parking for the project includes 21 garage spaces, two
(2) spaces under a trellis, and four(4) open spaces. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires one
covered space per senior unit; no guest spaces are required.
The project site includes a 20 foot wide transportation corridor along the easterly property line (overlaying
the vacated alley) which will be retained for possible future use. The General Plan Advisory Committee has
recommended the City retain the corridor to the greatest extent possible. The project includes guest
parking spaces and landscaping, and does not include any structures within the corridor.
Environmental Checklist Page 8 EA 94-22
With implementation and compliance of standard conditions of approval and City specifications, including
conformance of the proposed street systems to City standards, review and approval of street improvement
plans, and payment of traffic impact fees, no significant traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated.
14. Public Services.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need.for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ _ X
b. Police protection? _ _ X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? _ _ X
f. Other governmental services? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed project has initially been reviewed by the various City Departments,
including Public Works, Fire, Police, Community Services, and Community Development, and will comply
with all applicable City Codes. No additional services will be required as a result of the proposed project.
With the implementation of standard conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications, no
significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated.
15. Energy.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy,or require the
development of sources of energy? _ _ X
Discussion: Please refer to the discussion under 99 (a-b).
16. Utilities.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communication systems? X
c. Water? X
Environmental Checklist Page 9 EA 94-22
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X _ _
e. Storm water drainage? X _ _
f. Solid waste and disposal? X _ _
'Discussion: The project will require minor extensions of public services and utilities to the site which
will be provided by the different governmental agencies and utility companies. Existing water lines will
require to be removed and upgraded to meet multi-family residential requirements. The amount of water
utilized by the development will be approximately 650 gallons per day. Based on discussions with the
Department of Public Works, Water Division, the City can adequately provide the quantity of water for the
proposed project. In addition, approximately 115 pounds of solid waste will be generated per day, which
will be collected by the Rainbow Disposal Company. No adverse impacts to the City's existing water
supply and other utilities are anticipated.
17. Human Health.
Yes Maw No
Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental health)? _ X _
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X _
Discussion:. The subject property was the site of previous oil related activity. With implementation of
standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of soils reports and proper soil remediation prior to
issuance of building permits, no impacts to human health are anticipated.
18. Aesthetics.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? X
Discussion: The project's density and two (2) story design will be compatible with the surrounding
y residential developments. In addition, the architectural design of the two (2) story buildings will be
compatible with the adjacent single family residences (Huntington Classics) on Lake Street (see Exhibit E).
The finished grade of the site is approximately three (3) feet higher than the property to the east. Grade
differences between the subject property and the southerly property will allow normal drainage to occur.
No adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated.
19. Recreation.
Yes Maybe No
Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? _ X
Discussion: The project will provide a recreation clubhouse and outdoor covered patio area for
residents. No significant adverse impacts to recreational opportunities are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist Page 10 EA 94-22
20. Cultural Resources.
Yes Maybe No
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? _ _ X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
or historic building,structure,or object? _ X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? _ _ X
Discussion: The project site is not in the vicinity of any known archaeological, historical or other
cultural resources. A plaque commemorating the Bowen family(owners of the buildings prior to
construction of the Huntington Classics) is proposed to be installed at the southeast corner of Lake Street
and Yorktown Avenue. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Yes Maybe No
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? _ _ X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of
long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) _ _ X
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.) _ _ X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? _ _ X
Environmental Checklist Page 11 EA 94-22
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Signature Date
For: City of Huntington Beach
Communi1y Development Department
Environmental Checklist Page 12 EA 94-22
- f
Mitigation Measures
1. To address potential impacts from developing adjacent to an active fault, the applicant shall complete
a field study to determine whether a fault(s) is located on the site. The study shall be submitted and
approved by the Building Division prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Should the study
identify a fault of setback which will require redesign, the project would be required to be re-evaluated
by the Environmental Assessment Committee.
2. To minimize interior noise impacts to units fronting Yorktown and Lake, air conditioning units shall be
provided in every apartment unit within the identified 65 CNEL noise contour. In addition, the
applicant shall have the option to use other methods such as double pane windows, to mitigate noise
impacts to the units.
3. The seven (7) foot high masonry block wall shall remain along the Yorktown Avenue property line to
mitigate arterial noise impacts to the project.
4. To review compliance with the City's noise standards, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis
prior to occupancy of the first unit. The analysis shall identify the type of noise attenuation used in the
project, and shall verify that the sound attenuation achieve the noise standards.
Environmental Checklist Page 13 EA 94-22
Responses to Comments
Negative Declaration No. 94-22
I. INTRODUCTION
This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 94-22.
This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Negative
Declaration as of Wednesday, March 8, 1995 and responds to comments in accordance with
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public
Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to the Draft Negative
Declaration, and Appendix.
The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to
provide public review and solicit input on the Negative Declaration. The Comments section
contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals
as of Wednesday, March 8, 1995. The Response to Comments section contains individual
responses to each comment.
It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public
record related to the Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public
record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all
information related to the environmental consequences of the project.
II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW
The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested
groups, organizations, and individuals that a Negative Declaration had been prepared for the
proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for
..the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the
preparation, distribution, and review of the Negative Declaration.
1. An official twenty(20) day public review period for the Negative Declaration was established
by the City of Huntington Beach. It began on Thursday February 16, 1995 and ended on
Wednesday, March 8, 1995. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of
Huntington Beach through Wednesday, March 8, 1995.
2. Notice of the Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on
Thursday, February 16, 1995. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to
agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals.
III. COMMENTS
Copies of all written comments received as of Wednesday, March 8, 1995 are contained in
Appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following
pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response
format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental
issue are contained in this document.
IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Negative Declaration No. 94-22 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups,
organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for
a period of twenty (20) days. The public review period for the Negative Declaration established
by the City commenced on February 16, 1995.
Copies of all documents received as of March 8, 1995 are contained in Appendix A of this report.
Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are
presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue.
Several comments to not address the completeness or adequacy of the Negative Declaration, do
not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive
response to such comments is.not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged"
reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers
for their review and consideration.
� I
HBEB-1
Comment:
The Huntington Beach Environmental Board concurs with the mitigation measures to be taken
concerning the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 94-22.
Response:
Comment states Environmental Board's concurrence that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the
appropriate level of environmental review for the project.
HBEB-2
Comment:
There was no discussion of any toxic substances possibly buried or in the soil on this site.
Previously, this was the site of a warehouse and possible oil field activity. We assume that there
were no chemicals or toxic substances that could have penetrated the soil on this site. If there is
the possibility, then it should be mentioned and soil samples should be taken to insure that no
contamination currently exists.
Response:
Comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for there review and
consideration.
V. ERRATA TO DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following changes to the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist are as noted
below. The changes to the Draft Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within
this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. The
changes are identified by the comment reference.
In compliance with recommended mitigation involving a field study to determine whether faults
were located on the site, the applicant submitted a statement from the geotechnical engineer who
originally conducted the preliminary geotechnical investigation. The statement concluded that
there were no features to support the presence of active faulting within the project site, and that
the original findings and conclusions presented in the referenced investigation, are representative
for the entire site (original Tract 13569). The following revisions to the original checklist were
completed to address the seismic hazard issue:
Discussion: The project consists of construction of a 23 unit senior apartment project. Development of
the proposed project will require less than 42 cubic yards of grading,which will be balanced on-site,to
prepare the site for construction.
The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone(see Exhibit Q which exposes
people and property to potential hazards associated with earthquakes. A geotechnical study completed by
Stoney-Miller Consultants in 1988 during the review of Tract 13569 revealed no evidence of active faulting
on-site. The study included exploratory borings and several fault trenches to evaluate the presence of
active segments of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone within the project site. However, due to the
presence of man-made fill on the northern portion of the subject site,the geotechnical study was not able to
conclude whether active faulting occurred on site.
Further investigation resulted in the determination that there were no features to support the presence of
active faulting within the subject property. Standard conditions of approval for projects in the special
studies-zone include the submittal of seismic studies specifying structural requirements for the project.
These specific studies are required pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Act. With the implementation of
construction specified in the seismic studies,no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
Comments received from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board indicate previous uses on
the property involved oil activity. The Board recommended sampling of the soil to assure proper
clean-up before any construction. The following revisions to the original checklist were
completed to address the Huntington Beach Environmental Board comments:
Discussion: The subject property was the site of previous oil related activity. With implementation of
standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of soils reports and proper soil remediation prior to
issuance of building permits,no impacts to human health are anticipated.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-22
APPENDIX A
STONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
� VV
February 23, 1995
FEB 2 71995
GE4'ARTx?E-,- OF
` /fix r. pr.' DE;L r.;..;:nE!��'r
CO�dvisSw IrL+�►_I..VP'iN'1,—IV 1
Department of Economic Development
c/o City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
California, California 92648
Attention: Stephen Kohler
Dear Kohler,
Enclosed is a copy of the letter that explains the question of potential faulting in the
area of Lots 80 through 81 and Tract No. 13569. Mr. Martin Hendrickson of J. M.
Martin Company has approved the transmittal herein.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
TONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC.
()c6ut'man
Enclosure
cc: Martin Hendrickson
14.HUGHES,SUITE B-101 IRVINE, CA 92718 (714)380-4886• FAX(714)455-9371
i
STONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING&ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
February 22, 1995 I
Pacific Coast Homes Project No: 10161-11
2120 Main Street, Suite 260 Report No: 5-4022
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention: Mr. Jul Vellutato
Sul-ject: ObServatior s of Site Condifflors During Grading
Tract 13569, Lots 1 through 80
Tract 13920, Lots 1 through 6
Huntington Beach, California
Reference: "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Civic Center Residential
Development, Tentative Tract 13569, Huntington Beach, California", by
Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc., dated August 11, 1988, Project No: 10161-
00, Report No: 8-0278.
Gentlemen:
This correspondence presents Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc. field observations during the rough
and precise grading of Tracts 13569 and 13920 in Huntington Beach, California. As discussed in
our referenced preliminary geotechnical investigation, limited exposures and existing fill deposits
prevented adequate evaluation of potential faulting in the area of Lots 80 and 81 in Tract 13569.
Lot 81:of Tract 13569 is currently designated as Lots 1 through 6 of Tract 13920. The exposures
created during the rough and precise grading of this area provided the opportunity to complete
the evaluation of potential faulting at the site.
Based on the periodic observations of our field geologist, no features to support the presence of
active faulting within this or other portions of the site were observed. As such the findings and
conclusions presented in the referenced investigation are representative for the entire site, and
remain applicable.
This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
STO MILL R CO LTANTS, INC.
a7F. oney, C.E.G. 938
Engg Geologist Registration Expires 5-31-96
14_HUGHES, SUITE B-101 IRVINE, CA 92718 (714)380-4886• FAX(714)455-9371
TO: Wayne Carvalho, Assistant Planner MM
-COVE
FROM: Huntington Beach Environmental Board
[1�' Q 7 1995
DATE: March 7 , 1995
�r
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Form No. 94-22 �Urr;r��iv� � ucrL�P�1tdi
The Huntington Beach Environmental Board concurs with the
mitigation measures to be taken concerning the Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 94-22.
There was no discussion of any toxic substances possibly buried
or in the soil on this site. Previously, this was the site of
a warehouse and possible oil field activity. We assume that
there were no chemicals or toxic substances that could have
penetrated the soil on this site. If there is the possibility,
then it should be mentioned and soil samples should be taken to
insure that no contamination currently exists .
There are no other comments from the Environmental Board.
Paul B. Mount II
Environmental Board Member
03-07-95 01 : 37PM P02
mv
wwT
?.;
r
t
�
61�f
sdo4pr
PA;q
W.Atamtt, PV, ,,,
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LAND
CAPE
COMMITTEE
Not, �VFp
November 15, 1996
Mr. David C. Biggs
Director of Economic Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Bowen Court Project
Corner of Lake Street & Yorktown
Re-development District
Dear Mr. Biggs:
The Huntington Classics Architectural and Landscape Committee
represent 81 homeowners. It is the almost unanimous opinion of the
homeowners, that the building of Bowen Court Project is not wanted
in the development and feel that it should be located elsewhere in
this community where it better represents the surrounding economic
community.
The Department of Economic Development did not follow a correct
procedure of notification and should not go further with this
project.
However, this letter does not relate to whether the project should
or should not be built. This letter. comments on the plans as
submitted to this committee, and this is the first. submittal. Your
architect paid no attention to previous limited homeowner input.
These Comments are being submitted to the City of Huntington Beach
by the architectural committee of the Huntington Classics as a
representative of the ;,development. It is expected that these
comments will be reviewed by the city' s Economic 'Development
Department. We anticipate meetings in the near future to discuss
the proposed Bowen Court development and resolve the current
differences between the owners of the Huntington Classics and the
City.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: . Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 2 "of 5
DENSITY
Density of the project is too great. The number of individual
apartment units at 23 is far too many for a single family
neighborhood.
Thirteen (13) units would still be too many, however, this is what
is required and is the maximum amount that should be constructed.
This number meets codes for your requirements .
PARKING
The parking is insufficient for 13 units. There should .be 13
garages and 13 individual spaces at the east rear. of the project.
There should not be any carport parking allowed. All 13 primary
spaces to be in garages.
The parking that is outside must have a handicap spot for auto and
for vans.
LIGHTING
:The entire parking area and garage area to be illuminated using
pole lights that do not wash into neighboring areas.
All walkways inside 13 unit .complex to have high candle foot
lighting to discourage vandalism and robbery.
LAYOUT
We suggest the 13 units be designed to allow for a drive area that
opens to a cul-de-sac on the north end. This accomplishes several
needs: _
1. Fire department 26 foot access drive and turn around area
that is required.
2. Allows for parking of. extra cars off site. on the acceea
drive.
3 . Garages may be in the front of the units to lower risk of
crime.
.All driveways/access drives should be dedicated to the City to
ensure city maintenance of street surface.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David. C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 2 of 5
DENSITY
Density of the project is too great. The number of individual
apartment units at 23 is far too many for a single family
neighborhood.
Thirteen (13) units would still be too many, however, this is what
is required and is the maximum amount that should be constructed.
This number meets codes for your requirements .
PARKING
The parking is insufficient for 13 units. There should be 13
garages and 13 individual spaces at the east rear of the project.
There should not be any carport parking allowed. All 13 primary
spaces to be in garages.
The parking that is outside must have a handicap spot for auto and
for vans.
LIGHTING
:The entire parking area and garage area to be illuminated using
pole lights that do not wash into neighboring areas.
All walkways inside 13 unit complex to have high candle foot
lighting to discourage vandalism and robbery.
LAYOUT
We suggest the 13 units be designed to allow for a drive area that
opens to a cul-de-sac an' the north end. This accomplishes several
needs:
1. Fire department 26 foot access drive and turn around area
that is required.
2 . Allows for parking of. extra cars off site on the access
drive.
3 . Garages may be in the front of the units to lower risk of
crime.
All driveways/access drives should be dedicated to the City to
G'n Ci r.S -4 f <s -o4- .-.--w-- —F w4-rw-4- . —F---
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 3 of 5
GARAGES
Some of the garages currently do not have enough space to exit and
turn around. Modify so this does not occur on new 13 unit plan.
The garages should be single unit for safety & security reasons . .
One unit; one garage. If two cars are pulled into one garage, how
does one control storage safety and security. All doors should be
operable by mechanical door openers.
The garages shown and carport that are on the south side of project '
face directly onto the neighbor' s living room windows, the front
door, and other areas on both the first and second floor. This
will cause the neighbor to suffer through a great deal more noise
and discomfort. This cannot be tolerated. `
UNIT SIZE
2 bedroom units are not acceptable . They allow renters to bring in
boyfriends,. girlfriends, kids, and others that are not suppose to
live at this 13 unit complex.
STAIRWAYS/ELEVATORS
All stairways should be interior stairways that lead through a
common hallway to doors. The 13 units would not require second
floors if planned out correctly.
If stairs are used, for security and visual due to distress, the
stairs should be inside_.
Elevators, if second floors are used, should be installed. Seniors
deserve to use the mechanical system to go to a second floor. This
complex will discriminate against those with difficulty going
upstairs, if no elevator is installed. Thirteen units should
eliminate need for stairs and elevators.
If stairs are outside, they must be maintained and constructed to
provide safety to the users. All handicap codes must comply.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court Project
November 15, 1996
Page 4 of 5
EXTERIOR/LANDSCAPING
Any units that face Lake street and the south drivewayfmust have
walls and appointments using brick, stone granite, dlate, and
stacked horizontal stone to match the neighborhood.
No wood shingles are allowed on any building facing Lake and the
driveway.
All landscaping trees to be 35 gallon box trees being a minimum of
15 feet tall. Type of trees must be submitted to the committee
prior to design.
All landscaping shrubs shall be 15 gallon size, and all low shrubs
must be 5 gallon size. All flowering ground cover must be annuals
and changed each season where they face Lake Street and driveway at
south.
All grass to be Marathon II or better rolled material.
The two trees you show on the neighbor's lot should be put in as
you show on drawings the lot to south of project.
The 5 city trees should be 35 gallon,siFe boxed.
All landscaping must be guaranteed for a perioa of 1 year after
installation and must be replaced and guaranteed by contract.
There are not enough trash areas. The 6'r hiyh walls must be of
concrete block covered with stone, slate, or brick. Two should be.
used for 13 units and should be spaced to be served by City trash
collection trucks.
The interiors of the complex walkway should have superior lighting
to discourage crime. Handicap access is a consideration for all
areas off site. No _blind corners or dead ends.
There should be a complete handicap access from all parts of
project to the bus stop on Yorktown. This is per code. You should
always keep in mind that a handicap person could sue the city for
lack of access!
All roofs should match Huntington Classics' materials or be
identical.
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
Mr. David C. Biggs
Re: Bowen Court project
November 15, 1996
Page 5 of 5
All walls to be not continuous. They must be broken up by
pilasters and have cap materials.
The irrigation system and drainage system must be, more adequate
than normal . The soils are clay and drainage almbst impossible.
A11 _ electrical, telephone, cable, and gas meters must be installed
at the east/north end of project. No exposed utilities may be
visible from Lake. -.or the south driveway. All utilities to be
underground.
Mail boxes should be placgd at rear near the. eagt side of project .
The buildings must fully comply with hangic_p' codes.
All slabs for 13 units to be post tensioned and meet 1994 code tor
earthquake.
ENFORCEMENT RULES
1. only one person'per unit. 13 maximum per complex.
2 . Maintenance of outside of the 13/unitdJ-shall be done by
painting the exteriop every 5 years completely.
3 . Bird screenidg must be�$one around roof areas.
4 . All trees must be trimmed every 2 years . Yard maintained
once per week and grass cut once per week. . Fertilize
twice a year.
S . No boat storage. vo xV vehicles are allowed to be parked
on site.
All buildings and yard walls to meet 1994 UBC or later UBC codes .
All seismic requirements to follow UBC codes for garages and
buildings .
Thank you for your review of the committee' s comments. We expect
to hear from you in the next few weeks to review our concerns.
Since
ely, .
74TTNTTN(7T()V ('T.ACQTrq AVr=TMVt-M-F=71T. -AVM T.w7,mC4e17kac1 /'./1ua/TTT\1T.1
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
i
i
c�
J
a � �
l,� l
r
1
J
I
W �_
._..-.�._ �'"'':.- '� :±�� �'-=' � ..�.. _:x�.` _�' ��.� =-�'--,--... � -�ems._.: -� -:
18 April 97 WRAIGHT
Bowen Court ARCHITECTS
U ban hfmaM 6 ftnWV
RESPONSE TO HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE PROJECT REVIEW -NOVEMBER 15, 1996
DENSITY
Land use intensity should be the focus not density.
The twenty(23) senior apartments provide similar square footage of living area, land coverage,
outdoor open space and number of parking spaces as the previously proposed five Huntington
Classic homes.
The physical land use intensity is basically the same as the Classics but levels of social activity
and noise will be substantially less.
PARKING
The number of parking spaces is not insufficient. The project is parked more than code
minimums; with guest parking
Numerous parking studies have demonstrated that `/2 space per senior apartment is appropriate,
and many cities have this or .75 spaces/unit as a parking ratio.
A disabled van space is required and will be provided.
LIGHTING .
Pole lights typically develop more "light spillage"than building-mounted downlights and
therefore, would be discouraged for use as perimeter lighting.
The project will be supported by an electrical engineer who will design correct lighting levels.
LAYOUT
The fire department does not require access onto the development site because the surrounding
streets and alley provide close proximity for emergency apparatus.
Paving for"extra" cars is not necessary nor is it environmentally responsive.
To locate garages in front of units will diminish surveillability and compromise project
aesthetics.
Alf"Project drives will be maintained by the project management company.
714/851 .6022
IM2 MITCHELL SOUTH
IRVINE. CA 92714
f.• 7,4 1 4 5 1-5 1 5.
GARAGES
All parking will conform to city standards.
Single space garages are more difficult for senior drivers to negotiate, and they increase
construction and maintenance costs.
The south facing garages could be the last ones assigned to residents with a car and with the
probability of low vehicle usage traffic will be infrequent.
The alley width has been increased by four(4) feet and used as an additional landscaping buffer
to the adjacent single family house.
UNIT SIZE
Two (2) bedroom units will be removed.
STAIRWAYS /ELEVATORS
Interior stairs and common hallways are well documented to be insecure and unsurveillable
spaces.
Elevator access is appropriate in senior apartments, but it also increases construction and
maintenance costs and is therefore prohibitive with so few units.
EXTERIOR/LANDSCAPING
The project is designed to respect the materials used on the Huntington Classics,both projects
exclude granite and slate finishes.
Wood shingles are an appropriate facing material and similar to the shingles used on some of the
Huntington Classics homes.
Trees, shrubs and turf shall be of a size and type appropriate to the neighborhood, city standards
and project budget.
Two trash collection bins will adequately serve the senior population and will be located for ease
of pickup.
All applicable accessibility codes will be addressed in the design of the project.
Roofing material will be compatible with the Huntington Classics.
The design of project walls have been reviewed by the City DRB and modified per their
comments.
The irrigation system will be designed by a licensed professional.
All utilities will be designed to acknowledge existing points of connections and will be installed
underground as required by local ordinance.
Mailboxes will be located at the community room to develop a gathering place for the residents.
The building structure will be designed by a professional engineer to all applicable cases.
ENFORCEMENT RULES
Comments by management company, if provided.
,,.
r -- � ,� - �
W
W
_, _
��- �. '`
APR 22 ' 97 9: 33 PAGE .002
r�tt6 v� '9NFAH1
runOs T13ft,t0"1�68L► ���yoy �
zzoe• � se�r�c
(n)£L•cz (L0 9Z•9�
z—x (I x
pownssy
01i I Wood j5 siogwnN
6Z eZ
9 U- SmodS uedp
0 tit uoudv Awvmpa
bZ b� SeReJe�
VMS .MJdJoWeWN
Ts 909`SZ!+ Ts£L0'9Z-/+ (s)POp uo pull wwo
3s muds uedo yoo8)
WIMS MM aoopin0
Ts S6S'SL �♦ Ts LaW K-/+ (wmft BuiAn Pwopu3)
VMV DUIA.n
(SMV SL'uo shun M) (swae SL'uo s*un 9)
slanoa UGA" so! qo uoiauqunN 84,E
A,U Mml 3s -cnvl I `;lZi N3m.08
tog8#dM
966E aagwoldog e
(pmmtl)Lee lydV iZ
s�3tlx��
I.HJI`q'2i�1A
** TOTAL PAGE . 002 **
1a _ ' - ,
N �a f
s
Attachment No. 10
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
Economic Development Department
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development/
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
DATE: May 22, 1997
SUBJECT: Bowen Court Senior Housing Project
The purpose of this memorandum is to address other Economic Development
issues on the Bowen Court project that are not specifically addressed in the staff
report that will be presented on June 2, 1997. Also forthcoming is a
memorandum from Councilmember Garofalo regarding alternatives to
developing the Bowen Court site and related financial ramifications.
Background & History
Attached to this memorandum is a summary of the Redevelopment Agency's
housing obligations. At present, the minimum deficit of units that must be
provided by the Agency is eighty-one (81). With future expansion of the
Waterfront and other redevelopment activities, this number will increase.
At the request of City Council, staff inventoried the sites owned by the
Redevelopment Agency in project areas and analyzed them for possible use as
affordable housing development.
Of the sites listed, only two show any real potential for sizable affordable housing
projects: Center/Gothard and LakeNorktown.
Project Economics. An additional policy consideration for the City Council on
this project relates to the cost of developing affordable housing. Past direction
from the City Council has been to leverage the public funds for affordable
housing to the greatest extent possible in order to produce the most number of
units with available funds.
Staff has developed some estimates of the amount of subsidy that is required for
the proposed project by the Agency on a per unit basis. The estimates, based
on five different unit count scenarios are as follows:
1
Estimated Agency Subsidy
Per Unit
Replacement
Requirement
13 Units $145,972
Base Zoning
17 Units $108,917
Density Bonus Options
19 Units $96,624
21 Units $86,888
23 Units $79,714
Fixed costs, such as land costs, remain the same regardless of the unit count.
Increased density has the effect of spreading the fixed cost of land over a larger
number of units and ultimately helps the Agency reduce its total contribution to
the project. Assuming a 21 unit project, the per unit land cost is $42,000 per
unit. A 13 unit project results in a land cost of$68,000 per unit.
There has been an investment in the project in addition to the cost of the land.
Over $ 18,000 has been expended on tax credit applications and other related
fees. Approximately $ 12,000 in architectural fees has been spent by the
Agency, which does not include many thousands of dollars of donated labor by
Wraight Architects and Orange Housing Development Corporation (OHDC). An
additional $5000 in OHDC's CDBG grant will be used to prepare a Section 202
loan application with HUD for the development of the project.
Agency Subsidies. As a comparison, recent investments by the Agency in
acquiring and rehabilitating existing rental units in the Oakview project area have
averaged $77,000 per unit. The restoration and preservation of these units are
filling a unique need in a unique neighborhood. While an estimated per unit
subsidy for.Bowen Court of approximately $87,000 per unit is 13% higher, the
Agency is investing in brand new units in a superior neighborhood. A mix of
housing opportunities exist in the surrounding area and access to transportation,
coupled to a close proximity to shopping, makes this site ideal for senior housing.
Investing in senior housing recognizes the fact that an aging "Baby Boomer"
population will be in need of this housing type well into the next century. Staff
receives many telephone calls and walk-in visitors in a given week asking about
2
affordable senior housing. Clearly, there is a current demand for this product in
Huntington Beach.
Mobile Home Acquisitions. It has been suggested that the Agency could buy
existing mobile homes and preserve them as affordable units. .While creative,
such a program would present some complex legal and administrative problems
that would,not necessarily result in a cost savings to the.Agency. Assuming that
a.newer mobile home in a well kept senior park could be bought in-place or
acquired and moved to an empty space, and that a rent differential would be
necessary to absorb the gap between the $425 per month (estimated) rents at
the Bowen Court project and an average space rent of$675 per month for thirty
years, the estimated cost to provide one unit could be substantial. This type of
transaction would have to be structured on a sale basis because mobilehomes
have to be owner-occupied in most parks. This would result in a lower cost to
the Agency, but the qualifying senior buyer would have to be moderate income
to afford both a mortgage and a space rent payment, unless the mortgage is has
a very low rate of interest or is deferred.
Either scenario creates an administrative and cost burden on the Agency. From
locating and purchasing units selecting buyers to making monthly gap rent
payments and tracking sales and approving new buyers. Liens can be recorded
against the homes, but regulatory covenants and trust deeds cannot because
the land is owned by a third party. The Agency would have to convince a park
owner to allow covenants to be recorded, and this might require additional
monetary incentives. There are no parks in a redevelopment project area, as
such the Agency would need to acquire units on a 2 for 1 basis. While investing
in mobile home communities is a worthwhile goal, as evidenced by our existing
mobile home rehab loan program, it should not be viewed as an alternative to
the Bowen Court project.
Project Management and Control
As mentioned in the Planning staff report a Disposition and Development
• Agreement (DDA) will be required for this project. Should any problems arise
with the management or maintenance of the project, the DDA will outline the
steps that must be followed by OHDC to regain compliance. The agreement will
be structured to allow the Agency to take the project back and bring in a new
ownership and management team. A typical clause in the DDA might read much
like the language in Attachment No.Two.
A telephone survey of two large senior projects in Huntington Beach reveals that
there are no problems with crime, on-site parking, off-site traffic or occupancy
problems. Emerald Cove, a City-owned 164 unit project (managed by LOMCO)
with rents in the $345-$395 range, has no problems with thefts, burglary, or other
crimes against the senior who reside there. In terms of on-site parking, the
project has 125 spaces (with 8 guest spaces). As of May 22, 1997, there are
many spaces that are unused, or have not been assigned to a given unit
3
because of a lack of need. This, despite being 100% occupied. The manager of
the project also reports that there have been no problems with traffic or accidents
involving residents driving in or out of the entrances.
In terms of occupancy, units are occupied on a month-to-month basis with an
agreement that allows guest for up to.fourteen days without management
approval. Even with approval, guests(including relatives) may not move in to
the complex permanently. This rule is clearly explained both in the rental
agreement and by the manager, who requires the prospective tenant to initial by
the language in the document. There is currently a two year waiting list for a unit
at Emerald Cove. At any one time, there are approximately 50 names on the list.
Five Points Senior Villas, a 166 unit project, also reports no problems with crime,
parking, traffic, or occupancy. Management of this project also reports that of
the 75 available spaces (including guests) there are several that go unused due
to a lack of demand—and this project is 95% occupied.
Units can be leased long term or on a month-to-month basis. Like Emerald
Cove, there are extremely tight restrictions on guest visitation beyond 14 days.
Permanent occupancy by relatives is forbidden.
DCB:GAB:gab
G k�
4
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT CONOAUNICATION
TO: David C. Biggs, Director Economic Development
FROM: Dan Bruening, Housing Rehabilitation Manage
Greg Brown, Development Specialist
SUBJECT: UPDATE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
DATE: March 20, 1997
Attached is a summary of Redevelopment Agency affordable housing requirements and
housing provided to date to meet those requirements. The Agency's current back-log of
affordable housing units is 175, including 15% of the estimated 350 units to be developed
as part of the Waterfront project. This does not include any future obligations for projects
such as the 31 acres of additional production housing requirements as a result of non-
Agency assisted projects.
The Agency Owned Properties table indicates that there could be an estimated 203 units
produced on sites currently owned by the Agency, however at least two of the sites listed
would be better used as commercial or retail developments. These sites are located at 6th
&PCH(Block 105) and Edinger and Parkside with a total capacity of 109 possible
housing units. The subtraction of these 109 units from the total of 203 proposed, leaves a
net of 94 units which could be built on Agency owned sites. As such, the Agency is
currently short by 81 units, the number of affordable housing units needed to meet the
Agency's legal obligations.
There maybe a limited number of privately owned vacant sites in the project areas which
could possibly be acquired that would yield affordable housing units, but these sites are
not sufficient to meet today's required need. The only alternative is to build units outside
the project areas and receive credit for units on a 2 for 1 basis. As such, for each unit
which cannot be developed in a project area, the Agency will incur a penalty of$50,000 to
$80,000 per unit in subsidy costs.
AGENCY HOUSING REQUIREMENT
PRODUCTION HOUSING REQUIREMENT 260
REPLACEMENT HOUSING 363
REQUIREMENT
TOTAL HOUSING REQUIREMENT 623
PRODUCTION HOUSING PROVIDED 185
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PROVIDED 263
TOTAL HOUSING PROVIDED 448
POSSIBLE HOUSING PRODUCTION
MAXMUM PROBABLE CAPACITY
CAPACITY
AGENCY SITES HELD FOR HOUSING 94 94
.. .. . ._. ... . .. .....
OTHER AGENCY OWNED SITES 109 0
. . ..... ...
TOTAL 203 94
.. ... . .._ . ...............
LESS REMAINING HOUSING 175 175
REQUIREMENTS
... _ _. ....._. .. -_ . . ...... _ -. .. .. .........._....
_._ ._. ..........._........... ...._ . . .. ........ __ .... . .... .... ......_. ._......._.. _
.
SHORTFALL/SURPLUS 28 < 81 >
G:bruenind/memo/landsuv l.doc
AGENCY OWNED PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREAS
IF DEVOTED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
S.D.M. LOCATION ZONING PROPERTY NO.OF COMMENTS
SIZE SQ. UNITS
FT.
. .. .. .. _.
2-6-11 Lake/Yorktown RMH-A 32,688 17 CUP 94-39
.. . . _.
11-6-11 6th/PCH SP5,Dist. 62,375 53 BLK. 105
3 Better suited for retail/commercial
. ... ...... .. . _.
11-6-11 Lake/Orange SP5, Dist. 13,416 7 Railroad Ave.
4&5
_... _. .. ... .
14-5-11 Center/Gothard IG 118,918 67 Existing DDA,Zone change
required to CG&CUP
. .. ..... ..
23-5-11 Edinger/Parkside CG 61,175 56 SRO-CUP
Better suited for retail/commercial
........
26-5-11 EInL/Cy p ress RM 10,615 3 Parking Easement
TOTAL UNITS 203
Unit counts are estimates based on gross units per acre and may be reduced through plan
check of an actual project. e.g.: set-backs, parking, lot coverage, open space, etc. No
density bonuses were assumed.
G:bruenind/memo/landsuv l.doc
From ORANGE HOUSING. DEV. CORP. PHONE No. : 714 771 0394 May.21 1997 3:45PM P03
b. The Agency breaches any other material provisions of
this Agreement.
Upon the happening of any of the above-described events, tho
Developer shall first notify tho Agoncy in writing of its
purported breach or failurc, giving the Agoncy sixty (6.0) days
from receipt of much notice to cure or, if cure cannot be
aeeomplichod within sixty (60) days, to commence to cure such
breach, failure, or act. In the event tho Agency does not than
so our* within said sixty (60) days, or if the breach or failure
is of such a nature that it cannot be cured within sixty (60)
days, the Agoncy fails to commence to cure within such sixty (60)
days and thereafter diligently complete such cure within a
reasonable time thereafter but in no event later than one hundred
and twenty (120) days, then the Developer shall be afforded .all
of its rights at law or in equity, by taking all or any of the
following remedies: ( i) terminating in writing this Agreement;
and (ii) prosecuting an action for damages or specific
performance.
Section 6.4 Fault of OHDC or the Developer.
Except as to events constituting a basis for termination
under Section 6. z, each or the following events constitutes a
basis for the Agency to take action against 013DC or the
Developer:
a. 011DC or the Developer does not meet their respective
conditions or requirements of this Agreement;
b. OHDC refuses to accept conveyance from the Agency of
the Property or the Developer refuses to accept
conveyance from 011DC of the Property within the time
per .ods, and under such terms, as herein called for;
C. rho Developer constructs or attempts to construct tho
Development in violation ot Article 3;
d. The Developer fails to commence construction of the
Development or to complete same within the time limits
set forth in this Agreement;
S. Th.? :abandons or suspends construction of the
Development prior to completion of all construction for
a period of sixty (60) days after written notice by the
Agency of such abandonment or suspension;
96200w•11SO -2 3-
From ORANGE HOUSING. DEV. CORP. PHONE No. : 714 771 0394 May.21 1997 3:46PM PO4
r. A Transfor (as defined in Section So above) occurs
either voluntarily or involuntarily, in violation of
Article 5; or
g. OHDC or the Developer breaches any other material
provision of this. Agreement-.
Upon the happening of any of the above-described events, the
Agency shall first notify OHDC or the Developer in writing of its
purported broach, failure or act above described, giving the
Developer sixty (60) days from receipt of such notice to cure,
or, if cure cannot be accomplished within said sixty (60) :lays,
to commence to cure, such breach, failure, or act. Tn tho event
OHDC or the Developer fails to cure within said sixty (60) days,
or if such breach is of a nature that it cannot be cured within
sixty (60) days, OHDC or the Developer tails to commence to-cure
within said sixty (60) days and diligently complete such cure
within a reasonable time thereafter but in no event later than
one hundred and twenty (120) days, then the Agency shall be
afforded all of its rights at law or in equity by taking any or
all of the following remedies: (i) terminating in writing this
Agreement; and (ii) prosecuting an action for damages or specific
performance.
Section 6. 5 Forced Delay.
In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement,
performance by either party under this Agreement shall not be
deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war;
insurrection; strikes; lock-outs; riots; floods; earthquakes; '
fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy;
epidemics; quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes;
governmental restrictions or priority (such as rationing of
materials necessary for construction) ; litigation (including
suits filed by third parties concerning or arising out of this
Agreement) ; weather and derivative conditions which, in the
reasonable judgment of the Developer's contractor, will
nerassitete delays; reasonable inability to secure necessary
labor, materials or tools; delays of any contractor, sub-
contractor or supplier; acts or failure to act of the other
party; acts or failure to act of any public or- governmental
agency or entity (other than the acts or failure to act of the
Agency) ; or any other causes (including the inability to obtain
financing or tax credits for the Development as mutually and
reasonably determined by the Agency and the Developer) beyond the
control or without the fault of the party claiming an extension
of time to perform. An extension of time for any cause will be
deemed granted it notice by the party claiming such extension is
sent to the other within ten (10) days from the date the party
seeking the extension first discovered the cause and such
96200w.PSO -2 4-
From ORANGE HOUSING. DEV. CORP. PHONE No. : 714 771 0394 May.21 1997 3:47PM P05
extension of time is not rejected in writing by the other_ party
within ton (10) days of receipt of the notice. Times of
performance under this Agreement may also be oxtonded in writing
by the Agency and the Developer.
ARTICLE 7: SPECIAL AGENCY REMEDIES
Section 7. 1 Riaht of Reverter.
In the event that, following close of Escrow, this Agreement
is terminated pursuant to Section 6.2 or 6.4 and such termination
occurs prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the
Development, then the Agency shall have the r4.ght to reenter and
take possession of the Property and all improvements thereon and
to revest in the Agency the estate of the Developer in the
Property.
Upon revesting in the Agency of title to the Property, the
Agency shall promptly use its best efforts to resell it
consistent with its obligations under state law. Upon sale the
proceeds shall be applied as follows:
a. First, to reimburse the Agency for any costs it incurs
in managing or selling the Property (after exercising
its right of reverter) , including, but not limited to,
amounts to discharge or prevent liens or encumbrances
arising from any acts or omissions of the Developer;
b. Second, to reimburse. the Agency for damages to which it
is entitled under this Agreement by reason of the
Developer's default;
c. Third, -to OHDC up to the sum of the amount of the
purchase price paid to the Agency by OHDC for the
Property .pursuant to Article 2 and tc the Developer,
the reasonable cost of the improvements the Developer
has placed on the Property and such other reasonable
costs the Dever»per.• has incurred direc ,ly in connection
with development -)f the Property; and
d. Fourth, any balance 'co the Agency.
Section 7 .2 Fjna]. Const uc~ion Plans.
If the Agency obtains title to any or all portions of the
Property pursuant to section 7. 1 above, the Developer shall
deliver to the Agency an original of any_ and all final
Construction Plans and studies in the Developers possession or
96200w.P50
From ORANGE HOUSING. DEV. CORP. PHONE No. 714 771 0394 May.21 1997 3:47PM P06
to which the Developer iz entitled related to construction of tha
Development on the Property.
Section 7.3 Inenection of Books and Records.
Upon request, the Developer shall permit the Agency to
inspect; and copy at reasonable times and on a confidential basis
those books, records and all other document= of the Developer
necessary to determine the Developer's compliance with the terms
of this AgreetuetiL. The Dcvclopor also has the right .at . all
reasonable tinier to inspect arid copy the books, records and all
other documentation of the Agency pertaining to its obligations
under this Agreement. This Section shall not permit either party
to inspect any document that would be subject to the attorney-
client privilege in a judicial proceeding.
Section 7.4 Entry by tbm Agency.
The Developer shall permit the Agency, through its officers,
agents, or employees, at all reasonable times, both during and
after construction of the Development, to enter onto the Property
and inspect the work of construction. The Agency is under no
obligation to supervise, inspect, or inform the Developer of the
progress of construction, and the Developer shall not rely upon
the Agency ror any such activity.
Section 7.5 Rights of Mortgagees.
Any rights of the Agency under this Article 7 shall not
defeat, limit or render invalid any Security Financing Instrument
permitted by this. Agreement or any rights provided for in this
Agreement for the protection of holders of security Financing
Instruments. Any conve, ancc-, or reverter of the Property to the
Agency pursuant to this Art .cle 7 shall be subject to Security
Financing Instruments permitted ay this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6: SECURITY FINVIC' N< AND .RX'z, OF HOLDERS
Section 8. 1 No for Development
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,
mortgages and deeds of trust. . or cosy o-:ier reasonable method of
security, are not permitted to be placed upon the Property, prior
to the issuance of Certificate of completion pursuant to Article�-
3, above, except for the purpose of securing construction Loans
and Permanent Financing, which have been preapproved by the
Agency. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Completion of
the Development on the Property, the Developer shall promptly
96200W.Yso
u mi
rim-
i
DISCLOSURE REGARDING CITY DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC CENTER PARTNERS, a California general partner-
ship ( "Seller" ) , proposes to sell a residence in The Huntington
Classics Project (the "Project" ) to the undersigned ( "Buyer" ) .
In connection with such sale Seller hereby discloses to Buyer
the following:
1 . Lots 1 to 5 of Tract 13920 ( "City Property" ) are
located at the southeast corner of Lake and Yorktown in
Huntington Beach, California. The Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach ( "City" ) has contracted to purchase the
City Property from Seller. Seller can give Bxiyer no assurance
that the City' s proposed purchase of the City Property will
actually be completed. However, if such purchase is completed,
( i) the City Property will not be developed as pars: of the
Project, and (ii ) Seller will have no responsibility for, and no
control over, the development of the City Property.
2 . The City has advised Seller that the City intends
to develop the City Property as an "age restricted, " affordable
housing project (i.e. , occupancy restricted to persons 55 years
of age and older meeting certain income criteria) . Seller can
give Buyer no assurance (i) that the City Property will in fact
be developed by the City at all, or, (ii) if the City does
develop the City Property, that the City Property will be
developed as an "age restricted, " affordable housing project as
currently planned.
3. The City has agreed that the architecture for the
initial development of the City Property will be compatible with .
the architecture for the Project . The City has also agreed that
the architectural committee. for the Project shall have an op-
portunity to review and comment on all plans for development of
the City Property. Seller can give Buyer no assurance that the
City will abide by these restrictions . In any event, the
restrictions described in this paragraph 3 shall terminate upon
expiration of fifteen years after the City acquires the City
Property.
Buyer acknowledges that ( i) Buyer has entered into a
contract to purchase a residence in the Project with full
knowledge and understanding of the matters set forth in this
Disclosure, and (ii ) Seller would be unwilling to sell a
residence in the Project to Buyer unless Buyer executed this
Disclosure confirming such knowledge and understanding.
Date:
( "Buyer" )
I
s]rK124/20892/000/0191/clty•aevlp
01-14.9a
�, � � -�
��-
�� �
� � � � --
t � �--- ��
� -�.,
� �
Jac % City of Huntington Beach
* 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Director 714/536-5582 Redevelopment 714/536-5582
FAX 714/375-5087 Housing 714/536-5542
November 1, 1996
Mr. Dennis O'Conner
Chevron Land
3100 S. Harbor Boulevard, Ste. 340
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Dear Dennis:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Yorktown/Lake property which the
Redevelopment Agency acquired from Civic Center Partners. As we discussed, the
Redevelopment Agency is trying to move forward with the entitlements for a senior
housing project on this site. This project has met with considerable neighborhood
opposition, and part of the neighbors criticism includes the deed restriction which requires
the Agency to return the property to Civic Center Partners in the event it is used for
anything other than a senior housing project.
While it is still our intent to develop the site for senior housing, I am interested in
removing or modifying this grant deed provision in order to not have it be the"red
herring" during the entitlement process. As such, I would like to ask that you consider the
terms under which you would consent to such a revision.
While having a deed restriction of this nature on the Yorktown/Lake property,is not
unusual based on my experience, I do believe that the specific terms are not as common. I
would suggest that we consider taking one of two approaches in modifying the deed
restriction:
1) Provide that Civic Center Partners has the option to repurchase the property at fair
market value(which I would imagine is less to day that what the Agency paid).
Fair market value would be determined by a defined appraisal process
2) Allow the Agency to sell the property to a third party. However, in the event that .
the third party paid more for the property than the Agency paid Civic Center
Partners, the excess proceeds would be due Civic Center Partners.
While I believe that we could develop a mutually acceptable change to the deed restriction
which staff would recommend, any modification to the deed restriction would need to be
approved by the Redevelopment Agency Board. My hope is that you will give my
proposal favorable consideration given the changes in circumstances associated with this
property and the passage of time.
Please feel free to contact me if I can answer any questions or provide any additional
information.
Sincerely yours,
c /VPDavid C, Bi s
f�
Director of Economic Development
cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Stephen Kohler, Project Manager
Greg Brown, Development Specialist
� x
Working Paper 599
";Zil —
lnstitutc of U r h 2 n i n d kcgiun21 Dc%-cIopment
Relationships between
Affordable Housing
Developments and
Neighboring Property
Values
Paul M. Cur mings with
John D. Landis
September 1993
University of California at Berkeley
$5.50
Working Paper 599
Relationships between Affordable
Housing Developments and
Neighboring Property Values
An Analysis of BRIDGE Housing Corporation
Developments in the San Francisco Bay Area
Paul M. Cummings
with
John D. Landis
University of California at Berkeley
Institute of Urban and Regional Development
I. INTRODUCTION
Affordable housing,a term that once defined housing for the poor,is now a precious commod-
iry. The acute affordable housing shortage this country is experiencing is especially evident in the
San Francisco Bay Area. 1 In the last two decades,the Bay Area realized dramatic land appreciation
which,combined with a dwindling supply of available land, constraints on existing infrastructure,
and a continued demand to live in the Bay Area,have significantly increased the cost of housing. In
addition, new affordable housing development in the Bay Area faces tremendous Not In My Back
Yard (NIMBY) sentiment in many communities,a sentiment that has been described as a desire to
preserve the existing neighborhood because of a fear of change in the physical environment or
composition of the community.
One of the most persuasive arguments used by residents opposing new affordable housing
developments has been that the proposed development will cause neighboring property values to
decline. Without any real data to support this claim, this argument is based primarily on negative
preconceptions of"affordable housing" as it has been historically defined. Many people are still
familiar with the massive public housing projects constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
And, unfortunately, it is powerful images such as the violent destruction of a vacant and run-down
Pruitt-Igoe apartment building in St. Louis that people recall today when talk of affordable housing
development enters a community.
In response to community concerns,developers of the affordable housing industry have tried
to change their ways. Throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, providers of affordable hous-
ing have made significant improvements in the design quality of affordable housing developments.
Amenities such as decks, wood siding, and well-kept open space areas, for example, are predomi-
nant new themes in recent affordable housing developments. The BRIDGE Housing Corporation
(henceforth to be referred to as BRIDGE)is a good example of an affordable housing developer who
is committed to working with the community to build lower-cost housing that is also an attractive
physical and social asset in the community. Yet even with these positive changes, many
communities are still unwilling to accept new affordable housing projects in their neighborhoods.
This study considers the validity of the most common NIMBY argument, the claim that
proximity to affordable housing is highly correlated with low propertyvalues, by considering the
property values of thousands of single-family homes as a function of their proximity to six BRDIGE
affordable housing.developments.2 In doing so, the same methodology is used that academics
and housing advocates have been using for years—building statistical models to identify factors
that predict variation in housing prices. These models are often referred to as bedonic price
models. Traditionally, most of these models have focused on variables internal to the housing
unit such as age, size, and price. It is only recently that models have been created that consider
such external variables as neighborhood quality.3
1
II. METHODOLOGY
This study examines whether there is a systematic relationship between single-family home
values (as measured from transaction prices) and proximity to affordable housing. As previously
stated, the presumed existence of such a relationship is the core of the NIMBY argument against
affordable housing projects. To determine whether such a relationship exists,a regression analysis is
used to compare transaction prices across hundreds of single-family homes at various distances from
six BRIDGE affordable housing developments in different pans of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Regression analysis has two advantages over traditional "comparables analysis." First, it
can be used to compare a much larger set of properties, in this case nearly 3,000 single-family
homes. Second, it can be used to isolate the price effects of proximity to affordable housing, hold-
ing constant the characteristics of the home itself(e.g., square footage, or the number of bath-
rooms). The tested regression model takes the following general form:
CPPJCE90 =j(SQFT, LOTSIZE, BATHS, BDRMS,AGE, HMUe, QMile, EMile)
The dependent variable in this model is CPRICE90, the sales price of selected single-family
housing units in the vicinity of BRIDGE projects that sold between 1985 and 1992. All transaction
prices were converted into 1990 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The model includes five separate independent variables that describe each single-family
home. SQFT is the square footage of the home. All else being equal, I would expect the relation-
ship between SQFT and CPRICE90 to be a positive one: the larger the home, the higher the sales
price. BATHS and BDRMS are the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each home. As with
square footage,I would expect the relationship between sales price and the number of bedrooms
and baths to be positive. LOTSIZE is the size of the lot in square feet; this too should be positively
related to price. AGE is the final independent variable describing each home. The relationship
between unit age and price is not so straightforward. In some communities, for example San
Francisco, older homes might be favored for their unique design, and hence be more valuable. In
other communities, age might be a measure of obsolescence, leading to lower home values for
older homes.
The three most important independent variables for the purposes of this-study are HMile,
QMile, and EMile. HMile is a "dummy variable"indicating whether a single-family home is located
within a half-mile of a BRIDGE project. If it is,HMile takes the value of 1. If it is not,HMile takes
the value of 0. QMile and EMile are dummy variables indicating whether a home is.located within
a quarter-mile or eighth-mile, respectively, of a BRIDGE project. If those who oppose affordable
housing projects are correct in asserting that such projects lower property values, than the relation-
ships between HMile, QMile, and Wile and home sales prices should all be negative. That is, the
closer a home is located to a BRIDGE project,the lower its value will be. If those who oppose afford-
- 2
able housing projects are incorrect,then there should be no relationship between home values and
proximity to a BRIDGE project, as measured using the HMile,QMile, and EMile dummy variables.
The database upon which the model was tested was obtained from TRW,a company that pur-
chases records of home sales from county assessors' offices throughout the state. Sales records
were selected according to whether they were Located within a mile of a BRIDGE project, and for
those years subsequent to the opening of each project.
In addition to including information on the characteristics of each home (e.g., number of
bedrooms and bathrooms,square footage and lotsize,age),each sales record includes the address of
the home. Using MapInfo, a geographic information system (GIS), each sales record was "address-
matched" to a city street map. Address-matching is a process by which the street number and
name are used to precisely locate a home to a map.
The locations of the six BRIDGE projects were also address-matched. MapInfo was then
used to generate circles with radii of an eighth-mile, a quarter-mile, and a half-mile around each
BRIDGE project (these circles are commonly known as "buffers'). If a particular home fell within
the half-mile buffer of a BRIDGE project, the HMile, QMile, and F.Mile dummy variables were all
assigned a value of 1. If a home fell within the quarter-mile buffer of a BRIDGE project, the F.Mile
and EMile dummy variables were set to 1, while the HMile dummy variable was set to 0. If a home
fell within the eighth-mile buffer of a BRIDGE project, the FMile dummy variable was set to 1 while
the QMile and HMile dummy variables were set to 0. All three dummy variables were set to 0 for
those homes falling outside the half-mile buffer.
III. SIX BRMGE PROJECTS
Six BRIDGE Housing affordable developments were analyzed in this study— two in San
Francisco County,three in San Mateo County, and one in Alameda County (Figure 1). The projects
range in size from 42 to 167 units, and include designs that are aboth urban and suburban in
character. Four of the projects are rentals; the other two are condominiums. BRIDGE and its
architects try to design projects that match their neighborhoods in terms of size, scale, design, and
amenities. BRIDGE's goal, in the words of president Don Terner, "is to build affordable housing
that the neighbors would feel lucky to be able to buy or rent." The following profiles offer a brief.
survey of the six BRIDGE projects analyzed in this study.
3
Figure 1
Location of the Six BRIDGE Projects
Ala rill
Contra Costa
Coleridge Park Ho es
Holloway Terrac *
Alagno/ia Ply za
Heritage Park
Pacific Oaks
* Alameda
GaIeway Co ns
Miles
11 111a to U -a
0 5 10
I
•
v, 6
q
4 4�+
f r
Coleridge Park Homes
Coleridge Park Homes (Figure 2), a 49-unit project for the elderly,was built entirely above
an existing retail store in San Francisco. The project was made possible through a donation of air
rignts by the Standard Brands Paint Company. Coleridge Park Homes was developed as a partner-
ship between BRIDGE and the Bernal Heights Community Foundation, a local community-based
non-profit organization. Designed by George Miers and Associates,Coleridge Park Homes was con-
structed in 1989 and includes a neighborhood park, a large landscaped interior courtyard, and a
community room/recreation center.4 The regression analysis considered 394 single-family home
sales in the neighborhood that occurred between 1989 and 1992: 100 homes were located within
a half-mile of Coleridge Park Homes, 40 homes were located within a quarter-mile, and 11 homes
were located within an eighth-mile.
Holloway Terrace
Holloway Terrace (Figure 3), a 42-unit condominium project for families and the elderly in
San Francisco, was constructed in 1985. This project,which also includes a community center,
was built on the site of the former Farragut School in San Francisco's Ingleside neighborhood. It
is one of two ownership (condominium) projects considered in this analysis. The two-and three-
bedroom townhomes included in the project were initially sold for under$100,000—well below
neighboring sales prices. This project was designed by David Baker + Associates and features
two-bathroom units, patios, fireplaces, and attached garages. Combined with low-interest bond
financing and first-time home buyer assistance from the city of San Francisco, all of the townhomes
were affordable to families with annual incomes of$23,000 or less. The regression analysis con-
sidered 612 single-family home sales between 1985 and 1992: 150 were located within a-half-mile
of the project, 61 were located within a quarter-mile, and nine were located within an eighth-mile
of Holloway Terrace.
Pacific Oaks
Pacific Oaks (Figure 4),a 104-unit apartment project for the elderly,was built in 1988 in
Pacifica,a small seaside city in San Mateo County. The project, designed by Treffinger,Walz&
MacLeod, is located on a four-acre lot, and is convenient to neighboring retail services. Pacific
Oaks is located in a high-income community, and required voter approval for construction. The
project was financed through tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds and the sale of federal tax
credits. The regression analysis considered 295 single-family home sales that occurred between
1988 and 1992: 45 homes were located within a half-mile of Pacific Oaks, 18 homes were located
within a quarter-mile, but only two homes were located within an eighth-mile.
5
Figure 3
Holloway Terrace
emu, •';.<:�#?.+�3;- � : �. ,r;�a,.<�,,y�� ya�` y ���`;:;"�
..;::;•:;;:x�,or:#:5..#x:..¢.:tA;.t;t.:�� �� ''.ty`<+'��l'-r''(;,'�':S;.x:. .,Y.{,
:..
..:yi#;ir::Y,:.c'i'%�#:r.{n.?-i>1�S;�,j�:�y�;,y;.. a�.,���'.�y ;:!.�'';C6'4`.�. '�t'��.,)' '�:x•q<iSt,.":,:;.,:t:..
:::.y.;,..: r y:4,.::"u^..; ;`.x -�kt} .- •'.�. ,,:.�V.�.. :%,....>..,.......K•t.a,�F.'�.�:x£ r ^'�£-p �t
.Ny.Jty...y}�' .�
<
:;:,�:�:5?<;:::# :;<;:::#Q `::;:`;::"ate#! ..- :.. :.:�� r.:•;E:,h ;ya:.
aK f.;l�P<��hx',•4:.}:i':,'+v"�; T >p t Sa '�K.':;
:^3.o^w..:�„¢..t.;e: :i.tt-*:::'y�`'`t•'''.�`i;: YAK 'e
<4
TFIN
Oka
t
Ply
}®i in
24
ism V
Ar
• `~ �,1 '��A.;:... L?.'.::..#... _ . ,,wed. o �
.�'r• :� .� � t '�i i�. sue. �. e.'c..ivro...k�- . , ` ..... .
�xg
i$g' e o,�''4
. 4 BE.FA T �•� e F ss�- � 2 ,#+ ,S S > 1
fTR
, � •� Sa. �.,1, gy. ��s�f��.�'o•.SQ� f.rbg}r {2b r n�.r'�
��G.���� /,f�t espy �w, ,4.cr.�T.�f.�.1,.+•�3'`{�i r ,
.• � � � KKK •g .::.
' t.�•' a �,�,� �s� t} p�??
e. ss.a
.lfagnolia Plaza
Magnolia Plaza(Figure 5), a 125-unit housing development for the elderly, was constructed
in 1988 in South San Francisco. The project was built on a three-acre site, and is the second-largest
of the Projects analyzed in this study. The construction of this development was combined with the
renovation of an adjacent building as a Senior Center for Magnolia Plaza residents and seniors in
the community. The project, designed by Treffinger,Walz&MacLeod, includes a historic recon-
struction of the city's original one-room school house as a project office and community room.
The regression analysis considered 137 neighborhood home sales between 1988 and 1992: 31
homes sales were located within a half-mile of Magnolia Plaza, seven sales were located within a
quarter-mile, and four sales were located within an eighth-mile.
Gateway Commons
Gateway Commons (Figure 6), a 96-unit family ownership (condominium) project in the
City of San Mateo,was built in 1989. Gateway Commons was designed by Columbus Architects,
and, like Holloway Terrace,was built on a surplus school site. The project includes a creekside
public park,four stories of elevator-served wood frame construction,exterior walkways and bridges,
and a concrete parking garage located a half level below grade. It also features a swimming pool,
spa, and club house. The project was financed through the issue of Mortgage Credit Certificates
and administering a mortgage assistance program. The regression analysis considered 480 neigh-
borhood home sales between 1988 (one year prior to the date of finished construction) and 1992,
only one of which was located within a quarter-mile of Gateway Commons.
Heritage Park
Heritage Park (Figure 7) is a 167-unit apartment project for the elderly in Livermore. Built
in 1988, it is the largest of all the developments.analyzed in this study. The project was made pos-
sible by an eight-acre land donation from the City of Livermore, speedy approvals, and significant
"up-zoning. Designed by Hardison, Komatsu, Ivelich &Tucker and Kermit Dorius Architects,
Heritage Park features a swimming pool and a large community room. The regression analysis
considered single-home home sales in the neighborhood that occurred between 1984 and 1992.
This sample, unlike those for the five BRDIGE projects profiled above, included homes sold prior
to construction of the affordable housing project. The sample includes 900 homes, 121 of which
were located within a half-mile of Heritage Park.
9
Figure 5
Magnolia Plaza
< At: AR
1
2
�:{'��.::.� !^-.::y:t'!': YY, •.�:�.��3,i'.'�'`.'4�...:�fi. :.:w`.o�af5.� a^` Y?4:Y.a;
�:4..
.......:.::.:::......:.............:a :.::}v.,!
:'..:zr...,:•}:.::!...kt:x t;.:;2:s:?.::4.>.A'.4`t4:4x:.LL::•�.:.},.:.:..�..v3,:'�. :.:�'..!�>..r;F`-.':F.,�x•.>` -Ych�`>yi,E;�'�:y� ..:�.a:.
Iwo
�.
„csd...r i:,�:::t•...4
................:.:....t•:e:::::.y.:.......•,. t:n.,."c.v::n...... ,v....�.:.?t..:::,�}.tn.........S.:n .n.n vn S'v.4...:}.! 4.4L..,:n. ,rfy.-i'tPr.."4
............:...........} :.................. ..-.Y :......_.......... ...,....r.,da.. a:w .}-rnYy;.:L..i:�::K<.w:`^:'r: j".j.. nc�s•}'
.......::...��:....._aa.._....,,.........:g,t::;2..................a .... :c-:aw}..a.,..:. -:.a....,, ..t. ..�: :?,4et .L. .K. i'.`xF..:•aij:d.�'S:o't�?V!- .r..<!:yn.;vri;;�n3i`^'i:j
::::.::..::..... ....:.::::.::,.:::.,�:.:..::r......a�.:a�:.:�:::<::.�.:...Nl..:.-.,.x:.,%:.�;:.:..•.a:yt...:..n.-v...r:f,::.x,. �:.vt.r&.r. i'.z.
............:...:.:....,................�....,x...i:.,:.......-.... ....i.....:a.>:...Y.....:..:..: ,..... .a..4:.........�...........,.:fi.:.L..4:.._:"r::�'. ME
S:::
-........n.:....:. ....:.................:. .V........... .....i.vv..v,. ..... .. ...........t:.v,..v.,..:'L:..,.:21:.Yi}":3}::t:.:v:...'
7
1
- +: _ -
THAN
E
y
ctj m
v
. ROW"
g" .
4
Figure 6
Gateway Commons
64
MOM
w' ...KCi ..na�iii....h:�7�:ow{I-l�MffK1Y. E•�'�s
t Z ;
:
�.-y K"S:
Figure 7
Heritage Park
t �• ,:. ..s% 6�.MON..
�;s,�'{�`res
$ta."'`. .'•��'. 'dwz�^}- .:t}' {'';t "«'t;,:;�"3:. rxxi,�?o,4` ,�c`y4k:,.:s: "`y'<�A:''%jsSi£n.',� `'n`` n�
.'�" :�.�� ?.. X �gs..`\1��.:f�� .%!'M*..�sc�;rM's�:•... ..ac3zct�,a,Ae:k `Y
:.`�• tf>�: .,My...:')'°.•..SEE
- :.•�rn:�'3.�e.P.at{:c7".�'.xy.F�:a.3h:<.::.::: ,:;:`°'�:e.✓.I�:...,..�<"r�:�`.'.a�?>;':`.^ .:`d:.
W
- y. :. ......::.......'.- :. - ...
Y. ...
:e'.II.
_
s
Y�
IV. MODEL RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes the total number of single-family sales associated with each BRIDGE
project. In addition, two separate regression models were tested for each BRIDGE Project. The
first model, summarized in Table 2, tests all eight independent variables: SQ17',BDRMS,BATHS,
LOTSIZE,AGE,HMile, QMile, and EMile. The second model, summarized in Table 3, includes only
those independent variables previously found to be statistically significant.
Model Set 1: All Independent Variables Included
Table 2 summarizes the results of Model Set 1, in which coefficient estimates are reported
for all eight independent variables, regardless of their statistical significance. The coefficient esti-
mates indicate the contribution of the independent variable to the home sales price. For example,
a coefficient estimate of 100 for the SQFT variable would indicate that each additional square foot
of living area (above the mean) would add $100 to the sale price of a home. T-statistics are also
reported for each independent variable. The t-statistics indicate the level of statistical significance
of the coefficient estimate, or the degree to which the coefficient estimate is significantly different
from zero. A t-statistic larger than 1.96 or smaller than-1.96 indicates that the analyst can be 95
percent sure that the coefficient estimate is truly different from zero. Variables with t-statistics
between 1.96 and -1.96 are said to be insignificant; that is, they do not contribute statistically to
explaining variations in home prices.
The ability of the eight independent variables to explain local variations in home sales prices
varies by project. The "best-fitting" model overall is for Heritage Park, in which only two indepen-
dent variables,AGE and SQFT,explain 78 percent(R 2 = .776)of the variation in the prices of nearby
single-family homes. The other best-fitting model is for Magnolia Plaza, in which four independent
variables—.SQFT,LOTSIZE BATHS,ROOMS,AGE, and HMile—explain 62 percent of the variation
in nearby home sales prices. Model fits for the remaining four projects vary from a high of 47 per-
cent (Pacific Oaks) to a low of 33 percent (Gateway Commons). The only independent variable
that is statistically significant across all six BRIDGE projects is SQFT,or home square footage. BATHS
—the number of baths in each home—and LOTSIZE—the size of the home— are statistically
significant in four models.
Generally speaking, the three affordable housing proximiry.variables,HMile, QMile, and
EMile,are not significant determinants of single-family home prices. EMilewas found to be significant
for the Pacific Oaks project,but is of the wrong sign (that is, the closer a home is to the Pacific Oaks
project, the higher its value). HMile is significant for the Magnolia Plaza and Gateway Commons
projects; however, the two nearer-proximity variables,QMile and EMile, are not significant. As
noted above, if a BRIDGE project were actually to have a negative effect on home prices, the effect
13
Table 1
Number of Single-Family Sales
by Distance from a BRIDGE Project
I
Coleridge Holloway Pacific Magnolia Gateway Heritage
Park Homes Terrace Oaks Plaza Commons Park
1/8 mile 11 Sates 9 Sales 2 Sales 4 Sales 1 Sale 0 Sales
1/4 mile 40 Sales 61 Sales 18 Sales 7 Sales 5 Sales 14 Sales
1/2 mile 100 Sales 150 Sales 45 Sales 31 Sales 17 Sales 121 Sales
Total
Sales 394 Sales 612 Sales 295 Sales 137 Sales 480 Sales 900 Sales
Table 2
Summary of Regression Results with Dependent Variable CPRICE90
Estimated Coefficient (statistic in parenthesis)
Independent Coleridge Holloway Pacific Magnolia Gateway Heritage
Variable Park Homes Terrace Oaks Plaza Commons Park
EMile -5954.30 8713.29 78717.79 -11556.49 -101891.32 0 Sales
(-0.238) (0.413) (2.526) (-0.410) (-1.441)
QMile 18680.42 -10256.32 5884.75 4312.34 21377.10 -11983.91
(1.187) (-1.079) (0.442) (0.192) (0.583) (-1.404)
HMile -1763.35 4876.01 -10667.89 23401.78 . 47393.88 -5847.21
(-0.170) (0.878) (-1.246) (2.774) (-2.554) (-1.730)
AGE -196.68 -266.06 -151.80 -544A4 558,34 -889.90
(-1.214) (-1.930) (-1.209) (-2.808) ' (2-640) (-11.613)
BED- 2188.09 -8820:96: 834525 -4260.58 22960.73 1287.07
ROOMS (0.324) (-2.268):.;. (1.889) (-0.773) (-4.115) (-0.672)
BATHS 14693.15 11959AO 20497.7377' 18920.11 12821.96 -4549.27
(2,044). (2.220) (3.646)'' (2.037)'" (1.718) (-1.793)
LOTSIZE 27.48 13.23 0.89 J5211: 0.44 2.98'E-05
(6.051)'. (5.608)` (-5219)-: (q.227) (1.696) (0.506)
SQFI' 100.45 92:92 : 54.68 ::' 62.80` 124:31 :97.33
(7.623) (9.982) (6.306)- (4.751) (11.699) (31.992)
Adjusted Rs= .464 R2= .427 R'_.471 RZ=.616 R2=.331 R2_.778
R2 Value
❑ Highlighted box denotes significant variable.
Table 3
Summary of Second Run Regression Results - Significant Variables Only
Estimated Coefficient (statistic in parenthesis)
Independent. Coleridge Holloway Pacific Magnolia Gateway Heritage
Variable Park Homes Terrace Oaks Plaza Commons Park
EMile 75149.71
(2.537)
QMile
HMile 22534.88 -49519.09
(2.971) (-3.148)
AGE 506.40 455.85 -832.72
(-2.744) (2.202) (-11.435)
BED- _ -8698.09 1 t 20507.46
ROOMS (-2.249) (-3.805)
BATHS 17911.45 16394.34 24434.63 19296.98
(2.649) (3.282) (4.583) (2.101)
LOTSU E 26.55 11.48 -0.92 5.15
(6.323) (5.280) (-5.421) (4.228)
SQFT 103.09 94.43 60.86 58.90 132.72 94.25
(9.174) '(10.293) (7.502) (4.858) (13.580) (46.177)
Adjusted
R2 Value
RZ= .467 RZ= .426 R2_.466 RZ= .623 R2= .325 RZ= .775
❑ These variables were not shown to be signficant in the first regression run and thus
were not considered in this second analysis.
should be stronger for homes nearer the project. Clearly this is not the case for either Magnolia
Plaza or Gateway Commons.
,Wodel Set 2: Insignificant Variables Excluded
The second set of regression models (shown in Table 3) includes only those independent
variables found to be statistically significant in the first set of regression runs.
Coleridge Park Homes shows a final R2 value of.47; however,none of the variation in home
sales price(CPRICE90) is related to proximity to a BRIDGE project. Holloway Terrace shows a final
R 2 value of.43; as with Coleridge Park Homes, proximity to a BRIDGE affordable housing develop-
ment is not related to home sales price fluctuations. For Pacific Oaks(112 = .47), the distance varia-
ble EMile does explain some of the variation in CPRICE90. However, the estimated coefficient is
positive ($75,149.71), not negative as perceived by many homeowners. Analysis of Magnolia Plaza
(R 2 = .62) and Gateway Commons(112 =.33)also shows that the variation in CPRICE90 can be
partially explained by one of the location variables (HMile). In the case of Magnolia Plaza, the
estimated coefficient was positive ($22,534.88), suggesting that proximity to a BRIDGE project
may actually raise property value. In the case of Gateway Commons,however,the estimated coeffi-
cient was a negative value(-$49,519.71). It is difficult to state that this one instance of a negative
relationship between distance and price supports the perception that proximity to an affordable
housing development leads to declining property values, as the two more proximate distance varia-
bles,QMile and EMile, were not significant. The final development, Heritage Park, showed an RZ
value of.77541 with no variation in CPRICE90 explained by the three distance variables.
CONCLUSIONS and POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The results of the foregoing regressions indicate that single-family home values in the
neighborhood of BRIDGE Housing are not adversely affected by their proximity to those projects.
Indeed, in some cases, home values are actually higher the nearer a home is to a BRIDGE project.
This study demonstrates that well-designed, affordable housing projects need not
adversely affect neighboring property values. Does this mean that property values are never.
impacted by neighboring projects? Not at all. Rather, this study suggests that the income charac-
teristics of the residents of such projects are far less important than the characteristics of the
projects themselves. Poorly designed, poorly maintained, and poorly managed projects can affect
neighborhood property values— regardless of whether they are affordable or market-rate.
Conversely, well-designed,well-managed, and well-maintained projects should not affect
neighborhood property values, regardless of whether they are affordable or market-rate. The
results of this study are necessarily limited to the six BRIDGE projects. Nevertheless, this study
will hopefully encourage local governments and housing advocates to undertake similar analyses
17
}
with the ultimate goal of providing a comprehensive picture of the relationships between
affordable housing and projerry values.
For many people,buying a home is the largest investment they will make, and the last thing
they want is a neighboring project to devalue their investment. This analysis has provided strong
evidence that residential neighborhoods need not suffer from the development of well-designed and
well-maintained affordable housing projects. A more difficult task will be in convincing communi-
ties of this conclusion. Solving the affordable housing project will require time and money. It will
also require ongoing out-reach efforts to convince neighborhoods that residents of affordable
housing can be good neighbors.
I
18
NOTES
[Affordable housing is defined by the U.S.Government(HUD) as housing(rental or ownership)which requires 30 per-
cent or less of annual household income. The San Francisco Bay Area is typically rated by the'rational Association of
Realtors and other national housing associations as the least affordable housing market in the country based on the
increasing gap between income levels and housing costs.
=l assume that the design quality of the six BRIDGE affordable housing developments analyzed in this study is equiva-
lent. All six developments arc affordable to low-income persons—those persons with household incomes equal to 60-
80 percent of median family income.
3Li and Brown,"Micro-Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices." In this article, U and Brown considered
the influence of micro-neighborhood factors such as visual quality; noise pollution;or proximity to industries, thruways,
and commercial establishments.on housing prices to show that a bias is created by these externalities that can be
shown in lower house prices.
"For more information relating to all BRIDGE Housing Corporation affordable development characteristics, please see
the 1990-1991 BRIDGE Annual Report.
19
t
REFERENCES
Behrens,J. O. 1992. "Nationwide Real Estate Sales Database Has Numerous Uses." GIS World
(March).
Can,A. 1992. "Residential Quality Assessment: Alternative Approaches Using GIS." Regional
Science 26: 97-110.
Cervero, R. 1986. Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy
Research.
Churbuck, D. 1992. "Geographics." Forbes (January 6).
Clark, C. R., and D. F. Parker. 1989. Marketing New Homes. National Association of Home
Builders.
Dueker, K.J., and P. B. Delacy. 1990. "GIS in the Land Development Planning Process." Journal
ofAmerican Planning Association (Autumn).
Evans,Alan W. 1983. "The Determination of the Price of Land." Urban Studies.
Goldberg, Michael, and Peter Chinloy. 1984. Urban Land Economics.
Grether, D. M., and Peter Mieszkowski. 1974. "Determinants of Real Estate Values." Journal of
Urban Economics.
Grissom, T.V., and J. Diaz. III. 1991. Real Estate Valuation—Guide to Investment Strategies.
John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Gruen, Nina Jaffe, and Claude Gruen. 1972. Low and Moderate Income Housing in the Suburbs.
New York: Praeger Publishers.
Hu, and Young. 1992.
Hymer, D. 1989. Buying&Selling A Home In California —A Complete Residential Real Estate
Guide. San Francisco, Calif.: Chronicle Books.
Lang L. 1991. "Hot Property: Geographic Information Systems Technology Gains Ground in Real
Estate Applications." Computer Grapbics World (December).
Li, Mingche, and H.James Brown. 1980. "Micro-Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic
Housing Prices." Land Economics.
Meese, R. 1991. Determinants of Residential Housing Prices: Effects of Fundamental Economic
Factors or Speculative Bubbles? Berkeley: Institute of Business and Economic Research,
University of California at Berkeley.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 1993.
Mills, E. S., and Bruce Hamilton. 1989. Urban Economics.
Pisouski, A. 1992
20
i
• • f
Roulac, S. E., L. Lynford, and G. H. Castle, III. 1990. "Real Estate Decision Making in an
Information Era." Real Estate Finance Journal (Summer).
Sullivan, A.M. 1990. Urban Economics. IRWIN.
Thrall, G. I., and S. Elshaw-Thrall. 1991. "Reducing Investor Risk: A GIS Design for Real Estate
Analysis." Geo Info Systems (November/December).
21
The Instlt tit e of Urban;it ul Rce;itm:ll I)e%clopntent(IL:RD)serves I'ac•uln•.uttI
Sutdints of thr l'ni%crsin :align nt.t at lirrkeli%.iornhtctine research into
processes of urkm anal regional �rn%%th and dt-t Ilnc,.lrnl cllcct%of t o%crnin,poliite,
till patterns of development. Instiuuc re.carih t,Suppnt•ted IW Icdcral and State
grn•enuuent .t_encies and h%private foundation,. Current research is directed to
Simulation of urban,rowth and land usc-.%itmantaltic de%elopntum.iiiforntatton
tcc•hnolo,^:disaacr prcparcdnesS:Social and c"utttnui imh.trt,tin urban lilt.
ineludin_ttcfen,e con%er,loo in C:.tliGlrnia:c%.•n in_p.rttcrt,u,nt,(ico_ralthic
Inlorntanont M,tcnl,:"k,t.tl p.Jtc%.ntd tn•h.tn tr.ut,p--rtaton alternatnc,.
mcludin_ ht_h--peed r.tl and uansu-lo.t,cd Lt::.i�ir%elopntenu and intpro%etnent, Ill
ntc•thod, .t .u:.ti%,i..e%aluallot:..tied pl.uuun_.
The Indic numta % Bt:rkc•1c%'s Fn%tronnt,atal linutlaton Lahoratory(FS1.).
n•here potcnttal effect of ntalor trh.ln do%clopment protect,are a,Sessed n,nt,
conyttrtcr-.tided and three-dintensionai model,to protect cn%ironmcntal = —
inlpact:of dc%elopnlcnl Scenario;. Rcwarch into tmernatonal economic polio-%
i„tie%iak%,piace at the I;crkcle% Roondtal,le ,it the International Fcontimv II;RIF.).
I'hc National Tr nmt Acc•css(:enter(\TRAC.;evaluates impacts of transit usai:c of
residential.noised-usc.and ioint dc%elopmetir around urban rail transit stations
throo,hom the countr%. The Uni%•crsin•-Oakhnd Metropolitan Forum hrim,s
tocether local conununin•and husincss leader-to a partncnhip%%till the Univer;iny
to impro%c the tlt:tlin•of lile in the Oakland area.
I'hc Instittltc pthlishcs working papers describing current research protects and
other topics tit interest to f:lculn•associates and visitina scholars. A catalog of,
publications,a newsletter.and an annual relxirt are availahle on request.
Instirute of Urhan and Re,ional Development
i 16 Wilmer Hall
Universin-of California
Berkele%•.California 04720
(�10)64'-4K;4:(510)64 i-o;i 6 FAX
i
Institute . of Urban and Regional Development
°�'°P '�°
:fie, rw¢• a Ba.B °a - - m ae 0' 'a�4S d..� .. ,b eve °°° boa doing m a a s- se?
a® °r '
�'0 ��� 08� 90 3" ° �9'•eo° � aa'b j%;y 16 s °^m° °'d `'a ya aFu d7 -•a °6,
o
.1
�8 ' -y °- f-., .o
'64
n "ev
°�'gg�a`..so
flB° 6 -4. :m a°°>Q e - ° - -
4t�e�SB"�8
s
-- a, �if8 a^. �® -a��'" a��,,�& -oa°m��� we �P � _�� �o o- �a_ 8 � •a ..
8$ d --
Aagq &g a °toQ. °a _o B 8j.
ddl
-
�--
�w TP m3°P J °a p °e
°®- oa:�� B - $.� � N ae'e-o a e- 6B�$U a r' tey -P �•ab ba 'ba 6ab'¢- s -'.;.
� 9D, Q.. sg -ee b 9a�o�8�j de -� 0' d44 g o 3 �`•y °�,9
.p�Ae�o� _ - - a -e e�, may,o°�-F^ _�e• a°-a- •i P 5 $ffi 8¢"�°� .tea'8-°`�'Sro 'd''- g qua- ° °°o9B--aa+.�°e'-` - '"$�- ° ".w- ate- ^'� M'.nggg Ro o•-e_ o n �,
PgSg.
Of Ink,
Pr 3 @ B y � •�+4 °0`49 09 4< - >P�s a¢ c° °�. °� � .µ a
°'31
2-1
°
jo
lp
s �r 0I c€b, , a a mpg °s 4 +
eag - p o are - ,m ,.ag
a
a o R £�=mina wI-
n vaa-�fl�'gQ ��_,� 0- qg s �, '.° - �'r B o E�m,�$ uo:'�'aa� •�ia S
� 88_° N� dB=Qatl°e°,°sea'+rP Sa ek ° a° sa
o m 8° $ 8- . 0,
�a°bp^dg $off 6B'Fo.�`P=edges.. �, ° �-�' `ti<.
=4
e k
� "e �-�.- o'� ��0 - o.oo �g d�y 8 q, °� m4Y - a 8� ae ° �'i p=1 E e• y,_-a
& g
„- ° - �." R =oe .Q _
odd°Y'4g�_.� 'a emOo
0,u jpa
q
e• ',���' opS4'a '�y,��gp&9 'fw a,a*6 � -8-� dN�po .a$-® .5 0 orzp A
o14°4�b - .g :s 0 °.e a F �B •e.g -g
g y a °er ° FF 98��0 0 a y°
-
�� a2ynp fi
a ��P°d -o�•� °9- v�b��6�aa��n�, - ."9�0 acB��� � A'�o'�.�� dga�� am� ,�m0'�td _° __ °.� b'3°°�`3B o g�e'P���_�� °a a "�gy'o�.Q
°�`A rX
°
• O .>� -?M ®a, of amen;-° -me«+ri�eo °g<a"N
8�°�av_&° �p"�ea•°� ° fl� W8
y�8'`�c. --- - --o� �•. .g$�aP apP��c° a, - °�-
a®,
0 0 ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i Executive Summary
1 Introduction
9 The Effects of Public Housing on Property Values in
St. Louis (Study Period, 1938-1960; Location of
Study, St. Louis, Missouri; Published 1963) By Hugh
O. Nourse
11 The Effect of BMIR Housing on Property Values
(Study Period, 1958-1970 Location of Study, -San
Fernando Valley, California; Published 1972) By
Robert Schafer
13 The Property Value Impacts of Public Housing
Projects in Low and Moderate Density Residential
Neighborhoods (Study Period, 1963-1978 ; Location of
Study, Portland, Oregon; Published 1984) By William
A. Rabiega, Ta-Win Lin and Linda Robinson
15 Neighborhood Upgrading Effects of Middle-Income
Housing Projects in New York City (Study Period,
1964-1969; Location of Study, New York, New York;
Published 1974) By Joseph. De Salvo
17 The Impact of Federally-Assisted Housing on Single-
Family Sales: 1970-1980 (Study Period, 1968-1979 ;
Location of Study, Memphis, Tennessee; Published
1984) By Carol E. Babb, Louis G. Pol, and Rebecca
F. Guy.
19 The Impact of Subsidized Housing on Property
Values: A Two-pronged Analysis of Chicago and Cook
County Suburbs (Study Period, 1970-1980; Location
of Study, Chicago and Cook County, Illinois;
Published 1983) By Elizabeth Warren, Robert M.
Aduddell, and Raymond Tatalovich
23 The Effect of Subsidized Housing on Values of
Adjacent Housing (Study Period, 1972-1980; Location
of Study, Fairfax County, Virginia; Published 1985)
By Donald C. Guy, John L. Hysom, and Stephen R.
Ruth
25 The Effect of a Federally Assisted Housing Project
on Property Values (Study Period, 1973-1978 ;
Location of Study Jefferson County, Colorado;
Published 1979) By Linda Saunders and Michael J.
Woodford
27 Study Proves: MHs Do Not Depreciate Conventional
Neighbors! : (Study Period, 1973-1981; Location of
Study, San Jose, California; Published 1982) By
Edward Hicks
29 The Effects of Federally Subsidized Low Income
Housing on Residential Property Values in Suburban
Neighborhoods (Study Period, 1975-1979; Location of
Study, Fairfax County, Virginia; Published 1980) By
Jeffrey C. Baird
33 A) Impact of Affordable Housing on Property Values
(Study Period, 1975-1982 ; Location of Study, Marin
County, California; Published 1983) By Lynn Sedway
and Associates;
B) EIR for Corte Madera Homes (Study Period, 1975-
1983 ; Location of Study, Marin County, California;
Published 1983) By Torrey and Torrey Incorporated
and Haley-Leslie Appraisal Company
35 Market Segmentation and the Effects of Group Homes
for the Handicapped on Residential Property Values
(Study Period, 1979-1983 ; Location of Study,
Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana; Published 1986)
By Stephen Farber
37 The Impact of the. Presence of Manufactured Housing
on Residential Property Values: A Comparative
Study of Residential Property Transfers in
Selected Residential Areas of Guilford County
(Study Period, 1980-1986; Study Location, Guilford
County; North Carolina; Published 1986) By Kenneth
J. Gruber, Gladys G. Shelton, and Ann R. Hiatt
39 Residential Property Value and Mobile/Manufactured
Homes: A Case Study of Belmont, New Hampshire
(Study Period, 1981-1983 ; Location of Study,
Belmont, New Hampshire; Published 1986) By Thomas
E. Nutt-Powell, David Hoaglin, and Jonathan Layzer
41. References ...
t
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Legislature has recognized, in housing element
law and numerous other provisions of the Government Code,
that local and State governments have a responsibility to use
their powers to facilitate the improvement and development of
housing to make adequate provisions for the housing needs of
all economic segments of the community (Government Code
Section 65580 (d) ) .
Yet, many California cities find it difficult to promote and
encourage low- and moderate-income housing opportunities for
their citizens. Resistance often comes from local citizens
themselves, who fear that the development of low- and
moderate-income housing -or- the- inclusion of affordable units
in market-rate developments will in some way lower the
aesthetic and, more importantly, the .economic value of their
properties. As a result, many potentially beneficial
projects may be rejected or made so difficult to develop that
developers, non-profit agencies, and other housing producing
organizations target their efforts elsewhere.
This paper lists and summarizes a total of 15 published
papers: 11 on the effects of subsidized housing on property
values , one on the effects of group homes for the
handicapped, and three on the effects of manufactured
housing. The listing is not presumed to be complete, but
does include all known and readily available material on this
subject. Four of these publications address situations in
California.
Of these 15 publications, 14 reached the conclusion that
there are no significant negative effects from locating
subsidized, special-purpose or manufactured housing near
market-rate developments. Some, in fact, reported positive
property value effects after locating subsidized units in the
neighborhood.
Only one example, describing a situation in Virginia, found
evidence that subsidized housing had an adverse effect on the
values of adjacent non-subsidized --housing.-
This paper is offered in the hope that "planners city
officials, housing developers, and affordable housing
advocates will find it useful in countering or defusing the
argument of damaged property values wherever it arises in
opposition to the development or improvement of affordable
housing.
i
INTRODUCTION
Early housing programs grew out of the federal assistance
policies of the Great Depression. Initial federal housing
policy was aimed at developing large-scale public housing
projects in inner-city neighborhoods, which in effect
promoted racial and economic segregation of low-income and
minority families.
Since then, federal housing .policies have attempted to give
low-income persons a wider choice of places in which to
live. For over ten years, federal low-income housing policy,
and many State and local policies, have focused on smaller-
scale projects in the suburbs, away from the inner city.
Local officials who must approve or deny permit applications
for subsidized or otherwise affordable housing have come
under increasing pressure from the citizens they represent.
Residents - have confronted their elected officials with fears
of declining property values, neighborhood instability, and
decreases in the quality of life. This opposition has led to
lively public hearing debates and legal challenges.
Nevertheless, a significant amount of low-income housing has
already been built. These developments have provided
information for the research summarized here.
This paper summarizes 15 subject publications separately in
chronological order, according to the year the study was
initiated, then discusses some of the general conclusions
that can be. drawn from them. (Two of the reports, Sedway and
Torrey & Torrey, have been combined in one summary because
they deal with the same basic data. )
In each case the social, economic, racial, and geographic
settings are discussed (to the extent possible) to al-low
readers to identify relevant or comparable situations.
Of the 15 reports reviewed for this paper, 14 agree that the
effects on nearby property values of subsidized, special-
purpose or manufactured housing are positive or negligible.
The reports were varied enough to provide several points of
comparison to local situations. The methods of analysis were .
quite diverse. Most studied price changes between test areas
and corresponding control areas. Some compared test areas to
city, county, or census tract averages (Sedway; Torrey and
Torrey; Rabiega, Lin, and Robinson; Warren, Aduddell, and
Tatalovich) . Others used distance factors in gauging
property value effects (Guy; Farber) . Still another analyzed
1
all census tracts in both metropolitan and suburban areas of
a city, to estimate the impact of several subsidized housing-
related variables on property values (Warren, Aduddell, and
Tatalovich) .
Several of the studies contain sophisticated statistical
measures that test for sample comparability, significance,
appreciation-depreciation, and inflation. Few, however,
point out the assumptions made concerning the data. These
assumptions are important in understanding the validity of
the results. For example, for those studies that used test
and control areas as a means of comparison, one cannot be
certain that the two areas are adequately similar, or if a
large enough or too large (diluted) a sample was used.
Several studies encountered problems in finding sufficient
resale information to analyze price changes. These studies
may have been hindered further because some reports
substituted, for true resale prices, estimates based on tax
stamp values or assessed market values (Schafer; Nourse;
DeSalvo) . These price estimates may differ from what a unit
actually sold for.
Nevertheless , despite the structural and geographic
differences between reports, most come to similar
conclusions. Study locations were spread out with each
quadrant of the country represented . by at least one impact
.study, with four in California. As a result, a variety of
variables can be used to distinguish between reports. For
example, both the Portland (Rabiega) and San Fernando
(Schafer) studies analyzed subsidy impacts in predominantly
white, middle-class neighborhoods. The St. Louis study
(Nourse) analyzed central city neighborhoods. A more
comprehensive analysis was completed by Warren, Aduddell, and
Tatalovich, in their study of Chicago and Cook County census.
tracts. Here, socioeconomic and ethnic, as well as housing,
variables were addressed in the analysis.
Most of the studies were conducted within the last ten years,
although earlier reports were also investigated. Hugh Nourse
studied St. Louis neighborhoods from 1937 to 1960. Rabiega,
-
Lin, and Robinson assessed the impacts in the Portland area
from 1963 to 1978. The most recent study was completed by
Gruber, Shelton and Hiatt on the impacts of manufactured
housing on property values from 1979 to 1983 .
Other differences were found in the types of subsidy programs
that assisted the study projects. These included public
housing, Section 8, Section 236, Section 23 , Section
221(d) (3) , assistance for group homes for the handicapped,
inclusionary zoning, New York's Mitchell-Lama Program, and
manufactured housing. Although some of these programs are no
2
r
longer in use, they do provide a variety of subsidy
mechanisms and levels. For example, the degree of subsidy in
the. St. Louis study (Nourse) was greater than that in the
Marin County examples (Sedway; Torrey and Torrey) .
Manufactured housing is included in this survey because it
traditionally has been considered a more affordable, though
sometimes less desirable, alternative to conventional
housing. As such, it has faced many of the same objections
typically raised against subsidized housing. All three
manufactured housing studies reviewed for this survey found
no negative property value effects from locating near site-
built homes.
Only one study, conducted in Fairfax County, Virginia by Guy,
Hysom, and Ruth, found negative impacts on surrounding
property values. Here, units located further away from
subsidized housing apparently sold for larger amounts than
similar units located closer to subsidized housing. The
average value of all units ' increased over time, but prices
were higher as the distance from subsidized units increased.
In contrast, the Baird study of four other Fairfax County
housing projects found increased property values near them
when compared to county averages.
The report by Guy, Hysom, and Ruth indicated that a possible
reason for variation may be the difference in construction
times between subsidized units and the neighborhoods around
them. In their study, both the subsidized units and the
adjacent, non-subsidized units were built at approximately
the same time while other reports (Schafer; Baird) studied
the introduction. of subsidized housing into existing
neighborhoods.
Other possible reasons for price variations in the Guy,
Hysom, and Ruth study, were the perceived income differences
between residents of subsidized and unsubsidized housing.
For example, the authors cite Schafer' s analysis of San
Fernando Valley neighborhoods in which unsubsidized residents
earned incomes relatively similar to .those who occupied the
subsidized units. However, other reports showed significant
income differences that. did _ not . seem... to affect property
values (Warren, Aduddell, Tatalovich; Baird; Farber) .
The effects of integrating differing socioeconomic
characteristics in a neighborhood (including racial
integration) is a fear often expressed by those opposing low-
cost housing. Schafer points to an argument many still
employ:
3
"One of the arguments that property values will drop
after the construction of subsidized housing in a
neighborhood is that the new residents . will be
'undesirables' (welfare families, unwed mothers, the
poor, large families and minority groups) who will treat
property with abandon and give the area a bad name. "
This effect was not substantiated in any of the reports,
however. Although few attempted to deal with more than one
socioeconomic variable, those that did were of the opinion
that few (if any) impacts due -to socioeconomic or ethnic
differences existed.
Rabiega, Lin, and Robinson, in their assessment of Portland
neighborhoods, provided a unique view into the dynamics of
pure economic characteristics. Because most of the clients
for public housing in Portland were white, only their low-
income status was considered as a variable. The same was
true of the San Fernando Valley study by Schafer. A
principal difference between the two was that in San Fernando
the level of subsidy was not as pronounced as it was in
Portland. In fact, residents assisted by lower interest
rates in San Fernando typically earned comparable incomes to
those of their neighbors. Public housing in Portland
required lower incomes to qualify for assistance. Yet, both
studies reported no major impacts.
Racial settlement patterns and their effects on property
values were not dealt with extensively, except to indicate
the primary racial composition of the area being
investigated Nevertheless, evidence suggests that changing
racial settlement patterns, on their own, do not affect
property values. A report published in 1960 by Luigi
Laurenti analyzed the effects of non-white entry into
previously all-white neighborhoods. ) Property values in San
Francisco, Oakland, and Philadelphia were analyzed to
determine any changes in value.
Laurenti found that in almost half the price comparisons,
prices in racially mixed neighborhoods increased
significantly, when compared to all-white control
neighborhoods (in 38.3 percent of the comparisons, no
significant changes were observed) . In effect, nonwhite
entry caused property values to rise or remain comparable
more often than it caused them to fall. Laurenti concluded
that it would be false to say that nonwhite entry always
causes residential property to decline in price.
Anthony Downs, in a review of the Laurenti study, agreed that
it provides irrefutable proof against the notion of declining
property values resulting from changing racial patterns.
However, he cautioned that the Laurenti Study does not
4
automatically destroy all connection between other factors
such as high density or low maintenance. At times, it is the
intermingling of these effects that leads people to blame
racial change for results actually caused by other factors.
Downs writes:
"The kernel of truth is that racial change is
indeed bound up with other changes in many cities,
for a variety of reasons. But one of the most
significant of these reasons is the belief that
nonwhite entry always leads to falling prices - a
belief which Laurenti 's study decisively disproves.
When this erroneous belief is accepted by white
homeowners, they strongly oppose entry of nonwhites
. into all-white areas of decent housing because- they
fear falling prices. Such opposition keeps
nonwhites bottled up in ghettos and makes the
density in them so high that whenever a new border
area opens up for . nonwhite settlement it is
flooded with residents far beyond its capacity to
house decently. This process tends to confirm the
original (but erroneous) belief that nonwhite entry
is invariably accompanied by rising density and
falling values. "
Warren, Aduddell, and Tatalovich, in their analysis of
Chicago and Cook County neighborhoods, suggested that a
tipping point may exist, in terms of percentage of units
subsidized, beyond which property value enhancement may
cease. An analysis of three regression models based on three
strata of Chicago census tracts having more than two-thirds
black population, more than one-third of the families below
the poverty level, and public housing constituting no less
than 30 percent of the total housing stock, indicated that
all property value impacts were negligible. One model
produced negative property value impacts, while two others
showed that housing subsidized under the Section
221 (d) (3)/236 program was associated with increased property
values. However, the magnitude of impacts for all three was
negligible.
In contrast to this finding was a second analysis of six
regression models based on three stratifications of Chicago
census tracts. Here, when housing subsidized under Section 8
or Section 221(d) (3)/236 was introduced into census tracts
which were less affluent and had large proportions of
minority households (the number of families below poverty
ranged from 26.4 percent to 29.9 percent; black population
ranged from 29 . 3 percent to 72.0 percent) , but where public
housing constituted no more than 9. 3 percent of the total
housing stock, it appeared that subsidized housing was
associated with higher property values.
5
It therefore appears that a tipping point exists and that it
rests between positive impacts at lower percentages of
assisted units and negligible impacts at higher percentages
(at least in this example) . The authors .note:.
. "This tipping point cannot be quantified exactly by
the regression analysis, but we determined that no
.positive impact was found in three strata of census
tracts where no less than 30 percent of the total
housing stock was public housing. These three
strata were analyzed according to 1970 census data,
and thus reflected the traditional practice of
concentrating public housing in poor and
predominantly minority neighborhoods. On the
other hand, a positive impact by subsidized housing
was found in three strata of Chicago census tracts
having no more than 9.3 percent public housing.
Moreover, this finding is based upon 1980 or 1970-
1980 change data, thereby reflecting the time
period when newer housing policies attempted to
scatter public housing and subsidized housing in
lesser amounts throughout a larger number of census
tracts. To show conclusively whether a 'tipping
point' exists between a 9.3 percent and the 30. 0
percent figure, however, would require further
research. "
Research concerning other socioeconomic variables has been
scarce. However, reports indicate a surprising trend
concerning people who take advantage of subsidy programs.
Schafer noted a report which showed that a below-market
interest rate development in the San Fernando Valley
attracted 57 percent of its initial tenants from within five
miles from the project area. Another 29 percent had = lived
between five and ten miles of the project, indicating that- _
subsidized units were initially occupied by families already
within the community. 3
Another , more recent report , analyzed the market
characteristics for a subsidized townhouse-condominium
development in South San Francisco. In this example, - the
principle market for the units were young local households.
The applicants had the following characteristics:
* Income: 41 percent under $27, 000, 43
percent $27, 000 to $33 ,750
* Ethnicity: 38 percent Black, 21 percent White,
28 percent Asian, 14 percent
Hispanic
* Age: 41 percent under 30, 33 percent 30
to 40
* Present Location: 84 percent living in San Francisco•
6
The income characteristics may indicate that as housing
prices and rents ascend relative to income, more persons in
traditional occupations (teachers, firefighters, clerks,
secretaries) will qualify under the eligibility requirements
for affordable housing.
Despite the questions raised by uncontrolled variables, this
survey' s weight of evidence suggests that the property value
effects of subsidized housing and its residents are
negligible. However, it has been difficult for planners,
developers, builders, and housing advocates to convince the
public to accept such projects in their neighborhoods. J.S.
Fuerst and Mary Decker write:
"To the local citizen, the ideal spot for
subsidized housing is a parcel in the next town.
This places the developer in a seemingly impossible
position. i5
Fuerst and Decker also include techniques that may facilitate
local approval of subsidized housing projects. Some
recommendations may apply here:
* Subsidize only part of a . development by taking
government funds for only part of the units.
* Talk openly about socioeconomic and ethnic
expectations.
* Choose the initial tenants carefully. 6
Libby Howland, in her analysis of the Holloway Terrace
Project in South San Francisco, also includes recommendations
put forth by Benjamin Golvin, project manager for Holloway
Terrace. These include:
* Begin working with neighborhood groups early in the
process, and take their sentiments seriously.
* Try to locate spokespersons for the neighborhood..
The advantage of working with recognized community
_leaders _.is_ that.. they can help establish a broad
consensus of community interest. Community-minded
leaders- with- credibility �n the neighborhoods can
most effectively convince other residents with
narrower motivations of the merits of the
compromise.
* Let the community know at the start what will and
will not work, and why.7
7
If, as expected, a shortage of low-income housing becomes
more acute, cities will face tougher land use decisions
regarding the amount and location of subsidized or otherwise
affordable housing. Public perceptions and attitudes are
still unpredictable and at times resentful. But planners,
decision-makers, realtors, developers, and citizen advocates
can be leaders in resisting the myths that oppose affordable
housing. Only through a cooperative rational approach can we
solve our housing problems.
1. Laurenti, Luigi; Property Values and Race, University of
California Press, Berkeley, California, 1960, pp. 256.
2 . Downs, Anthony; An Economic Analysis of Property Values
in Race, Land Economics, May, 1960, pp. 181-188.
3 . Fenster, Fred and Robert Schafer; A Tenant Profile of
Section 221 (d) (3) BMIR Housing Development, 1971,
(unpublished memorandum) .
4. Howland , Libby ; Holloway Terrace; Neighborhood
Acceptance of Affordable Housing in San Francisco, Urban
Land, pp. 12-15, September, 1985.
5. Fuerst, J. S. and Mary Decker; How to Build Subsidized
Housing in the Suburbs, Planning, pp. 14-17 , October
1977.
6. Fuerst, pp. 16-17.
7. Howland, pp. 14-15.
8 i
Nourse, Hugh O. "The Effect of Public.
Housing on Property Values in St. Louis, "
Land Economics, pp. 433-441, November,.
1963 (Study Period, 1938-1960) .
This analysis represents one of the early empirical
investigations of the property value effects of conventional
public housing projects. Unlike recent studies that attempt
to investigate whether subsidized housing causes negative
property value effects, this analysis attempted to show
whether or not public housing projects could have positive
spillover effects on adjacent housing sites.
Method
Eight St. Louis public housing sites were arranged into three
neighborhoods. Each public housing neighborhood was defined
as an area approximately three to four blocks wide
surrounding the public housing project. Next, three control
neighborhoods were selected as similar as possible to the
public housing neighborhoods. The control areas were
established on the basis of average contract monthly rents,
land use, population, and other data, as well as through the
author's personal knowledge of the area.
Once the project sites and the corresponding control areas
were delineated, a price index was constructed using real
estate selling prices, estimated by the amount shown on tax
stamps on recorded deeds. In order to establish a baseline,
only sites with a previous sale of the same property were
included. Data for sales prices were obtained for each year
from 1937 to 1959, with the 1937 to 1939 index consolidated
into an average.
Results
When compared to corresponding control neighborhoods no
difference in property value increases was found in two of
three test neighborhoods. The third test neighborhood
exhibited a slight increase in property value .appreciation. _
I
9
10
Schafer, Robert. "The Effect of BMIR
Housing on Property Values, " Land
Economics, pp. 282-286 , August 1972
(Study Period, 1958-1970) .
The Schafer study compared the price behavior of 132 below-
market interest rate (BMIR) units in a test area in the San
Fernando Valley of Los Angeles to that of units in a control
area with similar characteristics. The study covered a 12-
year period between 1958-1970.
Method
Two factors were used to guide the selection of the test
area. First, a predominantly white middle-class neighborhood
was preferred to evaluate objections to the location of BMIR
housing in the neighborhood. Second, because they believed
that the supply of housing adjusts to changes in demand in
approximately six years, the authors wanted BMIR housing
projects that were built prior to 1965.
These requirements were satisfied in a test area about five
blocks in width, containing 132 units. A control area with
similar characteristics was found about two miles west of the
test area. Both areas bordered a busy street with commercial
development; both were in the flight path of a nearby
airport; and both contained junior high schools that were
built in the early 1950s.
A price index for the test and control areas was constructed
using transaction estimates from recorded deed prices for
each year during the time frame of the study. The index was
used to compare changes in. market conditions between the BMIR
development area and the control area. The impacts on
property values were then compared and assessed.
Results
Using various statistical tests of significance, the study
found no evidence that the location of BMIR housing reduced.
the value of nearby residential properties. In fact the area
with the BMIR housing had slightly higher property values
over the time frame of the study.
The author also cites a related study which addressed fears
that subsidized housing of this type attracts "undesirable"
tenants (welfare families, unwed mothers, the poor, large
families, and minority group members) who will mistreat the
property. In this study, a survey of residents of another
BMIR housing development in the San Fernando Valley showed
11
that 57 percent of its initial tenants had lived within five
miles of the BMIR units prior to moving there. l Another 29
percent had lived between five and ten miles, from the BMIR
site. . The figures point to the fact that, at least in this
case, BMIR housing was occupied for the most part by
families who already lived in the vicinity of the site:
1 Fred Fenster and Robert Schafer, " A Tenant Profile of a
Section 221 (d) (3) BMIR Housing Development" (1971)
(unpublished memorandum) .
i
I
12
i
i
Rabiega, William A, Ta-Win Lin, and Linda
M. Robinson. "The Property Value Impacts
of Public Housing Projects in Low and
Moderate Density Residential
Neighborhoods, " Land Economics, Vol. 6,
No. 2; May 1984 (Study Period, 1963-
1978) .
This paper studied the impacts of public housing in Portland,
Oregon. Small, low-rise family projects and medium-rise
structures for the elderly were used to evaluate the impacts
on predominantly single-family, low- to moderate-density
neighborhoods.
Differences in neighborhood ethnic patterns were virtually.
nil. All participants were of low-income status, and most
were white. This fact eliminated the need to consider ethnic
variables in the analysis.
Method
Six public housing projects were identified, and all single-
family residential properties within a three to four block
radius surrounding the projects were analyzed. Data obtained
from a local title company and Multnomah County tax records
were gathered for a period of 11 years for each _project (data
range for the six projects was 1963 to 1978) . The housing
around the four family projects, with 373 sales, was
considered to be one group; and the two elderly projects,
with 208 nearby sales, constituted a second group for
analysis.
Sales prices obtained were adjusted for inflation and average
appreciation from a 1963 base by determining the rate of
change between the base year and subsequent years for average
sales prices of. homes sold in Multnomah County. These were.
adjusted to the base year using the rate for each appropriate
year, in the same way the ' Consumer Price Index is used to
adjust for inflation. This method eliminated the need for an
analysis of a control area -because countywide - rates - of -
inflation and appreciation are used as control values.
Regressions (measuring coincidence between values) and paired
t-tests (measuring true differences distributions) were done
on properties sold before and after the location of public
housing, to examine the effects of public housing on property
values.
13
Results
Results indicate that residential property gained in value,
relatively speaking, after public housing was introduced.
Although the amount of value increase is small, the study
points out that statistics and methods of adjustment were
conservative, and gains in value could have been
underestimated.
i
i
14
DeSalvo , Joseph S . "Neighborhood
Upgrading Effects of Middle-Income
Housing Projects in New York City, "
Journal of Urban Economics, pp. 269-277,
Vol. 1, No. 3 , July 1974 (Study Period,
1964-1969) .
The Limited-Profit Housing Companies program, known as
Mitchell-Lama, was the basis for this New York City study.
Its purpose was to document the effects of neighborhood
upgrading and show the variation of effects from poorer to
better neighborhoods. It also provided some evidence on the
effects of project size and age on neighborhood upgrading.
The Mitchell-Lama program permits the construction or
rehabilitation of cooperative or rental housing by private
sponsors with public assistance and supervision. Public
assistance takes the form of property tax exemptions and low
interest, long-term loans. Public supervision is exercised
over construction, management, tenant selection, and return
on equity.
Method
The study analyzed a sample of 50 New York City neighborhoods
containing 62 Mitchell-Lama projects. The neighborhoods
encompassed areas of from one-to-thtee city blocks around
each project site, but omitted the project site itself.
The control area used was the borough in which the project
site was located. The study implies that in certain
instances this may, not be an ideal control area because the
borough and the control area may not be identical. However,
in no case did the total assessed value of all sample
neighborhoods in a borough exceed 5 percent of that borough' s
assessed value.
. _Once the project sites and their corresponding control areas
were identified, a comparison was made using assessed value
as the comparative variable. Later, the change in assessed
value was used to calculate the average percentage change in
the neighborhood or borough.
An assessment relating project impacts on neighborhood
quality was also attempted using estimated market rent per
room as a measure of desirability in different types of
neighborhoods.
15
Results
The sample of 50 New York City neighborhoods showed that
assessed values surrounding Mitchell-Lama projects increased
by 9.89 percent per year, while control areas increased only
4. 64 percent annually. Assessed value. increases in medium
quality neighborhoods (measured by average rent) were more
.pronounced. Thus, it appeared that locating projects in the
poorest quality neighborhood did not produce the greatest
upgrading effect; nor does locating them in the best
neighborhoods.
16
Babb, Carol E. , Louis G. Pol and Rebecca
F. Guy. "The Impact of Federally-
Assisted Housing on. Single-Family
Housing Sales : 1970-1980, " Mid-South
Business Journal, pp. 13-17, July, 1984
(Study Period, 1968-1979) .
This study focused on the impact of federally-assisted
housing projects on single-family housing sales in Memphis,.
Tennessee. Twenty-two subsidized housing sites were analyzed
between 1968 and 1979. Upon later examination, 11 of the 22
sites were excluded from the analysis due to a lack of sales
data. The 11 remaining sites represent housing projects
subsidized under Section 8, Section 236, Section 23 , and
Section 221 (d) (3) housing programs, as well as conventional
public housing.
Method
Information was gathered from the Memphis Housing Authority
and the Memphis Department of Community Development. The
agencies identified the names, locations, and types of local
housing projects that had been approved and/or occupied
between 1968 and 1979. Once the sites were identified,
neighborhood boundaries for each site were delineated using
natural boundary lines whenever possible.
These sites were then used to find comparable or control
neighborhoods without public housing. In most instances both
the public housing and the control neighborhoods were located
in the same census tracts and were adjacent to one another.
Each was also paired on the basis of similar social and
economic characteristics to ensure comparability.
The study used home sales prices, the number of sales, and
the ratio of sales prices in neighborhoods with subsidized
housing to prices in . the city, as dependent variables for study. The ratio served two purposes. First, it adjusted
for inflation. Second, it indicated whether the appreciation
rate of residential ' sale prices in -the - study neighborhoods
was lower than, higher, or comparable to the average
appreciation rate of residential property in- the City.
These variables were analyzed for all 22 housing sites and
their control neighborhoods (later, narrowed to 11 sites and
11 control neighborhoods) . This data represented all
residential sales for the 12-year period. . However, due to
the small number of home sales in some neighborhoods, the
sales data were aggregated into three four-year time
intervals and then analyzed for differences in mean sales
prices and ratios between or within control and assisted
housing neighborhoods.
17
Results
The analysis concluded that there was no evidence to suggest
that the introduction of public housing in these areas caused
home sales prices to stagnate or decline. There was little
difference in average prices and ratios between the site and
control neighborhoods. Those that were present were
considered likely to be the result of price differences that
existed before the subsidized housing was built.
18
Warren, Elizabeth, Robert M. Aduddell,
Raymond Tatalovich, "The Impact of
Subsidized Housing_ on Property Values: A
Two-pronged Analysis of Chicago and Cook
County Suburbs, " Center for Urban Policy,
Loyola University of Chicago, August
1983 , Urban Series, No. 13 (Study Period,
1970-1980) .
By far the most comprehensive of the studies examined for
this report, this investigation analyzed the property value
impacts of four types of public subsidy and.. four. specific.
subsidized housing sites in Chicago and Cook County,
Illinois. The study was divided into two investigative
phases. The first was a statistical analysis, using
digression techniques by census tracts, of socioeconomic,
housing, and subsidized housing variables. These covered all
census tracts in Chicago (848) and suburban Cook County
(308) ; and were obtained from the 1970 and 1980 census.
The second phase analyzed four subsidized housing projects to
study the before-and-after effects on property values. Study
and control areas were delineated and the sales prices were
compared for a time period before and after the construction
of the subsidized developments. In all cases the projects
were begun and completed between 1970 and 1980.
Method
Phase I -- Regression Analysis
Four categories of subsidized housing were analyzed. These
include: public housing,. Section 8, Section 221(d) (3)/236,
and the sum of all subsidized housing in the study.
The sample Chicago and Cook County census tracts were grouped
and a baseline digression analysis was applied according to
the percent of housing units subsidized under, all programs.
Primary examination focused on the following groups of census
tracts:
1. Census tracts having subsidized housing in 1970 and in
1980.
2. Census tracts having no subsidized housing in 1970 but
having some in 1980.
3 . Census tracts having subsidized housing in 1970.
4 . Census tracts having subsidized housing in 19SO equal to
that of 1970.
5. Census tracts having subsidized housing in 1970 and an
amount greater in 1980 than existed in 1970.
19
Because the Section 8 program did not exist in 1970, only two
groups of census tracts were examined in terms of that
classification:
1. Census tracts having no Section 8 housing in 1970 or
1980.
2 . Census tracts having no Section 8 housing in 1970 but
some in 1980.
The presence of subsidized units in the census tracts was
quantified for the three types of• programs analyzed:
1. Percent of housing units in tract subsidized under
221(d) (3)/236 programs.
2 . Percent of housing units in tract subsidized under
Section 8
3 . Percent of housing units in tract under conventional
public housing program.
Also included in the analysis were eight socioeconomic
variables used as independent predictors (percent black,
percent Spanish, percent elderly, percent below poverty,
percent occupied, percent owner-occupied, median family
income and density) . Median property values of single-
family, owner-occupied houses and median gross rents for
renter-occupied units were used as dependent variables in
the regression model . The model then analyzed the
relationship between the given independent variables
(socioeconomic conditions) and the two dependent variables
(property values and gross rents) .
Phase II -- Site Analysis
Four subsidized housing projects were selected as case
studies, to analyze whether they affected the neighboring._
property values. Three of the projects (Rand Grove Village,
The Moorings, and Edinbridge-in-Finley) were located in
suburban Cook County and one (Palmer Square) was located in
Chicago.
An area surrounding each project was analyzed using single-
family housing prices as an indicator. An area adjacent to
each project area was used for comparison. This area was
similar in both housing stock and socioeconomic conditions
except for the presence of subsidized housing. Sales prices
were studied and then compared before and after the
construction of all subsidized housing projects. The data
then was analyzed in four different ways. First, t-tests
were calculated to determine if the paired study area and
control area were drawn from the same population.
20
Second, the compound rate of growth was calculated based upon
the beginning and ending sales price means over the period
analyzed. Third, the mean percentage change in sales prices
was analyzed for the pre-construction period, post-
construction period, and the entire period.
Fourth, a ratio between the study-to-control area mean sales
price in the pre-construction period and the post-
construction period was applied to assess changes in sales
prices. A change in the ratio from the preconstruction period
exceeding . 05 would indicate a substantial change affecting
the sale prices either in the study area or control area. The
index, originally developed by Luigi Laurenti in his analysis
of the impacts of racial change on residential property
values, was not used as a _ test of statistical significance,
but it did offer a measure by which to assess changes in sale
prices between the study area and the control area over
time.
Results
Phase I -- Regression Analysis
The regression analysis applied to the 848 Chicago census
tracts and 308 suburban Cook County census tracts indicated
that the strongest predictor of property values was median
family incomes. For census tracts with public or subsidized
housing, a positive effect was noted in 15 of 22 regression
models, all involving Section 8 or Sections 221(d) (3)/236
housing. As a result of these and other findings it was
concluded that certain socioeconomic aspects found in census
tracts, particularly median family income, are much more
important to explaining the level of property values than is
subsidized housing. The overall impacts are neither
positive nor negative.
When public or subsidized housing did show up as a predictor
of property values, the impacts were shown to be negligible.
For example, three regression models based on groups of
Chicago census tracts were analyzed for possible effects.
Each census - tract had --more- than a two-thirds black
population, more than one-third of the households below
poverty, and public housing - units equal to at least 30
percent of the total housing stock.. One model showed that
the public housing variable was negatively associated with
property values, but its impact was negligible. The other
two models showed that housing under Section 221 (d) (3)/236
programs was positively associated with property values,
though, again, the impacts were negligible.
21
In census tracts that were less affluent and had large
minority populations, but a lower incidence of existing
public housing (less than 9.3 percent) , higher property
values. were associated with subsidized housing. This may
imply that above certain percentages, public housing can
begin to negatively affect property values. However, in
order to find a conclusive "tipping point, " more research
would be required.
Phase II -- Site Analysis
To show a conclusive impact on property values for the four
project areas, the authors concluded that the following would
have to be shown:
1. A statistically non-significant difference in mean sales
prices between the study area and the control area in
the pre-construction period, with average sales prices
being either equivalent or slightly higher in the study
area, followed by;
2. A .statistically significant difference in mean sales
prices between the study area and the control area in
the post-construction period.
This pattern was not found at any of the four sites analyzed
and it was concluded that subsidized housing did not depress
property values in the study areas.
Based on the four site analyses, the most positive finding
involved Palmer Square. The evidence suggested that
rehabilitation of Palmer Square under Section 8 had a
positive effect on property values. In addressing the
question of whether subsidized housing ought to be introduced .
into suburban communities, the case studies of Edinbridge and
the Moorings gave comparable and generally positive findings.
In both instances it was felt that' the projects had a
temporary impact on . sales_ prices but the reaction was short-
lived. By the end of both time periods, prices in the study
areas increased relative to those in control areas. The
study notes that reactions...to -Edinbridge and The Moorings may
not have been permanent because of the way in which these
developments were constructed. and occupied. Neither is a
wholly subsidized project; both were constructed in areas
undergoing extensive development of single-family dwellings
during the same approximate period; and both conformed to the
surrounding stock and the socioeconomic makeup of their
tenant population.
22
Guy, Donald C. , John L. Hysom, and
Stephen R. Ruth. "The Effect of
Subsidized Housing on Values of Adjacent
Housing, " Journal of the American Real
Estate and Urban Economics Association,
Vol 13 No. 4, 1985 (Study Period, 1972-
1980) .
This case study, conducted in Fairfax County, Virginia, was
the only study found which concluded that subsidized or
otherwise affordable housing impaired the values of adjacent
properties . Four homogeneous townhouse clusters were
selected at varying distances from Below. Market Interest Rate
(EMIR) housing complexes. Two of the clusters were adjacent
to the BMIR housing, one was separated by an elementary
school, and the fourth cluster was approximately a half mile
away from the BMIR housing.
The townhouse clusters were part of a planned community
designed with accessible shopping and recreational amenities.
The four clusters had very similar design characteristics and
each contained two-, three-, and four-bedroom units, with
some units having basements. All of the clusters were served
by the same public facilities and services such as schools,
libraries, police, and fire protection. All were subject to
the same property tax rates.
Method
Sales price data was gathered for all units in the four
clusters from the opening of each . project (the earliest in
1972) through the summer of 1980. These were analyzed using
a regression model which used distance from subsidized
housing as an independent variable. Other "dummy" variables
indicating the presence of end units, basements, and bedrooms
and producing internal differences were separated out with
the use of regression analysis.
Unlike most other studies that. . measured the influence of
subsidized housing through the use of price or appreciation
averages, the key to this analysis lies in the BMIR distance
variable. If residents considered it undesirable to live
near subsidized housing, then the further the unit was from
the subsidized housing, the greater its value.
Results
The analysis indicated that the values of adjacent properties
were affected negatively by subsidized housing. A total of
861 sales transactions were analyzed and the BMIR distance
23
variable indicated that units further away from BMIR housing
sold at higher prices after the "dummy" variables were held
constant in the regression analysis. The average value of
all units increased over time, but prices were higher for
units that were further away from .the subsidized housing
projects.
24
Saunders, Linda and Michael J. Woodford
"The Effect of a Federally Assisted
Housing Project on Property Values, "
Colorado State University Extension
Service, Jefferson County, September 1979
(Study Period, 1973-1978) .
The Community Development Department of the Colorado State
University Extension Service initiated this study to
determine if low- and moderate-income multifamily housing had
a significant effect on local property values. Sales prices
were examined over a six-year period (1973-1978) for homes
located immediately adjacent to a housing project and for
homes located in a nearby control area. Both the study and
the control areas were located within the City of Arvada in
Jefferson County, Colorado.
Method
Arvada's Senior Planner suggested that Yarrow Gardens, a
50-unit complex subsidized under Section 236, be used as the
case study project. It was the only project in Arvada
located immediately adjacent to a single-family residential
area.
Specific boundaries were delineated for a study area and a
control area some, distance away. The housing stock of both
areas were similar. Most houses were made of brick or brick-
and-frame construction and were, at the time the study was
initiated, approximately 18 years old. Both areas were
located near shopping centers and both neighborhoods were
laid out on a grid patterned roadway system.
Sales price data were collected and analyzed for all similar
homes sold in the study and control areas between 1973 and
1978 . This period was chosen because it included two years
prior to construction of Yarrow Gardens, two years during the
construction, and two years after its completion. The
average annual price increase for homes sold in the study
area was compared to the average annual price increase for
homes sold in the control area during the study period.
T-test scores were used to measure true difference between
distributions.
Results
A comparison of average sales prices indicated that no
significant. difference existed between the sales prices of
the homes in the study and in control areas. Increase rates
were also very similar, with one exception.
25
In 1974 some houses sold for lower prices in the study area
when compared to similar houses in the control area. That
year, the average sales price for homes in the study area
increased only 5 percent compared to a 12 .percent increase in
the control area. The study could not pinpoint any one
reason for the difference (supply and demand and negative
homeowner perceptions are cited as possible factors) . This
difference did not continue after 1974 .
The study also conducted an attitude survey for residents of
the study area. Two-thirds of the residents interviewed
indicated that, in their opinion, the presence of Yarrow
Gardens did not affect their neighborhood. The major
complaints from those who felt that the project did affect
their neighborhood involved an increase in the number of
children in the area and an increase in traffic. Residents
were equally divided between those who felt that Yarrow
Gardens had not affected house values, and those who felt
that the project did affect values.
26
Hicks, Edward, "Study Proves: MHs Do Not
Depreciate Conventional Neighbors! "
Manufactured Housing Dealer, February,
1982 (Study Period, 1973-1981) .
This study, published in the February, 1982 issue of
Manufactured Housing Dealer, analyzed the effects of
.mobile/manufactured housing projects on the resale value of
site built homes in adjacent neighborhoods. The study was
conducted in San Jose, California using 1973=1981 sales data.
.Method
Properties adjacent to manufactured housing subdivisions were
compared with average value increases for all homes sold in
San Jose. The manufactured housing subdivisions were built in
1973 , 1975, and 1976; and adjacent properties were studied
both before and after the completion and final* occupancy of
the projects. Using the San Jose Board of Realtors '
cumulative index of home sales (1973 to third quarter. 1981)
and limiting the data to only houses which had sales before
the start of manufactured housing project and after the
project was in place, ten site-built homes adjacent to
manufactured housing subdivisions were used in the analysis.
The average yearly increase was determined for each of the
ten subject properties and then cumulatively determined for
all ten properties. The average increase for all ten
properties was then compared to an average annual increase in
value for all home sales in the San Jose area from 1973 to
1981.
Results The average yearly increase in value for site-built homes
near manufactured housing subdivisions was 18. 1 percent
(annualized) ; the increase ranged from a low of 10.8 percent
to a high of 30.2 percent.
The average yearly increase in value for all home sales in
the San Jose area was 14 .5 percent; the increase ranged from
a low of 8 .2 percent in 1973 to 27 .3 percent increase in
1977.
As a result of the differences in appreciation rates, the
author concluded that manufactured housing, with proper
architectural controls, should result in no depreciation of
the resale values of conventional site-built homes
immediately adjacent to manufactured housing subdivisions.
27
a
.2
f '
28
Baird, Jeffrey C. , "The Effects of
Federally Subsidized Low-Income Housing
on Residential Property Values in
Suburban Neighborhoods , " Northern _
Virginia Board of Realtors Research
Grant, December, 1980 (Study Period,
1975-1979) .
This research was conducted under a grant from the Northern
Virginia Board of Realtors. It describes various subsidized
housing programs and provides a general overview of federal
involvement in housing and community development., Past and
present federal policies related to project characteristics
are presented along with an analysis of these factors as they
relate to residential property values.
The study focuses on an analysis of four subsidized housing
projects in Fairfax County, Virginia. The projects were
analyzed in terms of their impacts on property values and
social attitudes within the surrounding neighborhoods.
Method
The four projects were selected based on criteria that
include:
* Variety in surrounding land use.
* Variety in neighborhood social characteristics (income
and racial characteristics) .
* Differing growth patterns surrounding the projects
* Differing socioeconomic mixes within the projects
* Differing architectural style and size (small- and
medium-sized projects) .
* Relative compatibility of design with the neighborhood.
* Amount of subsidized housing nearby.
Subsidized housing throughout Fairfax County was evaluated
and four projects were selected as case studies. They
included:
The Green: A 50 unit garden apartment public housing
- project located in a higher-than-average
income, socially-integrated neighborhood with
other subsidized housing nearby.
Newington A mixed-income development of 92 townhouses.
Station: A total of 36 of 92 units were leased as
subsidized housing. The neighborhood had a
higher than average income, with few minority
residents, and no other occupied subsidized
housing projects nearby.
29
The Atrium: A 37-unit garden apartment complex, completely
subsidized .and located in a lower-than-average
income, socially integrated neighborhood, with
no other subsidized projects nearby.
.Buckman Road A 204-unit, Section 236 project located in a
Apartments: lower-than-average income, socially-integrated
neighborhood with other subsidized housing
projects nearby.
For each project, a primary area directly adjacent to the
project was identified. A secondary area extending about
one-quarter mile away, was delineated to analyze sales prices
and vacancy rates. Sales data were tracked in both the
primary and secondary areas, noting the percent change from
year to year. The results were supplemented with an attitude
survey for each project area.
Results
Homes near three of the four projects exhibited gains in
value on a yearly basis relative to control homes. Homes in
the primary areas of both The Green and Newington Station
increased in value at a higher rate than homes in the
secondary area or the county as a whole. However, resident
attitudes were more favorable at Newington Station.
Property values near The Atrium increased at a faster rate
than in the county, although the base values of housing in
the neighborhood were less than the values of similar units
in the secondary area or the county as a whole. Resident
attitudes indicated that subsidized housing had no impact on
their enjoyment of the neighborhood, although some (34
percent) said the presence of subsidized housing - in a
neighborhood would affect their decision to move there.
The Buckman Road Apartments produced different resultsu
Although the study found it difficult to isolate the effect
of other subsidized housing projects in the area, sales and -
rental data indicated that properties .in the primary area of
influence of the Buckman Road Apartments had a lower value
than those in the secondary area and the county.
Additionally, the annual increase in value was less in both
the primary and secondary areas of influence when compared to
the countywide average. The presence of the project did not
decrease property values, but it apparently reduced value
increases in the neighborhood.
Resident attitudes around the Buckman Road Apartments .were
mixed. Less than half of those living in the primary area of
influence said that the presence of subsidized housing in the
30
neighborhood had affected their enjoyment of living there.
However, all residents in the primary area said that the
presence of subsidized housing in the neighborhood would
affect their decision to move there.
31
32
A) Lynn Sedway and Associates report on
"Impact of Affordable Housing on Property
Values " prepared for Ecumenical
Association for Housing, February 8 , 1983
(Study Period, 1975-1982) .
B) EIR for Corte Madera Family Homes,
Torrey and Torrey, Inc. , September 1983
(Study Period, 1975-1983) .
The Ecumenical Association of Housing enlisted the services
of Lynn Sedway and Associates for a study of three existing
affordable housing developments in Marin County, California.
The. study was prepared in February of 1983 in response to
community fears relating to the impacts of such projects.
In September, 1983 , the firm of Torrey & Torrey, Inc. , prior
to quoting the Sedway report in an Environmental Impact
Report for another affordable housing project, commissioned
the Haley-Leslie Appraisal Company to conduct a critical
review and expansion of the Sedway report, using the same
methodology. It included more recent sales information and
it replaced one of the study projects.
Method
Both surveys used the same methodology. After the projects
were chosen, properties surrounding the developments were
analyzed according to sale and resale trends for comparable
housing types. An eight-year period between 1975 and 1982
was used to establish overall sales trends. The Haley-Leslie
study expanded the data. base to include late 1982 and first-
half 1983 sales. These were compared to the value
appreciation trends for study areas with similar
characteristics. Study areas considered were Sausalito,
Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley, and Novato.
Between the two studies, four projects were analyzed. Sedway
.. Associates chose three developments:
* Shelter Hill, a 75-unit, low-income rental development
in Mill Valley.
* Encina Court Homes, an owner-built development in Novato
* Ashford Court, a market-rate development in Mill Valley
which contains inclusionary units affordable to
moderate-income buyers.
Haley-Leslie added The Headlands project, a 433-unit
development with 198 rental units (19 inclusionary rentals)
and 235 condominiums (23 inclusionary below-market-rate
units) .
33
Results
Both the Sedway report and the Torrey & Torrey/Haley-Leslie
study concluded that there were no adverse impacts associated
with the location of affordable housing projects in Marin
County.
34
Farber, Stephen, "Market Segmentation and
the Effects on Group Homes for the
Handicapped on Residential Property
Values , " Urban Studies, pp. 519-25.
December, 1986 (Study Period, 1979-1983) .
Recent nationwide trends in providing non-institutional,
neighborhood settings for the handicapped have resulted in
some cases of resistance from apprehensive citizens. Fears
about nearby property values, among other possible effects,
have resulted in pressure on local governments to restrict
group home developments. As a result, several studies have
been undertaken to analyze the effects of non-institutional
group homes on housing markets. In general, these studies
have been unable to -find a . significant effect on housing
prices or market activity.
This study attempted to analyze whether the opening of group
homes for mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons
has any effects on neighborhood property values. It also
tests the hypothesis that the effects of a handicapped
facility will vary depending on the submarket in which it is
opened. Although this study does not treat the usual case of
subsidized housing, it does provide valuable insight into
closely related situations involving another form of assisted
housing.
Method
Single-family neighborhoods within the Shreveport-Bossier
City, Louisiana metropolitan area, were divided into high and
below average socioeconomic markets. Nine group homes for the
mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed were identified
within these neighborhoods. All of the group homes were
single-family residences prior to becoming group homes, and
all were structurally similar to the existing single-family
homes in the neighborhood. The nine group homes exhibited
the following characteristics: .
* The closest group homes were approximately six blocks
from each other-.
* one home was located in a tract with abnormally
depressed housing price increases, very low mean
household income, high poverty rates, and a high
percentage of black residents.
* Three homes were located in tracts with above average
home values, abnormally low vacancy rates, high income,
and low poverty rates.
* Five homes opened in areas which could be characterized
as having a weak housing market, as evidenced by high
vacancy rates.
35
Once the nine homes were identified and their characteristics
analyzed, actual house sales were researched using a multiple
listing service. Data was obtained for an area with a radius
of approximately three blocks (1200 ft. ) surrounding each
group home. Observations for a period of at least 24 months
before and after the opening of the nearest group home were
made whenever possible. The sample consisted of 127 house
sales from 1979 to 1983 . All sales were grouped by year and
a regression analysis was used to determine the effects of
the different factors. The regression analysis indicated the
following: -
* No price effects were found for group homes opening in
higher income areas.
* A positive price effect was found for group homes
opening in lower income areas, as property values
increased near the group home site relative to homes on
the same block, further away.
* The positive price effects in lower income areas
decreased with distance Irom the group home.
* The opening of a group home increased the time on the
market for homes up for sale in higher income areas.
* The increase in time-on-time-market in higher income
areas decreased with distance from the group home.
Results
Using price levels,. price increases, and length of time on
the market as measures of market effects, the study concluded
that for group homes opening in high socioeconomic markets,
no observable and statistically significant effects on
housing prices were found. However, there was some evidence
that group homes in these markets may have contributed to
increasing the time a house remained on the market before
being sold. ' In the case of group homes opening in below-
average socioeconomic. areas where housing markets are weak,
there was an observable and statistically significant
increase in the price of houses sold near the group home
site. Both the time-on-the-market effect in the high
socioeconomic market, and the price effect in the low
socioeconomic market, diminished with distance from the site.
36
Gruber, Kenneth J, Gladys G. Shelton, Ann
R. Hiatt. "The Impact of the Presence of
Manufactured Housing on Residential
Property Values: A Comparative Study of
Residential Property Transfers in
Selected Residential Areas of Guilford
County, " a report to the North Carolina
Manufactured Housing Institute, North
Carolina A & T State University,
September 20, 1986 (Study Period, 1980-
1986) .
The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of
manufactured housing on the values of site-built housing
located close to manufactured homes. Selling prices and tax
values of such homes were compared with those of comparably
valued homes on roads and road segments not in close
proximity to a manufactured home. The study was conducted in
Guilford County, North Carolina near the cities of
Greensboro, High Point, and Jamestown.
Method
Roads and road segments were identified where recent sales
had occurred of site-built houses that either had or did not
have a manufactured home in close proximity. Eight road
groupings were defined based on the following criteria: (1)
served as a primary road in the area, (2) intersected with at
least two heavily traveled roads, and (3) had a minimum of
four sales for the entire study period (1980 to mid-1986) .
Once the road groupings were identified, sales data were
obtained and selling prices were compared to building tax
values within the eight road groupings. A comparison ratio
was constructed indicating how residences sold relative to
their appraised tax values. This ratio compared the selling
price of a residence to its tax value minus the appraised
value of the land and the tax value of any extra
nonresidential features added to the structure.
Positive values 'indicated a sales price above the appraised
value of the building. Negative values indicated a sales
price below the appraised value.
Results
For three out of eight road groupings, the average selling
price of homes on "manufactured housing present" roads had a
positive, higher comparison ratio. The highest grouping,
for example, contained houses with manufactured homes nearby
that sold at 43 percent above their appraised tax value. In
37
comparison, in neighborhoods in the same road grouping where
manufactured homes were absent,. houses sold at 2 percent
above their appraised value.
For the other five road groupings, the comparison ratios
indicated slightly lower, but very similar selling price
levels for homes without manufactured housing nearby relative
to the appraised value of the homes near manufactured housing
within the same road grouping.
The results suggest that proximity, to manufactured housing in
Guilford County is not associated with lower property values.
. Sellers of site built homes near manufactured housing were at
least as likely, and in several cases more likely, to sell
their homes for an amount greater than the property' s
appraised tax value than were owners of homes not in
proximity to manufactured housing.
38
Nutt-Powell, Thomas E. , David Hoaglin,
and Jonathan Layzer , "Residential
Property Value and Mobile/Manufactured
Homes: A Case Study of Belmont, New
Hampshire, " Joint Center for Housing
Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Harvard University,
Working Paper W 86-1 (Study Period, 1981-
1983) .
This study examines the impact that mobile/manufactured homes
may have on nearby residential property values. Two major
criteria governed the selection of the test site. First, the
community - had to be of a manageable size, given the
limitations of the research group. This meant that the total
number of housing units had to be in the 1,500 range.
Second, the community under study should provide an
encouraging atmosphere for the development of mobile/
manufactured housing. This was attained in New Hampshire, as
it is substantially rural and many of its communities have
not moved toward extensive zoning.
As a result of these criteria, the town of Belmont, New
Hampshire was selected for the study. Belmont had no zoning
or other prohibitions on the use of mobile/manufactured
homes, and it also had a high proportion of mobile homes in
its current housing stock (nearly half of year-round
residential units) .
Method
Data were collected on the characteristics (location, size,
age) of all residential properties and on residential real
estate transactions for a three year period (1981-83) . - To
assess the impacts of mobile/manufactured homes and the
selling prices of single-family dwellings, multiple
regression techniques and logarithmic differences were used
to obtain a predicted sale price value for homes abutting and
not abutting mobile/manufactured homes. These predicted
values were then compared - with ..actual sale . prices, and the
differences between mobile/manufactured home abutters and
non-abutters were examined.
The basic assumption of the procedure was that differences
between houses abutting and those not abutting mobile/
manufactured homes would show up in the differences between
actual and predicted values: If mobile/manufactured homes
negatively affect the value of abutting single-family homes,
then the value of these homes would tend to be below that
predicted , because the model did not account for
mobile/manufactured home proximity.
39
Results
Results of the survey indicated that the ratio of actual
sales prices to predicted prices was typically 2 . 5 percent
higher among the non-abutters than among the abutters.
However, the difference was not felt to be statistically
significant as it did not approach the customary . 05 level of
significance . Thus , the authors concluded that
mobile/manufactured homes do not affect the property value of
abutting, site-built single-family -homes.
40
REFERENCES
Babb, Carol E. , Louis G. Pol and Rebecca F. Guy; The Impact
of Federally-Assisted Housing on Single-Family Housing Sales:
1970-1980, Mid-South Business Journal, pp. 13-17, July, 1984 .
Baird, Jeffrey C. ; The Effects of Federally Subsidized Low-
Income Housing on Residential Property Values in Suburban
Neighborhoods, Northern Virginia Board of Realtors Research
Study, December, 1980.
DeSalvo, Joseph S. ; Neighborhood Upgrading Effects of Middle-
Income Housing Projects in New York City, Journal of Urban
Economics, pp. 269-277 , Vol. 1, No. 3 , July, 1974 .
Downs, Anthony; An Economic Analysis of Property Values in
Race, Land Economics, May, 1960.
Farber, Stephen; Market Segmentation and the Effects on Group
Homes for the Handicapped on Residential Property Values,
Urban Studies, pp. 519-525, December, 1986.
Fenster, Fred and Robert Schafer; A Tenant Profile of Section
221 (d) (3 ) BMIR Housing Development, _ 1971 (unpublished
memorandum) .
Fuerst, J. S. and Mary Decker; How to Build Subsidized
Housing in the Suburbs, Planning, pp. 14-17 , October, 1977 .
Gruber, Kenneth J. , Gladys G. Shelton, and Ann R. Hiatt; The
Impact of the Presence of Manufactured Housing on Residential
Property Values: A Comparative Study of Residential Property
Transfers in Selected Residential Areas of Guilford County, A
Report to the North Carolina Manufactured Housing Institute,
North Carolina A & T State University, September 20, 1986.
Guy, Donald C. , John L. Hysom, and Stephen R. Ruth; The
Effect of Subsidized Housing on Values of Adjacent Housing,
Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban -- Economics .
Association, Vol. 13 , No. 4 , 1985.
Hicks , Edward ; Study Proves : MHs Do Not Depreciate
Conventional Neighbors , Manufactured Housing Dealer,
February, 1982.
Howland, Libby; Holloway Terrace: Neighborhood Acceptance of
Affordable Housing in San Francisco, Urban Land, September,
1985.
41
Laurenti, Luigi; Property Values and Race, University of
California Press, Berkeley, California, 1960.
Nourse, Hugh O; The Effects of Public Housing on Property
Values in St. Louis, Land Economics, November, 1963 .
Nutt-Powell, Thomas E.. , David Hoaglin, and Jonathan Layzer;
Residential Property Value and Mobile/Manufactured Homes: A
Case Study of Belmont, New Hampshire, Joint Center for
Technology and Harvard University, Working Paper W 86-1.
Rabiega, William A. , Ta-Win Lin, and Linda M. Robinson; The
Property Value Impacts of Public Housing Projects in Low and
Moderate Density Residential Neighborhoods, - Land Economics,
Vol. 6, No. 2 , May, 1984 .
Saunders, Linda and Michael J. Woodford; The Effect of a
Federally Assisted Housing Project on Property Values,
Colorado State University Extension Service, Jefferson County
Colorado, September, 1979 .
Schafer, Robert; The Effect of BMIR Housing on Property
Values, Land Economics, August, 1972 .
Sedway, Lynn and Associates; Impact of Affordable Housing on
Property Values , Report Prepared for the Ecumenical
Association for Housing, February 8 , 1983 .
Torrey and Torrey Incorporated; EIR for Corte Madera Homes,
Prepared by Haley-Leslie Appraisal Company, September, 1983 .
Warren , Elizabeth, Robert M. Aduddell, and Raymond
Tatalovich; The Impact of Subsidized Housing on Property
Values: A Two-Pronged Analysis of Chicago and Cook County
Suburbs, Center for Urban Policy, Loyola University of
Chicago, Urban Insight Series No. 13 , August, 1983 .
c:marco2
42
17' i
The Case for
Multifamily
Housing
E the Urban Land Institute
ULI's Steering Committee for
The Case for Multifamily Housing
Frank A. Passadore,Chair
President/Chief Operating Officer
The Grupe Company
Stockton,California
John D.Bloodgood Ronald C.Nahas
President Vice President
Bloodgood Architects&Planners,Inc. R.T.Nahas Company i
Des Moines,Iowa Castro Valley,California
G.Niles Bolton John B.Slidell
President Executive Vice President
Niles Bolton Associates,Inc. Bozzuto&Associates
Atlanta,Georgia Greenbelt,Maryland
H.James Brown Robert W.Wagner
Director/Professor President
Joint Center for Housing Prometheus Development Company
Harvard University San Mateo,California
Cambridge,Massachusetts
i
i
About ULI- ULI Project Staff
the Urban Land Institute
J.Thomas Black
ULI-the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit education and re- Staff Vice President,Research
search institute that is supported and directed by its mem- Frank H.Spink,Jr.
bers.Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the Staff Vice President, Publications
use of land in order to enhance the total environment.
Diane R.Buchman
ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encour- Director,Housing and Community Development Research
age an open international exchange of ideas and sharing of Project Director _
experience;initiates research that anticipates emerging land
use trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based Cynthia Angell
on this research;provides advisory services;and publishes Project Manager
a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on ?�
land use and development. Nancy H.Stewart g
EditorI
Established in 1936,the Institute today has more than 16,000
members and associates from 40 countries representing the M.Elizabeth VanBuskirk
entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Art Director
They comprise developers,builders,property owners,invest-
ors,architects,public officials,planners,real estate brokers, Helene Y.Redmond
appraisers,attorneys,engineers,financiers,academics,stu- Manager, Computer-Assisted Publishing
dents,and librarians.ULI members contribute to high stan- Diann Stanley-Austin
dards of land use by sharing their knowledge and experience.
The Institute has long been recognized as one of America's Production Manager ii
most respected and widely quoted sources of objective infor- Printed in the United States of America.All rights reserved.
oration on urban planning,growth,and development. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by 1.
David E.Stahl any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopy- i
Executive Vice President in&recording,or by an information storage and retrieval {'�
system,without permission of the publisher. l
ULI Catalog Number M36
ISBN 0-87420-717-7
Copyright 1991 by ULI-the Urban Land Institute
625 Indiana Avenue,N.W.,Washington,D.C.20004
I
� I
2
0 Nis
® ® ■ ®
The Case for Multifanu*lyHousing
hanging demographic patterns, changing lifestyles, and high housing costs have cre-
ated demand for a variety of housing choices and, in particular, for multifamily hous-
ing. Unfortunately, in many communities, local opposition and regulatory barriers
have made it difficult to build the multifamily housing that many people need and want.
Community frustrations about rapid growth and change make higher-density housing an
easy target. Some people also fear that multifamily housing will have negative effects on the
property values of single-family homes and are concerned about newcomers moving to the
community. Much of the opposition is based on a lack of understanding about the demand
for such housing and a lack of experience with the multifamily products produced by today's
building community.
This booklet addresses some of the common concerns about multifamily housing and dis-
cusses some of the advantages this type of housing can offer. Its purpose is to provide factual
information to citizen groups, public officials, members of the development community, and
others.
Multifamily housing is defined here as housing that is built for rent or for sale at market
prices and at densities ranging from 15 to 50 units per acre. The types of dwelling units in-
cluded.range from townhouses, garden apartments, and condominiums built at 15 to 20 units
to an acre to mid-rise apartment and condominium structures of three to six stories built at
30 to 50 units to an acre.
The key advantages of multifamily housing are that it fills a market need, it can provide more
affordable housing in high-cost areas, it offers housing consumers a lifestyle choice, and it
represents a more efficient use of land. Especially in suburban communities where employ-
ment centers are located, a high-amenity lifestyle is desired, land is expensive, and long com-
mutes are common, multifamily living can be an attractive alternative.
It should be noted that multifamily housing is described here according to units per acre of
individual development projects, and not according to the overall intensity of development.'
The term does not imply widespread high-density development throughout a community.
3
Multifamily housing is needed nesters, persons once again living alone because of
Y divorce or death of a spouse—frequently prefer to
and preferred by many people live in multifamily housing.Multifamily housing
today often can meet the temporary needs of people who
are in the process of changing jobs while they locate
Today's housing market demands a wide variety of permanent living quarters. And,the increasing num-
housing choices.Households now represent many dif- ber of disabled individuals capable of independent
ferent living arrangements.Singles,unmarried couples, living typically prefer multifamily structures with
and the elderly constituted 42 percent of the nations convenient services and easy access.
89.5 million households in 1987,and accounted for
nearly half of the 8.7 million new households formed Those who choose multifamily housing are often long-
from 1980 to 1987.2 These and newlywed,childless,or time members of the community.Eighty-six percent
empty-nester households have different,often smaller, of surveyed older Americans prefer to remain in the
housing needs from those of the traditional house- familiar neighborhoods where they have been living.
hold of parents and children. (Sixty-five percent of them have lived in the same com-
munity for more than 20 years.) Many find,however,
Although parents raising a family of children over- that they no longer need or can maintain the family
whelmingly prefer to live in single-family homes, home. And younger households who wish to remain
smaller households—young people just starting out, near the neighborhoods in which they grew up and
young married couples saving for a first home,empty where their families live often find they are priced out
Located in an established neighborhood in central Raleigh,North Carolina,Bishops Park exhibits elements of older home
design,such as varied rooflines with gables and stylized chimneys, that are common to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Developed at a density of 19.2 units per acre,Bishops Park includes parklike open space with groves of large oak trees and
high-quality landscaping walls,pavings,and plantings.The developer was Martin Development Group and the architect
was David Furman Architecture.
4
Common Reasons for Moving and 'Multifamily developments
Choice of Current Residence
enable communities to provide
19 18
r - housing that is affordable to a
16 _ _. wider range of incomes.
`-
c I
M 14 '° l At the same time that changes in living arrangements
3 12 have created demand for smaller,multifamily housing
10 1ti s alternatives,in many places the cost of owning a sin-
e gle-family home has soared out of reach of middle-
8- tY j class households.The high cost of buying a first
u s home has forced many young people to delay or
a - abandon their efforts to purchase a single-family
a _ r
home.
2
Homeownership rates declined during the 1980s for
° New Job/ Forming Better closer Larger Family other the first time since.World War II,especially among the
Transfer New Home to Job Home Reason on For households under 34 ears of age,home-
Household young. y g
ownership rates have remained substantially below
single-Family Multifamily 1980 levels."This means that many households are
remaining in the rental market longer,and others are
Multifamily housing fulfills a variety of needs. choosing to purchase attached housing rather than
single-family homes.
Source:U.S.Bureau of the Census,American Housing
Survey,1985. Affordable,multifamily housing is also important in
serving the needs of moderate-wage teachers,nurses,
police,and administrative personnel as well as,lower-
wage workers in restaurants,hospitals,retail shops,
and service establishments.These households are an
integral part of the community and provide the essen-
of the market.Where higher-density housing choices tial government,retail,and business services that are
are available,people are able to remain in their neigh- associated with a high quality of life 5 _
borhoods through the different stages of their lives
rather than being forced out by their changing hous-
ing needs or economic circumstances.
Income Group Category by
Multifamily living is often the best or preferred solu- Residential Choice
tion to economic or lifestyle choices that we all face
over time.All of us,at some point in our lives,will fit 32
into one or more of the categories of small households e
mentioned earlier.Thus,the households that could 28 $$$ $$$$
benefit from higher-density housing choices would in- � , , � ;
elude those of our children,our parents,and our- 9 2a y;
selves,at different periods in our lives. d 20 54 '$: i $ s �
Whether owned or rented,multifamily housing is = 16 ,� ,
appealing because typically it costs less than single- `ow i f
c 12 a a
family housing,it requires less maintenance,it offers � �
more security and often more social opportunities, a a ?
and it frequently includes attractive and convenient 1 s' 4 ;
recreational facilities and services.In addition,whether a 5 v
built on infill sites or in newly developing suburbs ;,, 3
and planned communities,multifamily housing de- ° <$10 $10419 $20-$29 $30-$39 $40-449 $so+
velopments tend to be located near other more com- Income Group(Income In Thousands of Dollars)
pact land uses and are convenient to employment
centers,public transportation,and neighborhood ser- ■Multifamily Single-Family Total Population
vices. Depending on the design of the individual de-
velopment,multifamily housing can create a more Residents of multifamily housing are represented in all
varied and exciting environment for those who prefer incornegroups.
a somewhat more urban lifestyle. of
Source:Kenneth Danter&Co.,1989;and U.S.Bureau
the Census,American Housing Survey,1985.
5
depending on market demand.In some new higher-
density developments,household incomes have even
tended to be higher than average. A recent informal
ULI survey found that incomes of$30,000 to$40,000
predominate in many new developments in California;
' in the mid-Atlantic states,income ranges of$32,000 to
$52,000 are common.Given the market-rate pricing of
today's multifamily housing,some residents may
have higher housing costs than do area homeowners
with longstanding low-interest mortgages.
Affordable, multifamily hous-
ing choices are important to the
economic vitality of the larger
community.
As noted,multifamily housing is typically—although
not always—more affordable than lower-density hous-
ing. By excluding multifamily housing,communities
drive up land and housing prices,thereby practicing
de facto segregation along economic lines and by
types of households.Though often deliberate,this is
unwise.
A region's economic growth and vitality depend on
the presence of a sufficient supply of workers.And a
region s ability to attract workers depends in large
measure on the availability of affordable housing.`'
Where alternatives to expensive single-family homeI.s
are not available,many households are forced to move
farther away from employment centers to find afford-
able housing.If the lack of affordable housing near
Renaissance Park comprises two-and three-level wood and employment centers becomes severe,a labor shortage
masonry structures with stucco exteriors and green copper will result. Employers may find it difficult to hire
roofs that are compatible with the character and architec- workers for lower-paying jobs and consequently may
ture of its location in downtown Phoenix.The 170-unit have to pay higher wages to attract scarce workers.
stacked townhouse development was designed at a density Higher wage scales ultimately will drive up the costs
of 16.5 units per acre by Acanthus Architecture and Plan- of many other goods and services."
ning and built by Coventry Homes,Inc.1ts amenities in-
clude a clubhouse,a swimming pool and Jacuzzis,and As the cost of doing business increases,certain busi-
landscaped courtyards. nesses may be unable to compete.Where labor short-
ages exist,communities will be hard pressed to attract
new economic development,and existing businesses
may not be able to expand. Eventually,businesses
may be forced to relocate to areas with less expensive
In many communities,the high price of land and land housing markets.'Such relocation decisions can have
development makes single-family housing too expen- a negative impact on the regional economy.
sive for the average-income household to afford.Where
higher densities are allowed,the land cost can be spread
over more units,resulting in lower production costs
and more affordable prices for the consumer.Thus,es-
pecially where land is expensive,multifamily housing
can offer an affordable alternative to a single-family
home.
Of course,not everyone who chooses a multifamily
environment is motivated by cost.Not all multifamily
housing is inexpensive. Like single-family housing,
multifamily housing can serve a range of incomes,
6
Multifamily housing can help
minimize areawide traffic
congestion.
A prevailing belief is that multifamily housing contrib-
utes to a community's traffic problems.In fact,while
it may increase traffic at an individual site,it can re- �■
lieve significantly overall regional traffic congestion. ��14
When affordable,multifamily housing choices near
job centers are in short supply,workers must live in
distant suburbs where housing is more affordable.
This situation not only results in long,uncomfortable,
and expensive commutes,it also increases areawide
traffic congestion.As more cars criss-cross the com-
munity from distant homes to work,everyone's com-
mute becomes more difficult,more fuel is consumed,
air pollution problems are exacerbated,and a feeling w
of crowding and frustration is created. -
1 -
Multifamilyhousing allows more people to live in -
g P P
housingthe can afford that is near their work. In ad-
dition, hen multifamily housing developments are t "=
clustered along transportation corridors,various kinds ••'`
of mass transportation become feasible.Low-density --3
development cannot be economically served by mass ti
transportation because great distances must be trav-
eled to benefit comparatively few people.Nodes of
multifamily housing provide efficient locations for
bus stops and possibly other mass transportation
alternatives as well.
�1y
Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation for Lenox Gables apartments,designed by Niles Bolton Associ-
ates and built by Trammell Crow Residential,features clas-
Residential Areas sic architecture with gabled roofs,central courtyards,and
varied exterior wall lines that create a standard of quality
consistent with the neighboring established single-family
to J communities.Lenox Gables has 30 dwelling units per acre
9 and is part of a 165-acre Lenox Park master-planned
com-munity that includes offices,homes,and shops.Located in
c a 4 tr the Buckhead area of Atlanta,Georgia,Lenox Park is de-
a signed so that residents can live,work,and play within the
} z E community.Two-thirds of the community land area will be
a 6 open space,and an automated people-mover will connect it
5 to the nearby MARTA rapid rail system.
`o
g a
3 Residents of multifamily housing tend to own fewer
Z cars and to use them less often.The Institute of Trans-
2-
a portation Engineers estimates that a single-family home
is likely to generate an average of 10 auto trips per
o weekday,compared to six for an apartment or condo-
Single-Family Apartments condominiums minium."'In the San Francisco Bay Area,recent infor-
Houses mal surveys indicate that 35 to 40 percent of residents
Type of Dwelling Unit who live close to suburban stations use public trans-
portation." Higher-density housing developments
i Residents single-family houses make more auto trips located near transit corridors,on infill sites,or in
than those n multifamily housing. mixed-use centers allow more people to have pedes-
Source:Wolfgang S.Homburger et al.,Residential Street trian or transit access to employment, shopping,
Design and Traffic Control(Washington,D.C.:Institute of services, and leisure activities, thereby reducing
Transportation Engineers,1989). dependence on the automobile.
7
Multifamily housing creates Capital Costs of Development of
efficiencies in the construction Alternative Residential Densities
of public facilities and the deliv- n 45 .
ery of public services. 3
35
Standardization of cost benefit ratios or fiscal impact o
calculations for residential developments of different 0 CO
densities is difficult because of the many variables in- 8 V25
volved,such as disparities in resident incomes and de- 41,11
mographic profiles;differences in assessed values of r 20
developments;differences in the types of services that "E 15
are delivered or paid for by various levels of govern-
ment;and differing revenue sources and structures o 10
for various jurisdictions. °
c
Nonetheless,in developed areas,multifamily infill 1 DU/Acre 5 DU/Acre 10 DU/Acre 15 DU/Acre 30 DU/Acre
housing generally concentrates growth in areas well
served by public facilities and makes more efficient Dwelling Units(DU)per Acre
use of existing infrastructure.Studies conducted over Multifamily housing creates cost efficiencies in the con-
the last 30 years have concluded that when develop- struction of pit blic facilities. The cost of providing public
ment is spread out at low densities,the per-unit cost facilities to single-family development with five units per
of constructing and maintaining public facilities in- acre can be almost twice that of multifamily apartments
creases.The reason for this is that low-density devel- with 30 units per acre.
opment requires more miles of roads,curbs,sewers,
and water lines;and municipal services must be deliv- Source: ULI-the Urban Land Institute,The Costs of Alter-
ered over a greater geographic area.12 Certain public native Development Patterns:A Review of the Literature
facilities and public services often can be provided (Washington,D.C.:author,1989),p.40.These amounts
more efficiently when many households are clustered include the neighborhood costs of providing streets,util-
compactly rather than scattered over a large area. ities,and schools.
f
As a rule,multifamily housing imposes less of an housing is generally occupied by single persons;young
education burden on communities.Residents of multi- families with few,if any,school age children;and
family dwelling units generate substantially fewer older couples.Most families with children in multi-
school children per unit than do residents of single- family housing tend to work very hard to move into
family homes.This fact is reflected in the"student larger townhouses or single-family homes,because
yield ratios' used by school districts around the coun- they want the space.
try to estimate enrollment.For example,in the Wash-
ington,D.C.,suburbs,school districts figure that Number of School-Age Children'
single-family homes yield almost twice the number of g
school age children per unit that garden apartment By Housing Unit Type
complexes produce,and more than three times that of Multifamily Households S' a-Famil Households
high-rise apartments. That is because multifamily y y
Regional and National Demographic Two(3.4%) Three+(0.1%) Two(15.4%) Three+(7.8%)
Multipliers for School-Age Children by One One(15.8%)
Standard Housing Types (4 5%)
Single- Garden High-Rise None(72.0%) None(61.0%)
Region Family Apartments Apartments
Northeast .630 .389 .000
North Central .896 .303 .000
South .679 .199 -
West .731 .258 .000
National .723 .250 -
In all regions, the number of school children per unit de- Households living in multifamily housing have fewer
creases dramatically with increasing housing density. school children than those in single-family housing.
Source:David Listokin,Center for Urban Policy Re- Under 18 years old.
search,Rutgers University;and U.S.Bureau of the Cen- Source:Kenneth Danter&Co.,1989;and U.S. Bureau of
sus,American Housing Survey,1985. the Census,American Housing Survey,1985.
8
Well-designed multifamily With higher densities,it can become economically fea-
sible to provide common facilities and recreational
housing can be an attractive, amenities.The range of amenities,which can include
swimming pools,playgrounds,tennis courts,health
compatible addition to the facilities,and on-site convenience stores and services,
community is not typical of low-density,single-family neighbor-
• hoods except in planned communities.The availabil-
Like single-family housing developments,each multi- ity of such facilities within the development reduces
family housing development is unique. Architecture the need for short auto trips—thus reducing traffic—
and appearance will vary.However,certain design as well as the demand for public recreational facilities.
trends can be observed.In the past,many apartments
were plain and boxy;today,designers of multifamily Multifamily housing also is compatible with the de-
housing are much more creative and sensitive to sire of homeowners to protect their property values.
neighborhood context.New building materials and Clearly,the value of an individual property is deter-
construction techniques have enabled more creative mined by a number of considerations such as its loca-
use of gables,chimneys,sloped roofs,and balconies tion,the quality of the structure,the nature of the local
in low-rise buildings. housing market,and the quality of the neighborhood.
But it has been observed in locations around the coun-
Developers are giving increasing attention to siting, try where multifamily housing has dominated the res-
exterior details,and landscaping to create housing idential construction market,that prices of existing
that is appropriate to its natural setting and neighbor- single-family homes have continued to rise.Whether
hood traditions."Multifamily structures allow greater or not and how any particular adjacent use will affect
flexibility in siting buildings,which makes it possible property values will depend on individual circum-
to preserve open space and the distinctive natural fea- stances,but no evidence exists to indicate that multi-
tures of the site such as hillsides,streams, or stands family housing per se diminishes the property values
of trees. of existing single-family homes.
Y
U
Z
C
c
cp
I$:
fliilgi:
+.
,o
en
Built at a density of 32 dwelling units per acre,The Broadwater apartments in Galveston,Texas,reflects materials and archi-
tectural elements common to the resort city's early buildings—wood frame and siding,bay windows,high gables,dormers,
and turrets.The green roof,gray siding,and white trim are also characteristic of early buildings.The development was de-
signed by Jim Wallace,Wallace.&Associates,and built by The Hanover Company,both of Houston,Texas.
9
Single-Family Housing Prices in Multifamily housing represents
Cities Where Multifamily Housing
Permits Have Dominated the Market a more efficient use of land
260 resources.
2ao
Multifamily housing types encourage more compact
N 0 220 development,which can serve the social objectives of
p ;�o open space preservation,energy conservation,reduced
W 160 automobile travel demand,and more productive use
0 140 ; ` of infrastructure.As discussed earlier,density limits
120 in existing suburbanized areas can lead to the exten-
ts o 100 Sion of urbanization farther out into the surrounding
60 area,which consumes valuable farmland and open
T 60 space and causes people to live farther from their jobs
E ao than they would if affordable housing opportunities
LL z0 were available closer in.
0
I " -A
Anaheim/ Fort Los Angeles/ Miami/ Milwaukee Seattle Santa Ana Lauderdale/ Long Hialeah Individual multifamily P housingdevelopments can
Hollywood Beach help to preserve open space because typically they re-
quire less site coverage per unit and less land devoted
®1s6� 1s66 lses to building a road network.In addition,the greater ef-
In cities where multifamily housing construction has domi- ficiency and flexibility in site planning for multifamily
hated the market,the price of existing single-family houses housing make it possible to retain more open space.
has continued to rise. This advantage is particularly apparent when multi-
family housing is included in larger planned unit or
Source:U.S.Bureau of the Census,and National Associa- cluster developments,in which structures,streets,
tion of Realtors. and utilities can be developed on the most buildable
portion of the site,and valuable natural features can
Successfully developing multifamily housing close to be retained and enhanced.For example,a 135-acre
single-family neighborhoods requires good planning, site in California that was developed with 1,165 sin-
visually appealing design,and a buffer of trees or gle-family,townhouse,condominium,and apartment
open space to define the different land uses.Properly units was able to include an eight-acre park,25 acres
designed multifamily housing can coexist compatibly of open stream channel,15 acres of undeveloped hill-
with single-family housing. sides,and recreational areas in each of the six multi-
Undisturbed Disturbed Area Undisturbed Undisturbed Disturbed Area'I Undisturbed Area
Area Area Area
Single-Family Houses Townhouses
At higher densities,more homes can be built using less land,and using less land minimizes environmental disturbance.For
example,the amount of impervious cover required to build multifamily housing is less than the amount required to build the
same number of single-family units.
Source:American Society of Landscape Architects,Information:ASLA Housing Open Committee Newsletter,July 1990.
10
The West Palm in Westchester,California,is a contemporary,Mediterranean-style development of The Homestead Group
Associates.Designed at a density of 53 units per acre by Johannes Van Tilburg&Partners,The West Palm consists of three
distinctive three-story buildings that are connected by a trail of lushly landscaped walkways through trees and meandering
streams.Recreational facilities include two full-sized swimming pools, two fully equipped fitness centers,and a jogging
traiVexercise course.
family neighborhoods.t5 This project provides housing In summary,multifamily housing is needed to pro-
choices for the entire community,as well as signifi- vide housing consumers with a more varied and
cant recreational and common open space amenities. often more affordable range of lifestyle choices and
housing locations.Young people just starting out,
More compact development requires less infrastruc- newlyweds,widows,and other small households
ture to service residential units and minimizes the often seek the convenience,security,and amenities
land area required for clearing and grading. Less dis- that multifamily housing can offer.From a societal
turbance of the land results in additional environmen- standpoint,multifamily housing represents an effi-
tal and aesthetic benefits—erosion and stormwater cient use of land and transportation resources and
runoff are minimized and more of the site's existing can be important to businesses seeking to attract
natural resources can be preserved. workers essential to the area's economic growth.
11
Notes Housing:The Dual Crisis(Washington,D.C.:The Greater Wash-
ington Research Center,1990).
Iln commercial and industrial developments,the Anne Swardson,"Affordable Housing Void Threat-
floor-to-area ratio(FAR),or the square footage of floor area ens Labor Supply," The Washington Post,July 19,1990,p.E-4.
relative to the size of the site,is used to measure the inten- 8David E.Dowall,The Suburban Squeeze(Berkeley:
sity of land use.This type of measure would be more accu- University of California Press,1984),p.8.
rate than using density to measure the intensity of residen- 9Ibid.
tial use on a particular site. 10Wolfgang S.Homburger et al.,Residential Street
2Kenneth T.Rosen,"The Apartment Market:A Chang- Design and Traffic Control(Washington,D.C.:Institute of
ing Demographic and Economic Environment,"Housing Transportation Engineers,1989),pp.887,1,151.
Finance Review,Vol.8,No.1,Winter 1989,p.66. "Sedway and Associates,BART Higher Density Resi-
3American Association of Retired Persons,Understand- dential Study(San Francisco:author,1989),p.1.
ing Senior Housing for the 1990's(Washington,D.C.:author, 12ULI-the Urban Land Institute,The Costs of AI ternative
1990),p.28. Development Patterns:A Review of the Literature(Washington,
4Joint Center for Housing Studies,The State of the D.C.:author,1989),p.5.
Nation's Housing 1990(Cambridge:Harvard University,1990), 13School districts of Fairfax County,Virginia,and
p.36. Montgomery County,Maryland,1990.
5Anthony Downs,"The Need for a New Vision for 14For more detailed information on trends in the design
the Development of Large U.S.Metropolitan Areas"(New of multifamily housing,see James W.Wentling and Lloyd
York:Salomon Brothers,Inc.,1989),p.11. W.Bookout,eds.,Density by Design(Washington,D.C.:ULI-
6The relationship between insufficient affordable hous- the Urban Land Institute,1989).
ing and the shortage of labor in the Washington,D.C.,re- 15Willow Creek in Dublin,California,developed by
gion is described in some detail by George Grier in Jobs and Rafanelli and Nahas.
A note to our Readers:
We hope you have found the information in The Case for Multifamily Housing useful. It is part of ULI's ongoing
effort to provide information on land use and development issues.
If you would like additional copies of the booklet to pass on to your colleagues,please use the form below.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
El YES I want The Case for Multifamily Housing.
Please send me—packs of The Case for Multifamily Housing(#M36) I
$19 per pack of 25/ULI members *Shipping charges:
$24 per pack of 25/nonmembers For orders$50 and under,add$3 $501 to$700,add$15
Subtotal $ $51 to$100,add$4 $701 to$1,000,add$20
$101 to$300,add$7 Over$1,000,add$25
I Shipping* $TOTAL $ $301 to$500,add$9 --
� -�
I ❑ ULI member ID# ❑ Nonmember I
Name Telephone( )
I Title Company I
Address
I City State Zip I
❑ My check is enclosed (payable to ULI-the Urban Land Institute).
❑ Bill me(ULI members only). I
❑ Charge my ❑ VISA ❑ MasterCard ❑ American Express ❑ Diners Club ❑ Carte Blanche
Card It Expires
Cardholder Name
Please mail order to: For faster service,
I Publications Orders Call:1-800-321-5011
ULI-the Urban Land Institute or I
I 625 Indiana Avenue,N.W. Fax:202-624-7140
Washington,D.C. 20004-2930 Prices sul/ect to clian e without notice. 9DC
L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12
��; =�
W �- :�-
£--
/'►-tvlc� u(ram u`car`.
i
HERE WE GO AGAIN
THE CITY WANTS TO PUT 21 APARTMENTS
WHERE ONLY 5 HOMES
WERE SUPPOSED TO BE
SEVEM YEARS AGO OUR DEVELOPER
DECIDED NOT TO FINISH HIS
OBLIGATION TO BUILD THE FINAL STAGE OF
5 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS HE HAD
ADVERTISED AND COMMITTED HIMSELF
YO US THE PURCHASERS OF THE
.�.w+www.■ w ■ i r
HUNTINGTON CLASSIC HOMES
The City and the developer waked a deal for the City to pay a very large
amount of our tax dollars to purchase the 5 lots at Yorktown and Lake for the
purpose of building low income musing. This was done without the residents
being noted until after the deal was passed by the City Council.
The accountabieness of this action leaves a great deal to be desired.
After the City spends the money to build these 21 apartments they will sell the
project to a company that will own and run It as a tax shelter. The City will have
no future control of the project and the maintenance will be left up to the
apartment owners who will have an agenda to only make money, not develop a
beautiful place for senior citizens to spend their golden years.
The maintenance of the project will be out of the hands of the City. Just
drive down Golden West, Yorktown, 1 st Street, Garfield and ask yourself just ..
how good a job does the City do in policing the ordinances for keeping unsightly
areas from view and policing the owners of the problems.
For the past two years the City's Economic Development Department and
some of the local homeowners that have decided to do there civic duty have
been having meetings. 1 find it very appauling that we have not been included
In these meeting to develop the apartments over the last year or more. How
underhanded Is this method since the CITY COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO
VOTE ON THE ISSUE THIS TUESDAY NIGHT WITHOUT THE INPUT OF THE
AREA CONSTITUENTS PRIOR TO THAT NIGHT 111111111111
All of us have nothing against senior citizens, however, building 21
apartment units in our front yard is not what we agreed to when we purchased
our expensive homes.
The City has many other locations that they can build the apartments and
satisfy their needs to meet the FEDERAL mandates of providing housing per the
charter of the redevelopment districts.
THE CITY SHOULD SILL THE PROPERTY JO A LOCAL DEVELOPER
TO,BUILD.5,;NNEW-HOU363jN8j-AS THE-CITY.-kL D ORIGINALLY
PERMITTED THE PROPERTY-TO BE USED FOR. THE CRY j j&j NOT
ACTED IN A JUDICIOUS AND ETHICAL WAY 1N GIVING US A 3 DAY NOTICE
TO RALLY A REBUTTAL TO STOP THE ISSUING OF THE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 21 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
DO YOU THINK IT IS CORRECT TO GIVE YOU A 3 DAY NOTICE TO
OBJECT TO A PROJECT THAT SHALL LOWER YOUR PROPERTY VALUES ?
JOIN ME IN ATTENDING THE COUNCIL MEETING AND DEMANDING
THAT HEARINGS AND MEETING INVOLVING THE ENTIRE NEIGBORHOOD
BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IN LIEU OF THE VOTE TO
ISSUE THE PERMITS OF WHAT HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM US ALL.
MILTON DMODY
1921 LAKE STREET
714 536-2824
1937 Pine Street
• Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 960-9665
August 9, 1996 VA f
3
The Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach AUG 12 1996
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach CA 92648 �; ' h� !"�``
BOWENS COURT (LAKE AND YORKTOWN) DEVELOPMENT
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are writing in support of the development of the southeast corner of Lake and Yorktown.
This eyesore needs to be developed. We understand that a couple of years ago, a similar public
hearing took place and some of our neighbors objected to this type of development because it
was for "low income" seniors. When we moved into our homes, it was explained to us then by
the builder that. senior housing would be built on this site; therefore we moved in on that
understanding.
• We have examined the plans of this development and compliment the City's planner on his
designs which blend in with the unique exterior elevations of our homes. The development will
make an attractive addition to the Huntington Classics on Lake, Pine and Park Streets. ,
We believe that seniors make excellent neighbors. They are quiet, they don't race cars up and
down streets, they don't ride roller blades or skateboards, and they rarely have motor cycles!
Additionally, they don't leave their homes a great deal, so additional traffic on this corner won't
be a problem.
Yorktown Avenue between Lake and Beach is looking blighted, as is Beach Boulevard north of
Yorktown. We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to make these busy corridors
attractive to the people we hope will move into new housing developments in our City.
We encourage the City to develop Bowens Court in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
John and Carole Thomas
JT:ct
=P Kw OHc d Ivecy'{
ao HE,M�4,tciltR ,'� : ;.� {yroO..Siq• Jb
i � �� � ° ,1 (nK� aNi'��• 3fw.� .7i•V• 7)Srtl:s
' UNrf(•f UN�S r'Jv"�/B �yAeY COhM4N/!Y /(oDM UN/JCY 2Zv."L23 (/V� /
(W7 13 aR•a v). A-L
PUBLIC HEARING - BOWEN COURTS (LAKE AND YORKTOWN)
A public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach will be held on Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach.
Item No. 3 reads as follows: `CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94.22 (BOWEN COURTS):
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach,Economic Development Department. Request: To permit the construction of a 23 unit,two(2)story senior
apartment project to be designated solely for very low income seniors based on the Orange County median. The request includes a density bonus
for 23 units in lieu of 17 units permitted under the present zoning and a reduction in parking and private open space requirements. Location: 1968
Lake Street, (southeast comer at Yorktown Avenue). Proiect Planner: Wayne Carvalho."
We need to attend the meeting as a group and support this choice of development. The design at the top of this page is taken directly
from the architect's renderings of the project. Note that the elevations were designed to blend in with the unique exterior elevations •
of our homes: The development will make an attractive addition to the Huntington Classics.
This eyesore needs to be developed. A couple of years'ago, a similar hearing took place and some of our neighbors objected to this
type of development because it was for "low income" seniors. Let's face it, we'll all be on a fixed income when we become seniors!
Most seniors who live on Social Security fall into this category. The City has to have a certain amount of low income housing and
we feel very fortunate that they have limited this to seniors as opposed to the alternatives. Seniors are excellent neighbors because
they are quiet, they don't race cars up and down streets, they don't ride roller blades or skateboards, and they rarely have motor
cycles! They don't leave their homes a great deal, so additional traffic won't be a problem.
We hx,e copies of the plans. If you would like to see them please give us a call. See you on Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7 p.m.!
John & Carole Thomas, 1937 Pine Street - (714) 960-9665
RECEIVED
CITY .LEO
k;I,1 Y Or
DATE% October 14, 1996 µuNT.xGT�+;
TO: Connie Brockway
OCT 15 I143
Huntington Beach City Council Members
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
z /_ r
��'ec.o
FROM: Darlene Dunn and Chuck Ramey
Wa oo Huntington Classics Residents
z W 1945 Lake Street
LU eo Mw 714-536-4298
W C'
0 nQ.200 RE• Council Meeting October 16
0
2
O
w Unfortunately, due to previous professional obligations, we will be unable to attend the
council meeting Wednesday night, October 16, However, we would like to once again
express our complete displeasure in the proposed Senior Citizen Housing project at Lake
and Yorktown...a VERY LOW rental project!!
The more we understand the scope of this project, the more disappointed we become. As
stated in a previous letter, we are long time Huntington Beach residents. This is out third
house within a mile radius. One would think we are the kind of citizens our fine town
should want to retain and attract. Clearly decisions such as these are the kind to turn
citizens elsewhere and consider alternatives. The City appears to have made an incredibly
bad business decision in purchasing the.proposed property site. However, there is
absolutely no good business reason to compound the issue by following that action up
with even more bad decisions.
Should this low income rental property be allowed to be built, the impact on our
neighborhood is of a very negative nature: Traffic would become worse,the noise factor
will increase, and property values will decline. Not to mention that the element of people
low income rental property attracts, is not what any neighborhood in this city needs more
of.
Our eleven year old daughter is fearful of walking to school as a result of the element she
currently has to encounter. She has been approached twice already by others asking if she
would like to buy some"joints". She was absolutely frightened and upset. It's beyond us
why this city would want to impose this kind of housing project when we already have our
hands full of drugs and crime.
Bad business deals should not result in even worse business decisions. Our friends and
neighbors will be presenting alternatives on October 16 that should seriously be
considered. It's unfortunate the city may not reap the profits from this parcel as had
hoped. But not supporting the citizens of this community would be a far worse crime.
We urge you to adopt a better plan to improve our city...not make it worso.
LARRY H. KASULKA Ph.D. P.E. - " Cl7I4 96a- 406$
1952 Lake Street FAX (714) 9604206
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Mail: FFSSO813@13rodigitgorm ^
14 October 1996 f--�3' s•� GGCa�, . tl�t�. r ��
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVED r"o
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ?�
%MS CONNIE BROCKWAY OCT 5 1996 "
CITY CLERK
m
2000 Main Street, DEPARTMENT OF
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ref: "Mitigated Negative Declaration 94-22" &
Dear City Council Members:
By current definition I am one of your senior citizens, an over 55. My wife and I have worked all
our lives and have just retired so we are now in our 'Golden Years'. We are long time residents
of Huntington Beach, we have worked, owned a business and raised our children here in
Huntington Beach. So it is here over the years we have planned and saved for our retirement.
No ! I'm not writing to ask for an advanced reservation in the proposed plan- instead I would like
to point out that if you are 55+ or 25 those who have invested so heavily in our homes deserve
your consideration. Clearly what is proposed is going to be detrimental to the value of our
homes. Not just the 2 or 3 homes adjacent to the project but all the homes on Pine & Park too,
since comparable values are always the criteria for house prices.
At the Aug. 13 meeting, I listened as proponents of this project expounded the virtues of having
seniors 'because they are quiet and they never go out'. I don't know about that! As one of the
over 55 crowd I'm neither solitary or quiet! I'm not about to trade in my car for a walker and I
would certainly expect each of the 23 units residents to be visited by children and grandchildren
and yes-even friends. This brings up what I perceive to be another problem-TRAFFIC. The
proposal before you advocates changing the zoning, eliminating the through alley (to allow for
more units). This will put the burden of much new traffic into an already problem alley. At this
point that alley is used only by the 14 houses on the east side of Lake St. As one of those
residents, let me describe the problem. Lake St, being a busy street, ending 1/4 block from the
busy intersection with Yorktown where most drivers turn left, necessitating a left turn lane. If
you are driving south on Lake it is quite tricky to negotiate the left turn into the alley, as the
double yellow line does not break to allow you into the turning lane until you are adjacent to the
alley. Oncoming traffic on Lake Street often swing early into the turn lane with often hair-raising
results (just fast week an accident occurred at the alley entry, well demonstrating the problem
that already exists at this point). Drive here yourself and you will see the problem, or perhaps
check it out with our Chief of Police Ron Lowenberg, who also lives on the east side of Lake.
Adding 23 units (potentially 46 additional cars and drivers) would certainly exacerbate the
problem.
What I have outlined to you are the problems of -depreciating value of our homes (Materially
Detrimental), the additional noise and traffic caused by the adding of almost 50 new residents
on this already congested corner(Both an Environmental and Safety Issue).
I am not able to attend your Oct. 16 meeting on this subject, since my doctors have forbid me to
do so, since I suffered a heart attack on Aug. 13 due to the stress of the last meeting on this
subject. However I still believe this to be an important subject and an indication of the direction
in which the City Council will lead our city in the future. Therefore I have taken the time to read
the 'Adopted Redevelopment Plans' comparing it to the reference and would like to point out
to you the following important points:
1. Para. 3.3 (Private Use) " ...The number of dwelling units will be in accordance with the
provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City" NOTE: The key phrase here
is in conformance with the zoning ordinance of the city. At the 13 August meeting with the HB
Planning Commission (PC) it was obvious to me and the PC these were being violated by the
proposed plan.
I
2. Para 3.4 (Construction)"All construction...shall comply with all applicable and state and
local laws ...and zoning codes of the city of HB."NOTE: Again, it is my position (and apparently
the HB PC) that the proposed plan described at the 13 August PC Meeting violated this
requirement as well.
3. Para 3.4 (Limitation of Building Density) " The number of buildings in the Project Area will
be .consistent with building intensity permitted pursuant to existing or revised local zoning
ordinance for the City of HB and the Plan."NOTE: The 13 August meeting proposed a rezoning
deviation to allow 23 units on a site originally zoned for 5 single family dwellings. Again, a
blatant violation of the requirements and contrary to the best interest of HB.
4. Para 3.4 (Open Space, Landscaping and Parking) "An approximate amount of open space
is to be provided in the Project Area as required by City codes and ordinances and the Plan.
Within the Project Area, both public and private streets, public and private parking and private
streets shall be provided for in each development consistent with or exceeding City codes and
ordinances in effect from time to time and this Plan. In all areas sufficient space, including open
spaces, shall be maintained between buildings and structures to provide adequate light, air and
privacy." NOTE: The proposed 13 August plan violated as a minimum the criteria for open
space, access to public and private streets ( a safety issue as noted previously), parking and
private streets. Again, variations were requested that would provide significant environmental
and safety concerns. Certainly not in the best interest of HB.
5. Para 3.4 (Minor Variations)" Permitting a Minor Variation will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property...within or outside the Project Area."NOTE: The
August 13 Proposed Plan made it clear to me, other concerned citizens at the meeting and the
HB PC that there was more than adequate evidence that significant violations of the
requirements were being presented for adoption. It was clear that based on this, and the other
items mentioned that the unanimous decision by the HB PC was the only correct decision
available to these representatives of the City. They the HB Planning Commission and the
concerned citizens recognized that there were major problems in these areas. It was also
pointed out by me at that meeting that these types of concerns were recognized by the City and
the previous owners of Huntington Beach Classics such that in the sales contract for the city
there is a provision for the Huntington Beach Classics current home owners to have approval
authority over any proposed City Plan to protect these type of violations and variances being
allowed.
I am a California licensed professional engineer with a doctorate in business-not a qualified city
planner, but like most of us I am a concerned, responsible citizens well able to grasp the
problems of the proposal.
In closing I would like to point out that this proposal has already been unanimously turned down
by the planning committee, we should listen to them!
I certainly still have questions in my mind -not yet answered-questions like why is the city so
anxious to foist this plan upon its fair city? Clearly we need much help and guidance from you,
the City Council.y
A Concerned Citizen
Larry H_. Kasulka
President's Commission on Executive Exchange XX (1990)
Vice President/General Manager- McDonnell Douglas Corporation (Retired 4/96)
Doctorate- Business Administration (1995)
California Professional Engineering License-CS303 (1976)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
InterOffice Communication
Economic Development Department
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: _ David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ,,�,�, -'
RECEIVED FROM
DATE: June 2, 1997 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCILOFF ME MEETING
OF CTy CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: Additional Article On Multifamily Housing&Impacts on Property Values,
Bowen Court Senior Housing Agenda Item D-2
Attached is an additional article about the impact of multifamily rental housing developments on
the property values of surrounding single family residential properties. The article, published in
the January, 1996, Annraisal Journal, offers fiuther insight into this issue and complements the
studies attached to the Bowen Court staff report.
If you have any questions prior to the Council meeting,please call me at 536-5582.
DCB:GAB:gab .
Attachments
xc: Ray Silver,Assistant City Administrator
Stephen'Kohler,Project Manager
Gregory Brown,lDevelopment Specialist
Brown/Bowen/memo.doc.
EUUUH11UN DEPT . lU :2026247155 JUN 02 ,97 16 :22 No .018 P .02
Mtchaei S. MaRous, MAi
Low-Income Hous i ng in Our
Backyards: What Hae%.aftemsto
Residential Property Values .?
A market analysis of four very low-income family housing developments in tour
growing Chicago suburban market areas was conducted. Despite expects-
fions to the contrary,the evidence indicated that low-income housing does not
necessarily tower the value of surrounding residential property or curb further
successful market development in the Immediate area.The conditions con-
tributing to the success of the four projects analyzed Include good community
planning,good design and buffering of the sites,and good property manage-
ment
Not in my backyard!This r:hout is espe- • Will residential piYzperty values In the:
cially strident when the proposed develop- neighboncm,d plummet when low-
ment is low-income housing- row after income housing is built next door?
row of crowded,ugly,cheaply constructed The certainty about Iow-income hc,us-
buildings, garbage strewn everywhere, ing is that the residents have met govern-
rods curtains partially hanging from bent meant-establishrd income criteria. Every-
rock over screenlcss windows, and bat- thing else is a variable-tile density, the:
tered cars rusting to death in the}harking Construction materialr: and design, the
lot.That;image gives rise to a typically neg- mafntenancc:.�tnc#management,and the re-
next reaction. Who would choose to live sttltattt c:ffe:ct .pit neighboring residential
next door to such a place as that? property values. Thins study cugge„tr; that
Midway through the 19ypr, 30 yexrti the:stereotype is not ncxcssarity accurate
into "'The Great Society'" housing Pro- anti tiro fear is not nece,c,arity founded.
and 20 years into the Section 8Furthcr�it rt�vctfs that low-income housing
housing experiment,con we answer these built right in our backyards might have no
questions? effect at all on-property vah,es.
• Is they low-income housing stereotype in mid-199e4,a suit was fitecfi arcking to
accurate? prevent the Illinois Housing Development
• Does the comm(mly held fear of k,w- Authority(1111)A)fmrn financing the de-
income housing have foundation? ve lolmtent of 180 units of very tow-income
M(ahael i.MaRous,MAI,is ntesldent anti owner of Maftous and Company,a real estate appra(sat
firm.in adrntk)n to provldlno documonted cipprolsols.Motes,and bast kne studlos,and rriarkote"Ity
aid teamity studio:,tie acts served ps on.expert witness In Gtoaftri proceedings.host proskieni of the
Chicago Chapter of the Appraisal Institute.Mf,MaRcws Is emerNiy chair of the Po Ntcot Affairs Commit-
tee.A graduate of the UNVerslty of f)o[s with a doWee.In urban ksrxi ecorxxWcs,tie has puWied aftt-
cles In a variety of professional Journals, -
27
LUUl.H1 iUN DEVI IV:u1b14(i55 JUN UL 'V( 1b :11 NO .Uiks N .US
housing in a suburb in western DuFage pied. 'Therefore, the conclusions assume
County,111inols..The neighbors objected to competent manng;emcn(—not an InsIgnifi-
the project, primarily based on the effect cant factor.
they expected that it would have. on the Because of the prevailing image of
property values of their hou m. IHDA be- low-income housing, some measurable
lieved that the success of such-a suit would negative impact was expected;the method
be a deterrent tv its activitio.Ktatewide.As developed for analyzing the projects at.
part of 11-11) s full-scaledefense,the po- tempted to account for this impact.Each of
tential impact of the development of the the four projects was evaluated with re- j
project on summndingresidential property spect to the compatibility of the develop-
values was assessed. In a relatively short ment with the surrounding neighborhood
time,parameters for a nuarket study were in terms of design And construction qual-
*et. Residential property values adjoining ity;the condition of the buildings;and es-
similar low-and very low-income housing; pecially the. density. The overall feel of !
complexes Already constructed would be each development was measured by the
analyzed. From a list of recent INVA proj- preseumv or absence of litter,the landscap-
ects in the Chicago metropolitan area,de- Ing;the age and condition of parked cars;
velopments that matched the characteris- and the.window treatments.The number
tics of the proposed development were . of children in the complex and their ages F
chosen: recently constructed project. (as were considered. Finally, the market was I.
opposed to a rehabilitation project)adjoin-. surveyed by interviewing developers and j
ing single-family and/or market mullifam- brokers,reviewing multiple listing service
ily developments;large projects with low- listings and annual summaries, and re-
income and very low-income family units searching transactions with fecal assessors,
(as opposed to elderly developments);and focusing especially on the units immedi- '
projects located in developing suburbut ar- ately adjoining or facing; the low-income
eas with increasing property values. hauling:Summaries of the analyses of the
Three projects on the list fit these crite four projects follow.
ria. Despite its mcent completion; Water- !
ford Place was included to assess the ef- Victorian Park,Streamwood,Illinois
fects: on additional development in the The first project reviewed was Victorian �
circa.A fourth I1413A,project built in 1981 Park in Streamwood,Illinois(see Table 1).
and meeting all of the same criteria was Streamwood is located 33 allies from
chosen to assess Iong-term Impact on the downtown Chicago Li DuPag a County.In
market.Although the specific loan guaran- 1994,the population was 31,197;the value
tces,.tax credit--;,or rent subsidy programs of the average house was$97,774;average
.varied between the four projects,all wen Income was $46,271.: Accc,rding to. the
entirely either low-income or very low-in Streamwood Building Department, 1993
come family housing;developments in de- building; permits totalled 257, and 1994
veloong suburban areas, building permits through October 30,1994,
totalled 1,591.
STUDY PARAMETERS AND The entire. 300-unit development has
METHODOLOGY I( low-income 1 units In a single suction
and was constructed on a site of about 5o
The quality of the management of the pro- acres for a density of about 6 units per acre.
jecta chosen could not be determined in The allowed density under the site's R-5
advance..As It turned out,all of the prrs- zoning is 10 units per acre.The density as
jests cho.u n for the study appeared to be built is consistent with the surrounding,de.-
adequately managed and were fully occu- velopment; the adjacent neighborhood is
TAKt I Vloteeleatt Pa*iammwy
Oro Bedroom/One Bath Two tledmorryone anti Two talus
Total Number of No.of Site(In Monf* Rant per` No.Of ske(Mft Monthty Rom per
Low-Income Wit Units equare feet) Rent square toot Wilts square teet): Rerd tgmofoot
100 21 7W $474 S(t.63 37 Q11d) I= sm so.57
am S646 S0.60 36(teo) %5 $674 $0.71
28 The Approlsot Journot.January 1996
EDUCATION DEPT . ID:2026247155 3UN 02 '97 16:23 N0 .018 P .04
zoned R-3, a designation that allows 6 erase increase was.3.1%,a figure consistent
dwelling units per acre. The rear elf the with the general market area according to
low-income section borders.the Windsor the brokers interviewed-.Sale prices aver-
Place subdivision, a single-family neigh aged 98%of asking prices.Recent sales of
borhood to the west. identical model hauwes showed no relation-
Windsor Place is predominately frame ship between value and proximity to low-
houses, some with.brick facades; modest income units.
ranches;and some two-mory houses rang-
ing in price fn►m $130,000. to $150,0W. liberty Lakes Apartments,Lake Zurich,
' Other development in the area includes Illinois
slightly older single-family housing and The second project reviewed was Liberty
townhouses.Portions of the single-family Lake.Apartments in Lake Zurich, Illinois
neighborhood border the unsubsidized (see Table 2). Lake Zurich i. located 37
Victorian Park apartment buildings. mule&northwest of downtown Chicago in
The Victorian Park project was con- Lake County.In 1994,the.population was
structed in 1987 under a Section 236 interest 14,947;the value of the average house was
subsidy.'Construction consists of four-unit $183,781;the average income was$76,876.
and eight-unit two-story.frame buildings According Living in GrivI r Ctricago t 134
with attached garageb accented with dark building permits were issued in 1993 and
blue or black shnticrs,patios or.balconies, In 1994;tour were issued through Septem-
and some landscaping. The property ap- ber 30,1994.
pears to be in gtxxl condition.The manage- L.ibrrty lakes was constructed on an ir-
ment reported that 30 to 40 children live in regulnrty shaped$.O.S-acre site.The density
the low-income housing units. as built is 8.7 units per acre,which is below
The MAP Multiple Listing.Service the density allowed under the site's R-4
(MI S)reports that for the first nine months zoning-12 units per acre. Although the
of 1994, 405 houses gold in Streamwood, Liberty Lakes density is somewhat higher
with an average listing price of $136,240 than the nearby It-3 tuning,which allows
and an average sale amount of$133,096(or 4.35 dwelling touts per acme,because of the
about 98%of the asking price).Sales in the mixed uses in the area,the density of Lib-
single-family area immediately adjoining erty.l akcs appears consistent with its sur-
the subsidized low-income units were ana- round ngs.Uam to the immediate north are
lyzed over the life of the development. a public library,a church,and a parochial
Data concerning sales of similar houses in school;uses to the ruuthwest are the hake
the subdivision.not adjacent to the subsi- Zurich main post office;and afire station.
dircd housing as well as resales of houses Two single-family developments are lo-
bordering.the subsidised units were col- sated cast of Liberty Lakes across a street.
lected. Old Mill Grove is about 20 years old and The research found 12 sal(-a of 'Single- has housing prices from $120,000 to
family houses in the immediate,vicinity. $200,000,and jonquil Estates is a new de=
Sales of houses bordering the low-income veto}►ment currently-under construction
apartments showed increases in value and planned for 22 houses in tile$229,000
ranging from 2.5%to 3.6%-per.year,the av- to$292,000 price rang..The developer of.
TABLE 2 t"ty hakes Sun=*ry _
One Bedroarni m cam Two BecroonWC)r a flat fteo sacirooms/one(ion
Rent _ [?env Rent
Totot No. Size On ltont per No. Size on Pont per No. Size On Renl per
Number of spoor* Pa uWa►e of Vitiate per Square of square per Square
of Unffs delfts feet) MoMh foot_ UNfs feat} Month toot . Unils fee#} _Month foot
70 8 y50 $667 $0.91 28 $74 $907 $1.10 34 950 $1.055 $1.11
1.. lender SedIm M t«svft ftn-reejai'ed to ppy et beset aft of lho ►ir in wnc, Nch must be"or than 1%of the inedDn.At-
awdin f to feJ�+al guilt firms for 1991.60X or If*r-m dier-inam a for a lemllr d sus in 1)or4V L,ekv mks Cook alums-.is
2.CAM%Publlshin&lnc.UWal in crewer chknp.IW4 l'.didon(Dee-144J,Illinois:GAMS K&UhiM Inc.IW4),in.
MaRous:f.ow-rnoorrre Hotaing in Our Backyards 29
EDUCATION DEPT . ID:2026247155 JUN 02 '97 16 :24 No .018 P .05
T"L!3 Wateetofd Place
One Beckoom/One Buth -.-^Two bedrooms/One Both
Totol Number No.of Sire(In Monthly Rent per No.of Sire(In Monthly Rent per
of unit: Units square foot) Rent squore foot Unns square fleet) Rent squore foot
286 24 550 S460 SO.87 96 720 ' $600 SO.83
.168 Ow $= SO.58 720 S620 $0.86
Jonquil Estates reports that,since an adver- Sale prices in the neighborhood averaged
tising sign was posted in May 1994, n ix 97%of the asking price
contrac'h have been signed.The rear of the
liberty Lakcs site ii:open.boss with a dc- Waterford Place Apartments,Zlon,
tention pond beyond Which are some tv>n- Illinois
dominium units. There are 270 parking The newest project analyzed was Water-
spaces out the site but no garage larking. ford I'lace:Apartments in lion,Illinois(see.
Constructed in February 1991,Liberty Table X.Zion is located 44 miles north of
Lakes is a dormitory-style development downtown Chicago in Lake County. In
that consists of 70 units of low-income and 19%,the populatkni was 14,775,the.value
very low-income lousing,till of which area of an.average louse was$96,496, and the
Section 8 units.'Of the ome-bedroom units, am..age income was$39,385.Aecording to
six are for the elderly andd two are for the f tt)ing in Greater- Orkagn?,4 1993 building;
mobility impaired.The bttikiing appears tie permitt:lrtalled 134,anon 1994 permits to-
br. well maintained. The management re- taller 94 through September 30,M14,
ports that about 120 children live fit the de- The Waterford Place site contains 17.42
velopment,of which 10 arc infants and tod- acres for a density of 16.5 units per acre.
dlers, 10 are high school age,and the rest There is parking;for 576 cars.The develop-
arc elementary school age. mint is denser than the proposed sur-
The MAP MLS for the first 9 months of rounding; development,but is part of an
1994 shows that there were 280 salon:of sin- overall.design.North of Waterford Place is
Ste-family houses in lake 7.urich,with an in area planned for single-family houses;
averasc listing price of$I97,825 and an av- on a deadend mad., this single-family de-
crag;e sale amount of $191,934, or about vclopmenl will eventually connect with its
979 of the asking pride. Data available for extension in an area of existing houses.De-
sales in the single-family arena immediately vrlopmo:nt oil in sides of this road is
adjoining the subsidized low-income units part of the developer's overall original
were analyzed over the life of the low- plan.The plan calls for commercial devil-
income development. Data concerning upinent along the major arterial at the
sales.of Simi far.houses.in the subdivision front.of Waterford Place, townhouses to
not adjacent to the subsidized housing as the northwest of Waterfoni Place,and sin-
well as resales of houses bordering the sub- g le-family houses to the north. Another
sidizr,d units were collected. . major developer has a sing}le-family devel-
Eleven-sales of new or existing single- opment known ass Butterfield Place under-
family houses in the immediate area were way northwest of Waterford Place.To the
found. Resales of houses bordering the east of Waterford Place is farm land, a
low-income apartments showed annual in- cemetery, and the Harbor Ridge. sing le-
creases.in value of 2.9%. 69"Yo, and 9.7%. family development..High-tension wires
These figures arc superior to the 3.2% to run along the northern rear boundary of
4.6%increases in.houses not bordering the the Waterford Mace site.
Liberty Lakes low-income ltuutse,and su- Waterford flat was constructed in
perior to 1mveawn in the.gcncral market two phases in 1992,'tnd 1993,using Section
area,according to the brokers interviewed. 42 in acne tax credit-0 There ate eight
I Under Sectional,thegovernment pays tlw awner On-dill--mr 10wtvn the tenant contdbutim LV%of htarutol and afair
market tent based on capital and olx7rting rarest im a pt tad of 70 to 40 yam Tenants err fulls if Atria himme is lower than
,.W%of the median Income adjunct fw fetidly oche.An,wding tot!moral cviddines,50%of the median imuute fur a family of
low in Oil ar c,Like,and Cookvottntlea was MAW
4. f.tvfmg ur rnAttm CJt*ur,22t1.
S.Srxtism 421wc�xme'tbx C'ndiln ate availahM fa ftil a new comstnMionor acqulshImsud n lwbtlitatipn tar tycletinp MUheM►Ss.
The tax credits may be taken for ten yearn after the prolM to placed In servkr whit feet ammol aan unt of credit at a fixed ix r-
30 a The Appralsat Journal,Jarwary 1996
EDUCATION DEPT . ID:2026247155 JUN 02 '97 16:25 Na .018 P .06
IrABLE 4 erockhavon Summary
One Bedroom/One Bath Two Bedrooms/One or One-and-a-Han Baths Three Bedrooms/One-and-a-Half Baths
Pont Rust Rent
Total No. SVe On Rent per No. Size 0n Rent Per No. Size On Rent par
Number of square per square of square par square of square per
square
of Units Units feet) Month toot Units feet) Month foot Units feet) Month foot
lei 70 700 SB48 $1.21 82 1,100 $1.045 $0.95 16 1.250 . $1,143 W91
13 600 $818 S1.36
buildings and 36 units per building for a tion was 13,701,the value of the avenge
total of 288 units, %me. of the units are house: was$176,897, and the average in-
slightly below grade. Amenities include come was$64,2.5%living in Greater Chicago
two detention areas, landscaping, anti a reported 1993 total building permits of 594
clubhouse currently housing the rental of- and 1994 building permits of 578 through
fice.The.building is fully occupied.Units September 30,19941'
come with carpeting,window treatments, The Brookhaven site contains 15.8
ceiling fans, and microwave ovens. 11te acres, resulting in a density as built of
management estimates that.30 to 40 chit- about 113 units per acre.A library,a deten-
dren live in the complex,of which 20%are tion,area,and open space are between the
school age,5%are high school age,and the low-income housing and .the street on
remainder are elementary school age..The which the project is located.West of the site
developer of Waterford Place previously is county-owned land designated as a for-
has constructed identical developments est preserve. North and west of Brook-
that are commanding market rents in other haven is a public library, and north of
locations in Lake County.The complex ap- Brookhaven is a high school.A small group
pears to be well maintained. of single-family .houses are north of
According to the MAP MLS,the aver- (Brookhaven,and a newer townhouse de-
age listing pricey in the 73on and Beach Park velopment is across the street.
market are--a for the first 9 months of 1994 Constructed !it 1981,the development
was$99,876,and the average sale price.was is entirely Section 8.1'he.181 units are con-
$95,328.All lots in Wesiside Hills,the sin- figured in seven clutters of four buildings.
gle-family development immediately north Of the 70 garden-level one-bcdmom units,
of Waterford Place, are priced at $27,900 12.gym handicapped accessible, and of the
and are being sold both to Individuals and smaller one-bedroom units, 6 are Nandi-
to developers. New houses in Westside capped accessible. .There are 82 two-
Hills arc listed at$13200 to$136,900. In bedroom units with three slightly varying
Rutterfield Place,since marketing began in sizes and configurations anti. 16 three-
January 1994,22 houses have sold and 10 bedroom units.l'he main buildings contain
have closed. Listing.prices range from a total gross building area of about 191,000
$114,990 to$122,990.In Ha#or Ridge,list- square feet and a total rentable area of
ing prices range from$111,"0 to$146,900. about 165,600 square feet.The complex in-
Waterford Place appears to have no ad- eludes a clubhouse, a maintenance build-
verse impact on market demand in the big,.parking,two children's play lots,a ten-
area,as evidenced by rnntinued sales and nis court,and a swimming pool. There Is
development of single-family lots immedi ample unassigned parking. The complex
ately north of this housing development appears to be in gout condition. Manage-
ment reports that there are 142 children liv-
Brookhaven Apartments,Gurnee,Illinois ing in the development, of whom 62 are
The final development analyzed was the .preschool age,59 are in elementary school,
oldest one(see Table4).Brookhaven Apart- and 21 are in high school.
ments is located in Gurnee, Illinois, 45 According to the Northern Illinois
miles north of downtown Chicago in lake M1.S, the average sale price of single-
County.Rapidly growing,the 1994 popula- family hometc in Gurnee for 1994 was
ccnta6e of qualified project cu.,ts,which is Stetaliy that portion of the project that wyes low-Ine me tempts.Kcr#can be no
grater than 3D%of 50%or 60%of the sni s malim incase.
6. Utdng in Grrnlrr Chk V,21$.
MaRous:Low-Income Housing In Our Backyards 31
EDUUHIIUN DEPT . ID :2026247155 JUN 02 '97 16:26 No .018 P .07
$179,941. Uata available for sales in the ues adjacent to low-income and very low-
single-tanlily area iuUnediitoy atljoining, income family housing wax expected.
the lirookhaven low-income units were an- I lowevet;them was no evidence of this.In•
alyxted (rum 1t)88 to the prownl.The North- slead the evidence showed market values
ern Illinois M1 S reports that sales for the con%isteid with property not adjacent to the
first 9 months of 1993 for attached single- low-income units,and values rising at rates
family houses had an average listing prier consistent with the community as a whole.
of $107,490 and an average sale price. of A dampening effect on investment in new
$102,756,or 96%of the asking.pride.Sales development in the immediate area was
for the first 9 months of 1994 for attached also expected. There was no evidencx of
single-family bou%es had an average listing this either. Instead developers are coil.
price of $109,675 and an average sale strutting; and are selling, good-duality,
amount of$105,402.This is an-increase of single-family housing right next door to
2.6%,in sale price.Data avrtiiable since 1988 very low-income buildings.;
for sales of townhouses in the area immedi- This study was designed ax a market
ately adjoining;the mubsidized low-income analysis,not as a statistical regression anal-
units and similar units not immediately ad- ysis.However,a statistical regression anal-
joining were analyzed. The single-family yxis, "Relationships between Affordable
Loin-and teed houses bordering the lour-income complex Housing;lhevelopments and Neighboring
• have not turned over,at least since.19H8. Property Values, conituctcd by Pau Cum-
low-income The sales of the tuwnhuuse tutus close mings and John Landis,of the Llstitute for
housing do not to Brookhaven were compared with sales Urban and Regional Qevelopment of the
of similar units away from the low-income University of California at Berkeley,
automatically housing,all in Phase 1 of the townhouse reached similar conclusions for a variety ctt
lower the value of development.There ane four different unit low-income housing types.Although they
models with different layouts and sixes. did not specifically address. the bowe of
surrounding Units with- the A layout away front density,the authors concluded:$
residential Brookhaven ranged from a loss in value of
1't+i+rfy ilcstbTtitt, g.+oorty utainttNtcc1, and
0.fl9% to an increases in value of 2.93`y.on 1xm.ly maswged projMs ran AM ncigh-
deuelopment or an annual basis in contrast to a 1.67`Yo in- ixvrhtxsd property valuer,—regardlarm of
crease for an A unit adjacent it) the ►„hcther they are affordable or market-rate.
prevent successful Brookhaven units. InCMISes for It units Convemly,well-designed,well-managed,
well-niaintalmn]prujecs soh
market and outd not af-
away from Brookhaven ranged from 1.84% feet neighborhood 1volnrty values,rty'art-
develo meet to 9.76% annually. Increases for C units It-nfwhethertheysreaffortiabla,ormor-
p ranged fr orn.0.$y% to 3.07% away front kt-t-rate
RrAu#(d it. iimokhaven; a C unit facing Brookhaven From an appraiser's viewpoint, the
showed an increase of 13H%per year.The conclusion must be that lowAncome and
uniy 1>unit sah- away from Brookhaven very low-income housing does not auto-
showed a 2%annual increase in contrast to matically lower the"values of surrounding
a 2.5%increase in a 11 unit facing the low- residential development or prevent suc-
income units.Theta:figures show that re- cessful market development around it.
satin of, townhouses directly facing the. Apparently,a development must fulfil[
iirtookl avcn low-income apartments reflen certain.specific condilions.before.thiss con-
increases in.Value consistent with.thoxe re.- elusion can be reached.First,there must be
ported by the Northern Illinois MLS and good planning on the part of both the c om-
with comparable sales of similar units in munity and the.developer.The projects rc=
Phase I of the adjacent market townhouse viewed were well coordinated with slur-
development that Are not directly adjacent rounding densities and uses, and natural
to the low-income housing. and manmade buffers were used to good
effect at all four sites.Second,there mast be
CONCLUSION good construction duality and design,The
developments.reviewed fit In with the
A dampening effect of 3% to 5% on the surmunding community; there were no
market values of residential property val- "public-housing red" doors !n sight. 11te
7.rain tktmmfts and)oha l wctw.-Rclati mhipa txtwtmAi(md"Hmsk%Developate+ua sat New t eupt sty sal-
uea,'VADA tg P4w.W,Usdvenity o(CeWonda at BoUley,institute for usban and Rgtk+++el r)Vv«k+inntM%rKZ+aaoht+1"3,
17.
32 The ApproW Joturwt,January 1996
Me project that was not as attractively de- phased out; HULA is being dismantled. •
signed was well buffered.Third,there.must State programs will feel the finch of these
• be goad managC1nent.All four complexes national activities and likely will be tar-
were well rr,aintained with competent on- ge-ted themselves.The.negative image im-
Ute management. This factor cannot be meciiately conjured up by low-income
overlooked, expecially when considering housing has no doubt contributed to these
the importance of the integration of these decisions. Yet the need for "decent; safe,
complexes into their larger communities. and sanitary housing for every American"
There is nothing new about these con- has not diminished tince that goal was ar-
elusions,and the-same criteria apply to the ticulated in the. Housing Act of 1945. The
successful development of market-rent irony is that now that low-income housing
housing as w0l.What is new is that these is being;well executed,the question has be-
standards are now W. ng achieved for low- come whether or not It will continue to be
income and very low-income housing and built at all. Perhaps the greater question is
that the result serves well to dispel the low- whether or not the truth atmut law-income
income housing stereotype. housing can make a difference In either the
The shift in the national political trm- reactions of its potential neighbors or in the
perament brings high irony to this discus- decisions made about its future.
sk►n.Section 8 housing programs are.being
MoRous: Low-Income Housing In Our ljackyords 33
JI ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN RALPH BAUER AND
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RECEIVED FROM
FROM: PAM JULIEN, City Council Member MADE A PART OF THE RECFRyD A ' HE
Redevelopment Agency Board Member CI OFFICEING OFOTHE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK.
DATE: June 2, 1997
SUBJECT: Property Ownership Within the Yorktown-Lake
Redevelopment Project Area
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Disclosure of property ownership by Pain Julien within the Yorktown Lake Redevelopment
Project Area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
No action need be taken; this is solely a disclosure.
ANALYSIS
Section 33130.5 of the California Health & Safety Code ("the Code") allows an employee of
the agency to acquire property within a redevelopment project area for personal residential
use. Section 33130 of the Code prohibits any officer, employee or agent from acquiring
property not used as a personal residence within any redevelopment project area in the city
and requires formal disclosure to both the agency and city of any existing ownership
interest which is not for residential purposes. Such disclosure must appear on the minutes
of the hearing at which it was made.
I own property within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area (1917 Pine Street)
and use it for personal residential purposes.
While disclosure of this property interest is not mandated by law, this disclosure is being
made in the interest of making known the possible conflict and informing all concerned
that I will refrain from participation in any action or discussion of the Yorktown-Lake
Project Area.
This memo shall constitute disclosure of Pam Julien's interest in property within the
Yorktown-Lake Project Area.
PJ/PDA/s
Attachment: Health & Safety Code Section 33130.5
�
c: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
4/s:4-97Memos:Ju1 ien62
`.� § 33123 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE HEALTH AND SAFETY C(
§ 33123. Public function (1) The rental or lease a eem4
Notes of Decisions rente agreement al or eas availab]
project area.
1. In general tal or inimical to the public health,safety,or welfare,but (2) The rental or lease aMemt
Neighborhood preservation ordinance mandating a might consist of an"area"and,thus,to extent ordinance other assignment at a rate in exces.
structure by structure determination of blight for pur- purported to modify or amend redevelopment plan preA*
poses of demolition of buildings was in conflict with the ously adopted pursuant to community development law,it (3) The property which is subj
State Community Redevelopment Law, which provided would have to fail as an improper amendment t.o redevel- orincjpal business,occupation,or p.
that an urban renewal project area need not be restricted opment plan. Kehoe v. City of Berkeley (App. 1 Dist.
to buildings,improvements,or lands which are detrimen- 19i7)135 Cal.Rptr.700,67 Cal.App.3d 666. (4) The a envy or co -v
immediately makes a written iselc
§ 33124. Repealed by Stats.1982,c.497,p.2200�§ 124,operative July 1,1993 (Amended by Stats.1985,c.87,§ 1.,
Law Revision Commission Comment
1982 Repeal 1985 Amendment. Rewrote the first
Former Section 33124 is not continued. Property of a § 695.050; Gov't Code § 970.1. See also Cale CIV.Proc- had read.
redevelopment agency—a public entity—is not subject to § 487.020 (exemptions from attachment) (15 Cal.L.Rev. "No agency or community of5cer.or
enforcement of a money judgment. See Code Civ.Proc. Comm.Reports 2001). the course of his duties is required to
formulation of or to approve plans of
redevelopment of a project area shall aci
§ 33125. Lawsuits; seal; contracts; bylaws and regulations in any property included within a projec
community. If any such officer or empi
Notes of Decisions i any direct or indirect financial interest.
he shall immediately make a written disc.
Agency 2 agency,as party. Pacific States Enterprises,Inc.v.City
Parties 1 of Coachella (App. 4 Dist. 1993) 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 68, 13
4 Cal.App.4th 1414,review denied. i
t1 `� 2. Agency 1. In general
1. Parties Redevelopment agencies are governmental agencies In re Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Pn
Developer named wrong governmental entity as party which exist by virtue of state law and are separate and munity Redevelopment Agency of City
in causes of action based on city redevelopment agency's distinct from communities in which they exist. Pacific (1964)37 Cal.Rptr.74,61 Cal.2d 21,389
alleged breach of oral agreement to participate in develop- States Enterprises,Inc.v.City of Coachella(App.4 Dist. rani denied 85 S.CL 185, 379 U.S. 899,
ment of auto center and mall: alleged oral contract was 1993) 17 Ca).Rptr.2d 68, 13 Cal.App.4th 1414, review appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 85
with redevelopment agency and developer named city,not denied. volume)379 U.S.28,13 L.Ed.2d 173.
§ 33125.5. Proceeding of meetings; record
§ 33130.5. Property within projec
An agency shall keep a record of-the proceedings of its meetings and those records shall be open to written disclosure
examination by the public to the extent required by law.
(Amended by Stats.1977,c.797,p.2443,§ 4.)
1983 Legislation.
Historical and Statutory Notes Application of this section to the City o
1977 Amendment Added provision for public exami- Severabilit}•of provisions of Stats.1977,c.797,see note adopting or amending redevelopment plan
nation under§ 33080.
§ 33136. Insurance premiums; to,
§ 33130. Sphflicts of interest; acquiring interest to participate as owner or to reenter business;
certain rental agreements or property leases not property interests under this section An agency may finance the cost
ro
(a) No agency or community officer or employee who in the course of his or her duties is required to construction or rehabilitation of foi
artici ate in the formulation of or to approve plans or policies for the redevelopment of a project area organizations ie provide housing er
p p = pp p p t p p rental properties,emergency shelter
shall acquire any interest in any property included within a project area within the community. If any '
' such officer or employee owns or has any direct or indirect financial interest in . ' 'property included (Added by Stats.1988,c.1564,§ 1.)
within a project area, that officer or employee shall immediately make a written disclosure of that
financial interest to the agency and the legislative body and the disclosure shall be entered on the
minutes of the agency and the legislative body. Failure to make the disclosure required by this
subdivision constitutes misconduct in office.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not prohibit any agency or community officer or employee from acquiring an SUSPENSI
interest in property within the project area for the purpose of participating as an owner or reentering
into business pursuant to this part if that ' . . officer or employee has owned a substantially equal Section
interest as that being acquired for the three years immediately preceding the selection of the project 33141. Order for deactivation; con
area.
endum.
(a) A rental agreement or ]ease of property which meets all of the following conditions is not an
interest in property for purposes of subdivision(a):
Additions or changes are indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks • • * Additions or changes an
54
4
gEALTH AND SAFETY CODE § 33136
Is
(1) The rental or lease agTBement contains terms that are substantially equivalent to the terms of a
,wn or]ease agreement avails le to any member of the general public for comparable property in the I'
prpi�e8• 1=
(2) The rental or lease agreement includes a provision which prohibits any subletting, sublease, or
other assignment at a rate m excess of the rate m the ongma]rental or lease agreement. ----
(3) The property which is subject to the rental or lease agreement is used in the pursuit of the
orinapal business,occupation,or profession of the officer or employee.
(4) The agency or communin officer or employee who obtains the rental or lease agreement IE
fi
irnmediate y makes a written disclosure of that fact to the agency and the legislative body.- I,
(Amended by Stats.1985,c.87,§ 1.)
Historical and Statutory Notes
i;
t
198s Amendment Rewrote the fast paragraph which agency and the legislative body which shall be entered on l
had read: their minutes. Failure to so disclose constitutes m_iscon-
"No agency or community officer oremployee who in duct in office."
i the course of his duties is required to participate in the The 1985 amendment also designated the first pars- ;
formulation of or to approve plans or policies for the graph as subd.(a)and the second paragraph as subd.(b);
redevelopment of a project area shall acquire any interest substituted"Subdivision(a)does"for"This section shall",
in any property included within a project area within the "agency or community"for"such",and"if'for"provided"
community. If any such officer or employee owns or has following "business pursuant to this part" in subd. (b); j
any direct or indirect financial interest in such property, made a nonsubstantive grammatical change; and added
he shall immediately make a written disclosure of it to the subd.(c).
Notes of Decisions '
1. In general This section would be violated by the purchase or lease
In re Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project 1B of Com- of property within a redevelopment project area by a bank
d munity Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles in which city council members are interested,to the same
extent that members having such interest would violate
(1964)37 Cal.Rptr.74,61 Cal.2d 21,389 P.2d 538,certio- Gov .§ 1090 et sea.,which establishes a ban on govern-
rani denied 85 S.Ct. 185, 379 U.S. 899, 13 L.Ed.2d 174, mental contracts in which an official making the contract
appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 85 S.Ct. 190, [main may be financially interested. 61 Ops.Atty.Gen. 243,
volume]379 U.S.28,13 L.Ed.2d 173. 5-23-78.
§ 33130.5. Property within project area purchased or leased by employee of agency or community;
o written disclosure
Historical and Statutory Notes i
1983 Legislation. and when issuing bonds to finance multifamily rental
Application of this section to the City of Coalinga when housing,see note under§ 33300.
adopting or amending redevelopment plans within the city
§ 33136. Insurance premiums; lower income housing
s;
n An agency may finance the cost of premiums necessary for the provision of insurance during the
construction or rehabilitation of properties that are administered by governmental entities or nonprofit x n
a organizations to provide housing for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5, including .
\. rental properties,emergency shelters,transitional housing,or special residential care facilities.
d (Added by Stats.1988,c.1564,§ 1.)
Article 4
t SUSPENSION AND DISSOLUTION OF AGENCIES
g
a] Section
,t 33141. Order for deactivation; conditions; refer-
endum. i
n ryryI
1
Additions or changes are indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks * • ' !)
55
i
li
ti
I.
p Z M.
C 0 m
n n.qG
; m
Z
z:2M
mpm-a
vmz
�m0o
�n m
0
m
AGENDA ITEM D-2 A m %0
m
Z-
I Project Description 2
Bowen Court ■ 21 Unit Affordable Senior Apartment
Complex
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-39
Negative Declaration No. 94-22 ■ All One Bedroom Units
■ 62 Years of Age and Older
a
HB Housing Element Goals s Zoning Compliance 4
■ Provide a variety of housing ■ Zone: RMH-A
■ Conserve existing affordable housing (Residential Medium-High Density,
■ Provide Adequate Sites Small Lot Subdistrict)
■ Assist development of new affordable
■ 17 units permitted
■ Provide equal opportunity
■ Remove government constraints ■ Density bonus requested
for 4 additional units
Zoning Compliance, con't. s Planning Commission s
■ 21 covered parking spaces required,no ■ On August 13, 1996,Planning
guest requirement Commission denied request for
23 unit senior project
■ 21 garages, 8 open spaces provided ■ Not compatible with adjacent single
family homes
■ Complies with setbacks,building ■ Detriment to persons and property in area
height, site coverage and open space ■ Eight people spoke in opposition,two in
requirements support
Appeal 7 Revised Project a
■ Economic Development Department ✓ Reduction in number of units from
filed appeal of the Planning 23(19 one bedroom,4 two bedroom)
Commission's action citing adopted to 21 one bedroom units
findings were inadequate and ✓ Eliminated request for reduced parking
inconsistent with facts presented and private open space requirements
✓ Removed second story unit at southwest
corner of site and single story unit behind
community room
i
Density Bonus s Density Bonus, con't. 10
State Law for Developments ■ Cities required to grant density bonuses
of Five Units or More and/or allow deviations to development
■ Density Bonus of at least 25% standards as incentives to develop
■ Reduced Development Standards affordable housing.
■ Project includes density bonus for 4
■ Reduced Processing Fees/ additional units with no requested
Incentives for Cost Reductions development standard deviations.
■ Financial Assistance
Compatibility 8urrounding Land Uses 12
Similar architecture as Classics ■ West - Civic Center
Same Architect as Classics(Wraight ■ North - Pacific Ranch
Architects) ■ South/- Huntington Classics
./ Similar height,building bulk& Southwest
materials
■ East - Villa Pacifica Condos
Designed to appear as five Classics
■ Southeast- Multi-family Res.
homes from Lake Street
Similar traffic generation
a
I
Staff Recommendation 13 Staff Recommendation, con't. 14
■ Approve CUP 94-39 and ND 94-22 11 Compatible with physical character of
for 21 unit senior apartment project surrounding area
restricted to seniors earning income
less than 50%of County median h Consistent with intent of General Plan
Will not have significant impact on
public infrastructure or services
Huntimy,ton Beach 15 Project Background 16
Redevelopment Agency Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area
— Formed in 1982
— Encompasses entire Huntington Classics
and Civic Center Complex
— Presence of non-operative oil wells and old
oil fields,combined with a lack of
circulation and modern subdivision
standards
t
Project Background,cont. 17 Project Background,cont. 18
Redevelopment Housing Requirements A Thirteen Units(13)are required as a result
— Law requires that 15%of housing units built in of the construction of the Huntington
project area be reserved for low income Classics
households
•Forty Percent of These Units Must Be For
1997 Merger allows greater flexibility
Very Low Income Households
No affordable housing required when Huntington Units developed outside project area 2:1
Classics was approved in November of 1988
Project Background,cont. 19 Project Background,cont. 20
■ Redevelopment Committee reviewed Final Acquisition Price:$885,000
proposed acquisition on June 2, 1993
❖ Redevelopment Committee reviewed
■ Agency authorized negotiations to acquire on acquisition: December 1, 1993
June 21, 1993
■ Civic Center Partners asking price:$1.2 ❖ Agency approved acquisition:December
20, 1993
Million
■ Appraisal Completed: August 13, 1993 Escrow Closed February 17, 1994
i
Acquisition Conditions 21 Project Processing 22
• Architecturally Compatible
4 Architect Hired February 1994
• Senior Housing Only
• Classics Architectural Review Request for Proposals for Non-Profit
Sponsor Made in May 1994
Committee
• Deed Restriction
i
roject Processing,con't. 23 Project Processing,con't. 24
■ Pre-Entitlement Neighborhood Meetings Held • Heard by Planning Commission on
71 May 4, 1994 August 13, 1996
71 June 26, 1994
71 August 30, 1994 • Post Commission Community Meetings:
■ Entitlement Application Filed in December 1994 A October 16, 1996
71 April 29, 1997
i
Project Economics 25 Project Economics 26
• 13 Units $145,972 per Unit
• 17 Units $108,917 per Unit ✓ Oakview Rehab/Acquisition $77,000 per Unit
• 19 Units $96,624 per Unit
✓ Mobile Home Alternative $125,500 per Unit
• 21 Units $86,888 per Unit
• 23 Units $79,714 per Unit
Opportunity for HUD 202 Loan
i
Estimated Cost to Produce Housing
Agency Affordable Housing Obhgadons Shortfall 28
Remaining Housing 175 Units
Requirement • 81 Units $6,237,000
Probable Capacity of 94 Units
Agency-Owned Sites
• 162 Units $12,474,000
Shortfall
♦ 1:1 Ratio 81 Units
♦ 2:1 Ratio 162 Units
a
29 30
Long-Term Project
Management & Control
■ The Agency will covenant housing
PROJECT DESIGN &OVERVIEW
projects to ensure quality management
and maintenance
Steven W. Wraight
■ Covenants also govern occupancy, Wraight Architects
income restrictions,and operation of a
project over time
i
31 32
i
PROJECT OWNERSHIP& J
MANAGEMENT Huntington Beach Redevelopment I
Agency
Linda Boone, O.H.D.0
Jeanne Halverson, LOMCO
a
i
i
�LCJ-( ASLob%,n d5
70
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH c)f- 2 P,4 e-
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
W
F-
WO i a W TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN LINDA MOULTON-PATTERSON AND
�'fi _J� MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
s �G CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
W c'a
W=x FROM: MICHAEL UBERUAGA, City Administrator and Executive Director of the �—
o
0 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
oa�Wm
U_° W v W DATE: December 20, 1993
ow�LLZ
Wo-i00
><O 0 SUBJECT: Property Ownership Within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area
Ozz
Lugo
rX<0
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Disclosure of property ownership by Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator, within the Yorktown-
Lake Redevelopment Project Area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action need be taken; this is solely a-disclosure.
ANALYSIS:
Section 33130.5 of the California Health & Safety Code ("the Code") allows an employee of the
agency or city to acquire property within a redevelopment project area for personal residential
use. Section 33130 of the Code prohibits any officer, employee or agent from acquiring property
not used as a personal residence within any redevelopment project area in the city and requires
formal disclosure to both the agency and city of any existing ownership interest which is not for
residential purposes. Such disclosure must appear on the minutes of the hearing at which it was
made.
I have owned property within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area (1902 Park Street)
for approximately four years and have used it for personal residential purposes. I declared a
conflict of interest upon acquiring the property and, therefore, have never participated and will not
participate in any work or decision making on any matter which has concerned or which will
concern the Yorktown-Lake Project Area.
While disclosure of.this property interest is not mandated by law, this disclosure is being made in
the interest of making known the possible conflict and informing all concerned that I will refrain
from participation in any action or discussion of the Yorktown-Lake Project Area.
This memo shall constitute disclosure of Michael Uberuaga's interest in property within the
Yorktown-Lake Project Area.
MTU/rjl
Attachment: Health & Safety Code Section 33130.5
c: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
§ 33130.5 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW Div. 24
§ 33130.5 Property within project area purchased or leased by
employee of agency or community; written dis-
closure
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an officer, em-
ployee, consultant, or agent of the agency or community, for personal
residential use, may purchase or lease property within a project area
after the agency has certified that the improvements to be construct-
ed or the work to be done on the property to be purchased or leased
have been completed, or has certified that no improvements need to
be constructed or that no work needs to be done on the property.
Any such officer or employee who purchases or leases such property
shall immediately make a written disclosure to the agency and the
legislative body, which disclosure shall be entered on the minutes of
the agency. Any such officer or employee shall thereafter be dis-
qualified from voting on any matters directly affecting such a pur-
chase, lease, or residency. Failure to so disclose constitutes miscon-
duct in office.
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1242, p. 3013, § 2.5.)
Library References
Municipal Corporations 0-231(1). C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 988 et
seq.
§ 33131. Plans; dissemination of information; applications for
federal programs and grants
An agency may:
(a) From time to time prepare and carry out plans for the im-
provement, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of blighted areas.
(b) Disseminate redevelopment information.
(c) Prepare applications for various federal programs and
grants relating to housing and community development and plan and
carry out such programs within authority otherwise granted by this
part, at the request of the legislative body.
(Added by Stats.1963, c. 1812, p. 3685, § 3. Amended by Stats.1969, c. 1561,
p. 3167, § 1.)
Historical Note
The 1969 amendment added subd. (c). Stats.1945, c. 1326, p. 2487, § 44,
Derivation: Former section 33266, add. amended as § 29, Stats.1949, c. 1573, p.
ed by Stats.1951, c. 710, p. 1930. § 1. 2813, § 2: Stats.1950, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 53,
p. 503,§ 4.
124
REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA
Department: �► DEW*
RCA
- G •
Title
.
Council Meeting Date: �C�I1l E 2 I q Date of This Re uest: /U Z� Q�07
REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?):
Due, 14e Ee,0140 14r, ay. redoy
s
EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?):
PU4 h CG eArtAd set n 4*'les a
CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?):
. .
Signature: O Approved 0 Denied O Approved O Denied
Initials
Required
De arOment Head RaySilver Michael Uberua a
/ a
Request for Late Submittal
Requests for Council Action (RCA's) are due and considered late after
the City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten
days prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be'heard. This
deadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for
Administration staff and the City Administrator to review all RCA's and
their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for
placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City
Clerk's office to review the item and add proper wording for the item to
the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following
Monday.
The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be
submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating
circumstances .which delayed the item and when action on the item is
necessary at the upcoming Council meeting.
Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request
for Late Submittal form by the Assistant City Administrator or the City
Administrator.
i
I
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-39/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-22
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997
........ .__ ..... .. ... . . . ..... _ ..........
. ....... .. ... . .. . ....... . ...... ................_ . . ........ ..... .. .......... . . ......
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the CityAttomey) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
:REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff ( ) ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Clerk ( )
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM.
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
s
Gym
May 20, 1997
Mr. David C Biggs
Director of Economic Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Bowen Court Project
W Corner of Lake Street and Yorktown
Redevelopment District
Dear Mr. Biggs:
The Huntington Classics Architectural and Landscape Committee respectfully requests on
behalf of the Huntington Classics homeowners that the Bowen Court Project be
resubmitted to the Planning Commission. The resubmittal would be based on the change
in the parking and in the number of units in the original plan voted on by the planning
commission.
We appreciate your attention and will contact you regarding this matter and the results of
Councilman Garofalo's request to do a cost study of alternatives.
Sincerely,
Huntington Classics Architectural Committee
cc: City Clerk
Mayor Bauer
Councilman Garofalo
Ata V ,�voj& L-w dev tt
Lla�
LLA: VAA.1 3DV"<-'
VA, `XA
HUNTINGTON CLASSICS ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE
COMMITTEE
y
c
May 20, 1997
Mr. David C Biggs
Director of Economic Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Bowen Court Project
Corner of Lake Street and Yorktown
Redevelopment District
Dear Mr. Biggs:
The Huntington Classics Architectural and Landscape Committee respectfully requests on
behalf of the Huntington Classics homeowners that the Bowen Court Project be
resubmitted to the Planning Commission. The resubmittal would be based on the change
in the parking and in the number of units in the original plan voted on by the planning
commission.
We appreciate your attention and will contact you regarding this matter and the results of
Councilman Garofalo's request to do a cost study of alternatives.
Sincerely,
Huntington Classics Architectural Committee
cc: City Clerk
Mayor Bauer
Councilman Garofalo
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 2, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following
planning and zoning items:
121. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 94-22
(BOWEN COURT) (APPEAL): Applicant/Appellant: City of Huntington Beach, Department
of Economic Development Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for a 23 unit,
two(2)story senior apartment project designated solely for very low income seniors. The
applicant has submitted a modified request to construct a 21 unit project consisting entirely of
one(1) bedroom units designated for very low income seniors. The request includes a density
bonus for 21 units in lieu of 17 units permitted under the present zoning. Location: 1968 Lake
Street(southeast comer at Yorktown Avenue) Prpj_ect Planner: Wayne Carvalho
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.96-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 96-2 (.00EANCREST): Applicant: Oceancrest Partners Request: On
April 11, 1997,the California Coastal Commission staff requested clarification relative to the
site location of the proposed Coastal Element language. This request is only to clarify the site
location. Location: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street. Project Planner:
Scott Hess
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for Item#1 was processed and
completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item#1,with
mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative
declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the appeal,the City Council must review and act on the
negative declaration. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department,2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and
comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714) 536-5271.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Item#2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal
Zone. Final review and approval by the California Coastal Commission is required. If the revised
language is approved, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2 will be forwarded to the California
Coastal Commission for final action.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,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 after May 29, 1997.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
(97CC602)
P ht,: L -5faQ,I-)-7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING F4Q s1( '1 147
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE -M oL.-Q 51?d197
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 2, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following
planning and zoning items:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-22
(BOWEN COURT) (APPEAL), Apolicant/Appellant: City of Huntington Beach, Department
of Economic Development Reques : Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for a 23 unit,
two (2) story senior apartment project designated solely for very low income seniors. The
applicant has submitted a modified request to construct a 21 unit project consisting entirely of
one (1)bedroom units designated for very low income seniors. The request includes a density
bonus for 21 units in lieu of 17 units permitted under the present zoning. Location: 1968 Lake
Street(southeast corner at Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.96-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO,96-2 (OCEANCREST): Applicant: Oceancrest Partners Requeste On
April 11, 1997,the California Coastal Commission staff requested clarification relative to the
site location of the proposed Coastal Element language. This request is only to clarify the site
location. Location: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street. Project Planner:
Scott Hess
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for Item #1 was processed and
completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item#1,with
.mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative
declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the appeal,the City Council must review and act on the
negative declaration. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and
comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714) 536-5271.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Item#2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal
Zone. Final review and approval by the California Coastal Commission is required. If the revised
language is approved, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2 will be forwarded to the California
Coastal Commission for final action.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 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 after May 29, 1997.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714)536-5227
(97CC602)
Office of the City Clerk
leg
Clty of Huntington Beach C,OeRETO
U.S.POSTAGE� ,..s P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA v` �� Q Q
1' H METER 555253
ENDER
REFUSED BY MAILING
FIRMA _.....,.
VICP ORSa.1O�� I 937 15 02
Q� \ �0 LEST BLAN -
`Ql� 590 WARN
Ql TINGTOC .
649
Legal Notice `U vSccit,G
Public Hearing �9
ssaos-ats7 zo _ 11�1,„1I814116111111111118I1111111#1 Weit lot I loft I„lisleIII
Office of the City Clerk
/. City of Huntington Beach `/�� �,� �.,,f, U.S.POSTAGE ,t
Q
P.O.BOX190 CALIFORNIA92648 Q1(J� Gl� _i NAY2`97 r� F O ��� 5 *a
win
cr L
(LU- C H METER 555753
937 153 50
SHIR1<EY AGOODMANG,c��c'� -?�y`c ` SZ .61 u 2 F L S fir
NO. 102 N o. l 0�
HUNTIINGTON BEACH CA $
�vnTl n(, n
Lggal Notice
Public Hearing _ -
il8l.l,ll111l111iffl111fill
Office of the City Clerk �/9-7
�J. je City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ' MAY"3'�7 O
J.
JCS U
LL H METER 5 5'.: f
C Cl
Z)A
7-1r: 5
..
ic,,F hester i�Iurch //Om--//v 6, 7zv�
ti� '' 323' Hu ington St. No.
`• 00 Hurltin ton Beach CA 92640 7D�
Q_k
, '_;
Legal Notice to YS- a k/-7
Public Hearing
§2648-26i.i 21 11t1t„t1,1,lilt III tll„I1„loll„i,,,,lil1„I„illttll,i„Ili
Office of the City Clerk
J. City of Huntington, Beach
• � �'ti�_ 4!y a�.,"a � 1 0
U.S.Po�1r<1 G{;,
G�P.O.BOX 190 CALIFO _
RNIA��
a� HMETER 55525
��,•;.'
41
0
- •`'1� 9'3 546 _ i BASH Ir)AttWA�
- -Hogan 123
i 232,3 }-4 n� YIG
No.2 23 T c�'414. v�
St
FF/ 45ington Beach
4000 11-W Y1T I rl(o Tzyi -B Off,
Legal Notice �` J
Public Hearing
264 fit'? 21 lItittt,I,I,litttl„11t,1„tl,llt,i„�, ,I11 ,tl„itlt�l,l
I F V"-"% Office of the City Clerk
•
je City. of Huntington Beach
n
KY23-17
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 U
100)
THIS IS A MUL71-UNI V."
. Hi t-lETER 5 E 5
ALL MAIL . T ADDRESS
L MUST Rr
�J-ssrq
SPECIFIC i,;m- LL
k' Y 2 3-'Y/
A SPECI 0
iu L,
937 164 76 214
Patricia Daniel
215 Wichita Ave #12
Huntington Beach CA 92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
III I IIIIIIIIII IIIII hild fill
Office of the City Clerk
• S.
Z
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 23
H MiETER SSSik2 al
0
I. City of Huntington Beach U.
WILLIAM HAGGERTY
6321 TURNBERRY CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
MAGG321 92646ti008 1U105
FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
Legal Notice WAGGERTY'WILLIAM 5T 22
5114
Public Hearing HUNTINGTO19TH N5 BT
EACH CA 92648-3814
RETURN TO SENDER
2 6 4 184 ZZ IIIIttllftlttllttlltfiltt1111ttlltftlLltt1111111t1811,11
Office of the City Clerk
�. City of Huntington Beach
Cco ED
U.S.POSTAGE
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 H METER 5551t.3 * I:
I.
tz r -
, - 023 042 13 19
w Sidney&Joann Marken f.
1916 Lake St
1. Huntington Beach CA 92648
Ca C]
z N
Ligla6'Notice
Public Hearing
-264fi-28 6 0 lilt ll! l!
Office of the City Clerk ,
Ji City of Huntington Beach c���N� U.S.POSTAGE *+
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 U,F- �i M�,f23'37 r� � O ��
i; /
win y
.Y, </" a� H METER 555153
• ,� ��F a .N.2134`Main St
;;.Hgntlnbton Beach CA 92648
C5-'`},ti 02304 5
Legal Notice /,'yL/L
blic Hearing �.\ s
''�25a3-'L4$2 21 �Illllll�l�ll�l!!�I!'II1�1!lll�l �IIItIIl1l!llllll�lllillllllli�llllll�lf '' �.
Office of the City Clerk
•
'City of Huntington BeachCJ
>�'T ON f, U.S.Fcsr,:c>E #;
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 V U.=
u:T
a ia- HIJ CT,-R SSS:53 •d
11 31 I�ue b Irv,vYe
937-15-330 1 *28
'Shenandoah G. Lynd p
19431 Rue De VE. ore No.
Foothill Ranch CA 9261'0
LYND431 926105002 1496 05/27/97
Legal Notice FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
LYND ST 15
Public Hearing 199 CHAUMONT CIR
FOOTHILL RANCH CA 92610-2346
-I:z i E'3'67. 1�.)}�;+�U. �cJ 11,I, „1,1,11,,,1„11„1,1!„�„,111,1„11r„1r1rr11rrr„Jill
Office of the City Clerk
Jj City of Huntington Beach W(r)
C'TON�
U.S.POST G"c
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 kkY23'97 r, O 0 ! *LOU) .
O(n j /��5 �.._ ,. „� * 1. ,7r i
aLL n H METER 555253
a 023 042 13 19 }y.
W a Sidney&Joann Marken
x 1916 Lake St �,IT
Huntington g on Beach CA 92648
C✓ Z tV "''4t
L a6liotice '1
Public Hearing
r.
46-= fn O=
Office of the City Clerk F
• r cn OW012397
U.S.POSTAGE
J. City of Huntington Beach �i *I
Yra '
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 �� Q (� ) `�2 H METER 555253
PIC
213 Main St ���
;;'fjgntin�ton Beach CA 92648 Z �' ZC�f� -y t `',f`I,•a
'
`A23.04y05 5
Legal Notice (p
Public Hearing ,.
�z5a>�--_Q��� a� ll,l:t:►l,l�llt::l:�li:,l„:,ll! l=l,:ll::l:::l:l:l►:l:ll::,:ltl::!!::l::lit:=l1
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach LL�� ED
U.S.POST�G EP.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648Q "�
H METER 55526� o t;
li r--^
023 042 13 19
war.. zr
Sidney&Joann Marken i f,
1916 Lake St `
/� I
W Huntington Beach CA 92648
r, CC>
x
�V
LWa6flotice {
Public Hearing
r
-I—a64fi—=&76 1 l{1 i:+ 11 +lll{lllll I+I++II++I.++I+III+I{I+�,ItII 11111t+1++11
Office of the City Clerk ,
•J, City of Huntington Beach �!� rM
�N us.s'o,TnceP.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 u3'37Q Q,rw~ir
q 7 C r7 1-45
{METER 55523 A
E
w
� ��� Vie•
CpLc_ �'� f"°,� 2134`Main St
`C l Fyn, . .-Aftntinbton Beach CA 92648
041'05 5
Legal Notice 2(Q
•��`,.. �'/ -sir "1''rx'g''�;w
Public Hearing
���4�-rL4f�'L G1 ��1�1111I 111�ISSl�l1'�111111111' �F�Il��+}1111�I�1�f lI iII1111111111�1{11 till till �.Y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 2, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following
planning and zoning items:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 94-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 94-22
(BOWEN COURT) (APPEAL). Applicant/Appellant: City of Huntington Beach, Department
of Economic Development Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for a 23 unit,
two (2) story senior apartment project designated solely for very low income seniors. The
applicant has submitted a modified request to construct a 21 unit project consisting entirely of
one (1) bedroom units designated for very low income seniors. The request includes a density
bonus for 21 units in lieu of 17 units permitted under the present zoning. Location: 1968 Lake
Street(southeast corner at Yorktown Avenue) PrQj_ect Planner: Wayne Carvalho
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 96-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 96-2 (.00EANCREST): Applicant: Oceancrest Partners Request@ On
April 11, 1997,the California Coastal Commission staff requested clarification relative to the
site location of the proposed Coastal Element language. This request is only to clarify the site
location. Location: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street. Prgject Planner:
Scott Hess
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for Item#1 was processed and
completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item#1,with
mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative
declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the appeal,the City Council must review and act on the
negative declaration. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department,2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and
comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714) 536-5271.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Item#2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal
Zone. Final review and approval by the California Coastal Commission is required. If the revised
language is approved, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2 will be forwarded to the California
Coastal Commission for final action.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,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 after May 29, 1997.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
(97CC602)
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach CT ON U.S.P 0 1 A GE.*
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
z 6-,C �, " =
55 r 3 THIS IS A MULTI-UNIT ADDRE C r,
ALL MAIL ss
t. TER S 5
MUST BE �,f�ry_ssr
A SPECIFIC L
B Ljr?,
%
937 164 76 214
Patricia Daniel f��
215 Wichita Ave #12
Huntington Beach CA 92e48
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
2648-800 S-i
Office of the City Clerk
•
I. ON
te City of Huntington Beach U.S.F01�.V,(',K
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 V.A Y 21 39 7 U U,Z
uu)
H METER S S s 2 3
ON
WILLIAM HAGGERTY
6321 TURNBERRY CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
HAGG321 926465006 IUYtj
FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
Legal Notice MAGGERTY'WILLIAM ST 22
514 19TH ST
Public Hearing i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3814
RETURN TO SENDER
'-- 2646—SS64 -.2
Office of the City Clerk
I, to City of Huntington Beach >C,,T ON Us.r csTAGE
170
VIM 2397
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
U(f) y
U:w- q
a+ H METF-R 555�53 +�
l�'��I I�ueDe.Vvlare
937-15-330Z�
`Shenandoah G. Lynd 3p
19431 Rue De Val—ore' No.
Foothill Ranch CA 92610 111 alt� �2.3o�
i
I
LY'ND431 9R6105002 1496 05/27/97
Legal Notice FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
Public bearing 199D CHAUMONT CIR ST 15
FOOTHILL RANCH CA 92610-2346
26 1 v' 'r, /f. lr�rs, '3�! l�J�ttttlllt��ttt(ttlttt✓'tllJtttt���t�tr��lrtltltt��rtttt�tt�
Office of the City Clerk
• ERET
I. City of Huntington Beach f ,, ��, U.S.POSTAGEP.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92M v� 97 r � Q0.7Q5�� HMETER 555253'0 SENDER
REFUSED $y MAIUNr ;
LESS E�
Psp��SPOQ SE�O LEST937 15 BOLAN
�`Ql�� . 590 WARN INGTO47RAV � 9649 FLegal Notice s � mix
zsr
Public Hearing
�•ao�-a`s� zo _ 11�6�.�L1J6��6�II�Iloilo 61111,.1L1111 led 1,lo1„11riJ11 -
ISM-
Office of the City Clerk
I. �► City of Huntington Beach '0'A �,, 0"V f U.S.POtTAGE o.
Wa A,
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA92648 �` \Ulm. " J J 3 0 ��� 5
a� C n H METER 5557S3 •
:9Ai( y C�ooc�m,
1937 153-50
!-SHIRLEY ,,; `1r352 {3)U2FL S tt
NO. 102 r� N o 10�-
�HUNTIINGTON BEACH CA 9
C4*1
Legal Notice
Public Hearing _ -
Office of the City Clerk PER 4 401-9-7
City of H€ntington Beach oe 0,,,K 4 ,c,
z .€ o Tlea
-
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92608,'a < MAY2397
C n H METER 555:!,? r•
heste7'r
-14urch 3�3 HoA� rjyv 6 7z4
323` Hngton St. No.19 Hur<I.in Beach CA 92640 7o2
"�. Oct - )
Legal Notice ' ; ��� 9a(o f��-a k/7
Public Hearing
tiZ648-261 s 21
Office of the City Clerk
- • -
_ /. Cit of Hunting ton Beach r� - GT O�
Y - g On � N U.S.POSIAGZ
71
ep P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA v MAY23'97 E�
Wn z ` �
�. ,
'•�` a`� C !1 H METER 555153 ti
546 _ SASH I r�Att 0),4 DF
-Rogan 2-32.3 H•o n�I n6-TUO .
*46"; pp, 2�23 untington St. No. - y qo1
C/
; .. �c�Fq,T izn ington Beach CA 926451
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
21
Office of the City Clerk
Ho
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX190 CALIFORNIA92648 ' j MAY23'i7
TOSI111,11 O icy►AGAQKA
NAGA341 926484003 IC95 05/28/97
Legal Notice FORWARD TIME EXR RTN TO SEND
NAGAOKA ST 20
Public Hearing 5910 WARNER AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4660
if
Office of the City Clerk
F
h
City of Huntington Beach
U.S. �..;.......!. ��
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ' Mn`iL
t
OB-
937 163_ 84 �U
r SANDRA KLINE & MCSHANE
INk 43429 VISTA CIRCLE DR
0�1,C o ASTER CA 93536
Legal Notice
Public HearingIro
F
��A
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Bcach
rrr
E c', t1.S.FOSTdvF. x
'Y 2)111A
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
5 t"
L�--j me -:) ii METER 5
93716130 268
Clivia owell
t
2323 untington St#70T.
Hunti g ton Beach,:CA 92648
POWE323 926483014 1596 05/28/97
FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
POWELL ' CLIVIA 6 ST 23
Legal Notice 383 SAY SHORE AVE APT 310
LONG BEACH CA 90803-1963
Public Hearing
111111HIlklil 11 11 d1i 11111 fit 1118 il if I liMid1111111 1!1!11
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORN[A 92648
ILI
937161 43 160 TU
Chih-Ping &Ko-Ming Liu
19481 Pompano Ln #104
Huntington Beach CA 62648
LIU-481 9264,54003 1396 05/28/97
FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
IU
Legal Notice 1 L483 SUTTER ST APT 1705 ST 20
Public Hearing SAN FRANCISCO CA 94109-5498
Office of the City Clerk
I. City of Huntington Beach
U.S.f'C?TAG x�
r.
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1 2� 97 K�1�` �' j;
n rL
U.
i '
c H •;! TER 555?i 3, t 1
r: n
937152.93
MARIO MONTOYA
7402 YELLOWTAIL DR#202
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
MONT402 926484003 IC95 05/28/9'7
Legal Notice FORWARD TIME EXR RTN TO SEND
MONTOYA ST 20
Public Hearing 19 DEL ROMA
IRVINE CA 92714-5357
�-4 41 24, rs``-� '=`� ii�i,)
•
Office of the City Clerk
J. iff City of Huntington Beach V. T 0 U.C.F 0 E
<
� *PB 57 n "i ;%i
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 3'97 9 '�1
MY,2" 0
H METER 5
'pk
31
AY 2
14
PZ
,p
7A
937 154 00
TIMOTHY & JEAN MISKO
7402 COHO DR #104
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
6 4-z 4 0
Office of the City Clerk
o
City of Huntington Beach 1 13 A,,
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 KAY 2 39 7
t,w)
H MO-TER S 5
A,
-,CKAY2
14�t�, n)vo
- 37 168X92
MARGARET STAPENHORST
7351 COHO DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing w
tj
s f,01 ek-2.Ok ril -1,1rj
• Office of the City Clerk
�,A 0 City of Huntington Beach ff) C'I
ON 0% _ I:1� t�!
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 'I N MAY23'97
r 1: %� H I/,ETCR 55:;:'';i 1;
.Z
937 153 37 'p��` SFti�yF4
DANIEL & GAYLE DEMSHER � Q El,�
19351 BLUEFISH LN #203 Ursa
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
r
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
_
Office of the City Clerk
•�� Ie City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 >\ k
CALIFORNIA 92648
937 153 47 d ��
ROBERT V I I I LUCAS 9,p �' R
FISH #101 �
19352 BLUE IN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
•�`+�-�=+-� �� II,f,,,►I,I,II„+I„II„I,,,I,I+i+,I„Il+,ll,;,i+I,,,hil,i„I
Office of the City Clerk
• T ON
U.S.POSTA--
City of Huntington BeachnN
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 7 U U.
0,ir 'A I
H NIETCR 5S52
z DJAVAD KASHEFINEJAD
19351 BLUEFISH LN #103
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
^12S48-24--tr-, SO IIIIII III I III 1 11111111 It ill I fit I Ill I I I I I I Ill il Idill 1111
Office of the City Clerk
•
City of Huntington Beach
U.S.POSTP-G,
A 014 4
tk
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
MAY23,97
4D
-R
937 160 68
SIW BENNETT
7331 COHO DR #105
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
Office of the City Clerk
'J'�ne city of Huntington Beach )S"T 0 4 U.S.
m-S-1k 014 0%
48
MRY 2
CALIFORNIA 926
P.O.BOX 190 1.,1 J)
H METER S I'
TERRENCE GIANNONE
7321 COHO DR #206
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
C;e
a.I�N 01"cr'Hearing
Public Hearing
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
0 19-AL
2'J
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 MAY,: 0 0,
a,I_L�
Ll H METER li 1-"1 3
MAY,:2 N,7'
937 153 30
SIJFNANDOAH & CHRISy LYND(1� er?
4-o&419 f
7381 COHO DR #205 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
12646-2421 10 1111111111 idliffili 11111111 1 lifil IIIIII IIIIIII III tilt III If ill
Office of the City Clerk
I.n#& City of Huntington Beach U) C
U.s.ro- ,,
�P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 �
937154 39 1 -�
Robert Pierson III
7412 Seabluff Dr#107 RCT{,� .
9 ,
/V
Huntington Beach SIP
qpn �OEEr
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
Office of the City Clerk
Ji City of Huntington Beach r� UMAY,23'97�
° U.S.POSIAG
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648H N�rTf=R 555
a, LYE
��60�33 115
Herbert James Coughran
7492 Seabluff Dr#101
l Huntington Beach.CA 92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing i f1y j i S j i
tlif!ltktf�ll�l!tlit��itl??!'.�;�
Office of the City Clerk
"teCity of Huntington Beach ,`' °" �' F' ""'` °'
I cu' .. rIIi.°L .� f -r� 11
..1.
-� Vl'3' � rI '�� A'
CALIFORNIA 92648
-� M�Y?3'97 ,, ���� Q ��,, ;y w
P.O.BOX 190 ,.a:�� S I Z--17 `
a• �
H METER 55S:
�k9 S�'ryC�R
qp�'
93715413 77 /U
Kenneth &Jalayne Schaufelberger
7371 Seabluff Dr#101 48
Huntington
Beach
CA
926
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
_ i i i 4y ii i
'�LF(��—fyq ,+�1 vq it?1tt!tl?I£11l111£Ills£�'.tll£ttI£tlt?Ilt£tlllitt;l£?!li►1£1?I
Office of the City Clerk
/. City of Huntington Beach U.5.POSf:::F.qP t;
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648CL
�;` h�Yl_ j' ` •�: ��
C i1
937 154 43 107
Jeffrey&Allison Joy �q iEN::)�R
7412 Seabluff Dr#111 '�qp
Huntington Beach CA 92648
VL Notice
Public Hearing
11l11£!!i£1l111111!£111li!£tllii
Office of the City Clerk
Huntington Beach 1 0/V
.J I.0 City of U.S.pos:;'Ci-
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 MAY23,97 2
Kill D 0 0.2 -"1
H MI E TE R 5557
C, 1%
..........
S!F!qDEF?
937 160 27
JANE KUHN
7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #201
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
S 4 8---448 -0
Office of the City Clerk
J. City of Huntington Beach ��,l 0 U.S.p I f t
1 0I')AY42-),,j7" ,")
0-4 04 04 04
0%0%o
ri n
14023"9 7
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Fi AETEJ
'Wi
ID
937 153 59 6
RANDY -CANCELLIERIAk,,
19352 BLUEFISH SE V ON
j
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
.92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
92648-24-' ZO 11111 11111111111 it 1111111111 1111111
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach C,T OAV U.S.tj do
01%01% 4 ON A 014 01% N
U
M AY 23-9 7
0, P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 2- -3
1 0 A v
�7
C, r H METER
.937 161 70
DEAN PEKMEZIAN L)
7311 COHO DR #101
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
Legal Notice 92648
Public Hearing
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach T ON
CALIFORNIA 92648
P.O.BOX 190
C j�% H M 1-1 ER 5 5
T 0�)C`4y-73 )74�11)
937 160 31
HAROLD ROSE
7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #204
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
Legal Notice 92648
Public Hearing
SO
Office of the City Clerk
�I. ► City of Huntington Beach U.S.f :;L „?
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 _ i
FI 1AETER 5 S
����4�^ S�•�,Urr• h�
EVELYNN CATES
7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #102 r
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
92- 4 ft-=4 i 0 fill]11111,,,III 1111„1
Office of the City Clerk
/. City of Huntington Beach us.Po5-sac: ,
•
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 „� i M (2�97fe
n� 14METER 555'.':.3 ul
`f'Cr
937 160 53 c'
JO ANN KITAGAWA fy J '�lfUr ! "
7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #205
��
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
�2648-2447
Office of the City Clerk
City Huntington Beach (,T ON
U.S-POKi;,Gi:
-4 niff Gin
f.0-4 4 OP%0-4 A 0-4
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 J MAY2797
C,
M 1Z TE R 5SS7yS
937 160 54 ",40 /V
BRAD & BETHNELL SANDBERG
7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #202
e,
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA *Z
z
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
-3-0 11111111 11 it IIIIIIII lilt lilt if If hill 111 11 1111 111111111 111111 1
Office of the City Clerk
0 A
City of Huntington Beach
C;Lo US Po' ':. is
qP P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
pi A'y 3,�j 7 r)
H METER 5
[q9P
-.rid,
937 161 83
LAURIE GAYLORD
7281 COHO DR #204
Legal Notice HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
Public Hearing 92648
fill
Office of the City Clerk
J. j& City of Huntington Beach I"0,AV
U.S.Flos"'.C.0
Oft.0% 4 0-4 A A A
P.O.
NIA 92648
'AY23
BOX 190 CALIFOR"
7 0 0.2
C P. P. METER 5
. -Li,,Y2,-3,'j1v7
937 153 22
LORRAINE -ELLEN MOYER
hl� 7371 coHO DR #108
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
:30 111111111111 Mill III
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach C, I ON
US 1`01,;AGE
0%01%0%0%^
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
G, 0 If lY
J
H M E TER
4i
937 161 13 135
John DeMarr
Leg. I Notice 19532 Ranch Ln #103
Public Hearing Huntington Beach CA 92648
Ili fill I flillifill Ili filM IM11,11
Office of the City Clerk
fe City of Huntington Beach C,-1 ON
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 VIAY23'97 0 0.2 9!
F! NICTEP 5 Ei 5 2,7 3
937 153 07 4t2 P*
MARY KEENER
7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #202
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
-2 1-2648-21440 SO 1111111i IIIIII I fit!Ild
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach C,11 0/%,
U.S.POSV",
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 14 AY 2 79 7 ;1,
LOU)
uy
H METER 555 '3
937 153 34
CARL OLIPHANT S..
I ZO ,VDV.
19351 BLUEFISH LN ZO
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 __
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
Office of the City Clerk
0 City of Huntington Beach
MAY23 27 •� �,� U 4;
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 LOU) S,
TIM & DENISE SHUMATE
7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #203
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
9 Z 648-L4 •� S0
Office of the City Clerk
City Of '0
Huntington Beach 1-ON U.S.
owl A 6-.0%0%0%0%W
CALIFORNIA 92648 MAY23,97
P.O.BOX 190 5
H METER S E 5 3
MAY T97 c'
7-15-347
rt S. Viii Lucas
Pompano Lane
ington Beach 9264-
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
IM111 lilldil!111111 H1 I All-
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach U.S.F101"T,%GE
04 014 04 A 14
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 QV23'97 "j,
1-1 METER 5 S 5 2i
23 97
937-16-553
POPi I yl Karen Lynn Stees
Q
04 Monroe St . No. 1801
IN/� ,
--' #;aeC1ara CA 95050
4f Q . ..
'3
'0 !
Legal.�N0tj'cW:4
Publi.1
�V G R w Elk 110 1 ill 11-i w d
(IRDER EXPIRED
b'D IC>
Office of the City Clerk
I. te City of Huntington Beach 'T 0
.0 U.S.POST.M,
A 926 c
P.O.BOX 190 ALIFORNIA 926 MAY 2 T9 7
Ulu)
r.r.Ir
H 1, E T�,E R 555 YT2397
IR 161 85 170 1,71)c
-4.
- ne cKinl
v Kath 6nX
pyt, #VK'�, 'Y57V, 0 L 1
4�45 an n 1 Pompano Ln
c C
DtVington Beach C 648
Legal Notice
Public Hearing
-1264-8-2477
Office of the City Clerk-
Hej
City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 1-9-0 CALIFORNIA 92648 z f;
LYND431 926103006 1496 06/04/97
_ l FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
t' ? 1999D CHAUMONT CIR ST 18
;,.•4. �' FOOTFALL RANCH CA 92610-2346
i .
11111,11 fill 11l111111111a111+'li.(,!.(I�fIJJ.IIIJ.!!!�!1!!�l 111U1111
VI i nu1V 1 IIVV 1 VI �Gr'1l.il l l�F/roc: ;[ ♦�-.v`v"�Bea�chCA
� -PO Box.190 2134 Main St 2000 MaiHun ' each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 H o 92648
023 041 04 4 023 041 05 5 023 041 06 6
CITY HUNTI EACH CITY OF HUNTINGT CH CITY HUNTING AJ-13
2000 t 2000 Main S 2000
tington Beach CA 92648 H n Beach CA 92648 H ntington Beach CA 92648
023 041 07 7 023 042 02 8 023 042 03 9
PACIFIC COAST HOMES Larry&Susan Kasulka Richard & Gail Carr Jr.
PO Box 285 1952 Lake St 1948 Lake St
Houston TX 77001 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 042 04 10 023 042 05 11 023 042 06 12
Michael Bresideski Douglas & Hoc Michelsen Kevin &Jennifer Vu
1946 Lake St 1942 Lake St 1938 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 042 07 13 023 042-08 14 023 042 09 15
Darrell & Mary Hobbs Christopher Insley Rafael &Lena Vergara
1936 Lake St 1932 Lake St 1928 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 042 10 16 023 04211 17 023 042 12 18
Ronald & Catherine Lowenberg Ladelle SuccessorAnkerstar I ' Anthony& Lorie Chimento
1926 Lake St PO Box 2824 U T 1918 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pls Vrds Pnsl CA 90274 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 042 13 19 023 04218 20 023 042 19 21
Sidney&Joann Morken I REDEVELOPME CY OF REDEVELOPMENT AG
1916 Lake St UYT 2000 M ' 2000 Main
Huntington Beach CA 92648 ington Beach CA 92648 H g on Beach CA 92648
023 042 20 22 023 042 21 23 023 042 22 24
REDEVELOPMENT A OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF REDEVELOPMEN Wf;'f-s1=
2000 Main S 2000 Main S 2000 Mai
H n Beach CA 92648 Hunti n Beach CA 92648 Hunt' on Beach CA 92648
13
023 042 23 25 023 043 01 26 023 043 02 27
Mark& Donna Heisler Randall & Cheryl Lyford Antonio& Haydee Enriquez U
1966 Lake St 1951 Lake St 1947 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 03 . 28 023 043 04 29 023.043 05 30
Charles Ramey Beric& Linda Christiansen Peter Radloff U
1945 Lake St 1941 Lake St 1937 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 06 31 023 043 07 32 023 043 08 33
Philip Jr McBride F Stephen Olim Robert& Carole Eck
1935 Lake St 1931 Lake St 1927 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 09 34 023 043 10 35 023 043 11 36 1
Thomas & Mary Minton Milton Inbody Yuchi Chuang U
1925 Lake St 1921 Lake St 1917 Lake St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 12 37 023 043 22 38 023 043 23 39
James Brill Gerald &Joyce Bustrum Paul &Yukie Crews
1915 Lake St 1918 Pine St 1922 Pine St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 24 40 023 043 25 41 023 043 26 42
Sal Hau & Hau Kum Chu Michael &Maureen Wirtz Ronald & Pam Poonsaegnsathit
1926 Pine St 1928 Pine St 1932 Pine St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 27 43 023 043 28 44 0230432.9 45
1 &Joann Bordas Victor Vance Harry &Trudee Joe -
1936 Pine St 1938 Pine St 1942 Pine St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 043 30 46 023 043 31 47 023 043 32 48
Jill Casselman Thomas& Beth Anderson David & Lorraine Bennett
1946 Pine St 1948 Pine St 1952 Pine St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 044 01 49 023 044 02 50 023 044 03 51
James & Gayle Wright Louis &Joan Goetz John & Carole Thomas
1948 Park St 1941 Pine St 1937 Pine St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023 044 04 52 023 044 05 53 023 044 06 54
Thomas & Suzanne Valker Randall & Linda Pflughaupt Lawrence Treglia 35
1935 Pine St 1931 Pine St 1927 Pine St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
CUB ��3 9
02502107 55 025 021 13 56 025 021 14 57
Cheryi Snowdon Don & Lori Knox Grant& My-Dung Masaoka
6045 Greenbrier Dr 21272 Cupar Ln 18324 Deloise Ave
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Cerritos CA 90703
025 021 15 58 025 021 16 59 025 021 17 60
C G H ASSOCIATES Martin &Gail Cisek Peter Holman
4762 Corsica Dr 1827 Montezuma Ct 220 Wichita Ave
Cypress CA 90630 Phoenix AZ 85044 Huntington Beach CA 92648
025 021 18 61 025 021 19 62 025 021 20 63
Milton & Romelle Jelinowicz Anita Brace Gong & Betty Wong
3911 Sunflower St 8251 Manifesto Cir 5862 Woodboro Dr
Seal Beach CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92649
025 021 21 64 025 022 09 65 025 022 19 66
Cheryl Snowdon Koshiro Tsujiuchi Antonio Lozada
6045 Greenbrier Dr 621 N 19th St 210 Venice Ave#1
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Montebello CA 90640 Huntington Beach CA 92648
025 023 11 67 025 023 12 68 025 023 13 69
FOUNDERS PROPERTIES C H G M ASSOCIATES Dorothy Fulmor
PO Box 26454 4762 Corsica Dr 412 Crocker Sperry Dr
Santa Ana CA 92799 Cypress CA 90630 Santa Barbara CA 93108
025 023 14 70 025 023 15 71 025 023 16 72
Rodolfo& Susana Garcia Thsai-Ten Lin Ming-Wei Chang
2121 Alabama St 6821 Scenic Bay Dr 9081 Belcaro Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646
025 023 17 73 025 023-19 74 025 023 21 75
John Betts Arthur Wesselman James Dixon
11330 198th Ave SE 28 Via La Msn 18556 Vallarta Dr
Issaquah WA 98027 San Clemente CA 92672 Huntington Beach CA 92646
02502406 76 937 154 13 77 j/U 937154 14 78
Plc Kenneth &Jalayne Schaufelberger Robert Wells Jr.
7371 Seabluff Dr#101 7371 Seabluff Dr#102
5-6*� (20� Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93715415 79 93715416 80 93715417 81
Samuel Smith Ronald VonFreymann David Melton
7371 Seabluff Dr#103 7371 Seabluff Dr#104 7371 Seabluff Dr#105
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937154 18 82 937 154 19 83 937154 20 ' 84 U
James Reed Joe Robertson Aaron &Adam Cowen
7371'Seabluff Dr#106 7371 Seabluff Dr#107 7371 Seabluff Dr#108 30
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 154 21 85 937 154 22 86 93715423 87
Wing Ow Katherine Klein Howard Warner
7371 Seabluff Dr#109 7371 Seabluff Dr#110 7371 Seabluff Dr#111
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93715424 88 937 154 25 89 93715426 90
Steven & Joan Purdue Tom Vito Digiorgio Pauline Harbin
7371 Seabluff Dr#112 19501 Ranch Ln #101 19501 Ranch Ln #102
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937154 27 91 937 154 28 92 937154 29 93
Gladys Griswold William Reid Chester Donaldson
19501 Ranch Ln #103 19501 Ranch Ln #104 19501 Ranch Ln #105
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937154 30 94 937 154 31 95 937154 32 96
Nancy Trelster Yash Subberwal Jan Wallace & Margaret Michael
19501 Ranch Ln #106 19501 Ranch Ln #107 19501 Ranch Ln #108
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937154 33 97 937154 34 98 937154 35 99
Herbert &Cherissa Chaplin Randy Park Charles & Ann Hawkins
7412 Seabluff Dr#101 7412 Seabluff Dr#102 7412 Seabluff Dr#103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937154 36 100 937 154 37 101 93715438 102
Joseph.& Carol Tartaglini William Crawford Delia Carrasco
7412 Seabluff Dr#104 7412 Seabluff Dr#105 7412 Seabluff Dr#106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937154 39 103 937154-40 104 937154 41 105
Robert Pierson III John & Lauren Ott Jeff Saccacio
7412 Seabluff Dr#107 7412 Seabluff Dr#108 7412 Seabluff Dr#109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93715442 106 937 154 43 107 T U 93715444 108
Ronald & Susan Alper Jeffrey&Allison Joy Margot Achenbach
7412 Seabluff Dr#110 7412 Seabluff Dr#111 7412 Seabluff Dr#112
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937160 87 109 937 160 88 110 93716089 111
Gary&Joann Beard Louis& Nanci Medina Alvin Greenberg
7492 Seabluff Dr#107 7492 Seabluff Dr#108 7492 Seabluff Dr#109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937160 90 112 937160 91 113 937160 92 114
Masaaki Fumoto. Irvivg Newman Elmar John Baxter 30
7492 Seabluff Dr#110 7492 Seabluff Dr#111 7492 Seabluff Dr#112
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 160 93 115 93716094 116 93716095 117
Herbert James Coughran Terry Harrison Temre Vouga
7492 Seabluff Dr#101 7492 Seabluff Dr#102 7492 Seabluff Dr#103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937160 96 - 118 93716097 119 937 160 98 120
James Holechek Doris Eldridge Robert& Pamela Herb
7492 Seabluff Dr#104 7492 Seabluff Dr#105 7492 Seabluff Dr#106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 160 99 121 937 161 00 122 937 161 01 123
James Creason Vincente Perez DeTudela Patrick& Shellie May Moles
16152 Nassau Ln 18502 Ranch Ln #102 19502 Ranch Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937161 02 124 93716103 125 937 161 04 126
Zonita Linda Pastore Russell Bivens Charles McKinley
19502 Ranch Ln #104 19502 Ranch Ln#105 19502 Ranch Ln #106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716105 127 93716106 128 93716107 129
Louis & Mercedes Apodaca Ted Duron Bruce Robbins
19502 Ranch Ln #107 19502 Ranch Ln #108 19502 Ranch Ln #109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716108 130 93716109 131 937 161 10 132
Frank Ung Marc Vogt Derek& Suzan Wimmer
19502 Ranch Ln #110 19502 Ranch Ln#111 19502 Ranch Ln #112
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 161 11 133 937 161-12 134 937 161 13 135
Kenneth Norton Edward Aghjayan John DeMarr
19532 Ranch Ln #101 19532 Ranch Ln #102 19532 Ranch Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937161 14 136 937 161 15 137 937 161 16 138
Lynne Kallman Jenean Beyer Donald Powel
19532 Ranch Ln #104 19532 Ranch Ln#105 19532 Ranch Ln #106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937161 17 139 937161 18 140 937161 19 141
Kenneth CL,awford . Gary Grady James Cradduck
19532 Ranch Ln #107 19532 Ranch Ln#108 19532 Ranch Ln #109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 161 20 142 937 161 21 143 ) 93716122 144
Marianna Pinter John & Carol Corley Kenneth & Florence Orton S O
19532 Ranch Ln #110 351 Saint Mary St 19532 Ranch Ln #112
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pleasanton CA 94566 Huntington Beach CA 92648
911-3
937161 28 145 93716129 146 93716130 147
Robert& Denise Carleton Kenneth Roberts II Cory Johnson
19521 Pompano Ln #101 19521 Pompano Ln # IV 2- 19521 Pompano Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937161 31 148 937161 32 149 93716133 150
Hendarto &Johanna Hanwai Virginia Gordon Robert Gast II
19521 Pompano Ln #104 19521 Pompano Ln #105 19521 Pompano Ln #106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716134 151 93716135 152 U 93716136 153
Kenneth Fetty Arthur&Judy Henry Lawrence &Jeannine Lanza
19521 Pompano Ln #107 19521 Pompano Ln#292 19521 Pompano Ln #109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937161 37 154 937 161 38 155 937 161 39 156
Robert& Rhonda Gorson Hsien-Lin Wang . Susan Safford
19521 Pompano Ln #110 19521 Pompano Ln #111 19521 Pompano Ln l 2
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937161 40 157 937 161 41 158 93716142 159
James & Marilyn Orens Diane Ehlhardt Perry Alper
19481 Pompano Ln #101 19481 Pompano Ln #102 19481 Pompano Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716143 160 7/0 93716144 161 93716145 162
Chih-Ping & Ko-Ming Liu Bernhard Hadeler Peter Kaplan
19481 Pompano Ln #104 19481 Pompano Ln#105 19481 Pompano Ln #106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716146 163 937 161-47 164 93716148 165
Sheila Abrahamian Pil & Haeng Oh Alexander Lynn Beckman
19481 Pompano Ln #107 19481 Pompano Ln#108 19481 Pompano Ln #109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716149 166 937161 50 167 93716151 168
Joseph Arthur Leick Richard Daniels James & Margaret Cheney Beard
19481 Pompano Ln #110 19481 Pompano Ln#111 19481 Pompano Ln '4:r I('-
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716152 169 93716153 170 93716154 171
Marilyn Moreira Richard &Kathrine McKinlay Beret Bengtson
19451 Pompano Ln #I01 19451 Pompano Ln#310 19451 Pompano Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 161 55 172 937 161 56 173 937 161 57 174
Chang Jui Ho Dennis Jenkins Leon Homberger
19451 Pompano Ln #104 19451 Pompano Ln #105 434 W 750 S 3 0
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Orem UT 84058
93716158 175 93716159 176 93716160 177
James Lorincz Louis Lardas Linda Garrett,
19451 Pompano Ln #105 19451 Pompano Ln #108 19451 Pompano Ln #109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716161 178 937 161 62 179 937161 63 180
Kenneth Turnbull Richard Meyer Howard Simpson
19451 Pompano Ln #110 19451 Pompano Ln #111 19451 Pompano Ln #112
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 45 181 937 163 46 182 937163 47 183
Stanley Byra Michael &Suzan Hopkins Joseph Marvin &Julia Marie Ingra
7301 Veering Cir 19562 Pompano Ln #111 19562 Pompano Ln #110
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 48 184 937 163 49 185 937163 50 186
Dale Eugene Schmidt Ikuo Nakano Paul&Jennifer Woods
19562 Pompano Ln #109 16322 S Manhattan PI#4 19562 Pompano Ln #107
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Gardena CA 90247 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 51 187 937 163 52 188 937163 53 189
William Graff Herman Goedecker Pauline Broska
19562 Pompano Ln *106 19562 Pompano Ln #105 19562 Pompano Ln #104
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 54 190 U 937 163 55 191 937163 56 192
Susan Saunders Robert Viii Lucas Leslie Cushing
19562 Pompano Ln #103. 19562 Pompano Ln #102 19562 Pompano Ln #101
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 57 193 937 163-58 194 937163 59 195
Richard Ramaglia Nora Ellen Coyle Thomas O'Connor
19581 Pompano Ln #108 19581 Pompano Ln #107 19581 Pompano Ln #106
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 60 196 937 163 61 197 937163 62 198
Charles Whang Jr. Eric Nash David Murray
19581 Pompano Ln #105 PO Box 166 19581 Pompano Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Depoe Bay OR 97341 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 163 63 199 937 163 64 200 937 163 65 201
John Rowan Philip Lord Irving Kliger
19581 Pompano Ln #102 19581 Pompano Ln #101 19561 Pompano Ln #112
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 163 66 202 937 163 67 203 93716369 204
Ignacio & Catherine Guerrero Daryl Watanabe Colin & Laurie Bilbruck 30
19561 Pompano Ln #111 19561 Pompano Ln #110 19561 Pompano Ln #109
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
ifz)l 9�1-3 9
93716369 205 93716370 206 937 163 71 207
Manuel Flores Rudy Ruiz George Neuman
19561 Pompano Ln #108 PO Box 219 19561 Pompano Ln #6
Huntington Beach CA 92648 El Centro CA 92244 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937163 72 208 937 163 73 209 937163 74 210
Jeanne Brown Brad &Lee Rinderknecht Charles Dinsmore
19561 Pompano Ln #105 19561 Pompano Ln #104 19561 Pompano Ln #103
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716375 211 93716376 212 93716475 213 �-
Chris Lambert Coy& Cheryl Baugh Nikhil Mehta
19561 Pompano Ln #102 19561 Pompano Ln #101 215 Wichita Ave #101
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937164 76 214 93716477 215 U 93716478 216
Patricia Daniel Thomas & Marcia Loughlin Irwin & Carolyn Kanode
215 Wichita Ave #12 215 Wichita Ave#103 215 Wichita Ave #104
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716479 217 93716480 218 93716481 219
Diana Kuka John Miller Kathryn &John Marshall
215 Wichita Ave#105 1030 13th St 215 Wichita Ave#107
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937164 82 220 937 164 83 221 937 164 84 222
Sandra Noble Charles & Darlene Williams Hilary H Chan
215 Wichita Ave #108 215 Wichita Ave#201 9842 Kings Canyon Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646
937164 85 223 937 164-86 224 U 937164 87 225
Fred Marquez Eric Lowey Frank Vitonis
215 Wichita Ave#203 602 14th St 3621 W Macarthur Blvd #10
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa Ana CA 92704
93716488 226 937164 89 227 93716490 228
Dawn Arnold Craig Carstens Betty Hayashi
215 Wichita Ave#206 215 Wichita Ave#207 215 Wichita Ave#208
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937164 91 229 93716492 230 937 164 93 231
Hans &Christa Boedeker Cynthia Alyce& Richard Ainslie Charles Ellis
10491 Cowan Heights Dr 3000 Country Club Dr 4939 Browndeer Ln
Santa Ana CA 92705 Glendale CA 91208 Pis Vrds Pnsl CA 90275
937164 94 232 937 164 95 233 937 164 96 234
Linda Masterton Robin Clark Keith Hopkins 50
215 Wichita Ave #304 215 Wichita Ave#305 215 Wichita Ave#306
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
)37 164 97 235 93716498 236 937164 99 237
John Graeff Howard Jay Frantz Richard Winkie
215 Wichita Ave#307 31 Whitewood Way 16712 Carousel Ln
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92612 Huntington Beach CA 92649
937165 00 238 937165 01 239 937165 02 240
Takeshi Matsui Anthony Kubis Jr. , VILLA PACIFICA ASSN
9631 Zetland Dr 861 Victoria St 215 Wichita Ave#404
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Costa Mesa CA 92627 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 03 241 937 165 04 242 937 165 05 243
Linda Ogan Cleo Turner Carl Edmund Ball
215 Wichita Ave#405 215 Wichita Ave#406 3615 Walnut Ave
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Long Beach CA 90807
937165 06 244 937165 07 245 937 165 08 246
Alexander Khurgel Gary& Dallas Day Patrick Billiter
215 Wichita Ave #408 215 Wichita Ave#409 215 Wichita Ave#501
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 165 09 247 T/J 937 165 10 248 937 165 11 249
Sange Gupta Rosa Mahin Robert Dunn
215 Wichita Ave 215 Wichita Ave#503 215 Wichita Ave #504
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716512 250 93716513 251 93716514 252
Ernest Goldberg George Woodley Wan Ho
20171 Big Bend Ln 17051 Marina Bay Dr 18863 Jeffrey Ave
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Cerritos CA 90703
93716515 253 937 165-16 254 937 16517 255
Chart Assawapimonporn Jennifer Leicht Christopher Cattle
215 Wichita Ave #508 215 Wichita Ave#601 PO Box 61
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 18 256 937165 19 257 937165 20 258 u
Frank Fiorillo Sr. Lary Webb. Dorothy Gillespie
17741 Falkirk Ln 215 Wichita Ave#604 17812 Quintana Ln
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647
937 165 21 259 937 165 22 260 937 165 23 261
Nanette Markham David & Lucy Lee Tsong Jeffrey Alan Page
215 Wichita Ave#606 20381 Craimer Ln 215 Wichita Ave #608
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 24 262 937 165 25 263 i 937 165 26 264
Dolores Dwyer Chester& Nancy Murch - Debra Susan Rice
20601 Suburbia Ln 159 Orange Park I 2323 Huntington St#703 30
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Redlands CA 92374 / Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 27 265 937 165 28 266 937 165 29 267
Anna Yamauchi Joan Elliott Laurel &Joshua Carr
2323 Huntington St 4170+ 2323 Huntington St#705 2323 Huntington St#706
i Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 30 268 937 165 31 269 937 165 32 270
Clivia Powell John Foret George Woodley
2323 Huntington St#707 2323 Huntington St#708 17051 Marina Bay Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649
937165 33 271 937 165 34 272 937165 35 273
Marilyn Rogers Edward Knight III Melody Jane Guiver
2323 Huntington St#802 2323 Huntington St#803 2323 Huntington St#804
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 36 274 937 165 37 275 U 937165 38 276
Timothy Bridger OLD TOWN INC Dale Athey
2323 Huntington St#805 12132 Topaz Cir 25931 El Segundo St
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Garden Grove CA 92845 Laguna Hills CA 92653
937165 39 277 937165 40 278 937165 41 279
Mary Haynes Ilene Green Robert Neal Warne
263 Chesterfield 2323 Huntington St#901 2323 Huntington St#902
Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 42 280 937165 43 281 937 165 44 282
Bert Green Rosti & Magda Vana William Correia
6012 Point Loma Dr 2323 Huntington St#1008 4191 Pierson Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92647 -" 'Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649
937165 45 283 T/U 937 165-46 284 U 937 165 47 285
Gayle Glenn CHASE MORTGAGE SERVICES I Kevin Boroff
2323 Huntington St#906 4915 Independence Pkwy 2323 Huntington St#908
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tampa FL 33634 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937165 48 286 937 165 49 287 937165 50 288
Thomas Stanger John Piekarsld T Robert Hansen
2323 Huntington St#1001 2323 Huntington St#1002 4935 Warner Ave
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649
937 165 51 289 937 165 52 290 93716553 291 r�v
Deborah Moussafir Madeline Reynolds Karen Stees
2323 Huntington St#1004 2323 Huntington St#1005 2323 Huntington St#1006
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
93716554 292 937 165 55 293
Ben Wolf Rosti & Magda Vana
4214 Paseo De Plata 2323 Huntington St #I D OS o2
Cypress CA 90630 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937 152 94 937 152 95 U CARMELA FOULIHAN
FRANCIS HILL TIM & DENISE SHUMATE 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #103
7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #102 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
iUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92648 92648
937 152 97 937 152 98 937 152 99
TYZZ-DOW LU & NANCY LIU THOMAS TURNER WAYNE ALDEN BRANDT
7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #204 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #104 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #205
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 00 937 153 01 J 937 153 02
SHARON GEE WILLIAM EDWARDS JR. JAMES LEE SANKEY
7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #105 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #206 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR #207
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
WILLIAM HAGGERTY 937 153 04 937 153 05
6321 TURNBERRY CIR WILLIAM LEE MARTIN RUBY
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 424 GOLDENWEST ST 7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #101
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
937 153 06 937 153 07 937 153 08
FARZIN KAMKARI MARY KEENER LORENE ANDERSON
22943 CASS AVE 7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #202 7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #102
WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
937 153 09 ADOLPH MAYER 937 153 11
VIRGINIA ROSALIND GEORGE 7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #103 ARLENE KEY
7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 2326 PINEHURST DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 TUSTIN CA 92782
92648 -
937 153 12 937 153 -13 937 153 14
LARRY JOSEPH DIAMOND GREGORY ROWE LAWRENCE TAYLOR
7362 YELLOWTAIL DR #205 323 BLUE CAVERN PT 21781 WINDSONG CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA LONG BEACH CA 90803 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92646
937 153 15 937 153 16 937 153 17 T/v
JOSEPH TRUXAW VELMA PHILLIPS JOSEPH DAVIS
8555 WHITE FISH CIR 7371 COHO DR #102 7442 COHO DR
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
937 153 18 937 153 19 937 153 20
LINDA BAKER JACQUELYN JONES JOHN & NANCY FRENCH
7371 COHO DR #104 7371 COHO DR #105 3800 TOPSIDE LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
92648 92648
937 153 21 937 153 22 937 153 23
PATRICK DEVANEY LORRAINE ELLEN MOYER MARICE SUPRY 3�
8842 FRY CIR 7371 COHO DR #108 7381 COHO DR #101
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92646 92648 92648
v r
937 153 24 937 153 25 937 153 26
ALLAN HIRATA FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGA RONDA WOOD`
7381 COHO DR #201 7381 COHO DR #202 7381 COHO DR #102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 27 937 153 28 937 153 29
NICHOLAS COOK CLEMENS & LINDA SPENGLER JAMES WATERHOUSE
7381 COHO DR #203 7381 COHO DR #103 7381 COHO DR #204
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 30 937 153 31 937 153 32
SHENANDOAH & CHRISY LYNDJr- DERRY & NORMA PARSONS ELAINE NORTON
7381 COHO DR #205 7381 COHO DR #104 7381 COHO DR #206
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
192648 92648 92648
937 153 33 937 153 34 937 153 35
FLORENCE GARRATT CARL OLIPHANT U RANDI WARNER
19351 BLUEFISH LN #101 19351 BLUEFISH LN ZOO 19351 BLUEFISH LN #202
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 36 937 153 37 DJAVAD KASHEFINEJAD
JOHN & CAROL KINDLER DANIEL & GAYLE DEMSHER T 'U 19351 BLUEFISH LN #103 T/U
16135 SAINT CROIX CIR 19351 BLUEFISH LN #203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92649 92648
937 153 39 937 153 40 937 153 41
MICHAEL CERVENAK MARGARET KUZEE RONALD ROESCH
19351 BLUEFISH LN #204 19351 BLUEFISH LN #104 19351 BLUEFISH LN #205
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 _. 92648 92648
937 153 42 937 153 -43 937 153 44
RUTH SWANSTROM JEFF & DIANE KRISTOL DOROTHY HERNANDEZ U
19351 BLUEFISH LN #105 19351 BLUEFISH LN #206 19351 BLUEFISH LN #207
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 45 937 153 46 937 153 47 T/0
KAREN PETERSON CHRISTINE NELSON ROBERT VIII LUCAS
19351 BLUEFISH LN #106 19351 BLUEFISH LN #208 19352 BLUEFISH LN #101
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 48 937 153 49 937 153 50
RONALD FIFER GARY PRUNTY SHIRLEY GOODMAN
19352 BLUEFISH LN #201 19352 BLUEFISH LN #202 NO. 102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648 Q
937 153 51 937 153 52 937 153 53 .
MARLENE & DONALD LEGGETT MARY MARTIN SUZANNE & DONALD JOHNSON
10810 GATES ST 19352 BLUEFISH LN #103 17220 NEWHOPE ST #212
ADELANTO CA 92301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708
92648
JOE GALVAN - 937 153 55 937 153 56
PO BOX 5845 JEANETTE RYAN STEPHEN & KATHRYN TVORIK
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 19352 BLUEFISH LN #205 19352 BLUEFISH LN #105
92615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
937 153 57 937 153 58 937 153 59
BOBBIE FRECH NANCY STALNAKER RANDY CANCELLIERI
19352 BLUEFISH LN #206 19352 BLUEFISH LN #207 19352 BLUEFISH LN #106
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 60 GARY BURKET WILLIAM MCCARTY
RYAN & GEORGE HEUSER 7442 COHO DR #101 7442 COHO DR #102
19352 BLUEFISH LN #208 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 92648
92648
DAVID COWEN LEONARD JOHNSON 937 153 65
7442 COHO DR #103 7442 COHO DR #104 MURIEL SUMMERS
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7442 COHO DR #105
92648 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
J DAVID WINSCOTT KENNETH ROHDE 937 153 68
7442 COHO DR #106 7442 COHO DR #107 GARY & CATHERINE HUDSON
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7442 COHO DR #108
92648 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
937 153 69 937 153 70 937 153 71
GLORIA COWAN TERRY & KATHY BESS JOSEPH DAVIS
7442 COHO DR #109 7442 COHO DR #110 7442 COHO DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 153 72 HARRY GORDON : 937 153 74
CURTIS . & NORMA LOWELLv 19431 RANCH LN #101 ; BRUCE & -TERUMI MCCOY
7442 COHO DR #112 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 19431 RANCH LN -tA ► O Z_
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
ROBERT BLAKE 937 153 76 937 153 77
19431 RANCH LN #103 GERALD MULHOLLAND FRANK JAMES WILLIAMS
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA PO BOX 971 19431 RANCH LN #105
92648 RENO NV 89504 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
ALAN VANDERPOOL 937 153 79 937. 153 80
19431 RANCH LN #106 DONALD HARTMAN RAYMOND EUGENE WARD
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 19431 RANCH LN #107 19431 RANCH LN #108
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
SANDRA JACOBS 937 153 82 937 153 83. z CD
19431 RANCH LN #109 R DOUGLAS PARADY LARRY ROFF
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 19431 RANCH LN #110 19431 RANCH LN #111
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
37 153 84 _ 937 153 85 937 153 86
'ED & JAN QUERCIAGROSSA U MARTHA MONROE GARY KUHN
.9431 RANCH LN #112 HC 1 BOX 169 7401 SEABLUFF DR #102
{UNTINGTON BEACH CA OLGA WA 98279 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
937 153 87 937 153 88 DON STEPHENS
iARILYN DEANGELIS BRUCE & HARRIET JACKSON 7401 SEABLUFF DR #105
'401 SEABLUFF DR #103 7401 SEABLUFF DR #104 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
JUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
32648 92648
/INCENT KOLLEDA FRANK PICKETT 937 153 92
7401 SEABLUFF DR #106 `� 7401 SEABLUFF DR #107 VIOLA KIETZMAN
1UNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7401 SEABLUFF DR #108
32648 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
i STANKLEY ISHIKAWA 937 153 94 DONALD EIDE
7401 SEABLUFF DR #109 JEFFREY DIAMOND 7401 SEABLUFF DR #111
1UNTINGTON BEACH CA 7401 SEABLUFF DR #110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
32648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92648
TERRENCE GIANNONE PHILLIP ZEIDENBERG GEORGE GIACOPPE
7401 SEABLUFF DR #112 7402 COHO DR #101 7402 COHO DR #102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
32648 92648 92648
937 153 99 937 154 00 _ ROBERT TRAVER
HICHAEL FURMAN TIMOTHY & JEAN MISKO 7402 COHO DR #105
7402 COHO DR #103 7402 COHO DR #104 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92648 92648
937 154 02 937 154-03 PAUL LORETO
LESTER BLANCHARD HAROLD & FLO MEAD JR. U 7402 COHO DR #108
5901 WARNER AVE #489 7402 COHO DR #107 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92649 92648
EDMOND COPELIN 937 154 06 937 154 07
7402 COHO DR #109 LOIS WILLIAMSON U DOROTHY STEEGE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7402 COHO -DR #110 7402 COHO DR #111
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
ROBERT LOFE 937 160 12 MCKINLEY CHESHIRE ��U
7402 COHO DR #112 MARGARET STAPENHORST I; U 7351 COHO DR #201
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7351 COHO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92648
937 160 14 937 160 15 937 160 16.
MELVIN PHUKOP CHARLES & JAY BUDDECKE LESLIE LYNN TROUT 50
PO BOX 4792 819 GRANDVIEW AVE 7351 COHO DR #102
PALM DESERT CA 92261 FULLERTON CA 92832 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
*-3 9
BRUCE JON HANSON . 937 160 18 937* 160 19
7351 COHO DR #204 EMIL PANSINI RACHEL & CRAIG KIEVMAN V
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 15 MONTE CARLO 7351 COHO DR #205
92648 IRVINE CA 92614 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
PATRICIA RASMUSSEN TIMOTHY LIEN 937 160 22
7351 COHO DR #104 L� 20411 DENSMORE LN ABOLGHASSEM MADANI
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 414 17TH ST
92648 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
937 160 23 937 160 24 937 160 25
RACHEL SANFORD ANDREW BOAZ MAREN ERIKSEN
7351 COHO DR #208 7351 COHO DR #106 7351 COHO DR #207
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648. 92648
937 160 26 937 160 27 937 160 28
SANDRA THOMSON JANE KUHN JOHN THOMAS FOSTER SR.
7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #202 7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #201 7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #101
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 160 29 937 160 30 937 160 31 -T/U
CHARLES LAMAH SANG CHOE HAROLD ROSE
700 S ALDENVILLE AVE 1426 E DESERT FLOWER LN 7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #204
COVINA CA 91723 PHOENIX AZ 85048 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
937 160 32 937 160 33 937 160 34
NANCY STIENFELDT DIANE ETS-HOKIN JOHN MARTIN -
7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #103 7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #206 7322 YELLOWTAIL DR #104
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 _. 92648 92648
937 160 35 937 160-36 EUGENE ERNST
VICKI DIANE ANDERSON KENNETH CERTAIN V 7341 COHO DR #102
22802 DOMINITA RD 7341 COHO DR #101 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92648
937 160 38 RICHARD DRISKILL ANTHONY GUILBAULT
TYLER BRINKER 438 MAIN ST #C 7341 COHO DR #105
_ 8122 WADEBRIDGE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 92648
92646
TOSHIHIKO NAGAOKA 937 160 42 937 160 43
7341 COHO DR #106 RICHARD RAWE KELLY BLACKWOOD
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7341 COHO DR 7341 COHO DR #108
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
d
937 160 44 937 160 45 937 160 46
DOROTHY MARTAN JOHNSON CHARLES SHORTRIDGE GERTH & M JEAN TIETGEN
7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #202 19761 DEEP HARBOR DR 274 BOWLING GREEN DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA COSTA MESA CA 92626
92648 92648
9�3 9
937 160 47 937 160 48 937' 160 49
HAILE NAKASHIMA-SEWALL MICHAEL MAYEAUX DAIVA KAZIMIERA JUSIONIS
7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #203 7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #102 7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #204
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 160 50 . 937 160 51 937 160 52
JOHN KIMES L, MICHAEL NELSON MARSHA PRYER
13191 CONTESSA 7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #206 26946 FORTROSE
TUSTIN CA 92782 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA MISSION VIEJO CA 92691
92648
937 160 53 937 160 54 FRANK HUFF
JO ANN KITAGAWA BRAD & BETHNELL SANDBERG 7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #201
7302 YELLOWTAIL DR #205 7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #202 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
92648 92648
937 160 56 937 160 57 . 937 160 58
MARIA GONZALEZ DAVID CLARK VICKI LYNN LUCAS
7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #101 7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #203 7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 160 59 937 160 60 937 160 61
JAMIE PAVLAT JOHN FECHTER ANDRE JAVARDIAN
7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #204 18861 GREGORY IN 19481 POMPANO LN #107
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92646 92648
JOHN DONNELLY 937 160 63 937 160 64
7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #104 CHARLENE MILLER DORIS HARDER
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7282 YELLOWTAIL DR #205 7331 COHO DR #101
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
JAN WINE 937 160_66 937 160 67
19501 RANCH LN #108 RICHARD STURRUS PAUL & PATTIE SCHOEN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7331 COHO DR #103 305 SAINT CRISPEN AVE
92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA BREA CA 92821
92648
937 160 68 937 160 69 937 160 70
SIW BENNETT DAVID DEKOKER BECKY CONWAY
7331 COHO DR #105 PO BOX 535. 4728 BIRCHWOOD CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA GARDEN GROVE CA 92842 CARLSBAD CA 92008
92648
JAMES SHIRLEY DAVID BRAHMS 937 160 73
7331 COHO DR #108 7321 COHO DR #202 GERARD STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7321 COHO DR #201
92648 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
937 160 74 937 160 75 937 160 76
AUDRIE LEE DOLORES CALGI JOHN SCHEFFLER -
7321 COHO DR #101 7321 COHO DR #203 22152 CAPISTRANO LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92646
37. 160 7.7 937 160 78 TERRENCE GIANNONE
JOMAS & JENIFER CASTLE J & GERTRUDE MARKLINGER 7321 COHO DR #206 clop
321 COHO DR #204 11152 PETAL AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
JNTINGTON BEACH CA FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 92648
2648
37 160 80 ' 937 160 81 937 161 68
ELMA MERLES KATHLEEN SIMMONS DEBORAH ADY
52 SANTIAGO RD 27403 HYATT CT 7311 COHO DR #202
OSTA MESA CA 92626 LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
37 161 69 937 161 70 937 161 71
RIAN HOMSY DEAN PEKMEZIAN DOUGLAS ROMEO
311 COHO DR #201 7311 COHO DR #101 7311 COHO DR #203
UNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
2648 92648 926-48
37 161 72 937 161 73 937 161 74
ARLA SINGER CURTIS JONES ANDREW & GLYNIS EINHORN
14 17TH ST 7311 COHO DR #204 7311 COHO DR #103
UNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
2648 92648 92648
37 161 75 U 937 161 76 937 161 77
HOENIX CAPITAL BANCORP RAYMOND BREZ RONALD STEEN
.4141 DUMONT LN 9222 ORIOLE AVE 7311 COHO DR #205
'ESTMINSTER CA 92683 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648
37 161 78 937 161 79 937 161 80
.LAN SCOTT CAMMACK ERIC. SCOTT FRIEDLAND ZOY JENSEN
281 COHO DR #202 7281 COHO DR #201 7281 COHO DR #101
UNTINGTON BEACH 'CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
2648 - 92648 92648
,37 161 81 937 161-82 937 161 83
J RABUN DENISE HRIBAR LAURIE GAYLORD
281 COHO DR #203 7281 COHO DR #L02 7281 COHO DR #204
UNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
2648 / 92648 92648
-37 163. 84 / U 937 161 85 '�U LEON HEIMKES
;ANDRA KLINE & MCSHANE GAIL WALKER 7191 HEIL AVE
3429 VISTA CIRCLE DR 7281 COHO DR #264 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
,ANCASTER CA 93536 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647
92648
:OY TURNWALL JR. 937 161 88 937 161 89
;281 COHO DR #205 JOSEPH LANGDON MARY BRADY
[UNTINGTON BEACH CA 7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #202 7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #201
12648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
+37 161 90 U 937 161 91 EVELYNN CATES
IERNON & RITA NELSON BENT CHRISTENSEN 7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #102
'262 YELLOWTAIL DR #269 7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
[UNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
j2648 92648
1VG /H1' 1�1iC1'11i1.1 7J / 101 y4 y.s / Ila y5
7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #204 JOYCE BABBIDGE FRED & DORIS BOYD AU� ����
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #103 5290 LA FIESTA
192648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA YORBA LINDA CA 92887
92648
937 161 96 937 161 97 937 161 98
CAROLE BONNET MARTIN GALLEGOS LANCEWORTH POWELL
7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #104 7262 YELLOWTAIL DR #205 13 . PARADISE CV
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
92648 92648
937 161 99 937 162 00 937 162 01
KRISTEN PERRY MARY & GREGORY UNDERWOOD ETHEL ARLINE GIRARD
7291 COHO DR #102 7291 COHO DR #103 7291 COHO DR #104
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648 92648
937 162 02 937 162 03 937 162 04 U
MANUEL & MARVA ABEYTA RICHARD THEER MONICA BRADLEY
7291 COHO DR #105 12737 WATERMAN DR 7291 COHO DR #283
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA RALEIGH NC 27614 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92648 92648
ROSA & MARIA SUGRANES
8582 WHITESAILS CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
92646
. 023 042 15
JOE RUBIN
1908 LAKE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
SCOTT ROSENFELD
023 04216 1911 LAKE ST
ARTHUR&DIANNE KAWAMURA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
1906 LAKE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
023 04314 023 043 15
ROBERT&MARY ANN BARTH WINSTON&CHRISTINE CHOW , 1
1907 LAKE ST 1905 LAKE ST �J
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
023 043 16 BRUCE BOONE
CLINT BURNS 1902 PINE ST
1901 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
TIMOTHY NICHOLS 023 043 19
1906 PINE ST KELLY&GAIL MARLIN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 190� PINE ST
� NTINGTON BEACH CA 29648
023 043 20 023 043 21
ROBERT ROOKS DANIEL&JEAN LORCH
1912 PINE ST 1916 PINE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
023 044 07 STANLEY PIECHOTA
JAMES LUTZ 1921 PINE ST
1925 PINE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
023 044 09 023 044 10
PAMELA JULIEN JOAN ARAKAWA
1917 PINE ST 1915 PINE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
023 044 11 023 044 12
MARK&DONNA LANGNER WILLIAM&SUSAN MACLAREN
1911 PINE ST 1907 PINE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 U ' i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
BERNARDO SORIANO 023 044 14
1905 PINE ST BARRY BUSSIERE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 1901 PINE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 II
l �
937 152 91 937 152 92
bOROTHY KELLY ROB WALKER
!7402 YELLOWTAIL DR#101 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR#201
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9W648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
93715293 023 042 14
MARIO MONTOYA
7402 YELLOWTAIL DR#202 RENATO&CECILE KOH
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 1912 LAKE ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
C U�° *-3 f
937-15-443 937-16-192 937-15-317
Jeffrey C. Joy Evelynn M. Cates James T. Corbett
5550 E. Anaheim- Rd. 19671 Beach Blvd. No. 415 • 7371Cohodr No. 103
Long Beach CA 90815 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
023-042-11 023-042-13 023-044-11
Ladelle M. Ankerstar Sidney A. Morken Mark H. Langner
1922 Lake St . P.O. Box 8339 1911 Pine St .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92615 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937-15-372 937-15-322 937-15-413
Curtis L. Foglesong Lorraine Ellen Moyer Thomas L. Smith
7442 Coho Dr. No. 112 240 Highland Lane 7371 Seabluff Dr. No. 101
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Bryn Mawr PA 19010 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937-16-553 937-15-325- 937-15-330
Karen Lynn Stees Karen Foster Shenandoah G. Lynd
2200 Monroe St . No. 1801 7381 Coho Dr. No. 202 19431 Rue De Valore No.
Santa.-Clara CA 95050 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Foothill Ranch CA 92610
937-16-184 937-16-185 937-16-122
Sandra D. Kline Gail G. Walker Kenneth J. Orton
2522 Farnsworth Dr. 7281 Coho Dr. No. 206 P.O. Box 300
Livermore CA 94550 Huntington Beach CA 92648 , Laie HI 96762
937-16-153 937-15-390 937-15-400
Ricky W. Sanford Barbara B. Okonek Timothy A. Misko
19451 Pompano Lane No. 102 7401 Seabluff Dr. No. 106 475 Peralta Ave .
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Sunnyvale CA 94086
937-15-337 937-15-338 937-16-158
Daniel J. Demsher DJAVAD Kashefinejad James S . Lorincz
521 12Th St . 28472 Rancho Cristiano 19451 Pomona No. 107
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Huntington Beach CA 92648
9937-16-501 937-16-509 937-15-347
F Anthony James Kubis Sangeeta R. Gupta Robert S. Viii Lucas
17885 Clydesdale Rd. 215 Wichita Ave. No. 502 19562 Pompano Lane No. 1
Colorado Springs CO 80908 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937-16-170 937-16-525 937-15-350
Dean S. Pekmezian Chester E. Murch ���� Shirley Goodman
1607 Brentwood Dr. 2323 Huntington St . No`�-� 19352 Bluefish Lane No
Marietta GA 30062 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
S937-16-545 _937-16-546 937-16-143
�IGayle E. Glenn Mark:---Hogan. Chih-Ping Liu
113829 Cherry Ave. 2323 Huntington St . No —�1483 Sutter St . No. 1705
A Chino CA 91710 Huntington Beach CA 92 San Francisco CA 94109
937-16-012 937-16-013 j
Margaret M. Stapenhorst./ James R. Pasternak
4110 Ne 137th - Cir 7351 Coho Dr. No. 201
Vancouver WA 98686 Huntington Beach CA 92648
937-16-020 937-16-031 ,
Patricia R. Tucker ( Harold R. Rose
7351 Coho Dr. No. 104 . 8201 Taylor Dr.
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B"
MAILING LABELS - 3/11/97
President 1 Huntington Harbor POA .�-� 10 Edna Littlebury 17
H.B.Chamber of Commerce P. O. Box 79j Golden St.Mob. Hm. Owners Leag.
2210 Main Street,Suite 200 SunsretGBeac�,CA 90742 11021 Magnolia Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ..,a�'0 Garden Grove,CA 92642
Judy Legan 2 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18
H.B./F.V.Board of Realtors Society,Inc.
8101 Slater Ave. P.O.Box
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa iVlesd.CA 92627
Mane Gothold
President �� ' 3 William D. Holman 11 County of Orange/EMA !t=T9
Amigos D�,Bo1Sa"Chica PLC Michael M. Rua_ne,Dir:
P.�,,Box 3748 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 P.O. Box 40..4-8
o+iintington Beach,CA 92605 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 SaptWA&",CA 92702-4048
Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Planning Department 19
New Urban West Orange County M&-:"`
520 Broadway Ste. 100 P. O.Bow 4048"
Santa Monica,CA 90401 S td' CA 92702-4048
President 5 Pres.,H.B.Hist.Society 13 County of Orange/EMA zz' ='7 19
Huntington Beach Tomorrow C/O Newland House Museum Thomas Malhows``
411 6th St. 19820 Beach Blvd. P. O Bok4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 'ta Ana,CA 92702-4048
Julie Vandermost �.m 6 Chairperson 14 County of Orange/EMA y_••____j 9
BIA-OC Historical Resources Bd. Bob Fisher,Dir,.. "r'
9 ExecuteCir`cle: #100 Comm. Services Dept. P.O.Box_4048
I Ca. 92714-6734 2000 Main St. Sa a6"Ana,CA 92702-4048
wow— Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Richard Spicer 7 Council on Aging 15 Planning Dir. _r7_-77-720
SCAG 1706 Orange Ave. City of Costa 1AIesa
818 West 7th, 12th Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P. O.BQx 1200
Los Angeles,CA 90017 C1VIesa,CA 92628-1200
E.T.I.Corral 100 8 Dominick Tomaino 16 Planning Dir.
Mary Bell :�'t�..r Seacliff Ho lfr s Assoc. City of Fountain-Valley
20292 Eastwood ldi." 68 c Bay Lane 102Qo'Stater Ave.
Ht -Igton Beach,CA 92646 ntington Beach,CA 92648 mountain Valley,CA 92708
Allen Macenski, 9 Planning Director _22
Environmental Board Chairman City of Westminster--=--
20021 Lawson Lane 8200 Westmnster Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 V40fiiunster,CA 92683
g:lables\phnlbls
II
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: CDA)Al CW^-L 1$0 L — hMt
,� � � "tea—
DEPARTMENT: CA>1'�IVl• l r�/ MEETING DATE: r-�5
CONTACT: 1N AAxS C �6�LNG PHONE: Jr' ✓�
N/A YES NO
Is the notice attached?
Du dic Handing mid Clushig of ce-refl
Redevelopment Agency)hearing?
( ) ( ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct?
If an appeal, is the appellant's rameincluded 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?
( ) ( ) 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?
IN ( ) ( ) 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 baween publications WA
P At.,�L -5f aa.I9-7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING F4--Q
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE `M
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 2, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following
planning and zoning items:
al. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 94-391NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 94-22
(BOWEN COURT) (APPEAL): Applicant/Appellant: City of Huntington Beach, Department
of Economic Development Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for a 23 unit,
two(2) story senior apartment project designated solely for very low income seniors. The
applicant has submitted a modified request to construct a 21 unit project consisting entirely of
one (1)bedroom units designated for very low income seniors. The request includes a density
bonus for 21 units in lieu of 17 units permitted under the present zoning. Location: 1968 Lake
Street(southeast corner at Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho
02. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO,96-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO.96-2 (OCEANCREST): Applicant: Oceancrest Partners ReQuest: On
April 11, 1997,the California Coastal Commission staff requested clarification relative to the
site location of the proposed Coastal Element language. This request is only to clarify the site
location. Locations Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street. Project Planner:
Scott Hess
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for Item #1 was processed and
completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item#l, with
mitigation,would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative
declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the appeal,the City Council must review and act on the
negative declaration. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and
comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714) 536-5271.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Item#2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal
Zone. Final review and approval by the California Coastal Commission is required. If the revised
language is approved, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2 will be forwarded to the California
Coastal Commission for final action.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,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 after May 29, 1997.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,2nd Floor
Huntington Beach,California 92648
(714)536-5227
(97CC602) �.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: cs�lAl Ox1 L I$� l'r N�D� ` 4-8-0 lmpucbAzAm�t)
DEPARTMENT: CO'1'l M- lam/ • MEETING DATE: Zwirt i4Ri"7
CONTACT: 1N -1 ke CAP,\IA L- PHONE: J��✓�
N/A YES NO
Is the notice attached?
/ Nctice i eflec
Redevelopment Agency)hearing?
Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct?
If an appeal, is the appellant's name" cluded in the notice?
( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language?
( ) j ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
ty
( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication?
( ) ( ) 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 WA
S USAN W. CASE, INC.
OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE
917 Glenneyre Street,Suite 7,Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PHONE(714)494-6105 • FAX(714)494-7418
CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS .LIST
THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY
OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 50 y FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM METROSCAN, A DATA SOURCE, UTILIZING
THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES.
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT
I GUARANTEED.
SUSAN W. CASE, INC.