HomeMy WebLinkAboutDirect Staff to pursue Amendments to the Beach and Edinger C 8. Approve Fiscal Year 2013/14 Year-End Audit Close-Out Adjustments
Recommended Action:
Approve year-end adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2013/14 Revised Budget in
the Funds and by the amounts contained in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.
Approved 7-0
9. Approve Annual Developer Fee Funds Compliance Reports for the
Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund, Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund and
the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Recommended Action:
A) Approve the Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund Annual Compliance
Report for Fiscal Year 2013/14; and,
B) Approve the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report for
Fiscal Year 2013/14; and,
C) Approve the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Annual
Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2013/14.
Approved 7-0
10. Direct Staff to pursue Amendments to the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan (BECSP)
Recommended Action:
Direct staff to pursue amendments to the BECSP to:
A) Reduce the residential MAND to 2,100 units;
B) Require a CUP for all residential and mixed-use projects;
C) Apply the coastal zone parking requirements to all residential projects;
D) Increase front yard setbacks to 30 feet minimum (allow CUP to deviate) and
require 10-foot upper story setbacks above the third story;
E) Require all residential projects to have retail/commercial uses at street level
(allow CUP to deviate);
F) Modify development standards for auto dealers;
G) Allow deviation to Edinger frontage road requirements for commercial
projects adding up to 50 percent of existing square footage,
L'PAmended to include:
Add Occupancy Group A - Assembly on first floor in the BECSP- with
quate parking approved by the Planning Commission utilizing the CUP
cess if required;and
-6-
City Council/PFA Action Agenda—Monday, March 16, 2015
L
Limit buildings to a 4-story height.pproved 5-9-9 (Posey-No; O'Connell-Recused)
11. Approve and authorize execution of Amendment#1 to Reimbursement
Agreement with HB Boardwalk, LLC in the amount of$35,000 for Fire and
Safety Inspection Services for the HB Boardwalk Project
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1
to Reimbursement Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and HB
Boardwalk, LLC, for Costs Incurred for Fire and Safety Inspection Services."
Approved 7-0
12. Approve and authorize execution of a five (5) year License Agreement with
Southern California Edison for public parkland located at Arevalos Park
Recommended Action:
A) Approve the License Agreement with Southern California Edison for the use
of the 2.58 acres of property commonly known as Arevalos Park; and,
B) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any and all documents
necessary to conclude this transaction.
Approved 7-0
13. Approve and authorize execution of a Professional Services Contract
between the City and AKIVI Consulting Engineers in the amount of
$400,000 for preparation of plans and specifications for the replacement of
the Edgewater Lift Station
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the "Professional
Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and AKM Consulting
Engineers for Professional Engineering Design of the Edgewater Lift Station."
Approved 7-0
14. Request Successor Agency approval of Estoppels and Consent to
Transfer of Interest (of the Owner Participation Agreement OPA) of Bella
Terra I and City Council Approval of Estoppel Certificate (Parking Garage
Agreement)
City Council Recommended Action:
A) Approve the "Estoppel Certificate (Parking Garage Agreements);" and,
B) Authorize the Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk to sign all necessary
documents to effectuate this transfer.
Approved 7-0
Successor Agency Recommended Action:
A) Approve the "Estoppel and Consent to Transfer of Interest (OPA)"
-7-
City Council/PFA Action Agenda—Monday, March 16, 2015
ram` Dept. ID PL15-004 Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date:3/16/2015
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC
' REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 3/16/2015
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building
SUBJECT: Direct Staff to pursue Amendments to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific
Plan (BECSP)
Statement of Issue:
Based on input provided by the City Council at the March 2, 2015, City Council Study Session, this
item directs staff to pursue amendments to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan
(BECSP).
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Direct staff to pursue amendments to the BECSP to:
A) Reduce the residential MAND to 2,100 units;
B) Require a CUP for all residential and mixed-use projects;
C) Apply the coastal zone parking requirements to all residential projects;
D) Increase front yard setbacks to 30 feet minimum (allow CUP to deviate) and require 10-foot
upper story setbacks above the third story;
E) Require all residential projects to have retail/commercial uses at street level (allow CUP to
deviate);
F) Modify development standards for auto dealers; and,
G) Allow deviation to Edinger frontage road requirements for commercial projects adding up to
50 percent of existing square footage.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not direct staff to pursue amendments to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
Analysis:
At the March 2, 2015, City Council Study Session, staff presented eight issues related to
development within the BECSP and identified areas of the BECSP that could be amended to
specifically address the issues. (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) The City Council discussed each issue and
provided input to staff. Based on the input received from the City Council, the following
amendments to the BECSP will be pursued:
1. Modify the residential MAND from 4,500 units to 2,100 units;
Item 10. - 1 HB -76-
Dept. ID PL15-004 Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: 3/16/2015
Once the residential MAND is reached, any project proposing residential units would require
a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the BECSP to increase the residential MAND, an
Environmental Assessment to conduct environmental review in accordance with CEQA, and
a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to item two below.
2. Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the Planning Commission for all residential and
mixed-use: residential/commercial projects;
3. Modify the residential parking requirements to reflect the coastal zone multi-family
residential parking requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
(HBZSO) as follows:
Coastal Zone Parking Standards
Numbor IYe0000ms,, - a
Studio/1 BR 2 spaces/unit min.
2 BR 2 spaces/unit min.
3 or more BR 2.5 spaces/unit min.
Guest 0.5 space/unit min.
4. Increase the required front yard setback to 30 feet minimum on Beach Boulevard and
Edinger Avenue and allow deviations with approval of a CUP, and require minimum 10-foot
upper story setbacks above the third story.
5. Require all residential projects to have retail/commercial uses at street level and allow
deviations with approval of a CUP.
6. Modify development standards for auto dealers;
7. Allow commercial projects proposing additions of up to 50 percent of the existing square
footage to deviate from the Edinger Avenue streetscape requirements.
Currently, any project proposing new construction or an addition over 20 percent of the
existing square footage is required to provide streetscape improvements to the existing
public right-of-way (i.e. — sidewalk and parkway improvements). On Edinger Avenue, the
prescribed streetscape improvements require a landscaped median separating the existing
vehicular travel lanes, a drive aisle and a row of angled parking in addition to a new
sidewalk.
The BECSP amendment would allow commercial projects proposing additions of more than
20 percent (i.e. — projects that trigger the Edinger Avenue streetscape improvements), but
not exceeding 50 percent, to deviate from the prescribed Edinger Avenue streetscape
improvements, specifically the requirement for a separator median with a row of angled
parking and drive aisle. However, those projects that propose to add more than 20 percent,
but not exceeding 50 percent, would still be required to provide sidewalk and parkway
improvements. The projects proposing additions between 21 and 50 percent will have the
option to provide sidewalk and parkway improvements only or implement the full Edinger
Avenue streetscape. Commercial projects proposing additions over 50 percent and new
construction would require the full Edinger Avenue streetscape improvements.
Edinger Avenue Commercial Project—Streetscape Requirements
Additions 5 20% Additions >20% and <_50% Additions >50%/New
Construction
No streetscape Sidewalk and Parkway Only or Full Edinger Avenue
improvements required Full Edinger Avenue Streetsca a Streetsca e
xB -77- Item 10. - 2
Dept. ID PL15-004 Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date:3/16/2015
Edinger Avenue Streetscape Sidewalk and Parkway Only
f � ,
'--i.T•' �S ' .co 6.a+-.1�PA.CErFC�6f8
�FA.CE OF CUPS
3fo E't±VMK ANMsat TU'+'Ei slant MAN
Upon City Council direction, staff will commence the process to amend the BECSP. A tentative
timeline to amend the BECSP is provided in the table below.
a
Planning Commission Study Session March 24, 2015
Planning Commission Public Hearing Aril 14, 2015
City Council Public Hearing May 4, 2015
Effective Date May 5, 2015
Environmental Status:
This item involves City Council direction to pursue amendments to the BECSP only and is exempt
under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, which
exempts activities where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
may have a significant effect on the environment.
Any proposed amendments to the BECSP would require environmental review pursuant to CEQA
prior to adoption.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Improve quality of life
Attachment(s):
1. City Council Study Session PowerPoint Presentation titled "BECSP Amendment," dated
March 2, 2015
Item 10. - 3 xB -78-
\ ,�
�g
r \
MIC %
` nI
s
s
t'
gg
Y
a��\\av„
k
z
h
CD
OII a JIM
HIIII�r II��III ''1IIIiil11pji
IIIIIIIiIIf d) �iiIl II 'ikkIOI�N��:
1
Ch
Beach n Edinger X Beach and Eli alter Corridors
" Specific Plan Area 4
rri ors pecifis I gM44 B
r yz�z � .
adopted on March 1
2010.
c� City Council held a study
yN � y 44
session on 2/2115 to
discuss potential
p �
revisions to the Specific XX
Ian with the intent to ' a
minimize the impact o
f
development
a
�rfV, .
3 �
Z„
Or \>..
400
Clq
t�
��
r
0 OEM
Ak
Q
e
6111-1
RM
CL
w
HB -81- Item 10. - 6
IN urre%:'M� t Pr a �, COL S �Approved and WHA"M P a rm'b Is vl, 0. ,)
r QP
Cen
C, 1 . HB Lofts (retail/apartments/live-work)
2
378 units (100 du/ac; under construction)
tX 2. Boardwalk (mixed use)
487 units (39 dulac; partial occupancy)
-J
er Me-
3. Monogram (apartments)
510 units (60 du/ac; in plan check)
ete ...........r ................
4. Oceana (apartments)
78 units (39 du/ac; under construction)
cc
5. Elan (retail/apartments/live-work)
274 units (100 du/ac; under construction)
6. Beach & Ocean (apartments)
173 units (54 du/ac; occupied)
_. mTotal Residential Units - 1 ,900
U
otsna�,,,, Re M' dent a� P ro'ects
ial
o�' ,,c Sure
ii'imirl "-A 1.
Dante
Pra"ect �4k
W,
Submitted
Urban Art Lofts 12/23/2014 18651-18665 Beach Blvd 172 apartment units (104 du/ac)
!Ellis Condos M(PPR) 11/13/2014 8041 Ellis Ave. (NEC of Ellis 51 condo units (53 du/ac)
Beach — next to Jack in
the Box)
Beach and Edinger N/A 16052 Beach Blvd (SEC - 450 apartment units (approx.) (approx. 77
Beach & Edinger) du/ac)
1�0 Beach Townhomes N/A 19432 Beach Blvd (east 48 condo/townhome units (47 du/ac)
1-io side, north of Yorktown)
Beach & Warner N/A 7822-7862 Warner & 17011- 200 apartment units (approx.) / rebuild
17031 Beach Blvd new restaurant (22 du/ac)
(SWC - Beach & Warner)
Existing Commercial N/A 809 Indianapolis 109 apartment units (73 du/ac)
(Beach & Indianapolis)
Vacant Lot N/A Williams/Beach Blvd (West 100 apartment units (approx.) (80 du/ac)
side, north of Yorktown)
Progressive Real N/A 19431 Beach Blvd 20 apartment units (22 du/acre)
Estate (NWC - Beach & Main)
AMOCAL Delaware 11/21/2014 18922 Delaware St. 43 apartment units (43 du/ac)
00 Total 1 ,193 units
IQ
IN
6
ls!�Ue 10", / .
BECSP Amendment
Modify MAND
z
Option 1 2,100 units (accounts for pending SPR application)
Option 2: 2, 00 units (per 1016D14 CC direction)
Option 3: The MAND can be another number. Once the MAND
is reached, no permits can be issued for residential
development until the BECSPIs amended and environmental
review/CE A is conducted
Own
JU 8 F1171"I"",
BECSP currently requires administrative a ova I through Site Plan
Review process (no public hearing) for residential uses
Of I the 6 current permitted pr "ects, 4 requ,ired/were referred by
0J .
Planning and Building Director to the Planning Commission with a
not
0 iced public hearing-, all 6 projects were noticed to surrounding
properties
All pending applications and proposed projects are required to be
approved by the Planning Commission with a noticed public hearing
All projects may be appealed by the City Council
BECSP Amendment: Require all residential or mixed use
resident.ial/commercial projects to obtain Conditional Use
CD Permit from Planning Commission (appealable to City
0
Council)
CD
i n
S!,F-e'
"Q 'EAR"
1w,
S W' so
n
a n—
m
F .
171
2 BR. 1 .5 min. 2 min. 2 min. 3 min.
�RR
�Mn m
a min: o-2-s `E
M
BRO00"'
more
Aw
Guest 0.2/unit 0.51unit 0.25 0.5/unit 0-5/unit
(2 spaces per (5 spaces per (2.5 — 5 (5 spaces per
10 units) 10 units) spaces per 10 10 units)
units)
» ve
t3
:F
, L
Ei BECSP Am
rModify min--imum residential parking requirements
Optionti
1 i iCoast al Zone Other Parking Option
Studiol1 BR 1 rein. 2 min. 2 min.
2 BR 2 min. 2 min. 3 min.
3 or more 2.5 min. 2.5 min 3 n in.
BR.
Guest . 5 d it 0.25 — d /uni't . f- ni ,
(5 spaces per 10 units) ( . — 5`spaces per 10 (5 spaces per 10 units).
units)
Example Project: 50 units (10 S11 BR; 30 2BR; 10 3 BR)
Total Parking Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
0
Spaces Req. 120 spaces 11 8-130 spaces 165 spaces
N
CD
U i
gin-
i s„ ml
� ��:
k
Front and s tbac ang�s from 0' - 30' districts , min. 10AF
FIF,
f� isxrocts: 0 -50All Upper story setback
N/A (offsets and notches min. 109
a ver a
g
required)
EU
01
�ht
G
P \
SO
On
UNNORM
"t t .
Y '
4 \
\ \ \ + t"ow,
\
a "
MR
v y '
'Y F
HB -s�- qg`= Item 10. - 14
cu
Jolt
ra
BECSP Amendment:
III, Front setback: minimum 15',3u^' with landscaping and
publ ic open space
m 30' on Beach Blvd. and Edinger Avenue
III 15' all other public streets
III Upper story I
setback-- minimum 10' along front and
around sides (for 100') for all facades above 3 stories
m
,.r '.'•'",.�.a
a �.
�• ;�� \ Vie':
asp �
pn
E x
HB -91-
Item 10. - 16
%r- su�'!Iad Uses
IC on M I
�Ssue Ra na'H
o Current S retail/commercial is permitted but not
required with residential projects
❑ BECSP Amendment: Require retail/commercial uses
in all projects proposing residential uses
* Ground Floor/Street level commercial/retail uses are
required along Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard
* Comm erciallretail uses are permitted but not required
along all other streets at street level
3�
s �
,. Et�c,5'",, �•`' a •a3�-- ,a
�3 r
p
e.
�I `arc
�Q
\� f
z m \ \ y
HB 93-
Item 10. - 18
0 r SS ter. n dab,,,,�
13
❑ Current BECSP requirement: all new construction and
additions of 20% or more must comply with standards of
BECSP (includes auto dealerships)
❑ BECSP Amendment: Allow greater flexibility for auto
dealers to build/remodel consistent with traditional auto
dealership site layout and design
m Modify specific standards for auto dealer uses (e.g. ® allow
surface parking in front of building; no public open space
requirement; no frontage coverage requirements; no
frontage type or top/base requirements)
�ssue #7 :11 Ei�'st'�' ng Cammarr,'M� Uses
F-i Current BECSP requirement: all new construction and
additions of 20% or more must comply with standards
of BECSP
BECSP Amendment: Increase maximum percentage
of addition to allow existing commercial centers to
remodel without triggering additional BECSP
requirements
m All new construction and additions of 25% or more must
CD
comply with standards of BECSP
g61
o BECSP does not currently set maximum residential
densities
o Densities of approved (permitted and/or entitled)
projects range from 39 dulac to 100 du/ac
o Densities of potential projects range from 22 dulac to
104 dulac
o Residential density recommended by BECSP
consultant: 55-60 dulac
low
MONTI
...........
g mow.
�
all
loll: X.
oil
A
Aso
j!of
"n
OA
GOT HAM$M F FT
• ix ': \ ��%ar \.. ..c.;, ji` �.�°!i. .-sp \DSO ��\.:,.
rg e
\\ \ \ y l e
-42
\ a \ \\\
w, ,
' w WJ ! \
� ;s'.• r aye\;; - \.,>..�\�'
i
T:
\
E s:
CT
a:
\\
Al
I All
OEM
EMs
�t
\
4 J
Za. Id
-9< -
item 10. - 23 `
�:�
i�M��a W. III i� JJi \ T I i In ��� i I y E
P Amendment:
n Option 1: Establish a maximum residential density
Option 2: Effectively manage density through revised
develop ment standards (e.g. ® setbacks, parking)
Li Reduces potential densities by approximately 10%-20%
13
r
Wes
Current R►sue C eq. BECSP Amendment
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
1. MAND Up to 4,500 2,100 units 2,800 units Another #
units
2. SPR — Staff CUP — PC
Entitlement Approval Approval
Processing
Parking BECSP HBZSO Coastal Other Option
S/1BR: 1 min. S/1BR: 1 min. S/1BR: 2 min. S/1BR: 2 min.
'e 2BR: 2BR: 2 min. 2BR: 2 min. 2BR: 3 min.
1.5 min > 3BR: 2.5 min. > 3BR: 2.5 min. �! 3BR: 3 min.
Guest: 0.2/unit Guest: 0.5/unit Guest: 0.2-0.5/ Guest: 0.5/unit
(2 per 10 units) (5 per 10 units) unit (2 - 5 per 10 (5 per 10 units)
units)
4. Front Ranges from 0' Min. 15'-30' 30' min. - Beach 15' min. — all other
Setback — 30' and Edinger streets
Upper- N/A 10' over 3 stories
Story
Setback
Issue Current Req. BECSP Amendment
Option I Option 2 Option 3
5. Retail/ No Req. Require all res. Encourage all res.
Comm. projects to have projects to have
retail/ commercial retail/ commercial
at street level at street level
6. Auto Must comply w/ Modify Req. to
1= Dealers BECSP allow deviation to
L
standards for BECSP req. for
new dealerships auto dealers
and additions
>20%
7. Existing Must comply wl New construction
Commercial BECSP req. for and additions of
new construction 25% or more must
and additions comply with
C
>20% BECSP req.
o Density N/A Establish Max. Control through
Density dev. standards
NCO: cc
LM
\ LJJ
\ \
CL
m
�\
\ : M0
ED
� > ,MO
.
CU
cc
0 Now
MMM
IMEM
�ƒ
�6
\
\
&
'
\ f m
�7 .
. �
< . OMMM
.
EMEM
E �
El 0 . El 0
�\ . . . ,
Item 10. - 27 HBd02-
1 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Commun :ij TAL
1-I'AB Planning and Building DepartmdWMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Meeting Date: 3--4,67-
VIA: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Agenda Item No. �D
FROM: Scott Hess,AICP,Director of Planning and Building
DATE: March 16, 2015
SUBJECT: BECSP M.A.N.D.APPLICABILITY AND PROJECT UPDATE
This memo is intended to elaborate on the costs and processing time for property owners to increase the
Maximum Amount of New Development (MAND) for residential units in the Beach and Edinger
Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). In addition, there have been a couple of changes to the Potential
Residential Projects listed in the March 2, 2015 Study Session presentation attached to the report.
M.A.N.D. APPLICABILITY
The MAND establishes the maximum number of residential units that can be built in the BECSP area. If
the MAND is changed to 2,100 units, then no building permits may be issued to allow construction of
units beyond that number. If an applicant proposes development of a project that exceeds the MAND,
they will need to request a change to the MAND in conjunction with their development application. The
following applications would be required:
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $9,989 — requires Planning Commission approval and a noticed
public hearing
• Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) $15,163 — requires Planning Commission and City Council
approval and noticed public hearings
• Environmental Assessment (EA) $10,679 — if the initial study concludes potential significant
environmental effects, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. The
application fee is $99,922, plus environmental consultant EIR costs in the range of $100,000 -
$250,000. The EA/EIR would require approval by the City Council prior to action on the project.
The processing time for these applications is estimated to be 10— 15 months. Once a project is approved
pursuant to the application requirements listed above, the applicant can submit plans into plan check in
order to obtain building permits.
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS UPDATE
On Friday March 13, 2015, two changes occurred to two projects identified on the "Potential Residential
Projects" list. The first is that a Preliminary Plan Review(PPR) application was submitted for a 200-unit
apartment building with 7,400 sq. ft. of ground floor neighborhood-serving commercial uses on the
southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The proposal includes demolition of the
existing Chili's restaurant building, the two-story L.A. Fitness building and the commercial building at
the northwest corner of Beach and Cypress. The existing office tower, theater building, commercial/retail
building fronting Warner Avenue, and parking structure would not be changed as part of the project
proposal. The existing Todai restaurant building is being evaluated under a separate application, which
includes reconstruction for Chili's restaurant. The PPR application is for preliminary comments only and
not for final approval of the project.
Here is an aerial photo of the corner development with a yellow line around the 200 unit project area.
1
a�
The second change is to the AMCAL Delaware residential project (43 apt units) listed as a Project with
Formal Planning Applications Submitted for Consideration into the BECSP. The applicant has revised
their General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment request from BECSP to a RH(High Density Residential)
zoning designation.
SUPPLEMENTAL
Dombo, Johanna COMMUNICATION
From: Steve Dodge [sjdhcc@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:04 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: Fikes, Cathy Agenda lierrq
Subject: BECSP Amendment
Attachments: Huntington Beach Total Apartment Units Existing Built Pre.docx
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
As a stakeholder, 1 am writing to you concerning the amendment to the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan
(BECSP). What started out as a modification to address complaints by a very vocal group of residents has
become an amendment that will effectively shut down the BECSP.
I think the Council should also consider the economic interests of the property owners and the City of
Huntington Beach. The proposed amendment will have a serious negative economic impact on the property
owners and the City.
Based on the Study Session comments, it appears that the Council wants the Maximum Amount of New
Development (MAND) reduced from 4,500 units to 2,100 units. This is a number that is already subscribed to
and shuts down the benefits of the BECSP to property owners. Every project that exceeds the MAND will be
required to do an EIR and CEQA study. This requirement is very costly and time consuming. Furthermore, it
is duplication because they were done as part of the BECSP process. With the proposed amendment
requirement for a CUP on every project there is plenty of City protection in place. Why do we need to reduce
the MAND when any project can be turned down by the Planning Commission and/or the City of Huntington
Beach? Let's keep it at 4,500.
The proposed parking increases will drive significant extra construction cost and/or unit loss. Have any parking
studies been done that show that the BECSP parking requirements are deficient? This item should be studied
prior to adoption.
The building setbacks will cut unit count. However, I understand the concerns about the Elan project and
generally support the street setback. However, we have not had time to study the proposed setback above the
third floor and its economic impact.
The retail requirement is a problem. Talk to the experts, retail is extremely sensitive to location. Outside of true
downtown urban locations, retail in residential projects rarely works and is a costly burden on a project.
The City of Huntington Beach also has a lot to lose if we shut down the BECSP. Attached you will find some
interesting information on apartments in Huntington Beach and Orange County as well as household income
required for rent at new apartment communities. The tables can be summarized as follows:
1) Before the BECSP projects, in Huntington Beach there were no significant new
apartment communities built from 1990 through 2010. During this time, Orange
County built 37,388.
2) Orange County 2000 and newer rents are 27% higher than Huntington Beach pre-
2000 apartment average rents.
3) Average Huntington Beach apartment rating is C+ while average Orange County
apartment rating for apartments built since 1990 is A or A-.
1
4) The household income required for rent at the three operating new apartment
communities in Huntington Beach runs from $69,510 to $77,482. The median
household income for Huntington Beach is $74,911.
The take away from the tables is that prior to BECSP projects, Huntington Beach's apartment stock is old, of
average quality and not very competitive with Orange County. The BECSP projects are attracting tenants that
have good incomes that will be shopping at Huntington Beach stores and eating at Huntington Beach
restaurants. One could argue the BECSP projects are actually improving resident quality in the City. Another
economic consideration is the increase in property tax base. If you use a value of $350,000 per unit (a
conservative number), the existing 1,900 units built or approved under the BECSP will add $665,000,000 to the
local property tax base. Subtract out the stuff that was torn down and you've got a huge net number.
In summary, there seems to be an absence of science in the proposed amendments to the BECSP. Deterring
development will have significant negative economic impact on not only property owners, but also the City of
Huntington Beach. The positive impacts of the BECSP plan far outweigh the perceived negative impacts. Let's
leave the plan in place.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Dodge
Huntington Executive Park
714-847-2531
2
Huntington Beach Total Apartment Units Existing Built Pre-1980 6,884
Huntington Beach Total Apartment Units Existing Built 1980-1989 856
Huntington Beach Total Apartment Units Built 1990-1999 0
Huntington Beach Total Apartment Units Built 2000-2010 0
Orange County Total Units Built 1990-1999 18,443
Orange County Total Units Built 2000-2009 18,945
Huntington Beach Pre-2000 Product Average Rent $1,665
Orange County 2000& Newer Average Rent $2,119
Difference ($454)
Percentage (27%)
Average Huntington Beach Asset Rating C+
Average OC 1990s Product Asset Rating A-
Average OC 2000s Product Asset Rating A
Beach &Ocean Weighted Average Rent $2,225
Household Income required to rent Weighted Average unit (2.8x) $74,760
Boardwalk by Windsor Weighted Average Rent $2,317
Household Income required to rent Weighted Average unit (2.5x) $69,510
Residences at Bella Terra Weighted Average Rent $2,306
Household Income required to rent Weighted Average unit (2.8x) $77,482
City of Huntington Beach Median Household Income $74,911
Huntington Beach Population
1950 5,237
1960 11,492
1970 115,960
1980 170,505
1990 181,519
2000 189,594
2010 189,992
Est. 2013 197,575
Huntington Beach data excludes 100%affordable housing projects, projects under
50 units, and age-restricted projects. Partially affordable are included.
Dornbo, Johanna
From: Ellen [pkleizo@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:05 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: HDD
Good Day / Evening To All
I am Ellen Kleizo and with my Husband Paul reside at 18172 Lisa Lane, Huntington Beach
I thank you all for your service and commitment to our wonderful city.
My husband and I are the Senior members of our fair city and do indeed intend to stay here to the
end God Willing. We have seen changes in this lovely city over the years some good some not so
good I am one of the members who fought against Wal Mart we won the battle for several years but
in the end we did loose the war. While we have nothing against Wal Mart we do miss our view down
Lisa Lane to a beautiful mountain site we now get to view an ugly brick wall.
This now brings me to the current state of affairs that is going on in Huntington Beach. I am not sure
how much can be done to stop anything but I do pray we can limit the size of everything that must
go forward. The horror on the corner of Beach and Ellis is an ugly mess to say the least, much less a
disaster waiting to happen. I hope there are no fatalities on that corner but I fear there will be.
There has been so much change in the environment that in all honesty to yourselves and the
community a new study needs to be done.
The drought is a major factor. The buildings are going to have 2 or more adults per unit and don't kid
yourself people will have friends move in so that they can afford the rent these dwellings are going to
demand. That alone is going to bring your car levels to 2 or 3 per unit even at 1 per unit that is a
tremendous volume of vehicles. Then the air pollution, the drain on our schools, which are not doing
so well at current time, the demand on the emergency services. The cost is going to out weigh the
income when you throw in all the salaries the pensions health plans on and on I could go.
This is not going to occur over night but over time then what. What type of legacy do you want to
leave behind? I would hope progressive and forward thinking.
Please slow everything down and reevaluate the situation for the good of ALL MANKIND Let us be
know to leave behind a good clean environmentally friendly foot print and keep our beautiful city
BEAUTIFUL!
Thank You for your time and consideration in this manner
Respectfully SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Ellen Kleizo
Meeting Date: & J�
Agenda item No. A
1
Esparza, Patty
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Esparza, Patty
Subject: FW: Stop High Density
From: Jacque [mai1to:oberney10)verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:44 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Stop High Density
As a long time resident of Huntington Beach, I have watched the city grow. Growth is good, however,when it becomes so dense that it
stifles or places a burden on existing areas,without thought to how those areas will deal, I wouldn't say that there is much benefit for
anyone. It creates burdens on it not only the new growth areas, but the existing areas as well. As if the impact of the growth, has not
been considered on the existing area nor any upgrades to the existing area to manage the growth. I was not in favor of the Costco
store at Bella Terra, because parking and congestion was already an issue without the store. Now with the new apartments- the area
is so dense with population,that I actually dread having to go to that area unless absolutely necessary. I frequently drive Gothard St.
Will it be upgraded once the new apartments are put in?. Is there any thought being given to the impact of the increased demands
being placed on the whole area? What about the cost of the apartments? I had originally heard that they were to be partially for
college students and teachers. I am not sure which college students would be able to afford any of them. Isn't there something in the
HB construction guidelines that says when new construction goes up that so much has to be for lower income individuals. Anyway, I
really don't see how more growth in that area is going to benefit anyone but the contractors and realtors, certainly not the resident's.
So please, I would ask you to think twice before you add any more to that area. I honestly don't think it would be in the best interests of
those living in the area or for the businesses of Bella Terra.
Thank you for your time
Jacque L. Oberbeck
15172 Hanover Lane,
Huntington Beach, CA. 92647
SUPPLEMENTAL
C M tlCA 9 1
Rligetina Date:
Agenda Item No.---
1
Dornbo, Johanna
From: apalumbo@netzero.net on behalf of apalumbo@netzero.com
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 2:21 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: Fikes, Cathy
Subject: high density-adjustment to BECSP
Dear Council Members:
I am in favor of the adjustments proposed for the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. As a long term
resident of this city; I look to the City Council; to provide some reason and sanity to this proposal that taken
into account the current residents of this city. We cam to Huntington Beach because of the quality of life here
and do not have any wish to turn this city into a smaller version of Los Angeles with the traffic gridlock and
high density of commercial and residential buildings.
I do feel that there are other issues not addressed in the adjustments to the BECSP that should be considered by
the city council such as a limit on the height of the buildings, density ratios, green areas and the ratio of
commercial versus residential density.
Sincerely;
Anthony Palumbo
(714) 274-5018
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School &Year. Look Now!
classmates.com
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
W-eling Late:
Agenda Item No.
i
®ombo, Johanna
From: Linda Polkinghorne [lapolkinghorn@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:58 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: High density housing
Who does this type of housing benefit? It's ulgy.....if your hell bent on continuing this at least have some
landscape. ..as I said before take a clue from Irvine. I will never understand why you want this type of housing
and why you want to over crowd our nice beach city. Why don't you clean up the housing know by everyone as
the Slater Slums instead of creating more future trashy housing. Someone please tell me who this is benefitting!
!!!!!!!! Certainly not the people of HB.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
eeting Gate; -11 o� U
Agenda Item No
i
SUPPLEVE NTAL
Fikes, Cathy WICAll
From: Andrea Raynal [araynal@pacificacompanies.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:34 PM I Inetii; Date:
To: Delgleize, Barbara
Cc: Fikes, Cathy /f
Subject: Urban Art lofts and Beach Edinger Specific Plan keryJa heat No.
-
Attachments: A6,00.pdf
Council Member Ms. Delgleize,
I am reaching out to you on behalf of the owner of the property known as Urban Art Lofts and the effect the proposed
amendments to the Beach and Edinger Specific Plan will have on the subject property. I plan on giving a short
presentation during the public comments section at the beginning of the City Council meeting on Monday but wanted to
reach out to you ahead of time to give you a chance to read through the information.
The Urban Arts Loft project is a unique situation.As was presented during the previous Study Session,the Urban Art
Lofts project was submitted to the planning department in December and meets all current development requirements.
We are in the review process, have received the first round of comments, and have resubmitted to all departments
addressing their comments and concerns. We are relatively far along in the process and anticipate going to a public
hearing during the next couple of months.
The proposed changes to the Specific Plan could have a very significant impact on our proposal and the progress we
have already made. One of the biggest concerns that would impact our project is parking.
Our project is mostly comprised of studios (40%) and one bedroom (52%) units. In addition, the project will enhance the
community by incorporating the 30' setback with landscape and art installations, activating the neighborhood with an
alternative approach to retail.This being said, under the current specific plan we are required the following:
Current Specific
Units Plan Parking stalls
loft 60 1 60
studio 9 1 9
1 bed 90 1 90
2 bed 13 1.5 19.5
guest 172 0.2 34.4
Total 213
Our project as submitted to the city proposes 218 parking space. The new proposed coastal would increase the
requirement to:
Parking
Units New Amendment stalls
loft 60 2 120
studio 9 2 18
1 bed 90 2 180
2 bed 13 2 26
guest 172 0.5 86
Tota 1 430
That is an increase of 212 spaces. An increase of this many spaces makes the project unfeasible as it its currently
designed.
1
However, in an attempt to make a good faith effort to address the parking concerns of the community, we have studied
the layout and believe we have found a way to increase parking spaces to 237. However, if City Council and Planning
Commission were to support tandem parking,which is currently not allowed in the Beach and Edinger Specific Plan then
we can fit 249 stalls (providing an additional 31 spaces).
The planning department is not sure whether the new amendments will apply to us or not. Given that we submitted to
the city in December, and city staff and the development team have spent a great amount of time and resources
processing the current project, and considering the significant hardship that adding 212 parking spaces would cause for
this project, we respectfully ask that you consider exempting The Urban Arts Loft Project from the proposed
amendments given this unique situation.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this request and if it is appropriate, I am happy to address any
questions you may have.
Best,
Andrea
Andrea Raynal
Project Manager
Pacifica Companies
1775 Hancock Street,Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
619-296-9000 ext. 171
araynal@pacificacompanies.com
2
..^_. §�o��C�� eC0;0�`V °0�.�� VA �A A `�"� �. A \� ��`. A C'"•'" '��\���V�"A�h`.�., A"^ � �„C ��
�i »i� _ Dili �� �: 'r�'+�f`�•; \' �\\`� �C.= Q\ _
If
DESCWPIIoN DATE
" - � - - _ �ti! + � S bm Plann'n9 1222-2014
OL
co
w
wa
r ,
r
U
C L Q
a
a� L
5
AVRP STUDIOS: 14020.00 CLIENT. %X%X%X%
AGENCY.
a � CHECKED:
r � �Iifl4
PERSPECME-STREET VIEW
A6.00
Estanislau, Robin
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:56 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Dense density
-----Original Message-----
From: John Binaski [mailto:lbinaski2loyahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:55 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Dense density
Dear City Council Members,
We are 40 year tax paying residents of Huntington Beach.
Two recommendations on things the City of Huntington Beach does not need:
1) Immediately stop the Poseidon Group ( or whatever "legal " shell name they choose to bid
under) from destroying our ocean life and polluting surrounding land areas.
2) The last thing our City needs is more high density housing. It is hard to believe this
thought process is even taking place.
Regards
John Binaski
Sent from my iPhone
COMMUNICATION
NMe ting Data: 3
Agenda Item No. ✓�
Estanislau, Robin
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:50 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: City Council Agenda Item#10 - High Density Housing.
From: Dick Thiel [mailto:rthieK-bsocal.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:51 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL; Fikes, Cathy
Subject: City Council Agenda Item #10 - High Density Housing.
As a Long time Home Owner in Huntington Beach, I strongly object to the High Density Housing
currently built and being built along the BECSP Corridor. It has already created a major parking and
traffic problem around Bella Terra Shopping center, to the point that they are already towing cars from
the parking lots at the car owners expense, And all of the apartments are yet to be completed nor
rented. Imagine how bad it will be when they are all rented.
The Traffic on Beach Blvd has increased and frequently, it takes two light changes before you can
execute a left turn due to the increased traffic.
I recommend that you extend the moratorium indefinitely on providing building permits for any and
all new but planned apartment buildings until the a real and binding impact study has been completed
by an independent company.
In the meantime, I recommend that the following amendments be approved for any new High Density
Housing Apartment building Complexes.
Direct staff to pursue amendments to the BECSP to:
A) Reduce the residential MAND to 2,100 units;
B) Require a CUP for all residential and mixed-use projects;
C) Apply the coastal zone parking requirements to all residential projects;
D) Increase front yard setbacks to 30 feet minimum (allow CUP to deviate)
and require 10-foot upper story setbacks above the third story;
E) Require all residential projects to have retail/commercial uses at street level
(allow CUP to deviate);
F) Modify development standards for auto dealers; and,
G) Allow deviation to Edinger frontage road requirements for commercial
projects adding up to 50 percent of existing square footage.
Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL
Richard Thiel
COMMUMCATION
I leeting gate:
la
Agenda Item No.,-