Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Zone case 83-1 - Norbert Dall - Northwest corner of Warner A
Aulhbrlted to Publif ii Advertllement3 al ell kir+r!s including public notice& by Dbr.ree of the Superior :ours of Orange County. Oallfornle, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, Jrid A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963. ot STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orangs NuWz ►mob.Mvillot ,� .d '00 wmee/ er �t,, aft"I Is am sue+ ,►tt!, M pea C.N.0m WWirt `. I am a Citizen of the United States and a residmit of the County aforesaid; I am over the P.ge o! eighteen ` years, and not a party to or Interested in the below ✓• entitled matter. i am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY NILG+. with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printers and published In the City of Costs Mese, � �---- i�MOT}t� County of Orango, Sta!a of Callforola, and that a �ancE.oW Public Notice of ..._. Hearing - A ;+, fltFi ? 3 XNE CASE #i83-1 M>M / jM CtJ e 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �ltr,o4u,r+t;a.gt:rh�-,jfty.�f.- q _ 1I �►: t TT « 1 Cl:rmSe#:or•.t�hti.Gr n eC UR1tf` of which :.opy attached heroto Is a►rue Pnd complete fr . �..........,..t in rtca-Costa tilese. •�est, ttker R ✓"-� •• 1 Valley, rrft :� ar, t1a=.�•; 1 t A I � Laguna . � A. �i1 `irsl�,;a• Wit" ,� ;, CL 1-9.4W 1[fb_14_Rtc�t,�`jyW'a14�t1At �7.'r- � C� 3 twisq —.. F.yrthsr Mr a "Oft" ri 198 fe ,A.,.Qt4i 198 Jr 198 Y I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the forego!ng is true an,' correct. EX ad on February aS 198 3 Co to Mesa$ CaID e. t3ignatur i ,, PROOF OF PUBLICATION 0 CITY OF ' HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 3264E OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I i I A,pri 1 19 , 1983 If i 'j Norbert Dal1 , Agent Master Properties NO. 9, Ltd. I, 1225 Eighth Street #485 Sacramento, CA 9581A The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, April 18, 1983, denied Zone Case No. 83-1 - a request to rezone 9t acres of property located at the northwest corner of Warner i; Avenue and Edwards Street. 3 "This is a final decisic"n. You are hereby notified ghat pursuant to li previsions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Pracedure of the 'i State of California, you have ninety days from April 19, 1983 to apply ! to the courts for judicial review. " Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:3s E . a osure cc: Gail Nuttcto, City Attorney lames Palin, development Services Director I i i c h % xWa F, NORBERT H. DAI.L., & A SSQCT ATES i 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SUtTE 485 i SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9581, / 916/443.2333 i l March 25, 1983 I The Hotivrable Bob Mandic Mayor I City of Huntington Beach i City Hall 2000 Main Street { Huntington Beach, California 92648 f SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION I APPROVAL OF CUP 82-31 (HUNTINGTON ! WEST) AND ZONE CHANGE 83-1. I i I ' Dear Mr. Mavor: i 1 represE-nt Master Properties Number 9, Ltd. , the owner of the Huntington West and the applicant for Conditional Use Permit 82-31 , Tert;-.ative Tract Number 11879 , and Zone Change 83-1 . As you perhaps know, the Planning Commission has t approved the Zone Change on a vote of 5-0 and the Conditional Use Permit/Tentative 'Pratt Map an a vote of 7-0 . j I have been given informally to understand that the Planning Commission decision on CUP 32-31 was appealed to j Counci.l on March 21, 1983 , and is presently scheduled for hearing by Council on April 4 , 1983. However, neither my client nor I have received any formal notice of the appeal, or a copy of the appellant' s statement that sets forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the appellant deems himself aggrieved. My client clearly cannot adequately i analyze , prepare for, or respc.nd to the appeal until he receives a copy of it. i For this reason, as well as the fact that both' of the senior representatives of the applicant have for some time been scheduled to participate in state legislativ►e .. . , j committee hearings in Sacramento on Fhe same day that s 1 1 � I ,� �, rj , The Honorable Bob Mandic I March 25 , 1983 I� Page Two ti precludes our appearance in Huntington Beach. Master Properties Number 9 , Ltd. respectfully requests that council grant a two-week continuance of the hearing on f these matters . Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. I Sincer y yours, Norbert H. Dall j NHD: tc t cc, All Council Members Mr. Charles . Ttinmpson Ms . Alicia M. Wentworth Mr. James Palin Charles Olsen, Esq. Davis' Pierson, Esq. Manager, Huntington West i NOTE: A c-spy of the s letter will be made a vailabe for j review b:• tenants at the Huntington West rental office . i� I I i I) i it NORBERT H. DAU & A SSOCIAT13S 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SUITE 485 / SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 / 916/ 441:10 2333 March 25 , 1983 '! Mr. James W. Palin Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commit;sion I P . 0. Boy: 190 Huntington Beach , California 92648 Attn : Mr. Savoy Bellairia i j RE.: NOTICE OF ACTION - TENTATIVE TRACT 11879/C .U .P . 82-31 Dear Mr. Palin: { I received yesterday, per "Express Mail" dated March 23 , 1983 , the notices of action, including findings and conditions, for the Commission 's approval of Tentative Tract 11879 and Conditional Use Permit 82-31 . ( Upon initial review, it appears that the Notice of Action for the Conditional Use Permit accurately reflects the actions of the Planning Commission. However, the Notice of Action for the tentative tract map erroneously identifies the last day for filing an appeal as March 25 , 1 1983 . Since the Not3,ce also states that an appeal of the map decision "must be . . . submitted to the Office of the City Clerk within fifteen ( 15 ) days of the date of the Commission 's action" , and since that date was March 15 , i 1983 , it would appear gist the correct closing date for the appeal period is March 30 , 1933 , rather than March 25� ' 1983 � Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, 5incerel yours, l f orbert H . Dall NflD: tc cc: Huntington Beach City Clerk David Pierson, Esq . Charles H. Olsen► Esq. ok t. ! • lfi�,.L I �cZl . . ..: .�1 • � _��� � /^. /`,._(mac Publish 2/25/83 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE 83-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of March 19 83 . for the purpose of considering a request to rezone 9t acrEF of property located at the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street from R3 (Medium-High Density Residential ) District to R4-30 (High Density Residential District - Maximum 30 units per acre) . A legal description is on file in the Denartment of Development Services Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing cnd express their opinions for or against said Zone Case 83-1 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk , 2000 Main Street, Huntingtcn Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED February_ 22, 1983 _ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL, CTION February 2 , 1983 l--iij / gl> ` to qI8 s Date Submitted try: Honorable Aaynr and City Council C�Wpp 3h1h 4rt�l _y; OL y•1 Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator p� �a8 P. epared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-1 (A request to rezone 9+ acres of property at the northwest corner of Warner Avenue ancg Edwards Street from R3 'Co R4-30) O&D ,4 Rk / n Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:4� STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is Zone Change No. 83-1, a request to rezone 9+ acres of property located at the north- west corner of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street from R3 , Medi-im High Density Residential District to R4-:30, High Density Residential Dis- trict, maximum 30 units per acre. RECOMMENDATION : i Zone Change .No. 83-1 was considered by the Planning Commission on February 15, 19P3. The Department of Development Ser.vicRs recommended denial of the application. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve Zor.e Change No. 83-1 and adopt the • attached ordinance. ANALYSIS : APPLICANT: Norbert Dall, Agent Master Properties No. 9, Limited 1225 Eighth Street , #485 Sacramento, Calif . 95814 LOCATION: :Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street REQUEST: Rezone 9+ acres from R3 , Medium High Density Residential District, to R4-301 High Density Residential District, maximum 30 units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON FEBRUARY 15, 1983 : ON. MOTION BY LIVENGOOG AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-1 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL , WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. R4-30 zoning is necessary to legally accommodate the 245 unit planned residential development proposed under Conditional Use Per-' mit No. 82•-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879. ZC 83-1 February 23 , 1983 Page 2 2 . Rezoning of the property to R4-30 is in compliance with the Cit.y ' s General Plan. AYES : uivengood , Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Miriahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Biggins, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 286 unit apartment corplex on the site to a 245 unit planned residential development. The condit-4.onal use permit and tentative tract e•l)plications for the prcposed planned residential development were considered by the Planning "Commis- sion on February 15 and continued to the March 1, 1983 meeting. Staff was directed by the Commission to prepare conditions of approval for the conditional use permit anal tentative tract applications. The density of the proposed 245 unit planned residential development is 29 . 98 units per acre. The allowable density under the present R3 zoning designation is 25 units Per acre. The applicant is proposing the zone change to . R4-30 in order Lo accommodate the condominium development. j R4-30 zoning on the site will also be in conformance with the land use designation in the General Plan which is high density . Staff in its recommendation to the Planning Commission, did not support the zone change request to R4-30 on the basis that an affirmative re-- commendation on the zone change would not have been consistent with a recommendation for denial of the conditional use permit and tentative tract applications for the condominium conversion. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff ' s recommendation to deny the condo- miniuii conversion, the proposed R4-30 zoning will be inconsistent with the dens:L.ty of the existing apartment project on the site which is 32 units per acre. The only circumstance under which the staff feels it is appropriate to rezone the property to R4-30 is if the Planning Com- mission does not concur with the staff' s recommendation for denial of the condominium conversion. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : ilhe high density designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan was assessed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA at the time the designation was applied to t,e subject site. The proposed zone change would bring the property into conformance with the existing Gen,. c-.A- ?Ian land use daL%ignation (high density) and therefore, no fur- ther r-i-r- ironmental assessment is necessary. Y%*' WING SOWrnn Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may ccnsider overtu-ping the Planning Commission ' s zC 83-1 February 23 , 1983 Page 3 action and deny Zone Change No. 83-1 which in effect would preclude the development of a 245 unit planned residential development on the site. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1 . Area Map 2. Staff reports dated February 15, 1983 3 . Ordinance JWP: JRB: Jlm CiF-R ;""(j - s? R I + I Rl �R 1 / r .uzM tr I . , .... IRI { 1 RI r`�- al ,:r•,.. -i Rl ! Rl C�"� ; = f �R; AI RI ��l RI RI Ri ! 1 i R l .f Is s •Rl [F I E�l 1 I Rl Al ►= �I Ai ;R!� R { `'j'. - o RI Rt f RI RI .may -_• j _ � RI } � o c • c r. i C \4i1_ ce•t { � � I ' w, MH •.•.. K..,�,...... R3 � _ R3 R 3 .�.,, C 2 R ! 1{ 1 C4. . WA►IHER ' �-� T----� t wed - --- ---• ---- 1' ,-- --�t _ LR3 i " 3 C4 r i AM w •ai•s �31���+l3 '� 1 y w _. •� R3 RI �cr-R C RI 1� -� •»s } RI R1 (�F_C RI i21 RI Rl -f-tom, RI nCF-R . .,� RI �RSR) tRl Rl 1 RI Rt .� Rt - Rl f Qr I .-,.. — a•—, 1 RI - a CF E a In Rl ! »« MHU%T1%G.T0MN HUNTINGTOP! BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Ohuntington beach developma services departmt. sm F F E p O RIP TO: Pl"nn ind Comm!t3s i.(m FROM: Devel opme-nt o-rvi ces DATE : February 15 , 1983 i ZONE, CIIAP-11("'1: NO. 8 3- 1 APPLICANT : Norbert Dail , 1lgent [);,TE ACCE,PTE70: Master Properties Ho , 9 , Ltd. Fc,I��-uar�• 2�1983 1225 Eighth Street #485 Sacramento , CA 95814 MANDATARY PROCESS MG DATE.: REQUEST: 'ro rezone 9.1. acres of proper- ty from R3 ,^Medium High Den- April 4 , 1.983 lty Res4.dential to R4-30, lligh :)ensity Residential [)is- ZONE: 13 (Medium•-Iiiyh ttict, maximum 30 units per Vensity Re:mi.dent-i.al acre. D_.strict) LOCATION : Subject pr.opert,, is 1c:ce:tted at the nor. timest- c.)rner of C} ;•IEaRAL PLAN: Warner Avenue and Ldwaj:- .s -� Street. High Density ACIIEW;I?,: 4 t- acres I:X.ISTr14G USE 186-Unit Al)artmevt complex 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACT IO14 : Staff recommends that. the Planning Commission df:ny Zone Chancle t1o, 83-1 based an the findings contained in Section 6. 0 , 2 . 0 GENERAL INI.-ORMATTON: Zone Change No. 03--1 is a request to rezone 9+ acres of rirr----: ty located at the northwest corner of garner Avenue and Edwards Street from 113 , Medium High Density Residential District, to R4-30 , Iiigh Density Itesi- dential District, maximum 30 unite per. acre. 3 . 0 ENVIR014MENTAL STATUS: The high density designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan was assessed in accordance with the provisions of CI:QA at the time it was applied to they subject site. The proposed none change would bring A 4 M 434 7.G Q3-1 Februar:v 15 , 1983 Page 2 the property into conformance with the exi,,A ng General plan Land Use designation (high density) , and therefore, no further environmental assessment is necessary, 4. 0 SURROUNDING- LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; Subject Pro ert : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Nigh density . , ZONING: R3 (Medium H'13h Density Residential) LAND USE: Apartment. complex South of Subject Property: GENERAL, PLAN DESIGNATION: Iligh density ZONING: R3 (Medium High De,isity Residential.) LAND USE: Apartments West of Su},7ect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium density ZONING: MH (?Mobile ilon,z, District) LAND USE: Mobile home park East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High density ZONING: R3 (bledium high Density Residential) LAND t)SE: Apartments North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DES IGt7ATION: Low density A"ONING: R1 (Low Density Residential District) LAND USF: Orange County Flood Control District channel 5. 0 ANA•LYS I S : The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 286 unit apartment complex on the site to a 245 unit planned residential development. The density of the existing 236 unit apartment developnv xtt is 32 units per . acre. The density of the proposed 245 unit planned residential develop-- ment, according to the formula for calculating density in Senior, 9362 . 1 in the Ordinance Cone , is 29 . 98 units per acre. The proposed planned residential development exceeds the allowable .Zen- sxty (25 units per acre) under the existing x3 ' zoning on .the site. The proposed zone change to R4-30 would establish zoning on the site which is coni3istenf: with the proposed 245 unit condc 1.nium development. staff is L�:cornmending denial of the proposed condominium develop ment based on ;indinc�3 in the staff report addr©�sitsg Conditirnal Use • �a 1 IC February 1`_i , 1983 Pa ge 3 T'ert;?it tio . 8--31 and 'Pentative. T.-act No . 11879 (attached) . Staff, theref«re , :einnot. support the proposed zotle (:han,3e , since the R4-30 designation i., not cons.i stont: with the density of the existing �-Jpart- ment complex c:r the site . If thy: Planning c'omUi.ission concurs with the staff ' s recorcmiendaLi.rm for dc.!n:ial of Conditional Use Permit: No . 82-•31 and Tentative Tract No . !1879 based on findings in the attached staff report , it is the staff ' s position that approval_ of the zone change would be ina.ppr,�priate since th.-- density of the existing- t-le3velopmont- on the site is not in conformance with P,4- 30 zoning. 6 .. U RECO"14`•111ENDATTON : Staff recormn,�mcls that the Planning de lly zone: .hana_ e No . 83-1 based )n the follmvinc; findinq : P IDI NG FOR DENIAL : The existing 286 unit ipazt-runt COMI. l.ex on the Site exceeds the allowable densit}r uncles the I.rm..�o ed zone, chr-ange . AL'T'E RtlllTI VE COU PM OF ACTION: Tz the Pla,zrri.nrJ not concur:• With t_he staff ' s recoimnendaticn on C(Dridit_iona.l. Use I f-_,rrnit NL). 8`-31 �-enel 'i'ertt:•3tive Tract No. 11879 ; staff recommends ti,lat t31r, "_,omm.iss ion approve ;cane Chan:le: No . 83-1 based on the `ol lowincl f i ndi nf., : � rTivI)TII%i FOR APPR?DVAL- R,1-30 zoning on the Site is ne c:e.ssary to legally acconunoclate the 245 Ik111t:. planned residential development proposed under Conditional [Ise T'or'nit Ho . 82--3?. and Tct7t:;�t:ivc� 7'i'act: Ito . 11879. AT T ACIIIIENI'S I . Area :Map Or.diranr2 Jtap : �7IZ33 : j 1m 90huntington beaci'� devefo met services de artmenIP P i STAf f EPORIL. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Developm6.nt. Services DATE : February 13 , 1.983 i TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11379/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' 'NO. 82-31 -' (Continued from 2-1--83) SUBDIVIDER: Norbert Dali , ,'Agent DATE ACCEPTED : Master Properties No. 91 Ltd. 1225 E.iahth Street 0485 Januzry 26 , 1983 S=..:ramento , CA 95814 MANDATORY P110CESSING DATE : ;INEE.P.: Dudley ti . Clark b Assoc . r 1061.0 Ventura Blvd. March 17 , 1983 Encino, CA 91436 ZONE : R3 (M,,.,dium-high REQUEb �': To convert an existing 286 � Density Residential ) unit apartment complex to a District 245 unit planned residential development GEPII:I:AL PLAN:LOCATION: Subject property is located at the northwest corner of high nensity Warner Avenue and Edwards Street. EXISTING USEI: hCREAGE : 8 . 17 Apartment complex 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION : Staff reeominends that the Planning Commission deny Condit.,kmal Use Permit 82-31 2.as& Tentative Tract 1.1879, cd o qu n the findings id con&W.ons contained in Section 8 . 0. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Use Permi-t No. E2-31. and Tentative Tract No. 11879 have been filed to permit the conversion of the existing 285 unit Iiuntington West apartment complex to a 2,15-unit planned residential development on 8 . 1.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Warner Avenge and Edwards � Street. The existing apartment complex was approved by the City 's j Board of ZonincT Adjustments (Use Permit 69-53) on October 15 , 1979 . Construction of the apartment complex was completed in 1971. r' TT 7 p 82-31 Feb. 1.51 1.983 Page 2 The applicant has presented a detailed assessment of the existing apart- ment: project and the proposed condominium conversion project through submission of pl'-ns and a written narrative and rek►.i ed )74r. oject description which has been sent to the under sf,parate cover , 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to Section 151.01 (k) of the State CEQA Guidelines , the conversion of an existing apartment to condominiums is categorically exempt . There- fore, no further environmental documentation is required on this pr.r;ject. 4 . 0 SURRMNDING LAND USEg ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : 11i (I)1 density ZONING : R3 (!Medium High Density Residential) LAND USE:: Apartment complex South of Subjact Pr.oiicrt _: :�i-.crLI L PLAN DESIGNA,rION : ;tigh deri ; ity ZONING: R3 (Vedium High Density Pc- sidential) LAND USE . Ap��rt.rr�en :.s West Of Se_ibject Property: GENET AI. PLAN DESIGNA'I IO,J: Medium density ZONING : M11 (tbbil.e Home District) LAND USE: Mobile home park East of Subi:ct _Property: GENERAI. PLAN DESIGNATION: High density ZONING : 113 (Medium High Density Residential) LAND USE : Apartments North of Subject Prcpert , GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density ZONING: R1 (Low Density Residential District.) LAND USE : Orange Country Flood Control District channel. 5.0 STATISTICAL .ANALYSIS: 5. 1 Area of Project : 8 .17 acres 5.2 Number of. Units : 245 5 .3 Type of Units : See applivant ' s desct' .ptive narrative ' ?-31 T'1 11879/CUP $ Feb. 15 , 1983 11aae 3 2,5 u it 50 bedrooms permitted per gross acre 5 G Density : n / 1 �' y (R3 District) 35 units/53 bedrooms permitted per dross acre (R4 D strict) 29 . 98 units/52 bedrooms per gross acre pro- vided 5 . 5 Site Coverage: Permitted: 50% Provided : 59 . 6v 5 . 6 Common Omen apace : Required - 98 , 000 square feet (400 square feet per unit) Provided : 103 , 844 square feet ( 424 sgiiar.c feet per unit) i 5 . 7 Parking : Required : 583 Aces Provided: 596 Sj Ices 6 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITIA"EE : The Subdivision Committee reviewed this project on December 17 , 1982 . In attendance at the meet:.ir.�3 were representatives of the Department of Public Works , Fire Department, Department of Development Services and Conunissioner. Biggins . Several areas of concern were identified and dis- cussed by the Subdivision Committee . The specific issues identified by members of the Cojmnittee are rontained in the attached minutes . Some modifications were made to the site plan subsequent t-o the Subdivision Committee fneeting, reducing the number of units proposed from 249 to 245. 7 . 0 TSSUES AND ANALYSIS : The applicant is proposing a major renovation of the existing Huntington West apartment comp].,:x as fart_ of the proposal for conversion to condo- miniums. At a cost of more than $2 . 5 million , the applicant proposes to demolish 41. of the existing apa ,-tment units , construct two new parking structures , provide major new landscaping, enhances the noise attenuation capability of walls between units and windows fronting onto adjacent streets, provide new balconies in nearly one-third of the units and provide new recreational, iacili.ties . The applicant is alsc proposing to make 75% of the condominium units available for purchase by persons or families of low and moderate income (see letter: from applicant dated 1--25-83 ) . The foll.owin,t excerpt from a draft special report on condominium conver- sions prepared by Development Services Department staff. in 19BO cites several aavantages and disadvantages to the local conununity resulting from condominium conversions : "Condominium conversions have become Popular for many reasons . There is a potential for significant profits within a relatively shorter ocriod of time than that required for new construction . Condominium conversions offer the buyer an opportunity for home ownership which may not otherwise be possible. The community may also benefit from TT 11879/CUP 82-31 Feb. J.51 1983 Page 4 the general imprcvement: in the quality of the housinq supply through conversion rehabilitations . Conversions, however, reduce the over- all number of rental units available if new rental construction does not keep pace with the rate of rental. conversions , and new rental construction has dropped off dramatically in recent years . In some cases , converted units mad► continue to be rented , however, the majority will become owner-occupied units an-1 no longer service a rental market. The greatest loss then will occur with regards - to ex-i.sting and future apartment tenants . " The existing 296 unit Huntington West apartment ccmplex presently com- prises approximately 18 of Qie total rental units in Huntington Beach . At the! present time , the City dons not have an adopted ccndominium con- version ordinance , therefore , the cor,version of an apartmen .: complex to condominiums requires compliance with the planned residential development standards contained in Article 936 of the Ordinance Code . These stan- dards are substantially more restrictive than standards contained in the City ' s :apartment Ordinance . i The proposed project: has some major deficiencies in relatio.•, to Article 936 (Planned Residential Development ) standards . The applicant has re- quested that the Planning Commission grant a special permit pursuant to Section 9367 of the Ordinance Code . The applicant is requesting the special permit to allow less than the minimum standards for density , site coverage , setbacks , building separations , building bulk , open space and minimum floor area. Section 9362 . 1 (Density) of the Ordinance Code permits a maximum density of 25 units/50 bedrooms per gross acre in the R3 District: and 35 units/ 53 bedrooms per gross acre in the R4 District. The proposed 245 unit planned residential development has a density of 29. 98 units/52 bedrooms per gross acre . The proposed development would exceed the density pro- visions of Article 936 if zoning on the property remains R3 . If Zone Change No. 83-1. is approved, rezoning the property to R4-30 , the proposed project will. be in compliance with Sectio:i 9362 . 1 of the Ordinance Code. Section 9362 . 2 (Maximum Site Coverage) of the Ordinance Code requires that the maximum site coverage for all buildings proposed in this pro ject not exceed 50% . Site coverage For the proposed project is 59 . 6% . Section 9362 . 3 (Setback from a public Street) of the Ordinance Code re-- quires a minimum setback of 15 feet with an average of 20 feet for all structures fronting Warmer Avenue and Edwards Street. Buildings along Warner. Avenue and Edwards Street are set back 12 feet from the front property line. Section 9352 . 7 (Building Separation Setback) requires separations between TT 11879/CUP 82-31 Feb. 15 , 1983 Page 5 individual buildings within the proposed project. The amount of separa- tion between individual buildings according to this section of the code depends upon the buildi.rigs ' orientation to one another. The following table describes areas where the proposed project is not in compliance with the minimum requirements for building separation . Separations I3etween Building Numbers : Required Provided 1 & 2 60 feet 48 feet 3 & 4 70 feet 48 feet 5 & 6 75 feet 28 feet 7 & 8 60 feet 48 feet 15 & 16 30 feet 26 feet Section 9362 . 7 (i) requires a distanc^ between vehicular accessways and that portion of the buildi.nq used for human habitation of 15 feet. Buildings 1 through 14 are not in compli.anc o with this standard . Section 9362 . 10 (a) (Building Bulk) of the Ordinance Code requires that no more than 6 dwellings units be attached side-by-side. Buildings 1, 4 , 5 and 8 do not comply with this standard,, Section 9362. 10 (c) requires that structures havilly dwelling units attached side-by-side shall have at least one-third of the total number of units within such structures constructed one story less than the remaining structures . None of the buildings in the proposed project comply with this standard . Section 9362 . 11 (open Space) requires that all units constructed above the ground floor level (there are no ground floor units in this develop- nent) , be provided with balconies or sun decks. In the existing 286 unit apartment complex, 279 units have balconies . Of these, 54 balconies com- ply with the minimum standards in the code . The applicant proposes to demolish 41 units and add balconies to a number of the remaining units . Of the remaining 245 units , 237 will have balconies under the proposed plan; 100 of the 237 units with balconies will exceed the minimum size criteria for balconies . Balconies in the remaining 137 units with bal- conies , will range in size from 32 square feet to 112 square feet. Section 9362 . 14 (Minimum Floor Area) requires that each dwelling unit within a planned residential development be a minimum size proportional to the number of bedrooms within the unit. The section provides for srinimum floor areas of 650 square feet for one--bperoom units , 900 square feet for two-bedroom units and 1, 100 square feat for three-bedroom units . �r"r 11879/CUP 82-31 Feb. 15 , 1983 Page: 6 e i i development, six models of two- bedroom units (A-1 , A-2 , D-1 , ©-21 C and F) are deficient having 807 807, 661, 645, 796 and 673 square feet of floor area .respectively . The three-bedroom model (E) in the development is also slightly deficient t:3ving 1 , 012 square feet of floor area . In Section 9360 of the Ordinance Code , it is stated that , "In recognition of the fact that Medium/ffigh Density Planned Residenti'a1 Developments differ from apartments in numerous respects and tflat the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare of such projects warrant special treat- ment, the City of Huntington Beach hereby declares its intent to distin- quish such projects from apartment complexes . " The existing Huntington West apartment complex is grossly deficient when evaluated against de- velopment standards in Article 936 of tfze Ordinance Code. The applicant ' s plan of renovation proposed under these applications would -ignificantl.y reduce these deficiencies , however, it is the staff' s position that the proposed 245 ur• i.t planned residential development still would riot suffi- ciently comply with the stated objective in Section 9360 of the Ordinance Code which is to distinquish planned residential developments from apart- ment complexes . The site layout and design of the proposed project , in the staff ' s view, more closely resembles existing arartment complexes within the City than projects which have been approved under the present � planned development standards . The proposed project has design features which, to this date , have not been permitted in planned residential de- velopments . Namely , front yard setbacks for buildings on an arterial street which are less than the minimum standard , and a number of individual units which allow for direct pedestrian access from the adjacent arterial streets . The staff and Planning Commission have consistently 'attempted to insure maximum security and minimum intrusion from outside sources in planned residential developments. 8 .0 RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879 based on the following findings : FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THI'. SPECIAL PEFVIT: 1 . Granting of the special permit would cr-mate a development which is not consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development standards. A better living environment could be provided through compliance with existing code sections pertaining to site coverage (9362 . 2) , setbacks (9362 . 3) , building separation and setback ( 9362 . 7) , building bulk (9362. 10 , open space (9362 . 11 ) , and minimum floor area ( 9362. 14) . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82--31 : 1. Without the granting of a special permit, the project does not comply with the provisions of Article 936 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code insofar as the deficiencies in the plan would not be consistent with the objectives of the planned development standards. TT 11879/CUP 82-31 Feb. 1.5, 1983 Page 7 ? . The existing project comprises approximately 17, of the total number of rental units in Huntington Beach . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO . 11879 : 1 . The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with appli- cable specific plans (zoning ordinance) . ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION: If the Planning Commission does not concur with the staff' s recommendation on Zone Change No. 83-1 , staff recommends that action on Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31. and Tentative Tract No . 11879 be tabled until after the City Council has acted an Zone Change No . 83-1 . ATTACHMENTS: I 1. Area Mai: 2 . Le'--ter from applicant dated February 10 , 1983 3 . Letters from applicant dated January 25 , 1983 S . Acoustical analysis dated February 7 , 1983 J;IP : J RD : j lm i 0RDI NIA NCF NO 2613 AN ORDINANCE Ol, THE CITI Of HUNT INGTnI`I BFtcli AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOr� TO PRO':1'DE FOR Cli,+IIGE (-T! ZONIIIG -PROM IMEDIUi-i 11101i DENSITY ` RESIDENTIAI, DISTRICT TO HIGH DIENSITY DISTRICT (THIRTY UNITS PER ACRE) ON R-EAL PROPERTY aEli- �� ERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH;-IEST CORNER 0:,' \ WARNER AVEN'UE AND EDWARDS STREET (ZONE CASE \NO. 83-i � 1,11IT;REA8\n ,-, n'. to the, t tat Plannin ; ,1nd 7nni.nr L ., the flunti.nCtFlannJnF; Cernrnission and Huntington Beach C;it 1,, Councild s;.r„rate public hearinE-z relat.1vc: to Zone C15e ?jo . 3in f)0`.}1 I,;i die':: }1<iV:'. CcII'efit .l !;i considered �2Z�. l illl�orrlation d at said 21t'a!'i!ir: , and aitel' 1C' CDT1Sicler?- tion o f the artd ��� c;_)rrmerida1; i on:- of `1 � I'lanralnE Commission and al.l evidse 'red a saki i'Ity Cc fricil , the C:itl; Council finds that such zone ch nge is proper , _nd con:sisterit t-rith the general plan, loll NOW, THEREFORE , the C' t;: C c1i of the City of Huntington Beach (ides o 'dai n aS 1L o11c),-rs SECTION 1 . The foils , .ire, deg 3cribcd real pror)erty , generally located at. the northwe. ::orner o.' ;-larne,, Avenue and Edvrwrds :?treet , is hereby cY need from H3 "(Medium Higl,r Density Reaident lal District" to R11 , ' igh Density Res i tential District" with a maxi- mum of thirty • it;s pt-2 v -acre : T south 5911 . 112 feet of the east; half of -ie• southeast, quarter of the ^outhwest quarter of Section -2 , Tovinsli �) South , /,. Ranee 11 West In the Rancho Do sa Chica , City of Huntington Beach, Count of Orange, State of California, as er map recorded in Book 51 , page 13 of 1i. -.cellaneous h:aps in the office of the County 'ecorder of said county . alib i SECTION 2 The Developm,=nt Ser, ice:; Pireot;or• is he reb;; (1i- rectt d to emend Secticll 9061. , Mi gr1ct ?,lap 25 ( Sectional District Map 22-5--11 ) to reflect :?cane Case No . described in Sec- tion 1 hereof . A c;ou., oi' ,,-,aI d d is,t.rIc:t, m,a1) amended hf'rf,b;; i�z, available for ira;pec u won .in 'L}ye office of the Cit,v Cl erl•: . 'ECTION 3 . Thli-, :ha .11 take of'fect th'rty day:> from adoption. PASSED A14D ADOFTED !: t:h,_, ''i t Cou ciI of the City of Huntinc;L4ri Beach rr r ef-,a...a: r���e � � r�,- tr.er . ol held on the day Cr -- i�iu% Ul' ATTEST : A FFRO'VED AS T;) T'OR'.1: Ci tl y C'lerl.: torney REVIEWED AND APPR CIVE,D: T N IT IATF AND APPROVED : City Adm:ini'stratot irec for o.' Development Services 2 . r PLANNING � ZONING- DM ZJ SL CTiONAL DISTRICT MAP 22- 5-11 Il . ( r!1 t rt:(a Irlr ,.�I.,w".•a. ...r•.•.r•, r."tr:•HLA r N / d 1 ( [ 1�/t f7+ +.1.�, •Lr ) rr.1 •°/t A�Ma. c,•" l I . (a oft ! ,ry •"• ' ' r� 1 � .a.i •ra 1711 r . �{tt try ..,y n,. '+r 1 r••.. . i ► 1i :� 44 N, F (:t ► (: ` TN t : :1f. I .1 ....,.• . i AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 71. 1'.1 :!{ :r. r.. .a' ,1�.V!.\1..t+..'.,+w 11� 1 !. f ..•..• K IM •./,{lr .�.. \.,., .:l51t1.�)`er 1J.1/.{7. RI•tl 1.•1.'_ -t. ! t: t, AIL .. L p,, PIS _' ! +• rr -�i�—�a�-- ��.� r k':-.; ~j 1 , .I ICI j ►- fl I V R I7I, Rl pi I , RI RI ;;. RI t, RIIN I i',� a) �JJi RI IF�� J` r 1 r �RI r =�___• I ( ' Y..t;} - Ca , _�! �Ir _I �\ "" �.,ci___'. 1• " —_� I rRl ' 'r,F-R1.1 RI la+ RI I icl � ,« II •� 4 I !r! �r�, {s ;, �: '. 1 I �f�l /`�y�:__ •__.=�1L~ R I ) c..��i R•� + RI RI PI �i I i R1 i� �_, �-�r��� _Eil� i��• t�' -- -- .. . _ t `i a i i R I I RI I RI Rf J •�' I 1 � I • r 1 I' n,n, • -�.. ._ - t FI ;'� �� ,I'' •! RI R I RI (� R I + ( R J _ j RI I RIB • >,� I � �_ � � Jig RI i I r�wa_(.. •� .t �'L ..� RI n ,�C4, IIRI I, C fC f\ Fn) cn 1 IF" I �Rl RI R I •' R R I '• a i+�Yn�. tN _ i R I J J ; L.•'�r 1,' I'�I G.. • .. s: )"F—' >c•:ti -AI .rF1, cF-R RI u +_ ;1 R i� is RI RI RI RI ! Rr �I I• RI Fi l ,�/ __. •pl _. i R I 1 Ia I ,..i I`� r R I 1 R t1I) I ll I "•^: + �/ �"• .1r M1./ — -� T� `_T 16 11/._^ri I ( I RI RI i i �•_. RI y 17 R I �R11 ai RI '1 I RI i ► a RI R! RI Z RI I F I RI ""� RI }a} _, i , ' ••aYrl 1 r I L e' � 1 L• t -I J ., .t yr.. a{. .• r R3 .1 // AAR!ILN Ave /ML 7,,0f1E CASE tin . 83--1, i 7- PLANNING SECTIONAL DISTRiCT MAP 23 -5-11 -G N B 1 4 1 NCH HUNTIN .7 . . �- Ji (MANGE COVNTY , CALIFORNIN USE OF PROPERTY MAP p" CF-C; Zr CF-E I f7""r .:"'Al CF-E CF-R Im 7, 4;11 NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO: CITY CLERK a OFFICE DATE: I PLEASE -XVIEDUIX, A I11"BLIC Hr"A(IM, USING THE ATTACtD.D LEGAL NOTICE FOR TltZ � `. DAY OF _ •- _�____ 19�3. 11 are ntracrle �� AP 'a will follow No AV it i Initiated by: i Planning Comission Planning Department Petition r Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to J %W ln `�ti1�� Planning. Department - Extension for .additional information. * if appeal , please transmit exact wording tc be required !.n the legal . i r-f LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE NO. 6 3-). NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing .will a held by the City Planning Commission of the City of 4untingt Beach, California, for the purpose of considering Zone - No. 83-1 a request to rezone 9+ acres of property located at the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street from R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) District to R4-30 (High Density Residential District - Maxim= 30 units per acre) . A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services office. � I Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 00 P .M. , on —.rebruagyy 5 y 198 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Centex, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invz. ted to attend said hearing and expross their opinions for or against the proposed Zone C Ng, $3--1 „�• Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No . (714) 536--5271 DATED this 3rd day of Fbr.u� Y� 1� • C IPTY PLANNING COMMISSION By .,. Janes W. Paling Secretary •.. K:,n;,M & aOtrS v` ALAN F . WE BB VILLA WARNER ASSN . k661- SEA ISLAND DR . 6412 SHIELDS DR. %CLARK THOMAS P . JR. I-AGUNA• NIGUEL„ CA 92677 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 0264 610 NEWPORT CENTER DR. 146:-171-11 146-413-16 SUITE 1800 (165--041-o2) NEWPORT BCH, CA MAURICE CORESCHI c/ MARY MILLER HARLAN K. BIXBY b312 SHIELDS DR. 6422 SHIELDS DR . 624 W. DUARTE RD. 4207 1UNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 ARCADIA, CA !46-413-07 146--1113-17 165-121-01 ROBERT W. RIVERA L FRED E . BARBER DONALD R. AKED 4 22 SHIELDS DR. 6432 SHIELDS DR . 6361 ST. PAUL CIR . iUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9Q�o _46- `1'3-08 146-413-18 165-121-12 ILLIAM H . FACE REINDERT K. KALLENBACH HUGH T . MARGRAVE 6332 SHIELDS DR. 6452 SHIELDS DR . 6381 ST. PAUL CIR . ,UNTINGTON BCH, CA 92r.. 47 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 1-46-413-09 146-413-?9 165-121-03 :ARL C . LEA ►- JAMES T. CARPENTER DONALD P . HACKETT b342 SHIELDS DR. 6462 SHIELDS DR . 6391 ST . PAUL CIR . -!UNTINGTON BCH.. CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 910 L46-413-10 146-412-20 165-121-04 i ,ARLEEN B . BARNES DAVID P . FREDERICK THULA J . EARL 6:52 SHIELDS DR. 6472 SHIELDS DR . 6401 SAINT PAUL. CIR . ,UNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92" _46-413-11 146--413-21 165-1.21-05 4ILLIAM C . RICHIE MICHAEL J . -40RNTON JOAN MC "OWN 6362 SHIELDS DR . 6502 MARILYN DR . 6411 ST . PAUL CIR. -•uNTtNGTON BCH, Ca 92647 HUNTINGTON BCHr CA 92647 MUNTI NGTON BCH, CA 9264 . 4%. .0 12 146-572-16 165AI.21-C6 -i-?Avy ►;C NNE TH 8 �.- UCKLEY ,.. B.tUCE A . MC DtARMIO ' STANLEY J . LOC>tARO 6372, SHIELDS DR . 6522 MARILYN DR. 6431 ST. PALL CIR. .iufwTI NG T ON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA R26* 146-413-13 146-572-17 165-121-07 rile q? .:CY T . T.;RNWALL CAMER014 MERAJ THOMAS L. GALVIN ;38_ SHIELDS DR. 65.32 MARILYN DR. 8566 SIERRA CIR , 1D912 ,,UNTINGTON dCH, CA 02647 HUNTINGTON BCH, 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA gtfr4 46-413--1.4 146-572-18 165-121-08 7 "mCMAS 7. GENNIVEY LYNEL PROPERTIES LINCOLN R . GRAYDON 6394 SHIELDS DR . 19 CORPORATE PLAZA 6451 ST. PAUL CIR. IUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 NEWPORT SCH, CA 9266o HUNTINGTON BCH.. CA 92-64 i:,LAS A. CROUCH MACCO CORP. 6471 ST. PAUL CIR. 555 S . FLOWER ST. 31SOO HUNTINGTON RCM$ CA 92647 FLOOR. 165-121•-10 LOS ANGELES' CA 9007 165-111-01 it I I i � 1 1 1 • f 1 i 1 Masher properties No-9 4 BIXBY ST GEORGE 4'120 Lincoln 624 W. DUARTE RD. tl207 ARCADIA, CA S..=d Floor 165-121-01 100 6 Marina► Dal Key, C,�JU 90291 `I DONALD R . AK I 0 Ebert Dall 6 361 ST PAU L CIR. Master ; ties No.9 ht St• et. �e 485 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 1225 FigSlli Sacramento. Calif 95814 165-121-02 i JOAN MC KEOWN 17101 SPRINGDALE 0132 JOAN MC KEOWN Ht1NTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 6411 ST . PAUL CIR . 165-121-06 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647Y 165-121-06 JOSE L. NUNEZ v 21011 GALBAR CIR. HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 146-572--18 i r. • CITY TY OF H UNTItVG"rON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �3 March 26, 1983 Norbert H. Dall & Associates 1225 Sth Street, Suite 485 Sacramento, CA. 95814 RE: Continuance of Council Hearing on Appeal of Planning Commission's Pp 9 approval of CUP 82-31 (Huntington West) and Zone Change 83-1 . I Resolution c►o. 5159 of the City Council requires a continuance fee of $30 to cover the costs of reproduction and labor for the extension. Attached please find a statement for the fee required for your request for continuance of the above. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure STATEMENT IN ACCOUNT WITI Ity of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Calif. ...._.....�....,._,__March 28, 1983 , 19 Norbert H. Dall & Assoc. 1225 8th Street, Suite 485 Sacramento, CA, 95814 Continuance fee for hearing of CUP 82-31 & Zone Change 83-1 $ 30,00 I Please make check payable to the City of Huntington Beach. Remit to: Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000I,'ain Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 CITY OF Hl,. NTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 5, 1983 I1orbert Dal l , Agent Master Properties #9, Ltd. 1225 8th Street #485 Sacram3nto, CA. 95814 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, April 4, 1983, approved your request for a continuance of hearings on Zone Case 83-1 and the appeal filed relative to Conditional Use Permit 82-31 and Tentative Tract #11879 - Huntington West Condominiv.-a Conversion Project. The City Council continued said hearing to the regular meting of April 18, 1983. Please contact the Department of Development services if you have any questions - 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt ITSw: 71443 "xrnl �.�L"\ � /('1 � l[ �v►'(ram MAJOR ISSUE'S FOR DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON WEST CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION 1 . Even with the proposed modifications , this project will not meet our existing apartment standards , much less the more restrictive planned residential development standards. 2 . Approval of this project could set an undesirable precedent for conversions prior to the adoption of a regular conversion ordin- ance. Said approval could establish "de. facto" standards prematurely and could force the City into approvai of additional. conversions with similar standards, density; and intensity prior to formal adoption of an ordinance to regulate such conversions . 3 . Approval of the proposed conversion would extend the life of the complex by at least 25 to 30 years, and the project would recycle mach sooner if Left "as is" because recycling would be a much more viable alternative if the units were held under a single ownership as opposed to 245 separate owners under the proposed conversion. 4 . Conversion of the 286--unit apartment complex to a 245-unit condo- minium project permanently eliminates 41 housing units from the City ' s housing stock and also eliminates approximately 1 percent of the City ' s total rental stock . 5 . The existing apartment complex is 1.2 years old and has thus experi- enced a significant portion of its economic life expectancy . Approval of the conversion would perpetuate the existence of a use that does not conform with existing planned residential. development zoning standards for site coverage, setbacks, building .-!eparations , building bulk, open space, and minimum floor area . The project also has design features which would normally be dis- couraged in a planned development, such as access to a number of units from the public sidewalk , lack of a direct access from garages to individual units , inconvenient laundry facilities and locations, and the potential for excessive noise in the interiors and at the exterior of units on balconies and decks along the arterial streets , due to the minimal setback from said streets (Warner Avenue and Edwards Street) . AJ �! CITY OF HUNTING'ION BEACH 'r INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMU TION 11trNIM.704 If&cis 0 To Councilman MacAllister James W. Palin, Director Development Services Subject CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Date April 18 , 1983 HUNTINGTON WEST CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROPOSAL PuY�uant to your request , attached is a list of conditions the staff would suggest be applied to the Huntington West condominium conversion project if it is approved by the City Council . Also incl,ided are the addi- tional conditions which we have discussed . Please disregard the italicized printing in some of the conditions . i JWP :JRB: df Attachments i CONDITIONS OF APPMV&CONDI,rlONnl► USE PER1.1IT A. 82-3 L : qW 1 . Approval of Conditional Ilse Per-mit No. 82- 31 shall be contingent: 11pon approval cf Zone Change No . 83- 1 I)y the Huntington apach City, Council . If the City Council does not approve Zone Change No. 8 3•-1 , the Plan- ning Cor,Unission ' s conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 82-31 shall become null and void . t 2 . The site plan , floor plans and elevations received and dated February 4 , 1983 , shall be the approved layout . The approved de l -;pment shall include the Fell :ing specific eler^ents a,reec to the owner : a . 245 condominium units , b. 449 square feet of common open space per unit, c . Construction of 117 new balconies , d . Construction of two new parking ,t.ructures, e. Improvement of the parking structi.ire delineated as P-1 with a landscaped deck for passive recreational. use , f. Improvement of the parking structure delineated as P-2 with active recreational areas including a sod-covered playing area for children , Construction of a new swimm.i.nd pool , wading pcbl and spa and , h. Landscaping of areas affected t_►y demolition , alteration and/ or reconstruction. 3 . The owner shall 'be responsible for developing covenants , conditions and restrictions for the project pursuant to State regulations . The covenants , conditions and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers and recreationzal %•c- hicles onsite unless an area which is specifically designated for � such storage and which is in compliance with provisions of Article 936 of the Ordinance Code is provided for in the project. 4 . All appro\red drives , .as dermed necessary by the Fire Department , shall, he considered required fire lines and shall be signed as such subject to the approval of. the Huntinclton Peach Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits . 5 . Buildings within the project shall be provided with systems rel�at_r_d to fire protection and 1 i fe sealoty --is dce►rcd necessary by the 111untAnt1ty reach Fire Department and all applicable codes . The fol to-, inq 'pr%c i f fire prevention measure, shall be i.ncorpor.aLed into the (1('veloptnont: : a . Smoke detectors/fire alarms, in cach unit and a fire alarm synt:em in all buildings , 1). Sheet metal lini.nq of laundry, water heater and trash rooms . c. Erne-hour' fire walls between units , d. Stand pipe systems in Building 15 , e . A fire-proo foot airway serving the centee)f Building 15 , and • , f. A sprinkler systom in Parkincj Structure P-•1 , the existin; parking • area beneath 13uildinq 15 , and Parking Structure P-2 , if deomed necessary by the Fire Department . fi . A detailed landscape plan which c0l"Plic.-S with Article 936 of the ordi- nance code shall be submitted to 0112 City and apprd�ed by the Depart- ment. of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits . The landscape plan shall provide for the planting of additional treys alonq the t•1arner Avenue and Edwards Street frontages . All rxistinq mature vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the r7reatest extent feasible. The main drivo entrance off Edwards Street shall he mollified to include land scapinq in .areas :+ccept:able to the Departments of Development Services and Public t•.ork,-; . Such modifications shall be shown on the approved de- tailed _ ,nri.n. -opr and spi-inklr.r plan . 7n addition, Parking Structure P--1 shall be unsigned to protect to the mae-j.mum extent feasible , ttic existing mature vegetation on tho: :,nutherly side of Buildinc, 1S . 7 . The owner shall be rosponsi.blt, for resurCac.inrl the existing " texL- cn it" siding on the 16 peri_mr. h,y t�tri?c3inc5 rind impro, inc; ha.l.c��nie:, fd:r units frontimi Warner. 1%--,onne .and Fde.,� rds Street such that. they are screened when viewed from the street . The type of material used for resurE<ac ing the hui l d i n,qs and its- proposed design, incl ud inc; the method or scr. eeniny ba1r_oni ,�s from the public streets , shall be approved by the Planning prior to issuance of building and dewolition permits . E . All converted units shall me(,L the noise insulation standard4s contiiinecl in Title 25 of •_he Californai Arlrninist.rative Code. Evidence of. com- pliance shall consist of the st,t.)rnit:t:al of an ar-oustical analysis re- port prepared under the supervision of a Berson experienced in the field of acoustical engineerin 'l with the aph.licat_ior. for hui. ldin(i p er- mi.ts . The acoustical. an�aly:;is report shall demonstrate complianc.� i with the minimum acceptable standards for :heairborne sound isolat 'irn i of wall and floor ceiling assemblies ar,3 the interior rommunity anise equivalent level, for each unit . All meri cures necessary to mitigaLv noise to acceptable levels shall be .incorporate -!d into the design of the project . 9 . The owner shall atthmi t :i i mare•:nme n t p 1 n n in complianrr! with .--,ppl is e'e.l c mIIn iciPa l Ord in,1nr. w h : --tl wi 11 be suhject to they ;ahr,r-.,via 1 of. the Departrnont of hr_vr-lopmrnt sorvicrs prior to the issuancn of Imildi.nq permits . Ti:e plan st:,t : -,. pre-)vi.dc for strengthened dc_,or. s .and floor frame n , burcilar alarms, sc-curity locks , wrought iron gates rnr units fronting warner Aventan arid rdward, Street . 1.0 . �'he owner shl-ill submit a plait forr�ti:trr'ir.lr 1 iclhting thraughout Lhc, project which will be subject to rate .approval of the Department o; Development: Services prior to the issuance of building permits . 11. . Plumbing and olrr..tric<alstub-outs nc-cessary for the installation of washers and dryer:-, shall ,e installed in all units adjacent to i•;,arner. Avenue- and Edwards Street . . 12 . Outside storage%ace shall be provided foeach unit: pursuant to Section 9063 . 6 of the ltuntington Beach Ordinance Code. 13 . The owner shall offer to the buyers of condominium nits within the t. development, a one-year warranty gtiaranteci.ng the ropair of all Zip- �� pliances within individual condominium units. The owner shall replace '�• all appliances three years in ease or older within individual condo-- t rninium units at the time of initial sale . 14 . The existinq hot. water heating system within t•he dc!velopntcnt shall hr, rr_ troFit• tecl t:o irrcl.udP- solar crssi-st: , in ti manner acceptable to the Dnpti rt:ment of Deve lopinen t Sr. rvices . 15 . Prior to the sale of the first dwelling unit within the project, t;rc� owner shall provide to the Department of Development Services an.i to each purchaser, a copy of the State of California Department of heal Estate Form 639 , indicating the project ' s .conditior. . If for any rea- son such form is not required by the Department of heal Estate, such { form shall , nevertheless , be provided to the Department of Development Services and to each purchaser . 16. Tenants who occupy units within ti:r existiny apartment complex on the elate of approval of these applications and for six months thereafter. , o for those tenants who occupy the units at the time the 90--day mandatory notifications (Exclusive Right: of Purchase) are given , which- ever comes first, and who will be relocating , shall be offered the following assistance from the applicant : • a . The tenant shall be paid a sum by the applicant equal to his/her last- month ' s rent. b. The tenant shall be reimbursed by the applicant for moving expense a sum not to exceed 5500 . c. Tic tenant shall no providod with a current update list iden- tifying all of the rental units in the general area . i 17 . Tenants who oc.cup; units within the existing apartment cornplc%x rli,� 11 lac provided notification that the owner has received approval f rorn the City to convert the existiinq complex to condominiums . Thv property owner shall also provide to the tenant , a list of the condi- t talk of approval . Interim tenants will_ not quAl i fy for the t.cn.-rnt: as,i sLance program. The appl. ic,ant shall pc•ov ide �� siynecl r_-�r,y, by thetenant , of these items - shrill make this signed cony avail<ab.le i.n the City of FluntingL•on Beach. i 18 . Seventy- five ( 75 percent of the 245 condom*iums , or 184 �anit.s , shall be made available for purchase by persons or families of low or moderate income , as follows : a . For purposes of this condiL• i.on, the term "per!"cin or families of low income " shall be defined as one which earns 80 percent: or less of the median income as established by the United States � Department of }lousing and Community Development for the standard metropolitan statistical area within which the proposed develop- ment is located , as adjusted, for the number cof members of the household . The term "persons or families of moderate: i.ncomel" is � defined as one which earns 80 . 1 percent to 120 percent of the median income , as established herein, or as may be amended by � HUD . 18-b. The determination that a tenant , as defined , constitutes a person j or family of log: or mode ra to income shall be made by the vtvti a•t r A Iris dciignce subje_ct to -tile nlipicitlat oj Ote City aS !1untijr,ltc-II b3i' itch and/n•t. the 0,tciii9c Coaitty Ho(i.-Ninq Au4j?n1i.ty. Eit:�-eF-Han+`€e� t+rc�n-HeaPl r+r-tt:�-cie9irynNc.�---�'he-et+ner�-rHtlr(irit•ce!�-te-rap-all-eest9_€ex--�er�ire:� � nece5yerw-trd-�3etrrm€nt+-3'nCHk1H--e1it1i-htlitY-er-re9z=tgage-ryaal�€p#rt�i-tpr ' pre5heettwe-phreha9er.. y .---�n-ne-event-yha€€-the-exaer-a€-�)tir4�3»7t±en We9t-be-regrstrer�-te-mn)te-enid-de tet'r.+inatiar��--C!:eept-that-4:t�C-NNe�er j map-�+ftrntain-and-ttrertteetli�+_t"rHnytrixt-te-the-Eitp-ef-Htintingter�-HeaeH � er-�t:e-rleat�9nre--a--listing--ef-tersr�nt9-Hbe-hH��M-p`!pre9sed-apt--}Htere9t #n-pNrehaeing--their-nett--et'-a--eemperah�e-c+nit: 18-c . The 1. 811 condominiums alfecteci by this condition shall be set aside pniced for qualified individualr, in equal proportion to correspond to the spectrum of the low/moderate income ranee , f. rrnn 80 percent to 120 percent of media;;: income , as defined . 11venry (20 ) percent of the .184 condominiums, or 17 unfits, shall be orrered for purchase on the basis of 80 percent of medihn income ; 20 percent or 37 units, shall be offered on the basis of -JO percent of median income ; 20 percent , or 36 units (because of rounding) , shall be offered on the basis of 100 percent: of median income; 20 percent or 37 units, ,hall be offered on the basis of 110 ercent of 120of median income . The. 6o,%=tfn hoe pt.c. j!cl � ltnF.t be tatcufatcd at t►r (14caten VIM, 33 PcItccmt 06 .tile ghoa a)!►!uat. -income " ndjtated 6or. holadlold •si.,c Sot each 04 tile. c2te3o•wc:ee (Ind •511af f .61c•rttde mnr,.tgagr., .i►t teites t, bone cttlize t •s astinctnttoti (yr_ c�s , tnxc!� aild ll()Ine. vtttnc•ts j►tsUnnnre. Ana+Atfied-in- [ttbil�HA�7-RC'P-Atli'e}tn`1rr!1-M:'F1'1-t7tEl�-ht'►tl;�tritJ-E1�lpRlCn�gr-}ne•}H��;nl'= ►''ef??'t<tjtt�CT-}ntr_ rent�-hHmr�Hr•nN rye-nsgryetntihci-'�f't_'!17'-tFl`tt:!1 -H�tt�-'!f!`_�H" :°ttnee T-Wh+eh_d(j-net-e�ttaeefl-33-terr�ecrtit-ti£-ttietr--rtregs-mt�Mf!h+r d . The 184 condominiums i -lonl_ i f ird herein sh.ti11 rirst be offcrf� d for sale to tenants who reside at Bunt i ngton West , are not in clefaul t can their rent or l rase payments , and have not coven notice of an intention to move from the prei-iises on the date oil which tl%V City of HuntingLnti Beach grants discretionary -ripproval to Conditional Use Permit. No . 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 111379 . • e . The .owner shell prepare and maintain a list of tenants who qualify pursuant to SecC-ion (d ) . The list shall be filed with the Director of the Department of Development Services within 30 cl, Srs j of the date of discretionary approval of Conditional Use Permit No.' 82-31 and Tentative rract No . 11879 . The list may identify tenants who have expressed an interest to purchase their unit or a comparable unit. f. No later than 10 working clays after the Department of Roal Estate grants final approval of the condominium conversion , the owner shall , consistent with Government Code Section 66427 . 1 (d ) j provide notice to all tenants of, their respective right to pur- chase their or a comparable unit. Tenants who qualify pursuant i to Subsection (a ) shall in addition be notified of their oppor- tunity to purchase their unit, or a comparable unit, as avail- able . The term of the offer to purchase, as provided herein , shall be 90 days after notice is given , as provided by Covern- ment Code Section 66427 . 2 . g . Tenants who express an interest in purchasing their or a com- parable unit prior to the date on which the City grants discretionary approval to Conditional Use Permit No . 82- 31 and Tentative Tract No. 11.879 shall be provided the first opportunity to purchase said unit , pursuant to Subsection (c) . If all of the available units in one of the categories identified in Subsection (e) are committed for sale to tenants , then any tenant who subsequently expresses an •iterest in purchasing their or a comparable unit shall be provided the first opportunity to purchase a unit in the next higher applicable category . 18-h. Pellaxine�-•the•-eeae-e -the-tjec`teri-erecified-#n-5NbaeetieR- { � T �8'h--e�-th��-get-eagle-nntE9-tnt�e}c-avatlt3ble-Hi�hih-desie�natrd-}nefa�P eatec�9srtes-ee�eblt�hed-by-St�bseetie>y-�e�T-rrhie�i-}�aae-Ae�-i�eeR-ec�l:d te•-elt�alxf•red-ten4ntsT-Hsll-He-a€tcred-€er-pareltia9e-el�-the•-Aatne tcrPl,e-te•-the-pdblte-et-•�4s•7e .�--�He-rep+aini�eE3-SA4�-a€-t}�e-s«��-aytde Hr�tte-x�tieh-Itede--het-beeh-gNld4te-�daltf ted-�eH9Rh9-r�ri}l-he-of€et�ee der-purr:heae-ta-the-City-et-Hart#hgten-BeAeh-er-tt9-dee•zgt�ee--fey-a retied-o�-9g-r.3r_;a:--�f-thr-�t�tY-c3ee9-net-eseretse-th39-epkien-��te dn'ta-shell-)ye-d�!'er,eel-t-��--cltialifiec4-k�a�►ers- rem-the--pdbl}e-a� largerwfer-a-lPA-dap-}�ertec�;--Nnrt9-net-geld--ddr�rhg-thee-rr_rieel at�e�}-he-Aveilab�e-te-t•ht'-rjHnee--�Ar-eale-r+�tHNH�-!°t'9�I:��e��HR-ay-l:w pr. iee;--Availobtlity-ef-theme-units-5ha l-He-made-h mown-•#2e-1!he•-Fit_- elw-Hdrtttt9hteR-F3reeh-ar�r3-the-f�raHge-�et�}�!�}'-He�e9iRg-r�tt k}ter3r~x;. 26 . 51 " oh the 184 spa1/m0dCA1lte. income tinite , va 49 ttlt^i16 sitar£ be made avaiUb£r to quatUAi r•d i. 1dZviduaO w.i.thi ii dea.igltatr_r! come categoki.es c4tabUshrd by Sttbsvc.ti.oPt ( c ) don a pe•t •i.od O j � tve ( 5 ) YeaAb . 16 .these unit} 11nvc Plot been SON to quatiSicd :' n(U- viduaC•s tuith•in 6.itoc ( 5 ) Yedls glow the date .tha.t the condrii1( iiinin colt"""'i" "Ceiv" 6dltat al'i"'Ovnt 6h0m VIC UC)MI tmelt,t. 0 ' Rr � Us — ta•te , .then ,thr 10 it•5 altatt be made Rvaitabte to .tile 01vPte7 p, , tat,.. withoi�.t ncb•;hict.io►t .to phicp. . Th•ib numbe.t may Ge keduceff ult•t't 60•t un.i't by the number o6 units .cord to quati6ied tennn.t.s as de6i.il(•(I . Unite cvithi.n .the price ca.tego-l. ca eitabtiahed bit Sub4ect.ioll ( c ) , which have not been 6otd -to g1tati6ied .tenc.nta and are +jot -tcsenved Aon 4•ivc ( 5 ) yeau under. .the teh.mb a ta.t"ed above, w.itt be o h 6 med fun punchase as Vie Game nc.•she.c. .ve p/Lice ,to .the City 66 lhijitiiigtoll Beach on .i•tb designee bon a pen•iod o6 120 dayb . 16 .the City on its r dee.i.gnee doc.a not punchaae aa-i.d t►n.i..tb dun.ing 6aid pe4.iod, then the (ol i.tb shaft be ava.itaG£e. .to the oumt.n bon bate 4vi.thou.t .tcS t..t ictio►i to pn ice. . rl\9. All recreational facilities included in the owner ' s proposal for, site improvements (e . g . , passive and active recreational amenities on 'parking structures , two new swimming pools and new passive recreational areas ) shall bV installed prior to conveyance of the first unit . 20. The applicant shall submit a phasing schedule to the Department of Developnent .Services prior to the issuance of building permits . The phasing schedule shall establish specific time frames for the develop- ment phases described on Page 11 of the applicant ' s letter dated NovemlYer 16, 1982 . The applicant shall provide for lighting , fencing and 24-hour security of all demolition, construction and storage sites. ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED CONDITIONS PER OUR DISCUSSION: provided its own common laundry 1 . Each building shall be pro d with e w .Y facilities . 2. The final map for the development shall not be recorded until all conditions of approval have been complied with. 3 . No unit shall be conveyed for sale until all physical site improve- ments have been completed as required in these conditions . 11113 April 189 1983 City Councilmembers ; The Orange County Fair Housing Council welcomes this 'opportunity to address the Council on the proposed conversion of Huntington West apartments „ The Fair Housing Council is a non-profit corporation with the functions 'of upholding Fair Housing laws and encouraging the elimination of unlawful discrimination in housing, counseling on landlord and tenant housing matters and advocacy of the maintenance and new construction of 'sousing for low income Households. We have reviewed the proposal, submitted by Norbert Dahl and Associates on behalf of the owner, Traweek Investment Company in-depth and made written comments available to the Planning Commission. We continue to have serious questions in regards to the proposed conversion. 1 2 Question 1 LVHAT IS THE DIRECT IMPACT ON THE CITY ' S RENTAL HOUSING STOCK? The proposal does not seem to directly address this question, even though the staff report mentions that this development is a significant portion of the total rental housing. . "The existing 286 unit Huntington West apartment complex presently comprises approximately 11 of the total rental units in Huntington Beach . " In a time when the vacancy rate for housing in Orange County is at disastrous levels (1. 9% , May 1982 , Federal Home Loan Bank Board Survey) , this further reduces the supply and will more greatly induce demand for rentals . What apartments in the surrounding city area are at this time vacant and available to these families? And at what price? This needs further study. Question 2 DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE THE BEST IN'rERESTS OF THE COMM[lNITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN MIND? According to the 1980 Census , the City of Huntington Beach has 9, 652 households who are making less than $IS , 000 a year alid paying more than 25% of their incomes for housing. The County as a whole has over 130 ,000 households in this category , who are defined as needing housing assistance due to the large proportion of their income going towards housing. This conversion will not be meeting the greatest needs . How many in this development will actually be able to puxchase their unit? None of the renters that we' ve talked to •.4re - T I . 3 able to purchase. This also needs further study and clarification. Question 3 HOW LONG HAVE TENANTS LIVED AT HUNTINGTON WEST AND ARE MANY OF THE TENANTS TRANSIENT BUSINESS-RELATED RENTERS? There were no statistics offered in the proposal in regards to the tenant make-up in the development presently. In our discussions with at least 40 of the tenants , most had lived there at least Z years and many S years . - Although management indicated to us that 7S% of the tenants were "business-related" , it this could not be substantiated by our discussions . Clarification would be helpful . in more accurately assessing the impact of conversion. Question 4 WHAT DO THE RESLDENTS OF HUNTINGTON WEST THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBLE CONVERSION? Unfortunately no notice is required for this hearing and none was required for the continuance before the Planning Commission. In addition , most notices are from the owner or the City and appear to most tenants as a decision out of their hands. ,•:-.: Aen renters receive the notice of intent to convert , they assume that the conversion has been approved. 4 We attempted to set up a meeting with the tenants at the request of one of the renters , and as the notices--.of the meeting were being distributbd , y management of the complex requested we stop informing the tenants of the meeting. All of the renters we did talk to were unaware of this hearing and what the developer had proposed. Some tenants even informed us that they had been told the conversion would not be for at least 2 years. Question 5 WHAT TENANTS WILL RECEIVE RELOCATION BENEFITS, AND WHEN? According to our understanding, no tenant will receive any relocation assistance if the conversion is approved as proposed , unless they stay in the apartment until they receive a 30-day notice to vacate (already required by State law) . May we suggest that any tenant living in the complex at the time of an apt royal of the tena- r r w 1 tive tract map , be eligible for relocation assistance at the time of their move. Renters will need to find i replacement housing, if this complex is converted, and the hardship induced by this dislocation will need to be compensated when it is necessary or possible to mtiveI Many ^ they cities have adopted this condition. There are other questions that could be raised however these questions seem to be the major focus of our concern. In order to meet the City' s housing element goals Of preserving the existing affordable housing stock , and in light of the serious questions raised , we strongly urge that the Council not approve the condominium conversion of continue this item until further clarification can be sought on these issues . We have included a list of items that we think might be necessary to make the relocation package a fair one to the existing renters. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, May.-V K. Dunne Low Income Housing Analyst Gene I va rio Executive Director i t Items for review for relocation benefits and conversion policy Conversion not occur until a 5% vacancy rate exists in the city. Relocation moneys be make available as soon as the tenative tract map is approved by the city not only when given a 30 day notice of conversion. First and last months rent , security deposit and at Teast $500 for moving costs for the new rental. Rental references of vacant three bedioom apartments in area at present , If converted in phases, rents should be maintained at current level after conversion of first phase ' begins . ORAN(;C CUUV'fY 1:AI (2 OSISG COUNCILWX 1 N101111:1t OF wivni. (i. ("r`i uis f (� c:rl�ltr)�t'( � !tltt t:ct��'i:ltti tct� ( 19 7.; - !i 1 1 CONVERTED ('tiRCCVY,1t;E CITY UN ITS Or- TOTAL APPROVED :1N,�ilti f�I 750 f 0. 1 1 U Bltt.:A 11 11 RUENA PARK 0 0 COSTA MESA 0 0 CYPRESS 0 0 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 0 0 FULLERTON 669 (9 . 0 ) 42 GARDEN GROVE 0 36 _ HUNT I NGTON BEACH 443 (6 . 0 ) 0 i IRVINE 0 0 LAGUNA BEACH 5 ( . 001 ) 0 LA KABRA 723 (9. 3 ) 75 LA PALMA 0 0 LOS ALAIMITOS 13 ( . 2 ) 3 - NEWPORT BEACH 389 (5 . 3) 411 0RANGE 1 , 624 (21. 9) 0 PLACENT IA 1) 230 SAN C LEMENTE 30 (4 . 11 ) 1) SAN JUAN CAP I STRANO 0 0 SANTA ANA 2 , two 27 . 0 ) 500 SEAL BEACH 11 k t. 0 ) 0 s'r:11i'rUv 1 0 'ruST IN 700 VILLA PARK tt 0 rarm. 104oG .t, 451 .__ :ram February 15 , 1983 Planning Commissioners : The Orange County Fair Housing Council welcomes the opportunity to address the Planning Commission of Huntington Beach on the proposed condominium conversion of Huntington West. The Fair Housing Council is a non-profit corporation with the functions of upholding Fair Housing laws and encouraging the elimination of unlawful discrimination in housing, counseling on landlord and tenant housing matters and advocacy of the maintenance and new construction of housing for tow income households. In our preliminary review of the proposed conversion we would like to submit to you our comments . In your deliberation on this matter, we would like to remind the Planning Commission of the County' s severe shortage of rental units, particularly three bedroom units, (The current vacancy rate is less than 1 . 81 in the County) The Council in a recent study found that over 8 , 000 x f 4 units have been lost to conversion in the last 7 wears in the County as a whole. In our opinion , the loss of large amounts of rental units shou:d be strongly justified or methods of replacement of these unitsi pursued simultaneously . If approval of this project is pursued , the Fair Housing Council requests that conditions be attached to .assure f-Iir and adequate tenant assistance. We would like to address the letters submitted by Norbert H Dall and Associate: on behalf of the owner , Traweek Investment Company. First , one particular concern throughout the proposal is the question of who is eligible for relocation benefits or purchase. The developer has stated very clearly that househclds living in the unit at the time of approval by the City will be the beneficiaries. This raises a serious question concerning those tenants who livyed in the units at the time the owner first notified of the conversion (July, November) or those who rented through part of the conversion process beginning at the filing of the tenative tract map and will possibly move before 30 days before the actual conversion. Particularly in a "phased" project where construction has begun on a portion of the development, large turnover cart occur. We would recommend that these tenants also be eligible for relocation bunefits and that -record be kept of all tenants el.gib.le . This also discourages any pussible reasons 3 for tenants being evicted earlier than this time period . In additior. , the developer should in our opinion more clearly state that the tenants moving in after the date considered above will be informed of the impending conversion, and if not will be eligible for benefits,. Frequently owners have new tenants sign a simple form tindicating this knowledge of conversion. (ie . City of Tustin , Californiun Apt. ) In refe-ence to letter "REe Tenant Relocation and Moving ExpensPr m" e. Program" i Item lA Assistance in the form of a "current" list of I ' vacancies in the area will probably not net many compara- ble vacancies. In your deliberations , we ask that you consider the difficulty in tenants finding apartments in this limited supply situation . The owner might be requested to further pledge a staff person to assist the tenants in finding apartments. (IE. Voltaire Apt . , Santa Ana) Item IB In regerds to the developers relocation assistance offer on one months rent we suggest a more equitable offer would be at least the eciuivalent of a first and last months rent as a condition of approval . Most rentals request the first , last months rent as well as a security deposit. In refereaCe to "Loa Income Housing Program" , the homeownership opportunities offered by the developer must be more clearly defined. The developer has state;'. i 4 7S% of the units will be available to those earning less than $38,000 a year (120I of the County median income) in five categories . Th"ere is no indication though, of the actual price of the units after conversion or what percentage of these households incomes would be required to make the monthly payments. These units would not be very "affordable" if they required more than 35% of a household income . rn addition , what percentage of the existing tenants does tha- developer estimate +,-ill be able to purchase these units? W& apologize for being unable to attend your meeting. and the lack of time to moTe thoroughly address these issues with the Commission . Thank you very much for your consideration on these matters. Sincerely , Eugene R. Scorio Executive Director BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) CALIFORNIA, IN THE MATTERS OF ) ZONE CASE 83-1 AND THE APPEAL ) I/ilf3 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-31 ) ,��-a-sc•,ti.s.�.� f',jL�t AND TENTATIVE MAP NUMBER 11879 . I r APPLICANT' S STATEMENT IN . RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVERSION, ENHANCEMENT, AND REZONING OF THE HUNTINGTON WEST APARTMENTS . April 15 , 1983 NORBERT H. DAL & ASSOCIATES 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SUITE 485 / SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 / 916/ 443.2333 April 15 , 1983 The Hon. Robert Mandic , Mayor and Members of the Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 4th Floor . Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: APPEAL BY COUNCILMAN PATTINSON OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-31 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11879 , AND REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNER FOR ZONE CHANGE 83-1 . Dear Mr . Mayor and Members of the Council : I represent Master Properties No. 9, Ltd . , a unit of Traweek Investment Company, 4720 Lincoln Boulevard, Marina Del Rey, California 90291 ( "the :applicant" ) . My client owns the 286-unit Huntington West Apartments , which are located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street. In November, 1982 , after a seven month project preparation period during which applicant' s representatives extensively consulted with city officials, staff , and tenants, my client applied to the Department of Development Services to convert and significantly enhance the Huntington West complex to condominiums. Central to the application has been my client ' s proposal to ( 1 ) dramatically improve the physical structures and living environment at the complex, including through demolition of existing units ; ( 2 ) substantially increase the compliance of the complex with City ordinance requirements; and (3 ) provide 75% of condominium units as housing for persons and families of low-moderate income. ( See Attachment "A" . ) Subsequent to the filing of the application , representatives of the applicant continued to meet frequently with City staff to respond to their inquiries and to fine-tune the project. For example, on January 25, 19831 I sent to Mr. Savoy Bellavia of the Department of Development Services two detailed and carefully considered proposals concerning implementation of the '75% low-moderate income housing program and tenant N The Hon . Robert Mandic, Mayor , and Members of the Council April 15 , 1983 Page 2 relocation/moving expense assistance program. (See Attach- ment "B" . ) During this same period, the Director of the Department of Development Services advised the applicant that the conversion-enhancement project could not be approved unless it complied with the applicable zoning. Essentially a dilemma had developed: although the applicant was prepared to reduce the density of the complex from 35 units/acre to 29 . 98 units/acre, that "new" density still exceeded the 25 units/acre maximum density allowable in the R--3 zone . The Director and I discussed the possibility of applying the California Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et sea.) ,, but determined upon advice of Counsel that under tie existing law such a course of action, notwithstanding the unprecedented 75% low-moderate income housing offer, was not permitted. As I stated in my letter of February 12 , 1983, to Planning Commission Chairman Marcus Porter, the Director advised instead, and I agreed on behalf of the applicant, that my client immediately file a rezoning request from R•-3 to R-4 , given that the General Plan land use designation of . the Huintington West property is for high density residential use . In the course of our discussion, the Director further suggested, and I agreed on behalf of the applicant, that the rezoning petition clearly specify that a R4-30 zone was being sought, so as to reflect the proposed reduction in density from 35 to 29 . 18 units/acre . ( See Attachment "C" , Page 2 . ) The details of the petition for rezoning are discussed later in this letter. On March 15, 19831 after extensive discussion and hearing -- during which, however, only three tenants came forward to address the Commission -- , -ne Planning Commission of the City of. Huntington Beach voted 7-0 to approve, with conditions , the applications for Conditional use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. ( See Attachment "D" for the Findings of Fact and Law, and the Conditions of Approval . ) Previously, on February 151 1983, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0 , with two Commissioners absent, had approved the Petition for Zone Change (Number 83-1 ) and sent it to Council for action . The Hon . Robert Mandic, Mayor and Members of the Council April 151 1983 Page 3 In the next several pages, I will specifically address three , matters : (1) the Appeal by Councilman Pattinson of the Planning Commission decision; ( z ) the dramatic improvements that will accrue to the Huntington West complex and the City at large as a result of the approval-with--conditions of the proposed condominium conversion-enhancement project; and (3 ) the desirability of the zone change to effectuate the reduction in density over the existing apartment complex. THE APPEAL BY COUNCILMAN PATTINSON IS FACTUALLY IN ERROR AND SHOULD BE REJECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. i The Honorable Councilman Ron Pattinson, in a memorandum dated March 21, 1983 (See Attachment "E" ) , appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve, with a total of 24 conditions, the conversion-enhancement of the Huntington West complex. Mr. Pattinson ' s statement of appeal in its entirety reads as follows : I wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on their Agenda Item C-1 of the Planning Commission' s meeting of March 15, 1983 -- in reference to condo conversions of the apartments, located at the northwest corner of Warner and Edwards . I feel that due to the substandard construction of this building, it is not in the best interest of the citizens and future citizens of this community to have a building structure such as this converted to condominiums. The Honorable Councilman has levied a very serious charge against the proposed project. Immediately upon receiving a copy of the statement of appeal , I asked Mr . Perry Pearson AIA, of the highly esteemed architectural firm Pearson & Wuesthoff AIA AICP, California License No. C-1861, who has served as i i L The Hon. Robert Mandic , Mayor and Members of. the Council April 15 , 1983 Page 4 project architect since April, 1982 , to perform a full analysis of the construction of both types of buildings at the Huntington West complex , the "X-shaped" central building and the perimeter buildings . In a letter dated April 15, 1983 , Mr. Pearson states that " ( t )here are two different types of construction within the project. The center ' X' three story building, with parking below, is standard wood frame construction . . . . The perimeter two story buildings with parking below are uniquely constructed . . . (of ) (s) tructural steel column and beam framing system with special interlocking sheet steel panel floor joist and roof systems . . . . " ( Page 1 ) Mr. Pearson further describes the floor panels ( " . . . lightweight concrete fill over the metal panels , similar to a typical metal deck and concrete fill floor system used in many commercial structures . . . " ) , roof system ; " . . . interlocking sheet steel panels . . . and built-up composition roofing over. . .") , and exterior walls ( " . . . inter- locking sheet steel panels . . . with a ' Tex-Coate' exterior spray finish over the panels and gypsum board over the interior surface. Interior walls are metal studs with gypsum board surfaces ( on ) both sides . " (Page 1 ) Mr . Pearson notes that sine "the center 'X' building is constructed of ' standard ' construction" ( Page 2 ) , the applicant necessarily must infer that Councilman Pattinson ' s reference to alleged "substandard construction" is meant to refer to the perimeter buildings . There is no question in the applicant ' s mind, nor was there in the Planning Commission ' s decision , that the exterior surface of the perimeter buildings, as well as certain other components in some unitst had deteriorated even previous to my client ' s acquiring the complex and were in need to replacement and/or renovation . Beginning with the cover letter , dated November 16 , 1982 , to the application , the applicant made it abundantly ::lean that he is fully cognizant of deficiencies in the existing apartment, complex and submits that "approval of the proposed conversion of the apartments to condominium ownership will create the very feasibility of making the capital expenditures (necessary to significantly upgrade the complex) . . . " (Page 2 , but see also pp. 16 ( building bulk) , 18 (private open space) , and 20 ( parking) . In addition, the Planning Commission has required as conditions of approval the installation of fire protection and life safety systems (Condition 5 ) , resurfacing of the existing The Hon. Robert Mandic , Mayor and Members of the Council April 15, 1983 Page 5 exterior siding in the perimeter buildings (Condition 7 ) , upgrading of the noise insulation ability of walls to meet the provisions of State law (Condition 8 ) , a security improvement plan (Condition 9 ) , an exterior lighting plan (Condition 10 ) , and installation of electrical/plumbing connections in specified units for washers and dryers (Condition 11) . Furthermore , the Planning Commission adopted the finding prepared by the staff of the Department of Development Services that The proposed development complies with the General Plan and with the adoption of the special permit, suggested conditions of approval, and approval of Zone Change No. 83--1 by the City Council , the project will comply with Division 9 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code . (Pages 1-2 , "Notice of Action" , C .U .P. No. 82-31, March 17, 1983 . ) The project architect, Mr . Pearson, who has been present at all Planning Commission meetings, similarly notes in his letter that "we have agreed to rectify this (exterior surface) situation in our conditions of approval. . . " ( Page 2 ) . Mr . Pearson further states, however, that we totally disagree with the term "substandard" construction. These buildings were constructed in the 1969-1970 era, they were approved by the building code requirements at that time (which have not changed appreciably to date ) . Mr. Pearson notes that the complex as designed by an architect and the framing system by a structural engineer, both of whoin are currently in business in the Los Angeles area. Most importantly, Mr . Pearson , who inspected the buildings at the applicant ' s request , states that There is no evidence of sagging beams, floors , roofs, etc. ( Page 2 ) Since purchasing the complex, the applicant has become aware that ,during heavy rains , some units experience rainwater Leakage. The owner has recently completed re-roofing a substantial portion of the buildings and, as Mr . Pearson states in his letter, is corrunitted to correction water leakage problems . The Hon. Robert Mandic, Mayor and Members of the Council April 15, 1983 Page 6 Based on expert on-site analysis by the project architect, a copy of whose letter and typical section through perimeter buildings are attached hereto ( See Attachment "F" for the section) , the applicant submits that the buildings comprising Huntington West are not of "Isubstandard"construction as alleged without any supporting evidence in the statement of appeal . In fact, if a determination of quality of construction is required based on "standard" construction , these buildings would qualify as better than standard construction. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NUMEROUS MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE, HUNTINGTON WEST COMPLEX THAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE ITS APPEARANCE AND HUMAN LIVABILITY, WHILE OFFERING UNPRECEDENTED LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. The, applicant does not propose to recite here in detail the many advantages to the city, neighborhood, low-moderate income .households that desire homeownership, and the important protection of tenants ' rights that will accrue as a result. of the conversion-enhancement of the Huntington West. Instead, the applicant will summarize the project features, as approved by the Planning Commission . and respectfully refers the reader to Appendix "G" , which contains the applicant ' s formal description of the project . It is fully understood, of course, that the formal conditions of approval rather than the applicant ' s description will govern the project . In summary, the proposed Huntington West condominium conversion-enhancement project includes the following twelve major features : ( 1 ) Demolition of 41 existing units in various locations of the existing complex to enhance privacy, open space, and the overall Appearance of Huntington West ; The Hon. Robert Mandic , . Mayor and Members of the Council April 15 , 1983 Page 7 (2 ) Reduction in density from the existing 35 units/acre [calculated according to the City 's condominium standards] to 29 . 98 units/acre ( same standard] ; ( 3 ) 15% of the condominium units (184/245 units) will be made available for purchase by persons or families of low -moderate income ( 80-120% of median income, as defined] . Tenants per existing state law have first right of refusal . If t-anant(s) choose not to purchase their unit(s) , the City or its designee, including any qualified low-moderate income person, may purchase the unit ; ( 4 ) Increase in common open space from 232 sq. ft . per unit in the existing complex to 449 sq. ft . per unit in the condominium complex ; ( 5 ) Construction of 117 new, larger balconies for enhanced private open space and enclosure with glass of balconies fronting on streets ; ( 6 ) Construction of two new parking structures to 100% meet City parking requirements. One parking structure is partly subterranean and will be landscaped for passive recreakional use on its deck; the other will be improved for active recreatiolai uses on its deck; ( 7 ) Noise attenuation improvements to interior walls, floors, ceilings , and windows , as required by noise attenuation study. Initial study was completed in February , 1983 ( See Attachment "H" ) ; ( 8 ) Construction of nes wood or _:r.ucco exteriors , subject to Planninc Commissi n precise review and approval , to replace the existing siding on the perimeter b%ii ldings; The Hon. Robert Mandic , Mayor and Members .of the Council April 15 , 1983 Page 8 (9 ) Additional landscaping , including berming in new open space areas that front on Warner Avenue and Edwards Street, as well as retention of existing mature vegetation to the maximim extent possible in the area of the new semi-subterranean parking 'structure ; I� (10) Preparation and implementation of security plans, especially for units fronting on the two adjacent streets ; (11) Payment of generous relocation and moving assistance expenses to present tenants who choose not to purchase their (or comparable) units following final approval of the conversion by the California Department of Real Estate. The payments are the equivalent of one month ' s rent plus up to $ 500 for actual moving costs. For elderly, handicapped, or disabled tenants, there is no maximum for actual m:)ving costs within California; and, ( 12 ) Construction of two new swimming pools, a spa, childrenal play area, tennis court, and basketball court . These features reflect many of the comments and suggestions received by the applicant in the course of the past twelve months from Community leaders, city staff , tenants, and tenants ' . ch.11dren. The features also reflect the applicant' s awareness of cer tain deficiencies in the existing complex when measured by contemporary community standards . _ In preparing this maj orP ackage of structural improvements, renovations, and affordable housing program, the applicant has consciously sought to maximi2e the achievement of the objectives contained in the Huntirgton Beach Municipal Code, while also retaining the largest number of homeownership opportunities of fordable to low and moderate income persons and families . Consequently, many of the primary objectives of Article 936 - such as parking, privacy, common open space , recreational opportunities , personal safety, and overall appearancW -- will . be fully met, by the proposed improvements that are an integral psrt `:of this project. Density will be met through a cc=bination of demolition of existing units and the requested rezoning, from.. n3 (at 35 units/acre ) to R4-30 ( at 29. 98 units/ acne) . Other desirable objectives, such as private open The Hon. Robert Mandic , Mayur and Members of the _'ouncil April 15 ; 1983 Page 9 space, minimum unit floor area, Site coveraje , and building setback/separation dill be substantially, but not always totally, achieved. In every instance, however, the proposed condominium conversion-enhancement project will achieve dramatic improvements over the existing apartment complex. Ti:e applicant therefore respectfully r.eq,iests the honorable City Council to approve the Huntington West condominium . conversion and enhancement project as it was approved, with conditions , by your Planning Commission . Such approval wov:�d add significantly to the stock of low-moderate income homeownership available in the City, while concurrently improving the physical and aesthetic qualities of the Huntington West complex.. ZONE CHANGE 83-1 SHOULD BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEGENERAL PLAN, ACCURATELY hEFLECTS THE DEVELOPMENT AS MODIFIED THROUGH STRUCTURAL DEMOLITION AND ENHANCEMENT, AND WILL PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CITY. As stated in my formal letter to the honorable Mayor and Council, dated March 7 , 1983 [ "Applicant ' s Description of the Proposed Zone Change. . . " ] , a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment "I" , the request to rezone the property on which the Huntington West complex is located is an integral part of my client ' s application to substantially enhance, renovate, and convert the Huntington Went apartments to conduminium ownership . 'he application to rezone the property evilved out of exten . Lve crnsultations between the applicant and the Director and staff of the Deoartrment of Development Services, which in turn were based on my client 's unprecedented proposal to demolish 41 existing units in order to' more - ,Aosely bring the aeve"opment into conformity with Article 936 of the Municipal Cade. The Huntington Beach General Plan designates the I III The Ho,.. hobert Mandic , Mayor and Members of the Council April 15 , 1983 Page 10 the property on which ;:he Huntington West is located as "Residential High Density" (General Plan Lard Use Diagram, re-7i.sed December, 1981 , following page 94 ) . The T. -4 designation allows for a density greater than 25 units/acre , whereas the R-3 medium density zone , by comparison, allows for a density between 15 . 01 and 25 units/acre. The Huntington West property is presently in the R-3 zone; the development presently exceeds the zoning by 10 units/acre if the c-ondomiriium density standard is applied, or by 7 units/a,~.rr if the apartment density standard is applied. The requested rezoning would give recognition to the • significant reduction to density ( i . e. , more than 5 units/ acre) proposed as part of the overall project. In its approval of the zone change , the Planning Commission specifically recognized that it is consistent with the General Plan and improvements to Huntington ton West, including the the mayor p 9 the density reduction proposed by applicant . The applicant therefore respectfully petitions rc.uncil to approve the rezoning of the Huntington West property for all of the reasons stated. Conclusion . On behalf of the applicant and all of the arplicant ' s consultants, I would like to reiterate our deep appreciation A.or the cordial and constructive review that City c`ficials and their staffs have extended to this project . I b,-lieve that the project has significantly improved as a reeillt of the review and will constitute an important improvement over that which presently exists . I will oe in attendance at the Council meeting on April 18, 1983 , and respectfully request that Mr. Pearson (project architect) , Mr. Gavin James ( Huntington West manager) , Tim Paone . Esq. (cotinsel to the applicant) , and I be given brief opport:,,ni.ties to address the Council . Very truly yours, / I r Norbert H . Dell NORBERT H. DAL L & 00ATES 122.S EIGHTH STREET ! SU1 i E 4825 / SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA W14 / 916! 443.2333 Novcatber 16 , 1.982 Mr. Mike Adams ,Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Development cervices Department P. O. Box 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUB,T£CT: APPLICATION FOk CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THE HUt!TINGTON WEST APART14ENTS TO CONDOMINIUMS Dear Mr. Adams: Master Properties No. 90 Limited.. m unit of Traweek Investment Company, 4720 Lincoln Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Marina del Rey, C,,rlifornia 90211, ( "the applicant" ) hereby applies to the City of Huntington Beach for a conditional use permit . to convert the Huntingtoni West 3partmencs to condominiums. This application is male pursuant to Article 935 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and the " develop- ment standards contained therein. David Pierson, Esq. , and I have beeh authorized by the applicant to act as agents. (See Attachment 1 . 3 This application, is the result of more than seven months of preparatory work, during which the applicant has received the benefit of many constructive comments from community leaders, city staff and tenants of 'the apartment complex . 14 list of tenants. residing at Huntington west as of September 30 , 1982 'is, contained , in Attachment 2 . We will, submit an c ,jpdated list 'of tenants on a monthly basis While the appli- cation is before the City. An initial notice to tenants of the pendancy of this application was sent on July 10, 1982 (see Attachment 3 ) and two informal meetings with tenants were held at Huntington West on July 27 and 31, . 382 . The president of Traweek Inv.,.astment Company, Richard W. Traweek, attE-ided and spoke at the first meeting. Other meetings with tenants who have expressed an interest in purchasing their units are planned. To inform new tenants � of the pendancY of the application, notice is being provided to them on a ca3a by case basis. �.� N Mr. Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Page Two Many of the comments and suggestions received by t.12 applicant and its consultants have been incorporated into this al-plication as proposed major improvements and alter- t:tionz to the Huntington West complex. As is more fully explained below, the applicant at a, total cost of more than $2 . 5 million proposes to demolish 37 of the existing apart- ment units so as to substantially meet the common open space and other requirements of Article 936 ; construct two new parking structures ; provide ma3or new landscaping; signifi- cantly enhance the noise attenuation capability of walls between units and windows fronting onto the adjacent streets; enhance private open-space by providiag new balconies in nearly 1/3 of the units ; and make other improvements as part of the conversion to condominiums. in addition, the applicant is .prepared to make 751 of the condominiu.,t units 'or, 187 units ) available for purchase by persons or families of moderate ii:come (as determined on the baa•;.-. of me lian income for Orange County) . The applicant is cognizant of certain planning and related deficiencies of the existing apartment complex when it is measured against contemporary community standards . However, approval of the proposed conversion of the apart- ments to condominium ownership will create the very feasibility of making the capital expenditures to substantially bring Huntington West into conformance with City requirements . The details of romZ',liance by the proposed Hutttinyton i West convecsion witat Article 936'.of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are set forth below with respecv to each section. In preparing this package of improvements to the ten year old . Huntington West complex, the applivan = has consciously sought ' to maximize achievement of ttie objectives of Article 936 while also retaining a maximum number of home- ownership opportunities affordable to middle-income persons and households. Consequently, certain critical objectives, such as density ( gin terms of bedrooms/arse ) , parking , garage fire. safety, and noise attenuation, will be fully met by the proposed improvements. other desirable standards , such as common open spacef private balconies, cninimum unit floor area, and number of attached units, will be substantially, but not -totally' ot totally, achieved. In every instance, howevery the applicant has achieved drastic improvements over the existing apartment cam-lex. Mr . Mike Adams November 16, 1982 Page Three The applicant therefore. respectfully requests the City of Huntington Beach to approve the Application for Conditional Use Permit, Petition for Tentative Subdivision Map, and the specified exceptions to the Huntington tleach Ordinance Cede submitted herewith. Such approval would significantly add to the City' s stock of moderately priced homeownership opportunities while substantially improving the physical and aesthetic quality of the Huntington West complex. The applicant and its consultants look forw=,rd' to continuing the productive dialogue with City staff, community leaders, and Huntington West tenants as the project review proceeds. THE APPLICATION TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON WEST APARTMENTS TO CONDOMINIUMS CONFORMS TOTALLY IN CRITICAL PARTS AND SUBSTANTIALLY rN OTHER PARTS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 936 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE'. * 1. APPLICABILITY. Section 9360 . 1. in part, states that the provisions or Article 935 shalt apply town appli- cation for a medium-high density condominium conversion involving eight or more . units per gross acre. The existing Huntington West Apartments were constructed, pursuant to City approval, in the early. 19701s at approximately 31 . 8 units per gross acre. ' Article 936 therefore applies to the presently proposed project. Section' 9360.1 further provides that the real property upon which . the project is proposed shall have been zoned and designated for residential use. The Huntington West Apartments are located in the R--3 zone (residential medium- high density) and the proposed conversion does not alter 'Attachment, 4 contains a summary, in table form, of the proposed conversion' s. compliance with the appXicable quan'tifcable Sections of Article 936 . Unless otherwise stated, all references here- after to "Sections" refer to Sections of Article 936 . Mr. .e Adams Noticmber 16 , 1982 Page Four the residential nature of the existing use . The project, , therefore, is consistent. with the applicable zoning and land use• designation. 2. USES FMAITTTED. Pursuant to the requirements, of Section 9360. 2 , the applicant is seeking from the City a conditional use rnrmit, tentative subdivision map, and certain exceptia:2a .to the provisions of Article 936 that cannot be absolutely complied with short of economically prohibitive and yet only marginally enhancing alterations of the existing apartment complex . Throughout , the appli- cant has sought to bring the complex into the maximum feasible level of compliance with all the provisions of Article 936, without abandoning the moderate-income affordability of the condominiums that are to be created. 3. DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES. As required by Section 9361, the app leant Is herewits submitting to the Huntington Beach Planning Department the conditional use permit appli- cation, tentative tract map petition, and sip`" plains . 4 . SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. Site plans have been prepared Sy t e irm o Pearson and Wuesthoff, AIA, AICP, and are attached as part of the application for the condi- tional use permit. The site plans include the following j components required by Section 9361. 1s ( a) location of all proposed structures, including units to be demolished (Sheets 2 , 3 , 4 and. 5 ) = (b) landscaping proposals, which indicate the presently existing nature landscan;.ng on site, as well as proposed new landscaring, including typical species ( Sheet L1) j (c) location of pedestrian walkways ( Sheet 3 ) ; (d) ,circulation pattern of vehicular traffic (Sheets 2 and 4 ) ; (e) sections of the Warner Avenue, Edwards Street and interior access ways (Sheets 60 7 , 81 9 and 10 ) ; ( f) location of storage, laundry and otainterance facilities (Sheets 2 and 4 ) ; Mr. Mike Adams November 16, 1982 ' Page Five (g) location of trash bins (Sheets 2 and 4) ; (h) type, size and location of private open-space areas ( i.e. , balconies) (Sheets 3 , 4. 5, 6 , 11 and 12) 1 (i) use and treatment of common open-space areas ( Sheath ?, 3,9 4 , S, 9 and 10 ) ; (j ) type and location of all vehicle parking ( Sheets 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 ) ; and W fences (Sheet Ll: The pool/spa area will be fenced as it is presenulyt Sheet 10 : The tennis court-above-parking structure Will he fenced to keep tennis balls and erran♦ racquets within the court area) . ( 1) Not shown , as per discussion with City staff, are type and location of existing outside lightingf type and location of signs (no major permanent signs are planned) ; and lay- out of proposed sewage and water facilities. (since the existing facilities will be retained# except for minor relocation in areas where buildings are proposed to be demolished and./or parking spaces will be constructed) . S . . PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS. As per discussion witfi G ty qta , no gradIng cut and fill ) planc are submitted herewith sinc:e . the Huntington West complex is'.:an existing set of structures. As the condominium conversion application has evolved in discussion with City staff and others, the application has comp to include (as presently proposed) the excavation of the partly subter- ranean parking area Pls which is located immediately south of Building 15. 0 The new parking area is proposed to be *Note: The subterranean garage south of Huildinq 15 ( i.e.,. between Building 15 and warner Avenue ) is incorrectly ideriti-- fied as P2 on Sheet 4 ; it should be identified as P1 through-- out the site plains.. The tentative map shows it correctly as P1. ' I Mr. Mike Adams November 16, 1982 Page Six on the same level as the currently existing subterranean parking in Building 13 and will be connected by a common driveway to it ( sae Sheet 4 ) . Approximately 3, 762 cubic yards of soil will be excavated for P1. The soil will be used on site to provide (a) the landscape decking above PI; (b) - fill on the north sjde of Building 15 for elevating and landscaping the pool area between Building 15 and j parking/tennis court structure P21 and (c? to create land- scaping berms along Edwards Street and garner Avenue as indicated on Shmet L1 . The: z1round floor elevations of existing structures and at the property lines are shown on the tentative tract map prepared-.by D. H. Clark and Associates (October, 1982 ) and, submitted as an integral part of this application to convert the Huntington West apartments to condominiums. 6 . FLOOR AND ELEVATION PLANS. ( a) The floor plans for the general unit types* as required by Section 9361. 3 , are: shown on Sheer 11. (b) The elevations (Sheets 61 8 , 9 and 10) indicate that residential structures Numbers 1-14Athe j "perimeter buildings" ) are 2 stories in height ( 16220 ) above arade-level parking , ( for a total of approximate? 25 ' ) . The exterior of these buildings consist , or will consist, of alte-:nating vertical wood siding with "tex-coated" . metal panels . The buildings have a mansard-style tile roof facade and wooden trellises at the . first- second story level. The garage level consists of concrete block. There are metal handra.Us along balconies and walkways/stairs . The exterior of the buildings is painted beige and brown. The elevations of residential structure Number. 15 ( the "center building" ) shows it to be 3314" in height, including the partly subterranean garage. The building has three residential levels. The exterior of the building consists of SLucco anI wood siding; the parking level is wilt of concrete block . As with the perimeter Mr. Mike Adams November 15 : 1982 ` Page Seven buildings, Building 15 has a mansard-style the roof facade (the roofs themselves are essentially flat ) and metal railings along balconies and walkways. The exterior color of Building 15 matches that of the perimeter buildings . (c) All units have elecrri-- baseboard heating and nocturnal cooling. 7. TVITATIVE TRACT MAP. As reqt• c•: `•f Section 9361.4, a tentative tract map as een preparerr D. H. Clark and Associates; ( L. S. 2831) . The map 1982 ) , (a). describes and defines the I.,,, :atior. and boundaries of the proposed subdiv'9i �r1 (Shea :s 1 and 2 ) ; (b) identifies the existi:g site elevations ( Sheets L and 2 ) ; (c) identifies the locations, names and widths of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street (Sheetsl and 2 ) ; (d) provides the dimensions of the lot (s) proposed (Sheets 1 and 2 ) ; (e) outlines all existing buildings on the site (Sheet 1! ; M indicates that there are no watercourses on site, but identifies the adjacent Orange County Flood Control District right-of-way/channel immediately to the north of tiie Huntington west complex; (g) indicates no existing or proposed easements on the sutdivision ( Sheets 1 and 2 ) ; and . (h) indicates no existing or abandoned oil field wells or appurtenances on %.he property. ( i ) Note: For a typical sheet section, please refer to the site plan prepared by Pe©cson and Fuesthoff as part of the application for the conditional use permit. • i:r. Mice Adams November lib, 1982 page 21,ght S . DETAILED STATEMENT. The following are the appli- cant's de::ai a responses to the requirements about project and area particulars set forth in Section 9361 . 5 : (a) Geologic Hazards. The design earthquake fault zone for Huntington Beach and, therefore, the existing Huntington West complex, is the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, which is located 1 .0 - 1.5- miles southwest of the instant project. ( "Gei?logic Map of Orange County, California, " in Geo-Environ•- •7ental Maps of Oran a County* California, California ivision of Mires and Geo a►gy, Tf.e Newport- Inglewood Zone is cinsidered a seismically active zoctes a maximum credible earthquake on it is thought ' to bo on the order of Richter magnitude 6 . 5-7.0. ( Personal communication, Mr. Al Barrows. Calif- ornia Division of Mines and Geologl•. ) The San Andress Fault, which is conservatively thought to be capable of an 8 . 3M earthquake. is lucatee about 45-50 wiles .from the project. There is no apparent surface faulting on the site of the existing Huntington West complex. (b) Gross Lot Area. The gross lot area of the Hunt- ington West complex is a aces ( 392 ,400 sq. ft . ) . (c) Net Lot Area. The net lot as:ea of the complex ( i .e . , gross area minus all public and private streets and/or drivewaas) is 6 . 59 acres ( 287 . 126 sq. ft . ) . (d) Units and Bedrooms . The existing Huntington West apartment complex consists of 289 units. The proposed Huntington West condominium complex will consist of 249 units, with a total of 442 bedrooms. Specifically, the condominium project will consist of: 60 1-bedroom units 185 2-bedroom units 4 3-bedroom units Mr. Mike Adams Kave:xber 16 , 1982 page Nine (e) Units and Bedrooms/Gross Acre. Tile 1:otal number of units per garwoq acre is 27 . 7. Thu number of bedrooms pur , groas acre .is 49. 1. (f . 1-1; t Floor Area.. The floor area of each unit type is as followss Type Unit S.F. Per unit 1-bedroom D 806 G 786 2-bodroom Al 807 A2 807 81 1, 322 B2 I p 291 C 796 F 673 B 823 3-bedroom E 1 .1012 (9) Private Open-Space. The dimensions of private open-space (patios and balconies) as proposed in this application are as follows, by unit types No. Type Existing Proposed 1-bedroom 54 D 48 sq.ft. 48 sq. ft , 6 G 48 jq.ft, 48 sq. tt. Mr. Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Page Ten No. Type Existing Proposed 2-bedroom 28 Al 32 sq. ft. 32 sq. ft. 12 A2 32 sq. ft. 120 sq.ft. 12 A2 76 sq ,ft. 120 sq. ft. 43 Bl 120 sq.ft. 120 sq. ft. 26 B2 105 sq. ft . 105 sq.ft. Oft r. 48 sq. ft . 120 sq. ft . 4 F 48 sq. ft. 48 sq. ft. 3--bedroom 4 S !� (h) Building Site Coverage. The total site coverage of all buildings is 168# 962 sq. ft. , or 58 . 81 . (i) Parking Spaces. This application proposes, through a combination. of new construction of parking struc- tures and spaces-at-grade and demolition of 37 existing units, to provide SV3 parking spaces, of which 501 spaces will be covered and 92 spaces will be uncovered. Common Open-Space. eaced on the provisions of Section 9372 . 11, the Huntington West condominiums , as proposed in this application, will provide 135,776 sq. ft. ( 545 sq. ft./unit ) of common op3n- space. ( k) R+ecrgAtion Facilities. The Huntington West condo- miniums 'will provide 48,798 sq. ft . of active ( tennis, basketball, etc . ) and passive recreation area on the decks of parking structures P1 and P2= a swimming poet and spa; as well as 7, 6,4 sq. ft. of clubhouse space. Mr. Mike Adams November iS, 1981 Page Eleven ( 1 ) Phasing of Oevelopm nt. As indicated on Sheet 5A of the application for the conditional use permit , the applicant proposes to schedule and phase tho Exsical development of the Huntington West p;:oject as follows- ( i.) Phase It De*aolition of existing 37 units located in Buildings 2 , 3 , 61 7e 9, 10 , 11 , 12 and 13 . The vacated areas will be utilized for materiel storagE• and construc- tion parking during Phase II . ( ii ) Phase I1: Demolition of existing grade- level tennis court and stAmming pool . Construction of parking 3truc-ture/t:ennio - basketball--volleyball courts - P2 . Uii) Phase III : Construction of parking spaces and landscaping in areas demolished in Phase z on restcorcztiori and enhancement of buildings . ( iv) Phase IVt Excavation of area for parking structure Pl ; construction of parking strut- terse P.1 and landscaped deck; construction of new parking spaces and landscaped berms at: Warner ),,venue entrance and exit. Building 15 parking spaces will , during this conaLruc•- !_ion phase, be assigned to new park;.ng created in Phases II and 111 . Vehicular access to interior alley from Wainer Avenue and/or Edwards Street will be provided for during . all phases of construction. ( v ) Phafle V: Construction of pool and spa and landscaping of area between Building t5, and P2 . ( vi: ) Phase VI : Constrr.ct ion of new or expanded balconies in the 77 2-bedroorn units indicated in this applicatic.. Mr. Mike Adams November 3.6 , 1982 Page Twe l,ve In addition to phasing the physical development and enhancement described above, the applicant also requests to be permitted to phase the sales program for the condominiums. As indicated in detail on Sheet 2 of the tentative tract map, the applicant reques.its that, for phasing of sales, the Huntington West condominiums be divided into three units, as follows : Unit A to consist of the south-easterly and south-westerly winces of Building 15 , Building 1, Building 8 , the entire common open-reace area, ►he pool and spa, and parking/recremti.on structures P1 and P2 ; Unit B, to consist of Buildings 2, 3 , 4 , 12 , 13 ,and 14 ; and, Unit C, to consist of Buildings 5 , 6, 7 , 9 , 10 and 1.1. I The purpose of such a division is to allow Eor an orderly and feasible condominium sales program with a minimum aatount of disri'r:tion of old and new residents . 9 .. MAXIMUM DENSITY . Pursuant to Section 9362 . L, the maximum diins'ItiF or a project such as Huntington West, which is Located in the R-3 zone , is 25 units/yress acre and/or 50 bedrooms per dross acre . As a result of the applicant ' s proposed demclit.ion of 37 of the 286 units in the complex, the proposed condominium project Will have a density of 27 .7 units to the acre ( i .e . , 2 .7 units/acre above the maximum density) , but will also have a conformin , 49 . 1 bedrooms per acre aensi.ty . There is no question but that the Huntington West apart- ments ( formerly the "Family Affair" ) were constructed ten years ago at a much greater density than would be allowed it: the project were first proposed today. (The presently existing complex has a density of 32 units/acre and a bedroom density of 58 bedrooms!acre . ) At the suggestion of several parties, the applicant has prepared plans to substantially reduce the II I r. Mr . Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Pace Thirteen number of units, although it is recognized that the loss of these unite represents a diminution of moderately priced housing stock. The .applicant believes,' and respectfully urges the City to adopt as its position, that density is above all a human factor which is more. accurately computed on the basis of the number of bedrooms in a unit than the more abstract number of units in a complex. However , the applicant also belives that the proposed excedence of the permissible density is relatively small, and the benefits that will accrue from the project to the community as a whole and the Huntington West residents are rather substan- tial , so that substantial compliance with the City ' s density standard should be satisfactory. 10 . MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE. Section 9362 . 2 provides that the maximum site coverage or a1:1 buildings in a development which has 16 . 01 units/acre shall not exceed 501 of the net area of the property. In the case of Huntington West, 501 cf the net area is 143 , 563 sq. ft. Even with the demolition of 37 units and the under.grounding of. the Pl parking strucl.ure, the Proposed Huntington West condo►ainium project would have i a site coverage of 168, 964 sq. ft. , or 3 . 81 above the maximum. Again, absolute compliance with the site coverage maximum could theoretic,llly be obtained through the further elimin- ation of moderately priced homeownership opportunities in this existing complex. However, it should be asked what social objective ( that is not already substantially being met by the rectinfiquration of Huntington West) would be met by insistence van the 50% maxi.mtim site :overage? The applicant submits that toleration of this average is in fact in keeping with the increasingly widespread public policy of allowing reasonable density bonuses in moderately-priced housing developments , as long as open-space, aesthetic and environ- mental objectives are also being significantly addressed . We submit, and ask the CLty to find, that that Huntington West project an proposed herein achieves such a balance of desirablm public objectives . 11. SETBACK '.''RO4 PUBLIC STREETS. Section 9362 . 3 requires a minimum set ack olfgenerally all buildings from a public street cF at least 20 feet, although a 15 foot setback is Mr. Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Page Fourteen permitted based on a 20 foot average for the total building frontage . The Huntington West condominium project complies with the 20 foot average setback for all existing buildings. As a result , .none are proposed to be demolished to meet this policy. The one new structure that could be constructed to front on Warner Avenue, the Pl parking structure/landscapiad deck, is set back 60 feet from the street . 12 . SETBACK FROM INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE . Section 9362 . 4 makeses several minimum provisions for setbacks from interior property lines . Existing garages , which should be set back 10 feet, are in fact set back 11 ' 2 " . The new P2 parking structure and recreation deck mt the northerly side of the property that adjoins the Orange County Flood Control channel is -roposed to have a zero lot line setback. Such an excephio. ' 3 expressly permitted for garages measuring 9 feet in hei, nt or less , which the P2 structure will be in the area near the property lire. Further south, the structure is proposed to be stepped-up to 1316" so as to allow the passage of City fire equipment through the structure. ( See Sheet 10 , Section B . ) II 13 . SETBACK FROM INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE - BUILDINGS 30 FEET IN HEIGHT OR LESS. Section 9 prove es or a -' minimum of • ••t setbacks for all buildings 30 feet in height or less . The Huntington West perimeter buildings to which this policy applies all have at least a 10 foot setback from the interior property line. No change is proposjed. 14 . BuILDING SEPARATION AND SETBACK. Section 9362 . 7 makes various provisions or Guilding separation and setback. Applicable to the proposed Huntington West condominium conver- sion is the requirement of subsection (d) that side-to-side separation shall. be 10 feet plus 10 feet, for a total of 20 feet . Subsection (b) provides rear-to-rear separation minimums of 30 feet for adjacent buildings ( 20 feet plus 5 feet per story/building in excess of one story x 2 ) if only residential floors are counted in the calculation , 40 feet if the Srade-- level garage is also counted as a story . The existing Mr. Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Page Fifteen perimeter buildings, to which this policy applies, have an existing rear-to-rear separation of 28 feet. With the excep- tion of the 37 units that will be demolished and which thereby will conform to this policy, the other units cannot comply and still be allowed to stand. 15. BUILDING HEIGHT. Section 9362. 9 provides that building height s a l not exceed 35 feet. As indicated on Sheet 8 , the perimeter buildings , including grade-level garage, are 25 ' 8" in height, and Building 15, including the partly subterranean garage, is 3314" in height (Sheet 7) . Thus, the Huntington West project conforms to the City' s height restrictions . 16 . BUILDING BULK. Section 9362 . 1.0 makes several provisions concern nq Building bulk. ':he proposed Huntington West condominium reconfiguration comes significantly closer to meeting the provisions than the as-built apartment complex, but still falls short of totally meeting the objectives, specifically with respect to: ( a ) Maximum Bulk. The Section provides that a maximum of 6 units be allowed to be attached side by side . In its present ( apartment) form, Huntington West has the following bulk: Buildin Side-by-Side Units 1 12 2 6 3 6 4 12 5 12 6 7 7 7 8 12 9 9 10 8 11 9 12 26 13 6 (per wing per side ) I Mr. Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Page Sixteen This application, by virtue of the very care- fully selected location of units to be demolished, will substantially reduce the bulky, archi-ec-- tuxally unrelieved appearance of the ex: s;: ing buildings, especially Buildings Number 5 ,. 7-8, 9-10-I1, and 12 . Thus, the almost continuous Building 5-6-7-8 will be broken up at two points along the alley perimeter and other units will be removed along the Warner Avenue frontage to give the most important public side of the complex a major open-space appearance . Presently existing Buildings 9-14-11 will be separated into three clearly distinct structures , thus dramatically reducing the narrow alley effect that now exists. Building12 which presently constitutes the entire P Y interior perimeter of the alley on the Edwards Street side of the complex, will also be divided into three clearly separate structures , thus intro- ducing a feeling of some spaciousness on the easterly side of the complex. In short, the proposed Huntington West condominium reconfiguration will substantially achieve the objective of minimizing or, in this case , reducing the bulb of the complex. Such reduction in bulk very clearly will enhance the aesthetic contri- bution Huntington west makes to the community, as well as the livability of the complex for its residents . (b) The policy also requires a 4 foot offset along the front building line for every two units. As proposed, only Buildings 2 and 8 will exceed the standard, and then only by 1 unit each. (c) The policy further provides that one-third of units side-by-side must be one story n height. Huntington West has no one story buildings and it would be structurally not feasible to reduce the two-story perimeter buildings to one story . Mr. Mike Adams [November 16 , 1982 Page Seventeen 17 , CGMMON OPFN SPACE. Section 9362 . 11 - requires , among other things , various minimum square footage common open- space areas depending on the number of units per acre . This application to convert the Huntington West apartments to condominiums, and as part of theprrojgct to significantlyty oC alter the existing complex, proposes units/acre. At that density, Section 9362 . 11 provides for a 400 sq. ft./unit open-spa=eultarea, ofothe9, 600 proposedft. total demolition common open space . As as s and landscapf.ng/recreational decking program, the proposed project includes 135 , 776 square feet of common open-space . In other wards, based onctWest:that willreflects reducedthe actual density to which Huntington the common open-space policy is more than fully met. However, if the abstract maximum unit/acre density for the R-3 zone of 25 units/acre is applied, then under Section 9362 . 11 the common open-space requirement is increased by 50% per unit, to 600 sq. ft./un4.t . As a result, 149 , %00 sq.ft. of total common open-space would, be -required, or 13 , 624 sq. ft. more than the proposed site plan offers. However, even at this higher per unit level of open space, the proposed site plan still satisfies 545 sq.ft./unit alit of the 600 sq . ft./ unit required. Thus, at worst, the proposed project provides 90 . 8% of the required open space. Nuuterically, the alter- ations to the complex have increased the common opin-space area from a presently existing t76 , 000 sq. ft. to 135 # 776 sq. ft. That increase, the applicant believes, is clearly a sign of its commitment to good faith compliance with the City' s open-space objectives . Subsection (e) provides that enclosed buildings used for recreation or leisure facilities shall not constitute more than 151 of the required recreational area. In the casThe of Huntington West, ��h�tb�4xgmu�twoo�a be enclosed30ecgeational existing facility h. q space; no changes are proposed in this number. IS. MAIN RECREATION AREA. Section 9362. 12 provides that the m nimum siz—e-of e main recreational area shall be 1Q, 000 sq. ft . , with minimum are dimensions .total of 48 ,79® $g ft mTrtnal decks of structures P1 an I I Mr. Mike Adams November l6 , 1982 Page Eighteen The main recreational area includes two tennis courts, a volleyball court, a half-basketball court, swimming pool and spa. The main recreational area is not located withi►. 20 feet of a residence . The policy also requires a clubhouse, the square footage of which is to be calculated on the basis of 7 sq. ft ./unit. For Huntington West' s proposed 249 units , a 1729 .sq , ft. clubhouse would be required. The existing clubhouse, :which will be retained, is 7 , 634 sq . ft . 19 . PRIVATE OPEN-SPACE . Section 9362 . 13 requires that minimum pr vats open-space areas (patios , balconies or sun decks ) shall be provided in proportion Co unit type ( 1, 2, 3 bedrooms, etc. ) . One bedroom units are required to have 60 sq. ft . balconies ; 2-bedroom or larger units shall have 120 sq. ft . balconies. Furthermore, the minimum dimension of a balcony shall be 6 feet. Presently, only 152 ( 43 ) of the existing apartments have balconies that meet the square footage requirements of this section. None of the balconies presently meet the minimum dimension . In addition , 41 of the units ( 12 ) have no balconies whatsoever because of their alley corner location. Eight of these 12 units are proposed to be demolished in favor of more open space , landscaping and parking. Of the existing units, 239 ( 83% ) do have balconies of various sizes below the requirement . The applicant can feasibly ( i .e. , within the parameters of other applicable common open-space and building separation policy constraints) expand 72 balconies to the full required size. As a result of this expansion and the proposed demo- lition of other units, 46% ( 115 ) of the condominium units will fully meet the City' s balcony requirement . Another 361 ( 90 ) of the units will mee 80% of the balcony area require- ment . Thus, 80% of all balconies will provide at least 80% of the required square foot:.ge, and still remain within the objectives of other applicable policies . A modest reduction in some of these other objectives could, perhaps, result in a further increase in balcony space . Mr. Mike Adams November 16 , 1982 Page Nineteen 20. mm mum FLOOR AREA. Section 9362 . 14 provides for minimum ,floor areas ot b5U sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units, 900 sq.ft. for 2-bedroom units, and 1, 100 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units. As constructed, the Huntington West apartments provide. a fascinating variety of multiple-sized units: 129 units ( 521) comply with, and in some instances spectacularly exceed, the minimum floor area requirements, while the others fall variously short of the standard. Interestingly, all 1-bedroom unitq exceed the standard. The following table indicates the array of unit sizes in the proposed project ( i.e. , after demolitions are accounted for) : 1--bedroom ( 650 sq. ft. required) 1 Type Number Square Footage { D 54 806 G 6 786 2-bedroom (900 sq. ft . requir-d) Types Number Square Footage A 52 807 B1 43 1 , 322 32 26 1 , 291 C 60 796 F 4 673 3-bedroom ( 1, 100 sq. ft. required) Type Number Square Footage E 4 1 , 012 In light of the substantial cost involved in the proposed demolition of 37 existing units to satisfy open-space , building setback, bulk, parking , and other policy objectives of Article 936, this applicati.n does not propose any consolidation of the remaining units in ordex o increase individual unit size. In part, such consolidation of units is impractical because Mr. Mike Adams Novomber 16, 1982 Page Twenty-one Covered Parking : i Required - 1 per unit x 249 = 249 Provided - 501 Thus,, the Huntington West condominium conversion project is fully in compliance with the parking requirements of this Section, CONCLUSION In conclusion, the applicant requests the City of Hunt- ington, Beach to approve the conditional use permit, tentative tract map, and such special permits as may be required to authorize the relatively minor deviations from the provisions of Article 936 that have been noted above . The substantial improvements to the Huntington West complex with respect to open-space (common and private ) , parking, landscaping, reduction in density and bulk, and building separation that are proposed through this applica- tion testify strongly to the appropriateness and - we hope - practicality of the City ' s standards. in the small area occupied by the existing Huntington West, not all desirable objectives, can be fully or equally ,r^.t, especially the critical social goal of moderately priced housing is also to be addressed. However, we believe that with this proposed conversion of Huntington West, the environmental , social and housing objectives will be maximized to the mutual benefit of the community, residents and prospective homeowners, as well as the property ow.ier. Sincerely yours , .1,, Norbert H . Dail L NHD/jah NORPERT H. DALL & ASSOCIATES 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SURE 485 / SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95514 ! 916/443.2333 January 15, 1983 Mr . Savoy Bellavia Senior Planner- Department of Planning and Community Development City of Huntington Beach City Hall , Third Floor 2000 :-lain Street Huntington. Beach, California 92648 RE: LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM-- HUNTINGTON WEST CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION DeartavL-y : In my letter of November 16 , 1982 to Mike Adims, I indicated that my client was prepared to make 75% of the proposed condo- minium units at Huntington West avAilabl.e for purchase by persons and households of moderate income, as defined on the basis of median income for Orange County (page 2 ) . As a result of further discussion with my client , city staff, tenants , and other interested persons , I can now clarify and expand upon the proposal made last year . Therefore, please allow this letter to supersede that part of the application which makes reference to affordable housing . ' Based on our most recent analyses , the applicant proposes to commit to do all of the following as a condition of approval to convert and enhance the Huntington West apartment3 into condominium ownership : 1 . Number of Units Priced for Purchase byLow--Moderate Income Persons or Househo s . 7 B oE the units remaining a ter the`-'demo ition enhancement Program is completed ( i .e . . 104 units out of a proposed total of 245 ) will be offered for sale at prices affordable by low and moderate income persons or households, as determined by median income for household size in Orange County on the date on which the California Department of Real Estate grants final approval for the conversion, and by the prevailing multiplier in use on that date by the lending industry to deter- mine maximum loan amounts ( e .g . , a multiplier of 3 , 3 . 5 , etc . ) . M Mr . Savoy aell .via Jan-:ar.y 25 , 1983 Page Two 2 . Price R� s antes ui Affordable Units . The 184 low--moderate income purr.haK6 unit wi be priced proportionately across the spectrum of the income range, from 80% to 120S of median income, as defined , Specifically, 20% of the 184 units, o.: 37 , will be offered at 801 of median income; 20%, or 37 , will, be offered at j 90% of median income ; 20% , or 3E (because of ro,:nding ; , will be offered at 100% of median income ; 20% , or 37 , will be offered at 110% of median income; and, 20% , or 37 , will be offered at 120% of median income. 3 � Ap licabilitz. ( a ) The 184 units referenced herein will first. be of erect to r_enants who reside at Huntington Nest , are not in default: on their rent or lease payments , and have not given notice aE an intention to stove from the premises on the date on which the City of Iluntir.gton Beach grants its discretionary approval( s ) to the condominium conversion . (b) The applicant , or any successor in interest , will maintain ;a lint of the tenants who qualify pursuant to part 3 (a) , and will. file such list with the City of Huntington Beach Gepart- ment of Planning and Community Development or its designee . 4. ��r��m�pp_leme_ ntat.ion . ( a ) No later than 10 days after final approval of the condominium conversion by the California Department. of Heal Estate, the Subdivider will , pursuant to Government Code Section 6642; . 1 (d) , provide notice to all tenants of their ►espertive first. right to purchase their unit , or a comparable: unit if their unit: is affected by the demolition/ enhancement program. Tenants who qualifir pursuant to part 3 will be notified .in addition of: their opportunity to purchase their unit, or a comparable unit as available, at price ranges as pro- vided in part 2 . The: length of the offer to purchase provided herein will be for 90 days after notice is given, as provided by Government Code Section 66427 . 2 . ( b) The determination of whether tenants qualify as persons or households of low or moderate income shall be made by the City of. Huntington Beach , or its designee. . in no event shall the subdivider be required to make or verify such determination . ( c) if all of the available units in one of the categories of lour or moderately priced housing specified in part 2 are com- mitted for sale to tenants , then tenants who express an inherent to purchase their or a comparable unit will be given the first opportunity to {purchase a unit: in the next highest category. Mr. Savoy Bellavia January 25, 1983 Page Three ( d) Following the close of the period specified in part 4 (a) , any units remaining within the categories provided in part 2 , which have not been sold to qualified tenants, will be offered for purchase by the City of Huntington Beach or its designee for a period of 90 days. If the City or its designee does not purchase said units, then the units at the conclusion of said period may be offered by the subdivider for sale without restriction as to price . As always, I would appreciate your comments and suggestions for improvements of this program. As with other parts of our application and improvement package, I have attempted to bring together in our proposal the fairest and most workable components I have had occasion to experience in other conversion projects . Cordially, I Norbert H. Dall NHplos cc: Mr . Jim Palin Mr. Jim Barnes ►'r. Mike Adams I I ia.-.uary 25, 1983 I Mr. Savoy Bellavia Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Huntington Beach C .ty Hall , Third Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE : TENANT RELOCATION AND MOVING EXPE'mSE PROGRAM, HUNTINGTON WEST COMDOMINIUM CONVERSION Dear Savoy : Jim Barnes and you have both requested information about the tenant relocation and moving expense program which the owner of the Huntington West , Traweek Investment Company--Master Properties No. 9 , Ltd. , is prepared to commit to implement in the course of the future sale of individual condominium units . Since the City of Huntington Beach has not adopted an ordinance that establishes standards for relocation assistance or :roving expense reimbursement for tenants displaced as a result of condominium conversion , i have prepared a program based on a review of a variety of other jurisdictions ' ordinances , con- sultation with my client , and my personal experience in other conversions in which I have been involved. I earlier sent Jim Barnes copies of the San Diegot Las Angeles , Stockton, Burlingame, and San Francisco ordinances that I consulted. The program set forth below is a distillation of what I perceive to be the most workable, fair , and feasible components of those ordinances . The program to which my client , and of course, any successor in interest commjt:s is set forth in full immediately below. 1 . Tenant: Relocation Assistance . ( a1 The owner will, following fMal l approva 7R tie conversion by the California Department of Real Estate: , make available to each qualified tenant, as defined, at no cost to the tenant, a reasonably cur- rent and complete: list of ccrnparable vacant and available rental units within a five mile radius of the Huntington West . i Mr. Savoy Bellavia January 25 , 1983 Page Two owner will a not less th n thirty days before (b) Thy. pay, Y Y thy- qualified tenant is ordered to vacate the premises , a relocation assistance equivalent to one month 's current rent as of the date of final approval of the conversion by the California Department of Real Estate . Such relocation assistance payment shall be to assist the tenant in relocating his or her place of residence . 2 . Tenant Moving Expenses . The owner will reimburse the tenant for actual moving expenses , up to a maximum of $500 , except that no such maximum amount will apply for actual moving expenses within California incurred by elderly, disabled , or handicapped tenants, as defined. I 3 . AMlicability . (a) "Qualified tenant" , as used herein, means those Fo—useholdsl or other parties who rent or lease a unit both on the date the application to convert the Huntington West was approved by the City of Huntington Beach , and on the date on which the owner gave notice to vacate the premises for purpose of converting the affected units to condominiums . (b) Elderly, handicapped, or disabled tenant as used herein, shall refer to any tenant meeting the definition of Section 50067 or Section 50072 of the State Health and Safety Code . (c ) Any person , household, o; other party who rents or leases a unit after the application to convert the Huntington West was approved by the City of Huntington Beach will be given notice thereof and will not be entitled to relocation assistance or moving expenses. ( d) Any tenant qualified for the benefits set fort' herein shall hot be entitled to said benefits -:if -sa W tenant purchases a converted condominium unit . (e) Any tenant who has given notice of his or her intention to vacate the premixes prior to the date of the trailing of the Notice to Quit , as provided by Government Code Section 66427 . 1 . shall not be entitled to the benefits set forth herein . ( f ) '.he benef. i,;s set forth herein shall inure to all qualified tenants who are not in default of their obligations to pay rent on or after the date of final approval of the conversion by th.2 California Department of Real Estate . If the tenant is in default of his or her obligation to pay rent at the time specified, the relocation assistance payment will be reduced by an amount equal to one-thirtieth of the monthly rent for each Mr . Savoy Bellavia January 25, 1983 Page Three day the tenant remains in possession of the premises after the default. For purposes of this program, a tenant will not be considered in default of rent payment during a period for which a tenant has prepaid the required rent . 4 . Subtenants. In the event a unit is occupied by a sub- tenant under an agreement with the tenant, the moving expense reimbursement or relocation assistance provided herein will be paid proportionately to both parties , not to exceed the maximum amounts specified in Parts 1 and 2 . With respect to the payment of moving expenses , such payment ( s ) will be made in relations to the actual. costs of moving the property of each party. I would appreciate your including this letter in the file as part of the application to convert the Huntington West. To the extent that the City customarily relies on standard language concerning the continuity of conditions ( i .e . , that they run with the property, rather than its ownership ) , please insert it in place of my formulation above . I would appreciate any comments you or your collagues have with respect to this program. The specific provisions of the program will be included verbatim in the material I will send to all Commissioners prior to the February 1 Planning Commission meeting . Sincerely yours, Norbert H . nall CC: Mr. Jim Palin Mr . Jim Barnes Mr . Mike Adams NORBERT H. DALL & SSOCIATES ifrrhetwed r <Z_, 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SUITE 485 / SACRAMENTO, CA►LIFORNLIk 95814 / 916/ 443.2333 February 12 , 1983 The Non. Marcus Porter, Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: RECOKMENDATION BY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGAINST HUNTINGTON WEST ZONE CHANGE 8 3--1 FROM R3 TO R4-30 . Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissionerst The Department of Development Services in its report dated February 15, 1963 is recommending that the Planning Commission deny my client ' s application for rezoning from R3 to R4-30 of the property on which the Huntington West complex is located. Please allow this letter to constitute the formal written rebut- tal by Master Properties, No. 9 , Ltd. , of the Department ' s rec- ommendation, although I may submit additional comments in rebut- tal when I address the Commission at the hearing on February 15 , 1983 . BACKGROUND. To fully understand the reasons why my client on February 1. IMF filed a petition for rezoning of the Huntington West property with the City, it is necessary to be aware of the series of actions and discussions that led up to it . As is more fully set forth in the applicant ' s r-,vised project description, dated Februi�ry 15, 1983 ( the "blue book" ) , represen- tatives of the applicant have met frequently over the past ten months with the director , deputy director, and staff of the De- partment of Oevelopment Services to discuss the proposed condo- minium conversion of the Huntington West complex. Out of those discussions, and others with community leaders and tenants, evolved the applicant ' s revised project proposal . As the Depart- ment of Development cervices itself recognizes: The applicant is proposing a major renovation of the existing Huntington West apartment complex as part of the 0 1� Mr. Marcus Porter and Commissioners February 12 , 1983 Page Two proposal for conversion to condomin- iums . At a cost of more than $2 . 5 million, the applicant proposes to demolish 41 of the existing apart- ment units, construct two new park- ing structures, provide major new landscaping, enhance the noise at- tenuation capability of walls be- tween units and windows fronting onto adjacent streets, provide new balco- nies in nearly one-third of the units, and provide new recreational facili- ties . The applicant is also proposing to make 751 of the condominiums units available for purchase by persons or families of low and moderate income . . . . ( Staff Revort, TT 11879/CUP 82-3L, page 3 . ) In the course of designing the numerous project improvements and evaluating their respective monetary costs , the owner deter- mined that in light of all the many benefits that must be funded out of the project, a reduction of 40± existing units was the maximum possible if the overall project is to remain feasible. Consequently, on January 24 , 1983 , the ^roject architect and I met with Department staff representatives to discuss the appli- cant ' s inability to commit to further costly project changes , in- cluding addition reduction of density above and beyond the 5 units/ acre reduction already agreed to . At that meeting, I asked City staff to consider whether the California Density Bonus Law (Gov- ernment Code Section 65915, et seq . ) might be applied to the instant project, given its unequaTe`d commitment of providing 75% low-moderate income homeownership opportunities . The following day, I met with the Department director and deputy director to further discuss and resolve the issue of how to make the proposed project density fully compatible with zon- ing. The director indicated, upon advice of the City Deputy At- torney, that he understood the density bonus law, as presently codified, not to be applicable to the instant project „ The Di- rector advised instead, and I agreed on behalf of the client , that the applicant immediately file a rezoning request from R3 � to R4 , given that the General Plan land use designation is for high density residential . In the course of our discussion, the director further suggested, and I agreed on behalf of the client, that the rezoning petition clearly specify that a 4.4-30 zone was being sought , so a3 to reflect the proposer reduction f.n density from the r•: xisting 35 units/acre to 29 . 98 u� _,/acre . t I Mr . Marcus Porter and Commissioners February 12 , 1983 Page Three The petition for rezoning was filed with the City on the Tuesday following the meeting with the director . (A copy of that petition is attached; it was omitted from the Staff Re- port . ) DEPARTMENT ' S POSITION ON REZONING. The Department staff rec- ommen ation % ania of proposed Zone Change No. 83--1 relies on and in turn creates a confusing dilemma that is best described by the popular phrase , "Catch-22" : ( 1 ) The Department is recommending denial of the rezoning request on the grounds that it is also recommending denial of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879 . (See Staff Report on Zone Change No . 83-1, pages 2-3 . ) ( 2 ) However, a close reading of the Staff Report on the ap- plication for the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map shows that the Department is recommending de- nial of : ( a ) the map because the subdivision does not conform to the zoning ordinance ( Staff Report on TT 11874/CUP 82-31 , page 7 ) , and , ( b ) the conditional use permit in part be- cause the project , as revised, exceeds 1 the density allowable in the R] zone ! ( Staff Report , page 4 . ) In short , the Department has created a dilemma out of which the applicant is intended not to be able to break, irrespective of the many benefits -- including a substantial reduction in density from the existing complex - the project conveys to the City and residents . APPLICANT 'S REBUTTAL. The existing Huntington West apartments were built at a density of 35 units/acre [ not 32 units/acre, as staff erroneously states on page two of its report ] . However, the existing zoning for the property is R3 , which allows a maximum of 2 units/acre , or ten units per acre fewer than actually exist. Thus, the existing apartment complex, apart from its numerous oth- er shortcomings , Zs seriously at odds with the present zoning on the property . In an unprecedented and costly effort to remedy the unsatis- factory existing situation, the applicant proposes and commits to Mr. Marcus Porter and Commissioners February 12 , 1983 Page Four eliminate through actual physical removal 41 existing residential units valued at an average of $100, 000 . That recuction in units brings with it a decrease in density from 35 units/acre to 29 .98 units/acre . such a decrease, which is costly to the City ' s hos- ing stock as well as the applicant, represents a dramatic demon- stration of the applicant ' s good faith effort to comply with the City ordinance . Absolute compliance with the maximum density al- lowed under the existing R3 zone would require demolition of 82 units, or twice what applicant proposes . A demolition program of this magnitude would be severely detrimental not only to the City' s low-moderate income housing stock, tenants ' ability to purchase their units , and the feasibility of the overall project erihance- ment program, but would also conflict with the objectives of the City 's Housing Element to renovate existing housing stock and provide low and moderate income housing opportunities. The appli- cant not only has committed to a major renovation and improvement of the complex , but in another unprecedented action proposes to offer 75% of the 245 units, or 184 units, at low-moderate income prices , as defined by standard governmental and industry formulas . These offers would simply be devastated and the feasibility of the project would be severely undermined if the Commission were to re- quire a doubling of the number of units to be demolished. CONCLUSION. The applicant respectfully reiterates his request that the Planning Commission approve Zone Case No . 83-1, as it is set forth in the draft ordinance of February 4 , 1983 , by the City Attorney . Not only would the rezoning accommodate the enhanced 245-unit condominium project, but is would be consistent with the residential high density land use designation in the City ' s Gen- eral Plan . Furthermore, approval of the rezoning would go far to correct the inconsistency of an existing 35 unit/acre residential use in the R3 zone with the Eroposed 29 . 98 unit/acre residential use in the consistent R4-30 zone. The applicant appreciates the patience and interest of the Planning Commission in this matter . Sincerely yours , Norbert H . Dal l cc: All Commissioners Mr . Charles Thompson Mr . Jim Palin Mr . S voy Dellavia Mr . Jim Barnes Mr . Mike Adams • OA Tl�ACyjn ev T 7� r WIN' tingtan Beach Planninit Commissies P.O. Box !s CALIFORNIA 22"4L ''ter . ,,.t''� ' _ ,•. - . Datea. March � ;Ivk,j YJJ ' • . ': _ ' •; : �� •. ..�. .x{--.4•Iv .:'! • iY'h�M i� a` .r . �i*r�11r.M,M�. •�!',i �..�rJr,fiy � ••_- ^ , '. : t, ,. .� •'_, ~IC- nME -ACTION;-y s *'•, '�..?�' : 71� A 2licant: Norbert: Da -X,.: A4e1 C;- for,'Master.•.Propertiem,Na. 9'. Subject:. CONDITIONArLUSi- `PERMIT' NO;.. 62-31'.. (Continued from 2-15-83) (Tentativet- Tract 1197:,) • • M - '- y , Your, applicittv1a: ar ,.uP_aa b �'C�e�;,fftin3,;i'igtonraQ Pranri „Commi s-- y - - sion on March,IT 3.9". y ,end"your': request:-wrier;: • - Approved Approved with: Condition®r XX_ (bee Attacihedl • ., -���Disapproved;_ •' : , :� _•..;�,Contf•Hued unt31;• • • - ,. Under the provisbinw,oiC;the Huntington Beach Ordinance. Coder the... action taken by the Plan.r.3ng Comis ion. is final unless an appeal La- filed to the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must sat forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which, th¢ applicant. or interested party deem himself aggrieved. Said anneal must bey accompanied by a filing fee of one hundred sixty-five M65?- dollars , and:, bey submitted to the City► Clerk' s office Within tea (10)• 'dayg. of: thai date: of the Commission's action. In your case-,. thet last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is March 25, 1993 . Provisions of the Buntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any appli- cation becomes null and void Kb rafter final approval, unless actual construction has started. Expiration date: 3--15- 85 Very truly yours, James Pal �n ;� Secretary 1 01,41 �fR 2 4 i0 Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA >If264e March 17, 1583 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-31 (Tentative Tract No. 11879) APPLICANT: Norbert Dall, Agent ':or Master Properties, No. 9 Limited 1225 Eighth Street Suite 485 Sacramento, California 95814 REQUEST: To convert an existing 286 unit apartment complex to a 245 unit planned residential development. LOCATION: Subject property is located at the northwest corner of warner Avenue and Edwards Street. DATE OF APPROVAL: March 15, 1983 FINDINGS FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The project contains features which provide good land planning tech- niques with Maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of archi- tecture, landscaping, site layout and design. The applicant is pro- posing major improvements to the existing apartment complex as part of the proposal for conversion to condominiums. The physical im- provements originally proposed by the applicant (e.g. , increased separations between buildings, addition of 117 balconies, addition of recreational facilities and landscaping, construction of parking structures, resurfacing of building exteriors and increased open space) in conjuAction with additional improvements required in the suggested conditions of approval (e.g. , increased fire protection, noise attenuation, security improvements, new appliances, solar hot water heating, reduction of density, etc.) are benefits which offset code deficiencies identified in the request for special permit. 2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City in general . 3. The project is consistent with objectives of planned residential development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible writ:h the surrounding environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: I. The proposed development: complies with the General Plan and with CUP 82-31 March 17 , 1983 Page 2 the adoption of the Special permit, suggested conditions of appro- val, and approval of Zone Change No. 83-1 by the City Council, the project will comply with Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordi- nance Code. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as objectives for implementation of this type of hous- ing. The project could potentially result in the displacement of renters, therefore, it is necessary and appropriate that conditions be required to provide for tenant relocation assistance. 3. The property was studied for this intensity of use at the time the high density designation was plac;eil on the subject property in the General Plan. 4. The proposed developrment on this subdivision comprising 8.17 acres of land is proposed to be constructed having 29. 98 units per dross acre. The proposed zoning to R4-30 is appropriate for the number of units be tng proposed. S. The tot size, depth, frontage, street width and, through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in com- pliamce with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance . 6. Each of the tenants (head of household) of the proposed condominiums conversion project has received written notification of intention to convert at least 60 days prior to the filing of the tentative map. 7. Each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a unit will receive all applicable notices and rights required by the Sub- division Map Act. . 8 . Each tenant will receive written notification that an application for a public report has been sent to the Department of Real Estate and that such report will be available on request. 9. Each tenant will be given written notification i:ithin 10 days of approval of a final map for the proposed condominium conversion. 10. Each of the tenants will be given 180 days written notice of in- tention to convert prior to termination of terkancy. 11. Each of the tenants will be given notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit upon the same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public: or terms more favorable to the tenant . The right will .cun for a period not less than 90 day3 from the date of CUP 82-31 March 17, 1983 Page 3 issuance of the subdivision public report unlesp the tenant gives prior written notice of his or her intention not to exercise the right. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Approval. of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 shall be contingent upon approval of Zone Change No. 83-1 by the Huntington Beach City Council. If the City Council does not approve Zone Change No. 83-1, the Planning Comanission' s conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 shall become null and void. 2. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February_ 4r 1983, shall be the approved layout. The approved de- opmen include the following specific elements agreed to by the owner: a. 245 condominium units, b. 449 square feet of common open space per unit, c. Construction of 117 new balconies, d. Construction of two new parking structures, e. Improvement of the parking structure delineated as P--1 vith a landscaped deck for passive recreational use, f. Improvement of the parking structure delineated are P-2 with active recreational areas including a sod-covered playing area for children, g. Construction of a new swimming pool, wading pool and ;spa and, h. Landscaping of areas affected by demolition, alteration and/ or reconstruction. 3. The owner shall be responsible for developing covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project pursuant to State regulations. The covenants, conditions and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers and recreational ve- hicles onsite unless an area which is specifically designated for such storage and which is in compliance with provisions of Article 936 of the Ordinance Code is provided for in the project. 4,. All approved drives, as deemed necessary by the Fire Department, shall be considered required fire lanes and shall be signed as stich subject to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. S. Buildings within the project Shall be provided with systems related CUP 82-31 March 17, 1993 Page 4 to, fire protection and life safety au deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department and all applicable codes. The following specific fire prevention measures shall be incorporated into the development: a. Smoke detectors/fire alarms in each unit and a fire alarm sys- tem in all buildings, b. Sheet metal lining of laundry, water heater and trash rooms. co one-hour fire walls between units, d. Stand pipe systems in Building 15, e. A fire-proof stairway serving the center of Building 15, and f. A sprinkler system in Parking Structure P--1, the existing park- ing area beneath Building 150 and Parking Structure P-2, if deemed necessary by the Fire Department. 6. A detailed landscape plan which complies with Article 936 of- the ordinance code shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide for the planting of additional trees , alohe Warner Avenue and Edwards Street frontages. All existing' g t mature vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible. The --,,ai.n drive entrance off Edwards Street shall be modified to include landscaping in areas acceptable to the Depart- ments of Development Services and Public Works. Such modifications shall be shown on the approved detailed landscape and sprinkler plan. In addition, Parking Structure P-1 shall be designed to pro- tect to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature vegetation on the southerly side of Building 15. 7. The owner shall be responsible for resurfacing the existing "text- coat" siding on the 16 perimeter buildings and improving balconies for units fronting Warner Avenue and Edwards Street such that they are screened when viewed from the public street. The type of ma-- terial used for resurfacing the buildings and its proposed design, including the method of screening balconies from the public streets, shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building and demolition permits. A. All converted units shall meet the noise insulation standards con- tained in Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. Evidence of compliance shall consist of the submittal of an acoustical ana- lysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experie.iced in the field of acoustical engineering with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis report shall demonstrate compliance with the minimum acceptable standards for the airborne sound isolation of wall and .floor ceiling assemblies and the interior. ' CUP 82-31 March 17, 1983 Page 5 community noise equivalent level for each unit. All measures neces- sary to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. 9. The owner shall submit a security improvement plan in compliance with applicable municipal ordinance, which will be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the is- suance of building permits.' The plan shall provide for strengthened doors and door frames, burglar alarms, security locks, wrought iron gates for units fronting Warner Avenue and Edwards Street, 10. The owner shall submit a plan for exterior lighting throughout the project which will be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Plumbing and electrical stub-outs necessary for the installation of washers and dryers shall be installed in all units adjacent to Warner Avenue and Edwards. Street. 12. Outside storage space shall be provided for each unit pursuant to Section 9363.6 of. the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 13. The owner shall offer to the buyers of condominium writs within the development, a one-year warranty guaranteeing the repair of all ap- pliances, within individual condominium units. The owner shall re- place all appliances three years in age or older within individual condominium units at the time of initial sale. 14. The cuner shall implement a solar hot water retrofit program, as jointly developed with the gas utility, unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department of Development Services, that: a. The Huntington West structures make such retrofit infeasible, or that, b. The financing currently provided under State law for such retrofit programs cannot be arranged. 15 . Prior to the sale of the first• dwelling unit within the project, the owner shall provide to the Department of Development Services and to each purchaser, a copy of the State of California Department of Real Estate Form 639, indicating the project' s3 condition. If for any reason such form is not required by the Department of Steal � Estate,, such form shall, nevertheless, be provided to the Depart- ment of Development Services and to each purchaser. 16. Following the final approval of the condominium conversion by the Department of Real Estate, the owner will implement a tenant re- location and moving expense program for tenants who chose not to purchase their units , as provided in this section: a. The owner will make available to each qualified tenant, as � CUP 82-31 March 17, 1983 Page 6 j definedr at no cost to the tenant, a current and complete list of comparable vacant and available rental units within a five I mile radius: of the Huntington West; b. The owner will pay, on the date not less than thirty (30) days before the qualified tenant is ordered to vacate the premises, a relocation assistance equivalent to one month's current rent. Such relocation assistance payment shall be to assist the tenant in relocating his or her place of residence. c. The owner will reimburse the tenant for actual moving expenses, up to a maximum of $500r except that no such maximum amount will apply for actual moving expenses within California incurred by elderly, disabled, or handicapped tenants, as defined. d. "Qualified tenant", as used herein, means those households, or other parties who rent or lease a unit both on the date the application to convert the Huntington West was approved by the City of Huntington Beach, and on the date on which the owner gave notice to vacate the premises for purpose of converting the affected units to condominiums . i. "Elderly, handicapped, or disabled tenant" , as used herein, shall refer to any tenant meeting the definition of Sec-tion 50072 of the State Health and Safety Code , ii. Any person, household, or other party who rents or leases a unit after the application to convert the Huntington West was approved by the City of Huntington Beach will be given notice thereof and will not be entitled to relocation assistance or moving expenses,. iii. Any tenant qualified for the benefits set forth herein shall not be entitled to said benefits if said tenant pur- chases a converted condominium unit. iv. Any tenant who has given notices of his or her intention to vacate the premises prior to the date of the mailing of the Notice to Quit, as provided by Covernment Code Section 66427.1, shalt not be entitled to the benefits set forth herein. v. The benefits set forth herein shall inure to all qualified tenants who are not in default of their obligations to pay rent on or after the date of final approval of the conver- sion by the California Department of Heal Estate. If the tenant is in default of his or her obligation to pay rent at the time specified, the relocation assistance payment will be reduced by an amount equal to one-thirtieth ( 1/30) of the monthly rent for each day the tenant regains in possession of the premises after the default. For purposes of this. programe a tenant will not be considered in default CUP 82-31 March 17, 1983 Page 'l of rent payment during a period for which a tenant has prepaid the required rent. as In the event a unit is occupied by a subtenant under an agree- ment with the tenant, the moving expense reimbursement or re- location assistance provided herein will be paid proportionately to both parties, not to exceed the maximum amounts specified in Parta 1 and 2. With rarpect to the payment of moving ex- penses, such payment(s) will be made in relations to the actual costs of moving the property of each party. f. From the date of final approval by the City until the sale of the Final unit, the rental increases shall not exceed the consumer price index. g. The owner shall inform all tenants presently located in units which are to be demolished, of their right to relocate into another available unit within the project. 17. Tenants who occupy units within the existing apartment complex shall: a. Be provided notification that the owner has received approval from the City to convert the existing complex to condominiums. The property owner shall also provide to the tenant, a list of the conditions of approval. b. Following the date on which the City grants discretionary appro- val of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879, the owner of the Huntington West shall provide notice to each prospective tenant that a condominium conversion has been Approved for the Huntington West and that no relocation or moving expense reimbursements will be paid to tenants who begin their tenancy on or after said date. The signature of each tenant which term is defined for purposes of this section as "head of household', shall be obtained from each prospective tenant to indicate his or her understanding of the provisions of this condition. A copy of the signed and dated notice shall be transmitted to the Director of the Department of Development Services within 30 days of its completion. 19. Seventy-five (75) percent of the 245 condominiums, or 104 units, shall be made available for purchase by persons or families of low or moderate income, as follows: a. For purposes of this condition, the term "person or families of low income" shall be defined as one which earns 80 percent or less of the median income as established by the United States Uepartment of Housing and; Community Development for the standard metropolitan statistical area within which the proposed develop- ment is located, as adjusted for the number of members of the household. The term "persons or Families of moderate income" CUP 82-31 March 17, 1983 Page 8 is defined as one which earns 80.1 percent to 120 percent of the median income, as established herein. b. The determination that a tenant, as defined, constitutes a per- son or family of low or moderate income shall be made by the City of Huntington Beach or its designee. In no event shall the owner of the Huntington West be required to make said determina- tion, except that the owner may •maintain and annually transmit to the City of duntington Beach or its designee a listing of tenants who have expressed an interest in purchasing their unit or a com- parable unit; c. The 184 condominiums affected by this condition shall be priced for qualified individuals in equal proportion to correspond to the spectrum of the low/moderate income range, from 80 percent to 120 percent of median income, as defined. Twenty (20) per- cent of the 184 condominiums, or 37 units? shall be offered for purchase on the basis of 80 percent of median income; 20 percent or 37 units, - shall be offered for purchase. on the basis of 90 percent of median income; 20 percent, or 36 units (because of rounding) , shall be offered on the basis of 100 percent of median income; 20 percent or 37 units, shall be offered on the basis of 110 percent of median income; 20 percent, or 37 units, shall be offered on the basis of 120 percent of median income. The formula for pricing shall be calculated as follows: Purchaser's PromiliM ( Association �� ) Sales Ixe X Lending Factor ( Fees ) Price Real Estate 'fax S + Debt Service Constant I d. The 184 condominiums identified herein shall first be offered for sale to 'tenants who reside at Huntington West, area not in default on '-heir rent or lease payments, and have not given notice of nn intention to move from the premises on the date on which the City of Huntington Beach grants discretionary approval to Conditional Use Permit No. 82M-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879. rho list may identify tenants who have expressed an interest to purchase their unit or a comparable unit. e. The owner shall prepare and maintain a list of tenants who qualify pursuant to Section (d) . The list shall be filed with the Di- rector of the Department of Development Services within 30 days of the date of discretionary approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11919. The list may identify tenants who have expressed an interest to purchase their unit or a comparable unit. f. No later than 10 working days after the Department of Real Es- tate grants final approval of the condomini,-m conversion, the owner shall., consistent with Government Code Section 66427 . 1 (d) , provide notice to all tenants of their respective right to pur- chase their or a comparable unit. Tenants who quAli.fy pursuant to subsection (a) shall in addition be aotifie3 of their oppor- tunity to purchase their unit, or a comparable unit as available, CUP 82-31 March 17, 1983 Page 9 at prices as provided in subsection Cc) . The term of the, offer to ppurchass as provided herein, shall be for 90 da s after notice is given, as provided by Government Code Sec -ion 66427 .2 , however, that a prospective purchaser who otherwise qualifies pursuant to this condition may request in writing, a one-time 45-day extension to complete his or her good faith intention to purchase a unit. ig. Tenants who express an interest in purchasing their or a com- parable unit prior to the date on which the City grants discre- tionary approval to Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Ten- tative Tract No. 111379 shall be provided the first opportunity to purchase said unit, pursuant to subsection (c) . If all of the available units in one of the categories identified in sub- section (c) are commited for sale to tenants, then any tenant who subsequently expresses an interest in purchasing their or a comparable unit shall be provided the first opportunity t to pur- chase h P PPo Y P chase a unit in the next PP higher applicable category. g h. Following the close of the period specified in subsection (f) , any of the units within the price categories established by . subsection (c) , which have not been sold to qualified tenants, will be offered , for purchase at the same respective price to the City of Huntington Beach or its designee for a period of 90 days. The City or its designee may, in writing, request the same extension of time as provided in subsection (f) , and such request shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the City or its designee does not purchaso said units during said period, then the units shall be available to the owner for sale without re- striction as to price. 19. All recreational facilities included in the owner' s proposal for site improvements (e.g. , passive and active recreational amenities on parking structures, two new swimming pools and new passive re- creational areas) shall be installed prior to conveyance of the first unit. 20. The applicant shall submit a phasing schedule to the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. The phasing schedule shall establish specific time frames for the development phases described on Page 11 of the applicant's letter dated November 16, 1982. The applicant shall provide for lighting, fencing and 24-hour security of all demolition, construction and storage sites. I hereby certify that Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 was approved by the Planning Commistsion of the City of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, March 15, 1983, upon the foregoing conditions and citations. Very truly yours, y ames P in Secretary 0 j lm 1 ,� f1J •� 1�' ti:•4�w�� ' �r•••1• �•'•1��•1.t.• 1�• �ti ,• •..1.�r'f``,.,�i� • I���'jr,� �N�l• �i�r,.' , •1h� •i'.wt'��Ij�!��,�'�•,� r��t�}��',t. r'i!i'��Jj.�l. ,,•,.,, ,., •,.t i ��•.-!`'•��. �.r;��,�!� •_ 1(• 1 •;� N�4 T. tt (, , • .r e!1 K •3�.It1)•, t')Z,is �. .r .. � Y ,HU , 1 ''V.. %,� •• !.j!� v+• � f'1, .�. ,. r � ,., f� • 1. >r +�'tir ;,� �• !� • CO V N C'� .� u C�. �� ��'�'�• �� :r''� r.:,• �: ,�� ;r•I•!•ji•1}�1��if,.'r f t. ��,, (r ► �r ! ,� 1.. •• t , i ll t•' j r�'' ' •• rl C1Z 1 �1 �IlhlflGfOM + � ''tr: ;l`',{, ' y' '�� �;i•'w+' ;}•+I'.• }+r,"` ! �� p"A .,11� '• '�`•' ,`�`'i t '•1� ty�l•Wi1i� � � �• •{�;��:r.(��.•'1�•i 3�„1��'jrp/.• •, �A� •• ttirisbM,•�1;j�;'c - A% ,O4Hf 4 �if- 1 �•1. ,',1 11';• Ir�/�� � •� � �r'�'�+ ••V .•`11 � ��'`�' .r• •�' •� ��f ! �, i�.•, �A1_(j`f�•1(�. �' ' • �� .{}'' . 'A t AR N ^eNF bA' �f a`{MTQ,,1 a1151'g3: +'1 . t t �:"N;: ;., '�1 �., . ij'r` • �,,tlt . 1ZL �, •�jt�.�� rL' •�{� ► '� tali Ir` ,�7�i� 1 � .h� •� 6jj ( `t� t 1 �I•i,.4}�r .f•� �''� � ��'�,r�' LIB^' 1Lf.1`�''\'�r�. L��,(�,�j, i,� 1 � ,}-':.•r'�1��a..l'•J�•�• ��� {fib i , •�tT+ LL �.•1 i�f� i' �• 'i'Y r i� /►C i ;, • '• ' " .• /,�1 .T"• r •w -..`1•: ► " �� r`S T I' >~��i•;�. �,+. .l' ;'� tr'7�i 1�► ,:f. !'./ 1. • ul 0 •� 1 '� jT 'vdH'fi / I 'wfsit�jtd�a}� da�r �h�t•d .,•,, � ,,�, P,� r { ^, r. � . ' 1 J w Itl t t 0 9tl�'. -�6refereer�c� •t � r •: an Is'�c�htin �' Mdi�h � ,. t at1• iti �COmai���fi 9 . , . '�•� . Item C 1 bf �. ,1, n ,.,•,�, , . , , -cand& edr{v fS'��rt ot'; ti $ llnt �its.:located:;a tali do brn r ,df NarnSh and' W&Mv ; _ �; •.t�;. •;;''�;�.+ , . `y '' •�r; <; ,. �it ''' i "� 1A t TLr I. .01 '� :� tie .`• � ... tL the tbegt his 1 :IC �� an �f y� havi�:'l'•bit �•'inititt a s �tt�if; eCIRt�. , ;. gat ;;=' ; , •'�4_:�� ,� . '*. •. r� , i. is fit'1. .'�X(� a _ �! •i•r. . • '��� �h • . �, ✓ S/1 r. 1 f s, . f, ��' 1 �, ,M• 'tf' IR i 4 l ��•� '�r �} ��TI• , � .Ily.�• �.�I�r�ji�•�'' • •• i � .• ''�_�+�'•1.w t�l t%� "T� r ► 1 .T^''''' br,, 11,� r `�y 'r.• r ' •. I ',��t� 1 •} !; ,1 ,,,• is/V r "- r.'ti• ;ti • , .. K lti s T,•fit ti a• h •`" i• 1 '.'i �i •' `! �,.f -r � ri • � •�Z�'' ,1, s .f1 1 of• • , • *, r.� 1�1', 1, O.L. Yjt''r. �y rh .hRr:^.f • t �+ t1I 1yr, 'f •' J,',�'j�,l (;1�,., t,• .�jj` • • •i.l - r•}/ '��s 1!. r..`1 t7 ,I'' `'J�1. ''r'� r �' .��•f •� rY rl '," •,'fy • .� l ` , . • .' �r.•;i�7,' 1 ,� �': rC - •;'''• •i r, l l .:. ,•�, , •x!r r `• • y�, _/ •: ., ,' .•! I,y •�/' •.' .1 :,f 1 � .` � ? ^. •' ++K���� ,� �,�•. :., I�Vftii •!:•t ' ►. t�..11••j .�•,••,� •' tl�l ►�►: ' t1' t•''•l .+•� `�1 ,a11i" j7`'.rr ` J! • '`� 1• '' ?•\V: r{':7, tr 'rtI• .�•y ,!,,ia•.;��,.'��,� �. a►�I > 1t. • L�, `ff• ,✓ ►�1 ��•��'�'}' tilt ; i •'� :r' i� �J>•' �1�. .►M +1 t��+ �x1�. f! w '�'��. .1',,71�=�..J•.•'+;M '�Yf�1' ,►�l�k�l�i i 1 .•1�.�: +4.�►• 1 f -t►lytlti�'/: t � ,�1•;; �Y.l.•.� � {.�,"•i. ^�.iij Tt•'� y'�•L�\•, ' t r ' '� 't',; .1,, •', 54 �� Lt;jL¢ i ;•� 't,".s';�; ,�.fAf; '. _ ;;s J a ,• /� '.j� ) , 1•'t 11�• '�' 41 1iT1.�►�• �� r L /• •tift'1� / , •t{ ( ",t .ir�''' � � fly ��. •, .. ' •1' 1••\1+'f r 11yy ; �t,�,,, I � •tl ,� •f, r , A'WctqmeWT" "F PEARSON AND NVVESTHOFF AIA ARCHITECTS AND YI:.AI\'NERS April 15, 1983 W. Notbert Dail Norbert Dail and Associates 1225 8th Street, Suite 485 Sacramento; CA 95814 Re: Huntington West Condominium Conversion Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Councilman Pattinson has appealed the decision of the Ifuntington Beach Planning Commission's Item C-1, meeting of March 15, 1.983, due to the alleged substandard construction of the building. There are two different types of construction within the project. Thy center IT' three story building, with parking below, is standard wood frame construction as follows: ParkingGara�e: a. Masonry (concrete block) walls b. Concrete slab floor c. Steel columns and beams supporting a wood frame floor structure above. Upper Three Floors: a. Iood floor joists and roof construction b. Wood stud bearing wall construction with exterior stucco and interior gypsum board finishes. The perimeter two story buildings with parking below are uniquely constructed as follows: Structural steel column and beam framing system with special interlocking sheet steel panel floor joist and roof systems. 'The floor panels have a 1-1/2" to 2" thick lightweight concrete: fill over the metal panels, similar to a typical metal. deck and concrete fill floor system used in many com- mercial structures. The roof system is similar interlocking sheet steel panels with the flat partel surface exposed to the interior and built-up composition roofing over. Exterior walls are interlocking sheet steel panels similar to floor and roof systems with a "Tex-Cote" exterior spray finish over the panels and gypsum board over the interior surface. Interior walls are metal studs with gypsum board surfaces both sides.. -1314 MAYMNA CITY DRIVE'.. SUITE 11O. MAMMA DEL nCY. CALIFORNIA 00201 213 822.0889 200-1 KALtA IROAD. mr.,ro.N LAGOON. S(ITC 1.11). 110:tiC7WW. 1iAWAn nosto Boa 0•31•t 000 April is, 1933 Huntington West Condominium Conversion Page Two The warding in the apppeeal of "substandard" construction we assume refers to these perimeter buildings, as the center "X" building is constructed of "standard" construction. The term "substandard" infers that these buildings were constructed in violation of "standard" Construction, i.e. , building codes, methods of construc- tion acceptable to the industry, unsafe, etc. We do admit to the fact that the exterior surface of the building is "unsightly" and we have agreed to rectify this situation in cur conditions of approval to the Planning Commission. Hawevcr, we totally disagree with the term "substandard" construction. These buildings were constructed in the 1969-1970 era, they were approved by the building code requirements at that time (which have riot changed appreciably to date) . The complex was designed by an architect (lack Chernoff ALA, California License No. C-1420) . The structural system is a Rusco Architectural Products metal panel system purported to be a cost savings system at the time of construction and later proved to be too expensive for residential construction. The framing system was designed by Paul Koshi, scr-uctural engineer, California License No. 1494. Both the architect and structural engineer are currently in business in the Los Angeles area. There is no evidence of sagging bears, floors, roofs, etc. The exterior wails show evidence of leaks during heavyr rains. This is caused by the surface of the metal panels not being properly prepared before applying the "Tex-Cote" finish and this finish is deteriorating as stated above. This situation will be corrected. We submit that these buldings are not "substandard" construction, and if a deter- mination of qualityof construction is required based on "standard" construction these buildins would qualify as better than standard construction. i Sincerely, L. Pe earson AIA Pearson F jfUesthoff AIA AICP California License No. C-1861 cr i + r NORBERT H. DALL ASSOCIATES 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SUITE 485 / SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 / 916/ "3-2333 February 10 , 1983 The Hon. Marcus Porter, Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , California 92648 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON WEST CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Dear Mr. Chairman and Conunissioners: In the following pages, please find a revised project description for the conversion of the Huntington west apart- ments to condominium ownership , as proposed by my client, Master Properties No. 9, Ltd. Copies of the revised project description have been provided to and been discussed with Iyour staff. The revised project description is the result of questions raised at the Subdivision Advisory Committee meeting on December 17, 1982 ; frequent technical meetings and consultations with your staff; informal meetings with Huntington West tenants , including some children; and supplemental acoustical, design, and housing policy work conducted by applicant ' s consultants during the past month . The appl .ant respectfully requests that the project description contained in this submittal be allowed to supersede the description and proposals contained in my letter of November 16, 1982 , to Mr. Mike Adams of your staff. (A copy of the initial project description is con- tained in Appendix "A" ) . In summary, the revised project description/application includes the following eleven major features : i ( i ) Demolition of 41 units in various locations of the existing complex to enhance pri vacy, open space, and the overall appearance of 4 the Huntington Wes ; ( 2 ) Reduction in density from the existing 35 units/acre to 29 . 9 units/acre ; _i_ , rThe Hon. Marcus Porter, Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission February 10, 198" Page 2 (3 ) Commitment to making 75% of the condo- miniums lore 184/245 units) available for purchase by persons �,r families of low or moderate income ; (4 ) Increase in common open space from 232 sq. ft. per unit in the existing complex to 440 sq. ft . A in the condominium complex; ( 5 ) Construction of 117 new balconies for enhanced private open space; ( 6 ) Construction of two new parking structures, one with a landscaped deck for passive recreation, and the other with active recreational areas; ( 7 ) Noise attenuation improvements to the interior walls , floors, ceilings, and windows of units, as indicated by the acoustical study prepared for Huntington West; ( 8 ) Construction of new (wood oz stucco) exteriors to replace the "texcoat" siding I on the perimeter units; ( 9) Additional landscaping, including privacy/ security berms along portions of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street where units will be demolished; ( 10) Payment of relocation and moving assistance expenses (equal to one months rent plus up to $ 500) to present tenants who chose not to purchase their unit following final approval of the conversion (with special consideration for the elderly, handicapped, or disabled) ; and, ( 11) Construction of two new swimming pools for adults and children, and a spa . These features reflect many of the comments and suggestions received by the applicant during the past ten months from community leaders, city staff , and tenants . The proposed I The Hon. Marcus Porter, Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission February 10, 1983 Page 3 features also reflect the applicant ' s awareness of certain planning deficiencies present in the existing apartment complex when it is measured against contemporary community standards . However,' approval by the Planning Commission of the proposed condominium conversion will create the very financial, feasibility of making the capital expen- ditures to significantly upgrade Huntington West and overwhelmingly bring it into conformance with the require- ments of Kuntingtor; Beach Ordinance Code Article 936 . Th* details of compliance or near compliance by the propused Huntington West condominiums with Article 936 are set forth in the subsegu!ent sections of this submittal . In preparing this package of structural improvements and affordable housing proposals , the applicant has consciously sought to maximize achievement of Article 936 objectives, whileeelso retaining the largest number of t.komenwnership I opportunities affordable to low-moderate inccmi? households. 1 Consequently, certain primary objectives such as parking, privacy (as measured in buildir•g separation and noise attenuation) , common open space, and garage fire safety will be fully met by the proposed improvements . Density will be met if the Commission approves a rezoning of the property from R3 (at 35 units acre) to R4-30 (at 29. 9 units/acre) . The land use designation in the General Plan is for residential high density. Other desirable object- Ives, such as private ,open space, minimum unit floor area, site coverage, and setback for existing buildings from Warner Avenue and/or Edwards Street will be substantially, but not totally, achieved. In every instance, however, the j i proposed cor.dominiunt conversion will achieve drastic f Improvements over the existing apartment complex. t The applicant therefore respectfully requests the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. I 82-31, the Special Permit applied for herewith, Tentative Tract No. 11879 , and Zone Change 83-1 . Such apprbval. would add significantly to the stock of moderately-priced home- j ownership available in the City, while concurrently improving the physical and aesthetic quality of the Huntington West complex. 4 i i The Hon. Marcu.3 Porter ) Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission February 10 , 1983 Page 4 pp On behalf of the applicant and his consultants, I would like to express our appreciation at the opportunity of working with your staff . We look forward to appearing before the Planning Commission on February 15, 1953 . Sincerely yours, I Norbert H. Dall cc . A mm• 11. Commissioners ioners Mr. Jim Palin Mr. Savoy Bellavia Mr. Jim Barnes Mr. hike Adams i I NOTE. A copy of this submittal will be rnadc, available for � review by tenants at the Huntington West rental office on February 11 , 1983 . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I letter from Norbert H. Dall . Transmittal , authorized agent for Master Properties No. 9 . , to Mr. Marcus Porter. Chairman of the Huntington Beach Planning Com- mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i YY . Table. of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 j (A ) General Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ( 1 ) Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (2 ) Recreational Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (3 ) Project Layout, Landscaping. . . . . . . . . . . 2 ( 4 ) Balconies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (5 ) Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ( 6 ) Noise Attenuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 (7 ) Housing/Tenant Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 (B) Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (C) Surrounding Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (D) Statistical Information/Proposed Project . . . 4 (E) Subdivision Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (F) Development Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 0 5 (1 ) 9362 . 1 Maximum Density/Request for Zone Change No. 83-1. . . . . . . . . . 5 (2 ) 9362 . 2 Maximum Site Coverage. . . . . . . . . 5 (3 ) 9362 . 3 Setback From a Public Street . . 6 (4 ) 9362. 4 Setback From Interior Prop- erty Lines . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 6 ( 5) 9362 . 5 Setback From Interior Prop- erty Line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( 6) 9362 . 6 Setback From Interior Prop- erty Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (7 ) 9362 . 7 Building Separation. . . . . . . . . . . 7 (8) 9362 . 8 Building Orientation. . . . . . . . . . 7 (9) 9362 . 9 Building Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 t - ii- P I - TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont 'd . ) ( 1Q ). 9362. 1.0 Building Bulk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( 11 ) 9362 .11 Common Open Space. . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( 12) 9362.12 Main Recreation :area. . . . . . . . 8 ( 13 ) 9362 .13 Private Open Space. . . . . . . . . . 8 ( 14 ) 9362. 14 Minimum Floor Area. . . . .. . . . . . 8 ( 15) 9362.15 Private Access Way Widths . . . 9 ( 16 ) 9362.16 Parking. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ( 17 ) 9362 .17 Landscaping. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 9 IV. APPENDICES (A) November 16, 1982 Conditional Use Permit Application Project Description (B) Balcony Plan (C) Noise Study (0) dousing/Tenant Assistance Memoranda (E) Notice to New Tenants (F) Subdivision Committee fleeting Minutes (G) Zoning Change Request (H) Special Permit Request I i THE, APPLICATION TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON WEST APARTMENTS,:>TO C61466MINIUM OWNERSHIP CONFORMS TOTALLY IN MANY PARTS AND SUB- STANTIALLY IN OTHER PARTS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTXCLE 936 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE. GENERAL- INFORMATION . Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract Map 11879 have been filed pursuant to Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9361 to permit the conversion and substantial enhancement of an existing 286-- unit apartment complex to a 245-unit planned residential de- velopment. The subject property, the Huntington West ( for- merly, "Family Affair" ) , is located at 6401 Warner Avenue, inarediately north and west of the intersection of Warner Av- enue and Edwards Street. Project Description. The Huntington West apartment com- plex .was ui t in the early 19701s . It presently consists of 286 units, of which 60 are one--bedroom units, 218 are two-bed- room units, and eight are three-bedroom units. As part of this (revised) application, the applicant proposes to demolish 41 units at 17 lacations in order to increaseopen space, building separation, and improve the overall aesthetics of.. the complex. The demolition will also dramatically reduce building' bulk ( in one instance from 25 contiguous units to a building maximum of 6 units) and will reduce the density of the complex from the present 3S—units;racre to 29 . 9 units/acre . The units proposed to be demolished are all two-bedroom apartments. Recreational Amenities . Presently existing recreational amenities at Huntington WeFt include a 7 , 634 sq. ft . , three- story clubhouse that features a screened sundeck, separate men ' s and women's gymnasia, two billiard rooms, and a meeting room. In addition, there are a tennis court, volleyball court, half--basketball court, ohildren ' s play area, and an adult and wading pool. The site plan, as revised, continues to include these , although some uses are relocated for optimal apace utilization. However , at the children 's request , their- play area will be expanded. Two new pools and a spa will also be built and the landscaped deck above the semi-subterranean parking structure P1 will be designed for passive recreation ( i .e. , strolling, sitting, etc . ) . Project ,Laxout, Landscaping. In its present configura- tion, the Huntington West conslits of six separate structures. They are perhaps best described as two rather dense and par- allel strings of two-story townhouses and stacked flats along the perimeter of the property, with a three-story, x-shaped building in the center . The perimeter buildings are separated by a continuous driveway accessible principally from Warner Avenue and secondarily from Edwards Street. As part of the condominium conversion, the applicant pro- poses to remove existing units at various locations so as to break up the long strings of buildings in favor of 17 more compact and architecturally pleasing structures . Thus, units .:ill be removed along the Warner Avenue frontage in order to create a *250 foot-long bermed and landscaped open area. Sim- ilarly, units will be removed along the Edwards Street front- age to dispel the present alley-like effect of the Perimeter driveway. The two interior perimeter buildings will be broken up so. that no remaining building will cortain .more than six contiguous units . Only the center, x-shaped building will remain unchanged, but then each of its four wings has only five contiguous units in it . Most of the rather abundant landscaping around the center building will remain; in areas where the proposed subterranean parking structure P1 will adversely affect existing vegetation, new substantial trees and bushes in planters will replace it. New landscaping will be provided for the berms along Warner and Edwards Streets, in areas of demolished units, and around the pool/active recreation area . ,Balconies. Private open space is presently provided in a widely ranging assortment of balconies ( from 32 sq. ft. to 120 sq. ft . ) for all but eight of the existing 286 units . `, Building design unfortunately precludes construction of new balconies for these units, which are among them largest in the complex. The applicant does, however , propose to construct 117 new balconies for two-bedroom units so as to either bring them fully or at least substantially into compliance with Article 936. ( See Appendix B) . Existing one-bedroom units have, with- out exception, 48 sq. ft. balconies . Because of the considerable per-balcony construction cost, the applicant does not propose to demolish the existing balconies attached to these units so as to be able to replace them with balconies 12 sq. ft. larger. i i Parking. As constructed, the Huntington West apart- ments contain 609 parking spaces, of which 328 are covered spaces , 230 are tandem spaces,, and 52 are uncovered spaces. City staff has advised the applicant that tandem spaces are not permissible in a condominium conversion project, even where both spaces are assigned to and utilized by the res- idents of one unit . At a cost of $1 . 2 million, the applicant proposes to substantially rebuild the parking arrangements for the Hun- tington West condominiums . Basic to the parking plan is a semi-subterranean garage (PI) that will connect with the ex- isting, subterranean garage in the central building, and an at-grade garage (P2 ) in the rear of the property. Together twith the remaining at-grade garages in the perimeter buildings, a total of 495 covered spaces will be provided, of which 40 (or 9%) are compact car spaces. In addition, 96 open spaces , of which 14 are compact spaces, will also be provided. Primary vehicular access to Huntington West will continue to be from Warner Avenue, except that two separate and somewhe': smaller ingress-egress lanes will be cut through the berm in place of the existing single entrance . The secondary driveway at Edwards Street will remain unchanged. Noise Attenuation. In Y response to a request b several P Q Planning ommissioners; the applicant during January, 1983 caused a sound isolation study of existing walls, and floor- ceiling assemblies to be performed. The conclusions of that study are contained in Appendix C. iin summary, the acoustical engineers found that certain wall and floor-ceiling Field Impact Isolation Class measure- ments fall below the minimum acceptable, while all Community Noise Equivalent Level values along both streets slightly or eomewhat exceed the maximum allowable values. As already in- dicated in the letter of November 16 , 1982 , that accompanied the application (at page 2 ) , the applicant stands committed to improving the sound attenuation capabilities of all walls, floors-ceilings , and/or windows to meet the applicable stan- dards . Housing Tenant Assistance. At the request of City staff , � 9 Y , the applicant has suBmItted two memoranda that set forth (a) the proposed low-moderate income housing program, and (b) the proposed tenant relocation and moving expense program. Both are contained in Appendix D. In summary, the low-moderate income housing program pro- poses that 75% of the units remaining after the demolition/en- hancement program is completed, or 184/245 units, will be offered for sale at prices affordable by low and moderate income persons -3 1 or households, as defined pursuant to standard housing author- ity practice. The price range of the affordable units will be between 80% -- 120% of the median income for Orange County, with one-fifth of the units offered at each 10% increment . Afford- able units will first be offered to tenants, and after a spec- ified period of time, unsold units will be offered for purchase by the City of Huntington Beach or its designee. The latter provision would allow Huntington Beach to potentially utilize such units in the implementation of the local housing policies required by SB 626 ( 1981 session) . t relocation and moving assistance program will The tenant re o o g p g become available upon final approval of the conversion to all tenants who chose not to purchase their units and who resided at the Huntington West at the time the application was filed. For tenants who initiate their tenancy after that date, notice is provided pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the pendancy of the condominium conversion . (See Appendix E for a copy of the notice which is signed by both a representative of the ap- plicant and the new tenant. Copies of these signed notices will be submitted to the Director of Planning on an annual basis after city discretionary approval is granted, or sooner if the City so requests. ) In substance, tenant assistance will consist of providing to each tenant a reasonably current and complete list of com- parable vacant and available rental units within a 5-mile radius of the „Huntington West, a relocation assistance payment equal to one month 's current rent, and reimbursement up to a total of $500 for actual moving expenses . However, no such maximum is proposed to apply for actual moving expenses incurred within California by elderly, disabled, or handicapped tenants . ENVIRONMENTAL ` STATUS. Pursuant to Section 15101(k) of the California Environments . Quality Act Guidelines, the conversion of an existing apartment complex to condominiums is categorical- ly exempt . Therefore, no further environmental documentation is required with respect to Huntington West. SURROUNDING LAND USE. Property surrounding the Huntington West is 3eveloped wit'�Firapartments , a mobile-home park, and a flood control channel . STATISTICAL INFORMATION - PROPOSED PROJECT • ( 1 ) Number of Units 245 ( 2 ) Area of Project - 8. 17 acres ( 3 ) Density 29. 98 units/acre- ( 4 ) Building Type 60 One-bedroom Units 177 Two-bedroom Units 8 Three-bedroom Units ( 5) Site Coverage : Allowed - 50% Provided - 59 . 61 j --4- i (6 ) Common Open Space : Required -- 98, 000 sq. ft . Provided - 110, 087 sq. ft . (7) Parking: Required - 583 Spaces Provided - 583 Spaces SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the Etuntington West conversion and enhancement project on De- cember 17, 1482 . In attendance at the meeting were Commissioner Higgins and representatives of the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, and Department of Development Services , as well as three representatives of the applicant . The attendees dis- cussed the proposed enhancement and affordable housing programs, as well as building bulk , parking garage design, fire safety, re-routing of water lines interior to the project, open space, privacy of residents, and parking. (See Appendix F for the ininutes of the Subdivision Committee meeting . ) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ( Section 9362, et seq. ) Section 9362 . 1, Maximum Density. The existing Huntington West comp ex is IoFate2l in t e R3-zone,, but has a density of 35 units/acre, although the maximum number of dnits allowable Is 25 . Similarly, the existing complex has 80 . 5 bedrooms/acre, when a maximum of 50 bedrooms/acre is allowed under the zoning . To reduce the density of the complex, the applicant proposes at a cost of more than $4 million to demolish 41 two-bedroom units . In addition, the applicant proposes to remove certain interior folding walls within units that presently allow rela- tively large bedrooms or dens to be closed off from the remain- der of the room( s ) and would. therefore, be counted as separate bedrooms . The remaining 245 units , however, still represent a density of 29 .98 units/acre or 53 . 6 bedrooms/acre, which would exceed the maximum permissible under the code for the R3 zone. Therefore, after consultation with the Director of the De- partment of Development Services, the applicant has filed a zone change request ( from R3 to R4-30) that on the one hand gives rec- ognition to the existing high density residential land use desig- nation for the Huntington West property, while on the other hand it recognizes the substantial reduction in density that will be achieved through the demolition program. The higher zoning will thus lead in practice to lower densities and the necessary con- formance of the proposed project to this important, if not easily achieved standard. Section 9362.2, Maximum Site 'Covera e. The maximum site Coverage or the Huntington eet is technically 501 of the net area ( 160 , 006 sq. ft. ) . However, because of the interpretation i that the semi-subterranean parking garage P1, which is necessary to provide :,adequate parking on-site , �constitiites site coverage, the. project as revised entails 164 , 454 sq. ft . , of coverage , or 59. 6% of the net area. It is the applicant ' s judgment that full ,`provision of the required parking is a higher resident and community benefit. than strict adherence to the lot coverage maximum. Furthermore , the landscaped deck, bermed front, and semi--subterranean location of the P1 structure gives it a minimal structural appearance . The applicant is therefore requesting a special permit for this deviation from Section 9362 .2, because the proposed P1'; garage will promote a better living environment through the. additional , covered parking it provides; maximizes aesthetically � . pleasing site layout and landscaping ; is, not detrimentall, to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighbor- hood or city, nor the value of property or improvements= and achieves a development; adapted to the terrain. and, the existing subterranean parking garage it the center building. Secti6n ' 9362.1 , Setback. Of the 11 buildings fronting on either Wainer venue rEc.wards Street , two (buildings 1 & 8) have an 1112" setback, and four (buildings 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 ) have a setback ranging between 314" and 513". Seven buildings (build- ings a , 12, 1301 141 15 , 17, and P1 ) meet the requirements with setbacks ranging between 44 ' and 202 ' . Section 9362 . 4 , Setback from Interior Pro ert lLiheS. (a) Vfie finishe3 grade of Huntington West at the common property line with either. the Orange County Flood Control Distract property or the mobile bme park does not appear to differ from the adjacent finished grade on the abutting prop- erty. (b) The walls along the common property lines cited in section (a) are both of solid masonry material . (c) No portion of Huntington West projects over the common property line . (d) The P2 parking structure and recreation deck is pro- posed to be designed so that the garage will not exceed nine feet in' height. along the common property line with the. flood control channel. However, at the request of the Fire Depart- ment; it is proposed that the part of the parking structure furthest from the property line be constructed to a height of 13160 in order to allow fire equipment to pass unimpeded. Section 9362 . 5, Setback from Interior Propertx Line. All Huntington Went perimeter ui ings other than garag a have at least a ten foot setback from the interior property line. 5ection 9362 . 6 , 5etbank from Interior Property Line. with See statement t respect to Section , pp______"' above. N6� I 0 Section 9362 .7 , Building Separation and Setback . (This section will e addressed in a separate memorandum) * Section 9362 .7 , Building Orientation. The building orientation o. Kuntington West is compatible with the neighbor- hood. There are no natural areas remaining on site. Section• 9362 . 9 , Buildin Hei ht. Tine perimeter buildings, including gra e- eve garages, are 5 ' a" in height. The central building , including the semi-subterranean garage is 3314 " in height . Section, 9362 .'10 , Building Bulk. ( a ) The presently existing Hunt ngton West complex has six separate structures. Their respective bulk, measured in number of units attached side by side, consistently exceeds the standard of this section . However, the revised site plan, which provides for 17 structures , shows 13 out of 17 buildings complying with the maximum . of six side by side units . Of the four deficient buildings , two have seven units side by side, while two others have nine units side by side. The applicant, therefore, respectfully requests that a special permit be granted for this deviation from Section 9362. 1.O because retention of the two seven-unit buildings along Warner 'Avenue will enhance the aesthetic appearance of the complex because they will shield from public view the rears of the buildings and garage.,- on the interior of the perimeter. Retention, of the two nine-unit buildings along the flood control channel property line would provide better land planning techniques because this portion of the site, being furthest removed from the streets , is therefore the quietest . (b) 10 of th.2 28 units fronting on Warner Avenue or Edwards Street have offsets in the front building 'ane, although they do not occur with the regularity en- isioned by this subsection. (c) There are no one story units at Huntingt n West and the lack therefore does not appear to be detrimental to the general health, welfare, sasety , and convenience of the city or the neighborhood. In recognition of the desira- bility of architectural treatme;,t of the entire roofline of the complex, however, the applicant has committed to com- pleting the mansard roof r-i all bus l iings that remain after, demolition. Section 9362.110 Common Open_Space . With a density of , 29 . 98 units acre, Huntington West —s required to provide a minimum of 400 sq. ft . of common open space per unit. -7- The revised site plan indicates that 449 sq. ft ./unit will be. piovided. Furthermore, (a) the common open space area includes game courts, game rooms, swimming pools , and play areas for children; (b) the recreation areas are not located within ten feet-of any ground floor dwelling unit wall with a door or window; (c) the recreation areas have ,a mirtimucu of 20 feet dimension; (d) enclosed recreation space does not constitute more than 154 of the total required area ( 1 , 500 sq. ft .11110, 087 sq. ft. ) ; and (e) the project con- tains one main recreational area. Section 9362 .12 , Main Recreation Area, Minimum Size. The ma n recreation area is 14 . 15Z sq. t. ; Uri second largest recreation area is 12 ,082 sq . ft. Both meet the minimum dimensions of this section. Huntington West also provides a clubhouse, which is in excess of 7, 600 sq. ft. . Section 9362 .13, Privateen P P O space As indicated in Appen�B�'; the applicant proposes to construct. 117 new balconies so as to significantly enhance private open space at Huntington West. In summary, 237/245 units will have balconies. Of the 237, 100 units will have balconies that meet 100% of the standard for two-bedroom units, i .e. 120 sq. ft. Another 97 units will have balconies that meet at .least 80% of the standard for one-bedroom ( 60) or two bed- room (37 ) units . Finally, an additional 16 balconies are proposed to be added in specified two-bedroom units that front on the Wintersberg Channel ; these balconies can, be- cause of space linitations , be no larger than 64 sq. ft. The applicant rather clearly has spared no reasonable effort to provide the maximum feasible balcony space for residents and therefore is contributing significantly to promoting better living envirorunents at Huntington West. Building , deaign and location, however, preclude the appli- cant from making additional cost-effective balcony improve- ments . The applicant therefore respectfully requests the Planning Commission to grant a special permit for such de- ficiencies in complying with this Section as do still exist. Section 9362 . 14 , Minimum Floor Area. The Huntington West units were clearly not deiigneil wr.th the minimum floor area standard of this Section in mind. Instead, the one- bedroom units; significantly exceed the criterion ( i.e. , 786 sq. ft. and M sq. ft . compared to c 650 si3. f'. stan- dard) , while approximately half of the two-bedroom units comply ( 1, 291 sq. ft. and 1, 322 sq. ft. compared to a 900 sq. ft . standard) , and the few three-bedroom ur.Lts fall 88 sq. rt. short of the standard ( 1 , 012 sq. ft . compared to 1, 100 sq. ft. desired) . The applicant subniits , however, that even the smallest two-'jedroom unit ( 673 sq. ft. ) i3, because of its functional sk layout, not inappropriate , especially when it is considered that the clear trend in the homebuilding industry is towards smaller units , especially in the low-moderate income range markets . Thus , the applicant respectfully requests a special permit_ for this seemingly rather abstract deviation . In t fact, the applicant submits, smaller units that are afford- able to low-moderate income households will be beneficial to general health, welfare , safety , and convenience of the population , and not be detrimental or injurious to property values or neighborhood improvements because of the similarity of the neighborhood. Section 9362 . 15, Private Access Way Widths. The travel lanes inert a interior perimeter driveway and Warner Avenue/ Edwards Street entrances are at least 24 feet wide and will remain so, although along Warner their precise location will be changed to enhance project aesthetics . Section 9362 . 16 , Parkin The standard calls for 1. 5 0 spaces per one-�beearoom uni60x1 . 5=90 ) , and 2 . 0 spaces per two-or-more bedroom unit ( 185x20=370 ) . In addition, each unit must provide for one-half guest parkin; space ( 245x0.5=123 ) . The total required parking at Huntington West is 90+370+123=583 spaces. Through .the construction of the P1 and P2 structures, and other measures, the applicant proposes to construct , for assignment to residents, 586 parking spaces, or 100+1 of the requirement. Of these spaces , 495 will be covered and 91 will be open spaces. Of the total , 54 will be compact spaces. Section 9362 . 170 Landscap_i�ng The landscaping plan, which is attac edto the siteplan, indicates the proposed location of new and already existiog vegetation and related landscaping at Huntington West. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the applicant respectfully requests the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 82-34, the Special Permit for the five relatively small de- viati.ons from Code standards identified above ( see also Appen ..ix Tentative 'Tract No . 11879, and Zone Change ` Request 83-1 . The substantial improvementz to the, Huntington West complex Witt: respect to open-space (common and private) , parking, noise attenuation, and reduction in density, bulk, and building separation that are proposed through this appli- cation testify strongly to -the appropriateness and--we hope--- pract:i:.ality of the City' s standards . In the small area -9- occupied by the existing Huntington West , not all desirable objectives can be fully or equally met, especially if the criti- cal social. goal of moderately priced housing is also to be addressed.. However, we believe teat with this proposed conver- sion of Huntington We3t, the environmental , social and housing objectives will be maximized to the mutual benefit of the community, residents and prospective homeowners, as well as the property owner. It I Paul S.VaeneklaSen and Associate Consultants In Acou.tics 7 February 1983 PURSOH AND WUESTHOFF AIA 4314 Marina City Drive, Suite 116 Marina Del Rey, Calif. 90291 Attention: Perry Pearson Sub ect: Huntington West Apartments 3 9 p Dear Perry: At your r.aquest we have evaluated the sound isolation provided by separating malls and floor-ceilint► assemblies in the Hungtington West Apartments in Hurtinyton Beach. The California Administrative Code, Title 25, requires the airborne sound isolation of wall and floor-ceiling assemblies to meet a Fief+ Sound Transmission Class VSTC) of 45 and the floor-ceiling assemblies must meet a Field Impact Isolation Class (FI IC) of 45. In addition the Interior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) shall not exceed 45 dD. The measurement procedure followed Standard test methods ASTM E366-77 and ASTM E492-77. The procedure for sound transmission class measurements involves placing a broad band noise source on one side of the test partition and measuring noise levels on both sides of the partition. Adjustments to the difference in noise level are obtained by mea;uri ng the reverberation time in the recei Bing room and the area of the test wirtition. Impact isolation class wasurement;c require placing a standard tapping machine on the floor-ceiling assembly and measuring the noise levels produced in the receiving room below. These levels are adjusted by measuring the reverberation time in the receiving row. The CUEL measurements were performed using a Digital Acoustics CA 607 P noise munitor. The noise morifor was placed inside a vacant apartment and the results were adjusted to represent an occupied apartment using reve; oeration time data. - As per our agreement, we evaluated four wall partitions and two floor-ceiling assemblies for airborne sound isolation and two floor-ceiling assemblies for impact isolation for both interior apartments and perimeter apartments. These sixteen tests were performed at the locations shown in Figure 1. Al sn noted on the figure are the locations used to measure the interior CNEL. Since a vacant apartment was not available along Warner Avenue. it was not possible to measure the existing interior CNEL for apartments bordering Warner Avenue. Howeve , from traffic count data obtained from the City of r Jerry',ehrntoN•wino)" towd E.Mo+-is FVir Van de'l •resck I►Isoc�Attit Jae G ate . �r�nc;Mt J+KnK A.000d Vein G.Coe 1711 fstaterent:h lit:reae -Santa Mon:er, RaIlfnrniil 90404•Iix1314SQ-1?3:1. tal'1:3187C7•gQ13■ o i Huntington Beach, the subsequent calculations indicate t`Nat interior CHEL levels along Warn Avenue may he as much as 3 decibels higher than those measured aloe§ Edwards Street. The test results are tabulated in Tables 1,2, and 3. If we can Le of writer assistance, please do not hesitate to call . Sincerely, Paul S. Veneklanen A Associates Stephen A. r ti n Engineer SAM/lb encl i i I (t 1 I� i i f i f T �1 TABLt 1: FIELD SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (FSTC) MEASUREMENTS Minimum Acceptable FSTC per Title 25 is 45 WALL FSTC COMMENTS 40S Bedroom-404 Kitchen 56 Large percentage of Transitting Wall Covered with Cabinets 405 Bedroom-406 Bedroom 43 Mall Completely Covered by Closet 456 Bedroom-457 Bedroom 37 " a 456 Bedroom-433 Bedroom 57 201 Living Room-202 Living Room 46 301 Living Room-302 Living Room 44 213 Den-214 Den 43 213 Kitchen-212 Kitcher, 48 Transmitting Nall Partially Covered with Cabinets I FLOOR/CEILING FSTC 405 Bedroom-407 Bedroom 54 456 Bedroorm-454 Bedroom 49 202 Bedroom-302 Bedroom 49 ?02 Bedroom--102 Bedroom 49 i I ^ 1 i TABLE 2: FIELD IMPACT ISOLATION CLASS (FIIC) MEASUREMENTS Minimum Acceptable FIIC per Title 25 is 45 FLOOR/CEILING FIX COMMENTS 407 Bedroom-405 Bedroom 64 Carpet 453 Kitchen-451 Kitchen 32 Linoleum s 302 Bedroom-202 Bedroom 64 Carpet 213 Kitchen-113 Kitchen 31 Linoleum i i 1 i TABLE 3: COMi4UNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) All CNEL Values Adjusted for Occupied Conditions Maximum Allowable CNEL per Title 25 is 45 POSITION k NORTHEAST DAY DATE CNEL TUESDAY 1-26-83 45.4 WEDNESOAV 1-27-83 45.9 THURSGAY 1-18-83 46.9 POSITION 8: SOUTHEAST OA7 DATE CNEL FRIDAY 1-22-83 47.8 SATURDAY 1-23-83 48.1 SUNDAY 1-24-83 48.1 • MONDAY 1-25-83 46.7 * See Figure 1 for locations ` - --� �T T14 c'N M ANT •,�'/ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, C6 VORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY MASTER PROPERTIES, NO. 9. I.M. FOR ZONE � CH lkNGE NO. 83-1. j APPLICANT'S DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FOR 6400 WARNER AVENUE, AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR CITY COUNCIL AP- PROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. March 7, 1983 C?RBERT H. DALL ar AftOCIATES 1=5 VV01MM STREET / SUITE 485 / SACRAMENTO. CALWORNM 95814/ 916/443-2333 March 4 , 1983 The Honorable Bob Handic, Mayor and Members of the Council City of Huntington Beach .City full, Fourth Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: "ONE CHAVGE 83-1. I Dear yr. Mayor and Members' of the Council: On Monday, March 7, 1983, the Council is scheduled to con- Sider Zone Change 83-1, a rezoning of approximately 9 acres at the northwestern cornor of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street from- L3 to R4--30 . r represent the applicant who has requested the rezoninq, Master Properties Number 9, Ltd. of Traweek Investment Company, 4720 Lin::oln eoulevardo Marina del Rey. 1. BACKGROUND., The request to rezone the instant property is aa - integrai pact o: my client's application to substantially enhance and convert the Huntington West apartments located on the property to condominium ownership. As is more fully set forth in my Letter of February 12, 19113 to the Planning Cotamission (Attachment "A" hereto) . the appli- cation i:o. rezones the property evolved ( a) out of extensive. consultations between •mY client and the Director and staff of the Department of Development Services, and (b) out of my client'x proposal to significaritly reduce projecc de.:sity from 35 units/ acre to 29.98 units/acre through the demolition of 41 existing units , The total number of residential unitz will, thus, be reduced from 288 to .245. 184 (or 75%) of the remaining. units are. proposed., to be off erad at 1e41-moderate income purchase pries. Other extensive project enhancements', totalling more than $2. 5 million in cost, are also proposed ( see Attachment "B" ) . 2:. . GE*IEFAL PLAN DESIGNA'rIOI� The HunC"i ngton, Bea-:h General Plan . esxgnates; t e property on' which the, Huntington vtast is I located as "Residential High Density" (General plan Lund Use Diagram, rev. Deca ber, 1981, following pages 94 ) . The. R-4 designs• on allows for a density greater than 25 units/acre, whereat the R-3 medium-high density zone, by comparis,nn, allows for a density between 15.01 units and 25. 00 units/acre. . The Honorable Bob Man�c, Mayor and c.tmbeiss of the Council March 4, 1983 Page Two 3. ZOVING. The Huntington eeai:h zoning District Map ,presentlt designates the Huntington West property as being in the R-3 Zone, with a maximum allowable density of 25 units/ acre. They existing Huntington went complex, which was approved in 1969 and constructed in 1970-1971, was built at 35 units/acre if the density formula in the Planned Development Code is applied. or at 31 units/acre if the density formula from the Apartment Cod;:' !.s used. to either case, the existinq complex significantly exceeds the 25 units/acre maximum density allowed in the R-3 zone. In full recognition of the excessive• existing density, my client has proposed to demolish 41 units,. and make numeross other improvements, so as to Significantly improve the living environment and pu31ic appearance of Huntington hest. The reduction of 41 units is the maximum feasible if the many other j imporcant objectivoa of the Planned Development Code are also to bit achieve. e units results a eduction of density i The demolition of 41 nit re lts in r 3 from 35 units/'acre• to 29.98 units/acre_ In recognition of the greatly enhancers human and physical environment at Huntington Hest as a result of the proposed project, and the fact that the resultant reduced density properly tits in tie R-4 zone. the Planning Commission on February L5, 1983 by a vote of 5-0 recommended the approval of Zone Change 83--1. The Planning Commission specifically found that the Zone Change is consistent with .the General Plan and reflects the major improvements to Huntington West, including density rL. 'tic---ion proposed by the applicant. At the same meeting, the planning Commission also una<namously directed staff to prepare conditions and. findings for approval of the overall condominium conversion-enhancement project. 4. PFTITION. The applicant therefore respectfully petitions the Co�unc .1 767 approve Zone Change 83-1 because the rezoning of the Huntington West property (ae) is consistent with the General Plan designation for nigh density resi- dential development on the propertys * Or 32 units/acre, if the Apartment Standards are applied. i I The Honorable Bob Mandic, Mayor ani Members of ;he Council March 4, 1983 page Three (b) will accurately reflect the existing development:, as proposed to be modi- Died through demolition and struc- ti_ral enhancement, on the propertyf and:, (c) will provide substantial new low- moderate income home ownership opportunities in the city. Approval of Zone Change 83-1 would accommodate not only tha. enhanced 245-unit condominium project, but would also correct the inconsistency of the existing 35 unit/acre resi-- .dent ial use, in the R 3 zone with tie proposed 29.98 dnit/acre residentiaX •use ir. the consistent R4- 0 zone. The 30 unit/acre limit in the R4 zone was proposed by the Department Director and my client agrees with it . S. CdNCLUSIOM. On behalf of my client, I would like to caxpress our great appreciation for the cordial and constructive review that has been given to this project by City officials and st aff. t. I will be in ittendance at the Council meeting on March ?. 1983 and respectfully request an opportunity to address the Council lnd answer any questions. Sinc'erel,y, yours, Norbert H. Da1L NHd/os Enclosures cat Mr. Charles Thompsoa Mr. .Tames Palin Mr. Savoy'.Bellavia Mr. Jim Barnes 10RBERT TH. DALL & A ,'OCIATES 1225 EIGHTH STREET / SUITE 485 / SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 / 916/ 443-2333 February 12 , 1983 The Hon. mdreus Porter, Chai.rmaw and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach# California 92646 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION BY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGAINST , HUNTINGTON WFS'!:' ZONE CHANGE: 83-1 FROM R3 TO Dear yr. Chairman and Com.-nissioneras The Department of Development Services in its report dated February 1S, 1983 is recommending that the Planning Commission deny my c:lient° s application for rezoning from R3 to R4--30 of the property on which the Huntington West complex is located. Please allow this letter to constitute the normal writton rebut- taI by Master Properties, No, 9, Ltd. r of the . Department l e rec- afimendati.on, although I May Submit additional eopuneents in ratut- tal when I address the Commission at the hearing on February 1S. 1983 . BACKGROUND. To fully understand the reasons why nay client on February it 190T. filed a petition for rezonetng oL the Huntington West pruperty with the City, it is necessary to be aware of the series of actions and disceissions that led up to it . As is more fully set forth in the applicant ' s revised project • description, dated February 1S, 1903 (the "blue book* ) * reepresean- tativees esf the applicant have met frequently over the past ten Months with the director, deputy director, and staff of the De- Partmeent of development Services to discuss the proposed condo.. mibium conversion of the Huntington west complex . Out of those discussions, and others with community leaderr and tenants, 41volveed the applicant' s revised project proposal . As the Depart- ment of Oave2opment Services itself rt-caquizes s The applicant is proposing a major renovation of the existing Hunt tngton • West apactmeent complom as part' of the .� If Mr. Marcus Porter and Commissioners February 12 , 1983 Page Two proposal. for conversion to condomin- iums. At a cost of more than $2 . 5 million, the applicant proposes to demolish 41 of the existinS apart- ment units, construct two new park- ing structures , provide major new landscaping, enhan^e the noise at- tenuation capability of walls be- tween units and windows fronting onto adjacent street!,,, provide new balco- nies in nearly one-third of the units, and provide new recreational facili- ties . The applicant is also proposing to make 75% cf the coniominiums units available for purchase by persons or families of low ana moderate income. . . . ( Staff Rcport, TT 11879/CUP 82-31 , page 3 . ) x ,i the course of designing the numerous project improvements and eval.uatinq their respective monetary costs * the owner deter- mined that in light of all the many benefits that must be funded out of the project, a reduction of ' 40± existing units was the maximums possible if the overall project_ is to remain feasible. Consequently , nn January 24 , 1983 , t;,e project architect and I inet with Department staff representatives to discuss the appli- cant' s inability to corrvAt to further costly project changes, ir,- clading addition reduction of density above and beyond the 5 units/ acre reduction already agreed to. At that meeting, I asked City staff to consider whether the California Density Bonus Law (Gov- ernment Code Section 45915, et seq. ) might be applied to the instant project, _given its unequaled commitment of providing 75% ►ow--moderate .income homeownershil;) opportunities. The following day, I met with the Department director and deputy director to further di:,cuss and resolve the issue of how to rna^e the proposed project density fully comratible with zon- ing . The director indicated, upon advise of _ns- City Deputy At- torney, that tie understood the density bonus late , as presently codified, not to tie applicable to t' instant pi:ojectr. The t:li- rector advised instead, and I agreea on behalf of the client , L/Yat the applicant invnediately file a rezoning request From R3 to R4 , given that the General. Plan land use designation is for high density residential . In thus course of our disctzsSiOn, the director further suggested . and a agreed on behalf of the client, that tha rezoning petition clearly specify that a R4-30 zone was being soucjhht;, so am to reflect t%e propose,:. reduction in density from the existing 35 units/acre to 29 . 98 units/acre. I Mr. Marcus Porter and Commissioners February 12 , 1983 Page Three i The petition for rezoning was failed with the City on the Tuesday following the meeting with the director . (A copy of that petition is attached; it was omitted from the Staff Re- port. ) DEPARTMENT' S POSITION ON REZONING. The Department staff rec- ommen ation for deniil o propose Zone Change No. 83-1 relies on and in turn creaLes a confusing dilemma that is best described by the popular phrase, "Catch-22": ( �l The Department is recommending denial of the rezoning request on the grounds that it is also recommending denial of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 and Tentative Tract No. 11879 . ( See Staff Report on Zone Change No. 83-1, pages 2-3 . ) ( 2 ) However, a close reading of the Staff Report on the ap- plication for the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map shows' that the Department is recommending de- nial of : (a) the map because the subdivision does not conform to the zoning ordinance; ( Staff Report on TT 11879/CUP 82-31, page 7 ) , and, (b) the conditional use permit in part be- cause the project , as revised, exceeds the density allowable in the R3 zone! (Staff Report , page 4 . ) 1n short, the Department teas createda dilemma out of which the applicant is intended not to be able to break, irrespet-tive of the many benefits - including a substantial reduction in density from the existing complex - the project conveys to the City and residents. APPLICANT' S REBUTTAL . The existing Huntington West apartments were built at-adensity o . 35 units/acre [ not 32 units/acre, as staff erroneously states on [gage two of its report ) . However, the existing zonina for the property is R3, which allows a maximum of 13 'un is/acre, or ten units per acre fewer than actually exist . Thus, the existing apartment complex, apart from its numerous oth- er shortcomings, is seriously at odds with the present zoning on the property. In an unprycedented and costly effort to remedy the unsatis- factory existingl situation, the ipplicant proposes and commits to j I I I Marcus Porter and Commissioners rebruary 121 1983 page Four eliminate through actual physical removal 41 existing residential units valued at an average of 5100, 000. That reduction in units brings with it a decrease in density from 35 units/acre to 29 . 98 units/acre. Such a decrease, which is costly to thn City' s hous- ing stock as well as the applicant , represents a dramatic demon- stration of the applicant ' s good faith effort to comply with the City ordinance . Absolute compliance with the maximum density al- lowed under the existing R3 zone would require demolition of 82 units, or twice what applicant proposes . A demolition program of this magnitude would be severely detrimental not only to the City ' s low-moderate income housing stock , tenants ' ability to purchase their units, and the feasibility of the overall project enhance- ment program, but would also conflict with the objectives of the City ' s Housing Element to renovate existing housing stock and provide low and moderate income housing opportunities . The appli- cant not only `zas committed to major renovation and improvement of the complex, but in another unprecedented action proposes to offer 75% of the 245 units , or 184 units , at low-moderate income prices , as defined by standard governmental and industry formulas . These offers would simply be devastated and the feasibility of the project would be severely undermined if the Commission were to r-q-- quire a doubling of the number of units to be! demolished. CONCLUSION. The applicant respectfully reiterates his request that tie Planning Commission approve Zone Cage No. 83-1" as it is set forth in the draft ordinance of February 40 19831 by the City Attorney . Not only would the rezoning accommodate the enhanced 245-unit condominium project, but it would be consistent with the residential high density land use designation in the City' s Gen- eral Plan . Furthermore, approval of the rezoning would go far to correct the inconsistency of an existing 35 unit/acre residential use in the R3 zone with the eroeosed 29 . 98 unit/acre residential use in the consistent R4-30 zone. The applicant appreciates the patience and interest of the Planning Commission in this m,tter. Sincerely yours , Norbert H . Dall CC ?, All Commissioner: Mr . Charles Thompson Mr. Jinn Palin Mr . Savoy Dellavia Mr. .Tim Barnes Mr . Mike Adams i i >TTALNMENT 8 SSOCIATES 1225 E,IOKM STRE►T / SURE 483 / SACRAMEr r4, CALIFORNIA 9saiav / 916/443.2333 February 10v 1963 Th* Finn. Marcus porter, Chairman ' and Members Runtington Beach planning Commission City Nall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON WEST CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Death Mr. Chairman and -miss toners% In the following pages, please find a revised project description fat the conversion of the Huntington West apart- ments to condominium ownership, as proposed btu my client, Master Properties No. 90 Ltd. Copies of the revised project dvscaripti.on have been provided to and been discussed with your staff . The revised project description is the result of questions raised at the Subdivision Advisory Committee meeting on December 17, 1982s frequent technical meetings and consultations with your staff; informal meetings with Huntington blest tenants, including some children; and supplemental acoustical, design, and housi.nq policy work conducted by applicant' s consultants during the past month. The applicant respectfully requests that the project description contained in Lhis submittal be allowed to supersede the description and proposals contained in lay letter of November 16, 1982, to Kr. Mike Adams of your ' staff. to copy of the initial project description is con- tained in Appendix 'A,•) . In summary, the revised project description/application includes the following eLeven major features : M Demolition of 41 units in vcrious locations of the existing complex to enhance privacy, open space, and the overall appearance of the Huntington West= ' , (3) Reduction in density from the existing 35 units/acrt to 29.9 units acres i I f The Hon. Marcus Porter, Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission February 100 1983 Page 2 (3) Commitment to making 751 of the condo- miniums (or, 184/24.3 units) available for purchase by persons or families of low or moderate income; ( 4) increase in common open space from 232 sq. ft. per unit in the existing complex to 449 sq. ft. in 'they condominium complex; ( 5 ) Construction of 117 new balconies for enhanced private open space; , ( 6 ) Construction of two new parking structures, one with a landscaped deck for passive recreation, and the other with active recreational areas; ( 7) Noise attenuation improvcmenLS to the interior walls, floors, ceilings, and windows of units, as indicated by the acoustical study prepared for Huntington West; (8) Construction of new (wood or stucco) exteriors to replace the "texcoat" siding on the perimeter units; ( 9 ) Additional landscaping, including privacy/ security berms along portions of Warner Avenue and Edwards Street where units will be demolished; ( 10 ) Payment of relocation and moving assistance expenses (equal to one month ' s rent plus up to $ 500) to present tenants who chose not to purchase their unit following final approval of the conversion (with special consideration for that elderly, handicapped, or disabled) ; and, ( 11) Construction of two new swimming pools for adults and children, and a spa. These features reflect many of the comments and suggestions rec*ived by the applicant during the past ten months from community leaders, city staff , and tenants . The proposed • . 0 The Non. Marcus Porter , Chairman and Members Huntington "each Planning Commission February 10, 1983 Page 3 features also reflect the applicant's awareness of certain planning deficiencies present in the existing apartment complex when it is measured against contemporary community standards. However; approval by the Planning Commission of the proposed condominium conversion will create the very financial feasibility of making the capital expen- ditures to significantly upgrade Huntington West ,%nd overwhelmingly bring it into confo.�mance with the require- ments of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Article 936. The details of compliance or near-compliance by the proposed Huntington West condominiums with Article 936 are set forth in the subsequent sections of this submittal . In preparing this package of structural improvements and affordable housing proposals, the applicant has consciously sought to maximize achievement of Article 936 objectives , while also retaining the largest number of homeownership opportunities affordable to low-moderate income households . Consequentlyr certain primary objectives such as parking, privacy ( as measured in building separation and noise attenuation) , common open space, and garage fire safety will be fully met by the proposed improvements. Density will be met if the Commission approves a rezoning of the property From R3 (at 35 units acre) to R4-30 tat 29.9 units/acre) . The land use designation in the General Plan in for residential high density. Other desirable object- ives, such as private open space, minimum unit floor area, site coverage, and setback for existing buildings from Warner Avenue anal/or Edwards Street will be substantially, but not totally, achieved. In every instance , however, the proposed condominium conversion will achieve drastic improvements over the existing apartment complex . The applicant therefore respectfmily requests the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 82-31 , the Special Permit applied for herewith# Tentative Tract No. 11819 , and Zone Change E3-1 . Such approval would add significantly to the stock of moderately-priced home- ownership available in the City, while concurrently improving the physical And aesthetic quality of the Huntington West complex. Thg Hon. Marcus Porter, Chairman and Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission February 10, 1983 Page 4 On behalf of the applicant and his consultants, I would like to express our appreciation at the opportunity of working with Your staff. We look forward to appearing before the Planning Commission on February 15. 1983 . Sincerely yours, Norbert H. Dall CC-. A3.1 Commissioners Mr. Jim Palin Mr. Savoy Bellavia Mr. Jim Barnes Mr. Mike Adams i NOTE: A copy of thin submittal will be made available for review ;ay tenants at the Huntington Wnst rental ofEfce on February 11, 1983. I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ w__ _ _ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---_ � __ _ _ _. ... 193»271-53 � ; 1lSs-181-10 z 7832 Low! Drive ; Gnernal Plm 81-2 1401 Cliff Drive Wntington t.kwich. Calif March 14. 1983 UW Nwpcgrt Beach, Calif _92b4� .. __--- - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . _ . _ _ . _ - T 92W- • - - - - - - - • - - - i 159-271-54 1551-291-03 165-181-19 ter A oavm , Pain WMtherlr Ddger C Saott 7836 Lori Drive ' 7622 Talbert Av wun Mx ri a Fi e r Kr& rr2ban Basch. 0slif UU t.lnytcn bowls, Calif ' 2045 Holiday Rd L42"t ----- -- - - -- - - _ _ -- - r92(Z-4B- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - a _Mmq=t AWCh.. J�xuf_926W . 159-271-55 ' 165-181-01 ; 165-181-20 Ant2=Yy Avila 3acd ; Dwri.m L lrrutcik Eigar C Scott 7842 Loci. Drive 75210 Vai&ticia wm ; IBM Talbert A wAx ®Wh. C411 f Palm fit, ---AU f NctrttingUm Ekw.ach. Calif -42M8--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• -- L -9?ZbQ- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - T -92648- - - ---- - - - - � ' r �c�en ' I65•-193,-02 ' 165--181•-2l Rictrrd James A Stxwm ; ttntln4t�w &each Q i7vigatlor 9902 Lepwwth Circle i 360U E lst Street of J�ihovarn t Dow , C aL if i IMM &Mctu C►Uf ; 7851 Talbert Avemu -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - I _W(43- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CM11f _9264' I , � I 159•.271-57 165-1e1»03 i 165-181-22 mixB ad Carpet: I Patel ' Bruce E Killer 16175 shay n UK-0-- r 27352 A tbtm hvwpje 7871 Talbert Aveme 6Atrrttttirban Aeectt, Calif tdasion VieVo, Calif AMtUVtan 8eeet% CIA L _Q --- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 928 _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - - - ' 159-2n-58 i 165-181-t1i ' 165-2S1-42 sa-bara J 7TW DW Luu nvrklin J Etu000lla Jr 18185 S!>acun Lamac% , 5582 Ser wo Drive � 3541 Om rtaids Circle 1 -92W e�amctL Calif , gei�, Calif , �A- rw;tcn Hcia�t Calif _ _ -- __ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - t9- - - - - - - - - - - � -92�- - - - -r- _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - -- _ _ -- _ 159-271-63 r 1b5-181-15 WJntingtm Village Eertatree i M111J.4n R ShLnmn ' i eornerEti AsaociatdcnI W02 Mm.bgmw Erlv-e �ttii k�atx,�ton Beach t3.>sirer�rM r wbot)"irater. -alif ___ - __ -_ _ - - - _ _ ___L_9268.1. r _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ - - 17171 Basch IIlvd. i 165-181-16 F >ti gtaat Mach, Califr Qxdm R Sucrab r 92647 i 215 Old Ranch Rd ' .. w _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - _;_ 90740- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - M-29x=01 165-181-17 L tI* adl M Schultz ' 4645 Z 06cific CMA HlgTarerp ' Ima Aids, calif "W* Lorv�ls , C" 7 _ ----------- - -- - --- -9 2647-..- --- - - - _ _ -___._ w_ - _ - _ w _ w w .-.. w r _ r _ -. _ .• 1 1 r ' ' I 1 1 .I_ I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 159►-271-15 i 154-271-31 I I II FkAmrt tiF.I.et>le+z� Oenetal Plan J et 83w2 310 C'xsair Wy M4a,rch 14, 1983 VNI , Snal BM&.., Calif 90740 - - - -- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - . . - • - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - i 1596-271-15 159-2071-23 i 15%-271-32 StAnley J JAY Dol�l�n tM OrsQletsrnj ; Fred M Gmeneh um 7861 Lori Dtive I 7021 Lori Drive , 18171 Alice Lang i t3antirqton Ebel<3t, Calif ; Huntingtm Roach, Calif ' De6ct. Calif 92..6413 92648 926" ' 159-271MI6_____ - _- _ _ _ _ _ _ - i -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 159-271-24 i 159-271-33 - ~ - - - - - - .. I 'nurea E ,M,, ttigbt I TVWW n T HVI , Jim R O=k 855 Loaf Drive ; 7815 Lc ri Drive 18175 Alice tAm ttwAlopm I mw%, Ca.0 I toxitIngtm Sped% Mlif , ML%tirgton Lech. C.aUf 9-2448 92648 926" ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - --►------- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - I59-z'?1-.IT ' 159-271-25 M159-271-47 i Alm A Qil l Ler ; Dome! !"rudsktio Dweld A awn 7851 tart Drive I 7811 Lei Drive 1 18176 Alice Lww ntlrj#m eew:h. Calif ; FWQdti C>" 92t =A Beach. Calif 91688 r 159-2'71--18 �' - - w - - - - - _ - __ 159-271-26 _ _ .- � -159-77148--- - - - - _ - _ _ _ - ftern Rok swig Fk*et-t L ISIM I Ylavlo Cbxr_ia JY l i 7845 Lori rive � Calif � 7605 Lcti Drive � 18172 Alicr Lena tXVIti.rxm 895c1% caw I fkr*ingtcn Moeach. Oalif 91648 I 92648 i 92648 I - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _- _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ -159b271»19 159-271-27 �`159-271-49 j Oscar Nim I CUvLine Alonzo W Phil RN 7841 Icrl Drive ' 7901 Lori. Drive 18162 Alicr. Lw r_ 1 Beech. Coif linitl Igkcn Soot3L Cal ' lRMir I 9?t�926" i 92648 �� � Calif 926" _Ir , - - - - - - - � _ _ .. - _ _ _ - _ r _ - - - � 1.59-271-28 _ w _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ -- _ � 159-.Z71--50 _ _ _ CwAl ld E c3hrt-:)M ChOrLr D Kates Jef fret J Jomn i SW SWUM C LMIe I 7M Locl Dt1%% ; 1813b Alice L W Hmtir%bon ices t Wif = �9tm �t4 caw Hrtin;rtm BMK:14 f'Uf i 926+19 92648 1596-271-21 159-271-29 1159-271-51 �icfiaxb ¢ �� I i�tAllw M Hmm Dot�jr l�Lrt�rl�kdnl 8362 Lwim C vJ& i 18145 Alice Eam 16 Drak" fty Drive 16ztirgban am&% cul-if I Huntirvtm oftlah, Cauf ; txW" Del Mr. C3klif 92E•/6 ' 926" 92625 - _ - _ - - - - r - - _ - - - -_ _ r w .. _ _ - ..... _ _ _ _ _ r _ r .. _ _ r _ 1S'�-271-Z2- I M-171••30 I LW-271-52 I MCI 901l i jk 7 762S, Lwow D1dv�e i 1 1�'!tcs LaRM � H Drive H rrCkVbon fted% Calif tit *.Lngton Nmctti Od if I Hwntitpton Beech. Calif 9" I 92648 ; 92W - - -- -------------- I I I 1 1 , I r ' I l '_ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r - _ ._ -- - -- _--- - _ _ _ _ _ - _____ .__~__ - _ - - _ _ _ _ ____ _- - - V 159-.141-01 ; i 159-271-68 J Paul &Mott 019n ml Plan It x-t 82-2 ftw* J RichwocvtA 1232 Dell Drive � March 14, 1963 47� � 16942 Clrcl,e Hm"mmy Park, Ca.2 i f , ► ftsmirs7tm PAOCK caw 91754 i 92649 1,59-141-02 - -_ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ -L 15��-141-2p 159?71-69 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __.- i - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - Jb .ScCrtt norm cr M L rledcun Ifind River 'it aftig Oo. W E MoUy Citaaml '%VVIoe Cx[p + MUMS n Hocd 13561 hatch Blvd. 600 N Brand Ftivd. 7%2 loth Street Sutibe 200 rtesr, Calif 926�83 ; Mar�lae, Calif 91203 � r, Calif 92M3 - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - . _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ ____ _ -_ - - - - - '; 158.141.-03 159�-141-36 159,-271-70 C1trim ,V UrAw J7r ; War a rarnio ; Jbak " ley 7 Ta 304 La Vkta , 16812 Pacific Cbest Niglrey awini.t"' Calif ; Mwtingtm oftcfi. Cmuf t nnamt hl 01101 92024 92648 ; 90742 _ _ - - - - - - - - - - ._ _ _ _15¢-141� - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -i- 1S9�-141_37 _ _ ~ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r _ - - �-_ - - - in- 61-� W E Jolly ' (fcxge R n"%V itx --- - t 13561 weatmir>ster Av-m= ,gim twat , }te+e�tmirastx�r-, Calif 291 S Euclid Avemm &* PM.-7 RYA j 92683 ; �, CLllf 91101 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ---- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - l:S�-141-05 159-141-•40 i 159--271•-(19 13�561 Beach Blvd. � il�d 1 �vral ' Italo A t4sac.ari x7+ i 18156 Sharan Im e , Calif 7W7 9 34th Avmzw-- JLmtingt= Dead-%, C muf , 92683 Phonaix. Arisana 85021 ; 92668 i- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r _ _ __ __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - 159L.141-41 1s4-271-l0 Lee�orlr 8 QalUne 1► S Act>•Id i David L Cmepbr.1.1 serge S zftibel P.0. Bm 370 ' LbtI72 Lame 2:I� S Gale Itriva cypress Calif B�vrly Hills. Calif 90211 ' 90630 i Calif , 9►264848 _ .. - - - - _ _ _ _ .. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - i 1596-271-12 citadel .Smrviee axp f4 &- avio P Aran dke ' James J Me+krrich w N Brand 81vd. ' 7842 Talba,Ct Avenue i 18156 Sba rm Lwv-b 9tller la, Calif tArs[itpt,un Dorsch, G�1i! Huntingtan bwach, Calif 9264E , 92649 � ------ ------ - - - r - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - i___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 159-131 13 159--141-52 , 1.59-Z71-13 Rastm D Jtsm i B*Agf L KIM , MM,t1t 0 9xc tta Citubt 9wrias Onerp. i 6681 Wbourm Dlrivr ' 18146 $t tvt� Lam 600 N ! Blvd. Itmu �>, C " i E#u* rgtcn bomb. Calii C11anr1Rle, Wif 91203 , 92647 92648 - - - - - - - 1J9,141w►16•- - - - - - - - - - - - - - .! 159►-111-53- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1S9L-Z7I 14 _ .. _ _ _ _ - .. _ - _ - I C.hrlapu Lds 495Z 1�t hvers� 9uit� 31A i K�1ser tleslth Plan � t�M�-fib Inc. 7865 Doti Drive Basch. Caw , Isis N %erarant AvwAw Re 523 ftv in7t m Basch, Cal. 92649 Lois Angeles, C%UE "027 , 926r48 - - - - - --------------- - - t - ---------- - -- - - - - - -----4--__ _---- - - - - - - - - - ------ - - , f , I r � 1 1 � 1 I -•-^_ _ _ _ - - - _ .» _.. _..- + _ - - - - - - - - - - - - .- _ - _ - •- - _ - - 1- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - I � I59-301-82 i LUE 8 3-2 � 8 3-3 ' 311var 4'�E� q#n silver � fbrlin FLbuq lam Ir�c Me r ch 21, 1 tJM) '0062 Nedocxb Ci4'-clo H►rting0an 8r % Ca1i! 92b48 , - - - • - - - - - - - _ - . . . . . . _ _ I - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r ' r 159-301-03 H S bj&ly Omberrrt + ' 1 33U ftmty CLrc1* lkwtlrjgtm HAWK calif I -3644-_ _ _ _ _----- _ __ _ - _ _ a ___ -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ir 159-,�►O1-44 - � ottgiful Itstc ga Lrotrpwjnt Ob.,' + 18108 Fakseb Circle ' amm:k-, Wif 92648 - ----- ----- - -- - - - - - - -- i--- - - ---- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- _ _ _ -_ _ - ! 1',9402-45 ' '+ Argltuld Ds La Cato 1 ' I 7+811 Glsrom Avenue 01 a stttagtm &W Lh. Gil!f + , 92647 } I I� -3o3.-- - -- - - _ _ - _ _ - - _ __ i- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - Arm H inn ' E P.Q. Hm $45 Remo NoNgL Calif ' 91770 ._ .,____ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j - - - - -- - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - --- -;- _ _ - _ - _ -- _- --- - -- - - - - 159402-07 ' 1 DwIs' a RL9mm P.O. sm so , + ' I'�.seaedt, o�11t I ' 91770 � + j _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ .. _ - _ _I- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- _ t_ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - 1 i I + I 1 I 1 4 + 1 I 1 1 1 � _ - --_-_... _...-.- -_ -- _ -. -. -. _.. _ -L.. _- -- - - - - - --- _ - - ... _ 1. - _ _ .._ .. _.-_ ... _ -. _ _ .» _ _ .. _ _ _ I I I 1 ' I I 1 ' S 1 1 { 1 I � - - - - - - - _ - - -• - - - - - -- - -- - - - 4- - - - - - - - _ - -.. _ _ .- _ - - _ - - - -- -�- - - - - ... _ - - - - - - - _ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I r , ( 1 1 r 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I f 1 1 i 1 + t + 1 1