Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear 2 of 2 - CondUsePermit 99-31 Neg Dec 99-11 Dr James CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VIV 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 19, 2001 Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. Attn: Randy Allison 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 100 Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 Dear Mr. Allison: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, November 6, 2000 took action on the following Public Hearing: To Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised)/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Filed by Dr. James Lu for a 107 Unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO)Affordable Housing Development at 8102 Ellis Avenue (400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard) -Approve Settlement Agreement between the City and Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approved the Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with Findings for Approval; Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 R with Findings and Conditions of Approval; and Approved as amended for 40% seniors age 55 and up the Settlement and Release Agreement. At the City Council regular meeting held Monday, November 20, 2000 the City Attorney reported action taken by the City Council in closed session regarding the matter of Amwest Environmental Group et al. v. City of Huntington Beach. The City Attorney announced that the City Council voted to approve the Settlement Agreement previously submitted to Council on November 6, 2000 (without the stipulation for a percentage of units to be senior housing). Please find attached one certified copy of the November 6, 2000 and the November 20, 2000 City of Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes. The November 6, 2000 minutes contain the approved Findings and Conditions of Approval and the November 20, 2000 minutes contain the City Attorney's Report of Action taken by the City Council in Closed Session. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at(714) 536-5227. Sincer Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk g:/followup/appeal/decislon.doc __ (Telephone:714-536.5227) Section 20. Venue. Any action, suit or other proceeding instituted to remedy,prevent or obtain relief from a breach of this Agreement, arising out of a breach of this Agreement, involving claims within the scope of the releases contained in this Agreement, or pertaining to a declaration of rights under this Agreement, shall be instituted and maintained only in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. DATED: /; oz .27 oz000 AMWES RONMENTAL G OU ,INC. By: Dr. James u, Presi ent DATED: I/, ENT,INC Y=nA :ACHVZESTM DATED: 02 DR.JA DR.JAMES LU DATED: "HUNTINGTON BEACH" By: Its: AP P VED AS YO 7FO W/A A,1;;F z Ize tradling Y cca darlsdn&Rauth,Alforneys for Plaintiffs Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., Beachview Investment, Inc., and Dr. James Lu APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of Huntington Beach, Office of the City Attorney, Attorneys for Defendants City of Huntington Beach, Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, David Garofalo, Tom Harman, Pam Julien,Peter Green, Ralph Bauer and Dave Sullivan 7 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 EXHIBIT A Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-65b CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r REQUEST FOR ACTION _ SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ~' - SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator lr PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of PI ing — } IL HUTTON, City Attorney Sr= SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (REVISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT); APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH CASE ENTITLED AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (OCSC # CCO8364) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) . I Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a revised request for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised) and Negative Declaration No. 99-11 by Dr. James Lu, representing Amwest Environment Group, Inc. This application represents a request to permit development of a three-story, Single Room Occupancy residential project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit. The City Council denied the project on May 15, 2000 and approved findings for denial on June 5, 2000 (Attachment No. 7). On July 13, 2000 the applicant filed suit, challenging the denial (Amwest Environmental Group v. City of Huntington Beach, OCSC #CC08364). The applicant has now revised the proposed development in response to concerns raised at the previous public hearing. The revised project consists of: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units, and 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area. After publication and mailing of the public hearing notice, the applicant further revised the proposal and is no longer requesting amendments to the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. If the project is approved as resubmitted it would result in dismissal of the litigation. ��� Staff is recommending approval of the revised request (Recommended Action - A), because: - The proposal decreases the allowable occupancy to one person in 91 units and two persons in 15 units. - The revisions increase the number of parking stalls to 95 spaces for 106 units although the zoning code requires only 56 spaces. - The project complies with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, which encourage development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. - The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. - The SRO complies with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to.site planning. - The proposal is compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. - The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities, parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. - If the City rejects this proposal, the City will be forced to litigate the original project. In the opinion of the City Attorney, it is likely that the court would find that Government Code Section 65589.5 requires approval of the original project. Also transmitted for your consideration is a settlement agreement of the lawsuit. The agreement provides that: (1) In exchange for approval of the revised project, the litigation will be dismissed. (2) All building permits and other fees will be levied according to the fee schedule in place as of May 15, 2000, the date the original project was denied. (3) The revised proposal is submitted to settle the litigation. If the revised proposal is denied, then the City will litigate the prior proposal. (4) All discussions regarding the revised proposal since the filing of the lawsuit will be inadmissible as settlement discussions. (5) The six Council Members named in the original lawsuit will be waiving their right to file a malicious prosecution or similar suit against the Plaintiffs for filing their suit. - 3 ? REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (Attachment No. 1)", and 2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." 3. "Approve the Settlement and Release Agreement between Amwest Environmental Group and the City of Huntington Beach (Attachment No. 6) and authorize execution with non-substantial changes by the Mayor and City Clerk." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R)." 2. "Reject the Settlement and Release Agreement." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. Dr. James Lu 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 100, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (South side. of Ellis Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard) 3 D- 31 PL.00-65b-Amwest 11-6 -2- 11/3/00 10:04 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31(R) represents a request to construct a 107-unit Single Room Occupancy residential complex pursuant to Section 211.04 and 230.46 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. Single Room Occupancies (SRO) are classified as a quasi-residential use in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, an SRO is defined as "Buildings designed as a residential hotel consisting of a cluster of guest units providing sleeping and living facilities in which sanitary facilities and cooking facilities are provided within each unit; tenancies are weekly or monthly." Each unit in the proposed project will have a separate bathroom and efficiency. kitchen. An on-site manager will reside full time at the complex. The project is proposed on a 1.76-acre lot currently occupied by a dilapidated abandoned day care center. The 38,390 square foot SRO complex is designed as a three-story structure with one common entrance and exit. The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. Three floor plans are proposed for the efficiency units; 85 units will be 260 square feet, 15 units will be 338 square feet, and six handicapped units are proposed at 268 square feet. The on-site manager's unit will be 780 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a day bed, table, chairs, closet, bathroom, microwave, garbage disposal, and refrigerator. The project also has indoor and outdoor recreational areas with a pool, lounge, and a common kitchen area. The complex provides a bike storage area and trash chutes on all three floors. One maintenance utility room with hot and cold running water is also provided on each floor. Although each unit is provided with an efficiency kitchen, the common recreation area also includes a fully equipped kitchen. One central laundry room is provided on the ground floor and each residential unit is provided with separate lockable storage areas. Zoning code requirements specify that all SRO units shall be provided as affordable housing and restricted to very low and low-income individuals as defined by the City's Housing Element. The manager's unit is exempted from this requirement. State law requires the City facilitate provision of a certain number of housing units to meet the overall housing goals for the region. SCAG identified the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA) . numbers and the percentage of those RHNA numbers designated for very low and low income households. Based on these percentage requirements, staff recommends that 47 units (44.3 percent) be provided to very low income individuals and 59 (55.6 percent) of the 106 total units be provided to low income individuals. The applicant agrees with staffs recommended mix of affordable units. A comparison of the original project proposal with the revisions now under review can be found in Attachment No. 2. The applicant has indicated that the SRO development request is necessary because other commercial and residential development options have failed at the site and there is a high demand for Single Room Occupancies in Southern California and in particular, Orange County. The applicant has also provided additional information regarding the revised project (Attachment No. 3). D- 3� PL00-66b -3- 11/2/00 8:54 AM SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: CG-F2-d (General CG(General Commercial) Former Day Care Commercial-Max 0.5 FAR-design overlay) North(across Ellis) RM-15 (Medium Density RM(Medium Density Single Family and of Subject Property: Residential-15 Residential) Apartments units/acre East of Subject RMH-25 (Medium High RMH(Medium High Fourplexes Property: Density Residential-25 Density Residential) units/acre South and West of CG-F2-d (General CG(General Commercial) Town& Country Subject Property: Commercial-Max 0.5 Retail Shopping Center FAR-design overlay) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 represents a request to construct a 107.unit Single Room Occupancy complex pursuant to Section 211.04 and 230.46 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. Single Room Occupancies (SRO) are classified as a quasi-residential use in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, an.SRO is defined as`Buildings designed as a residential hotel consisting of a cluster of guest units providing sleeping and living facilities in which sanitary facilities and cooking facilities are provided within each unit;tenancies are weekly or monthly." Each unit'in the proposed project will have a separate bathroom and efficiency kitchen. An on-site'manager will reside full time at the complex. The project is proposed on a 1.76 acre lot currently occupied by a dilapidated abandoned day care center. The 38,390 square foot SRO complex is designed as a three story structure with one common entrance and exit. The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units. are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. Three floor plans are proposed for the efficiency units; 85 units will be 260 square feet, 15 units will be 338 square feet, and six handicapped units are proposed at 268 square feet. The on-site manager's unit will be 780 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a day bed, table, chairs, closet, bathroom, microwave, garbage disposal, and refrigerator. The project also has indoor and outdoor recreational areas with a pool, lounge, and a common kitchen area. The complex provides a bike storage area and thrash chutes on all three floors. One maintenance utility room with hot and cold running water is also provided on each floor. Although each unit is provided with an efficiency kitchen, the common recreation area also includes a fully equipped kitchen. One central laundry room is provided on the ground floor and each residential unit is provided with separate lockable storage areas. Staff Report—1/25/00 3 (OW05) C Zoning code requirements specify that all SRO units shall be provided as affordable housing and restricted to very low and low income individuals as defined by the City's Housing Element. The manager's unit is exempted from this requirement. State law requires the City to provide a certain number of housing units to meet the overall housing goals for the region. SCAG identified the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and the percentage of those RHNA numbers designated for very low and low income households. Based on these percentage`requirements, 44.3 percent or 47 units will be provided to very low income individuals and 55.6 percent or 59 of the 106 total units will be provided to low income individuals. An affordable housing plan outlining the details of the affordable housing practices will be recommended as a condition of approval. The project will positively contribute to the City's housing stock for residents of very low and low income levels. The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary(Attachment No. 3)because other commercial and residential development options have failed at the site and there is a high demand for Single Room Occupancies in Southern California and in particular, Orange County. Code Enforcement History: The site has been the subject of Code Enforcement complaints because it is believed the abandoned building is occupied by homeless people. Although the property owner has posted the site with No Trespassing signs and has attempted to lock and secure the building, the Police Department and Code Enforcement staff have requested that the building be demolished. For economic reasons, the property owner would like to demolish and begin construction of a new project as one cohesive effort. Planning Commission Tour of Irvine Inn On January 5, 2000, Planning Commissioners Chapman, Kerins, and Mandic, along with staff, toured. the Irvine Inn, a 192 unit SRO in Irvine. The tour group learned that the units, site design, central access point, common recreational area, and security provisions are very similar to the proposed Huntington Beach project. The major difference between the two projects is the financing arrangements for the construction and operation of the sites. However, financing is not a land use issue and is not discussed in this report. It is noted that the Huntington Beach applicants have indicated that project development and operation will all be privately financed while the Irvine project was financed by a combination of tax credits, investors, non-profit organizations, and the City of Irvine. The key lesson learned during the tour of the Irvine Inn is that the success of an SRO project lies in the management of the facility. The management company of the Irvine project explained the tenant application process, income verification, and the methods and procedures for securing the facility. Although no management company has been selected by the applicant, the applicant has indicated that they are contacting the same management company that operates the Irvine site. Although the City can not dictate who the management is at the proposed SRO, the management plan and practices will- be subject to a yearly audit by the Planning and Economic Development Departments. A condition of approval to this effect has been added to the project. 1) ,390 Staff Report— 1/25/00 4 (00sr05) I C' Community Meeting On January 18, 2000, the applicant held a community meeting at the New Orleans's Cafe on Beach Boulevard. The applicant hand delivered and mailed invitations to approximately 150 property owners And commercial and residential tenants around the project site. Approximately 10.property owners, owner's representatives, and commercial tenants attended the meeting. The applicant introduced the project, described the benefits of the.development, and responded to questions. Much of the discussion focused on affordable housing, management experience, housing subsidies, rental rates, and parking issues. The applicant and City staff responded to audience questions and have also addressed these issues throughout the body of this report. In response to questions, the applicant informed.the audience that the project is privately funded and not a HUD project. Therefore,-the applicant'stated that they are not obligated to accept a certain percentage of tenants with housing subsidies or housing vouchers. However, it should be noted that a potential buyer for the project has made an application for grant money to the County of Orange. The County grant application was not made by the applicant and current property owner, however, it is possible that the property and development may be sold to a new owner. A future property owner may receive financial assistance from sources requiring more stringent affordable housing than the City's recommendations. Regardless of the ownership of the site, if the project is approved as recommended by staff the minimum-affordable housing.requirements outlined in the conditions of approval must be adhered to. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is CG-F2-d (General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-design overlay). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 9.5.1: Accommodate the development of housing types, such as multifamily development and Single Room Occupancies (SRO), intended to meet the special needs of senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low, and moderate income households in areas designated for residential and mixed-use on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the Housing Element.. The project provides for a unique type of residential unit, will serve the special needs of very low and low income individuals, and will provide for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. D_ 3 Staff Report- 1/25/00 5 (OOsr05) Policy LU 15.5.1: Require that development located in areas designated as"Special Design Overlay (-d)" adhere to the specific design standards stipulated by design and development policies for specific community subareas prescribed in the ensuing section of this element, as appropriate. The project meets the design and.development policies for Subarea 6C-Five Points by incorporating landscaping along the street frontage and in the parking lot, by siting of structures to encourage pedestrian activity to the adjacent commercial sites, by siting the building in proximity to the•street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks, and by incorporating architectural treatments to minimize building bulk and mass. In addition, the project will be required to enter into an irrevocable reciprocal access agreement with the property owners to the west in order to maintain a safe and convenient circulation pattern around the site. B. Housing Element Objective HE 3.1: Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. Policy-HE 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. The SRO project will be 100% affordable as it will be restricted to persons of very low and low incomes. The affordable housing project meets the above objectives and policies because it is a unique type of housing unit and is located adjacent to the Town& Country retail shopping center and many other retail shopping opportunities on Beach Boulevard. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the CG General Commercial zone and complies with the requirements of that zone. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of CG General Commercial: ........ 211.06 Lot Area Min. 10,000 s . ft. 76,800 s . ft. Lot Width Min. 100 ft. 160 ft. Setbacks (D,E, O) Front Ills Min. 10 ft. 10 ft. (F) Side (West P.L. Mn. 10 ft. 54 ft., 6 in. (F) Side (East P.L. Min. 10 ft. 47 ft. (F) Rear South P.L. Min. 10 ft. 180 ft., 6 in. , G Building Height Max. 50 ft. 38 ft. Staff Report— 1/25/00 6 (00 05) l� ... :.;::>:::::.;: : .... :::: . (I� Wall Dimensions Requiresprojections/recesses Complies Floor Area Ratio Zoning Max. 1.5 (115,200 sq, ft.) General Plan Max. .5 38,400 sq. ft. 38,390 sq. ft. Site Landscaping Min. 8 % 6,144 sq. ft. 13.8 % 10,650 sq. ft. 230.46 Unit Size Min. 170 sq ft Min. 258 sq ft B.1 Max. 400 sq ft Max.*338 sq ft B Average 275 sq ft Average 271 sq ft 2 B 3 B 4 Kitchen and Bathroom Must have garbage disposal, Provided with garbage a counter top, refrigerator, stove disposal, counter top, or microwave refrigerator, and microwave B 4 If stoves not provided in unit, Common kitchen provided b then must be common kitchen B 4 Bathroom must have lavatory, Provided with lavatory, c toilet, and shower or bathtub toilet, and shower/tub B 4 Min. 48 cubic ft closet/unit Complies d 230.46 Open Space C_.1 Common Min. 400 sq. ft. Plus 15 sq. ft./ unit over 30= 1,155 sq. ft. Total Required= 1,555 sq. ft. 10,122 sq. ft. C Entryway Single, controlled entry in view Complies 2 of manager's desk C Mailbox Min. 1/unit Complies 3 C Handicapped Access Accordance with state law To be verified_through plan 4 check C Handicapped Units One.handicapped unit/20 units 6 units provided 5 106/20=6 units. C Laundry Facilities Separate room near rec area Complies' 6 C Cleaning Supply/Mility One/Floor with hot and cold Complies 7 Closet water C Storage Lockers Secured/10 cubic ft/unit Complies 8 C Housing Violation Contact Posted in common indoor spaces Conditioned 9 D_ 3AOP Staff Report—1/25100 7 (00sr05) D. a> cr>Qt:. .: ss ::.:::::............................................... . .. Vc. .....::::::::::::.::::.:.:::::::::::.:. Qs ::>::.::::::::::.: C Bicycle stalls Min. 1/10 units Complies 10 C Trash Disposal Trash Chutes and Central Complies 11 Collection required C Pay Telephones Min. 2 telephones for outgoing Conditioned 12 calls only 230.88 Fences&Walls Max. 6 ft. 6 ft.. 231.04.B Off-Street Parking- Min. 0.5 sp/unit x 106 = 53 Number Min. 1.0 sp/resident staff 2=2 Min. 0.5 sp/personnel x 2 Total Required = 68 parking spaces 56 232.08.C. Landscaping Imp. I Min. 10 wide planters 10 ft. Environmental Status: Staff has:reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently,Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Attachment No. 4)was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-11 for twenty(20) commencing on November 25, 1999 and ending on December 14, 1999. Comments were received from the Environmental Board as discussed below. Environmental Board Comments: The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. On December 20, 1999, the Environmental Board provided a letter(Attachment No. 4) addressing several issues including: • A negative declaration is the appropriate level of documentation for the project. • Checklists are not complete regarding Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing • Clarification is needed regarding parking facilities and overflow parking • Vehicle ingress/egress routes are not clear • Impact of the project on traffic during peak hours needs further clarification A response to the Environmental Board's comment letter has been prepared (Attachment No. 4) and the Negative Declaration has been amended where necessary. The Environmental Board's comments do not change the conclusion of the initial study and the recommendation for a negative declaration.. Staff Report—1/25/00 8 (OOsrO5) Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31; it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Staff, in its initial study of the project; is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable.. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services and Building and Safety have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police Department recommends conditions of approval to reduce the incidence of crime at the subject_site. For example, landscaping at all building alcoves should be kept to a minimum and limited to turf only so that potential criminals can not be concealed. The Police Department's recommendations have also been included in the conditions of approval. The Department of Economic Development has also reviewed the project and developed the guidelines for affordable housing and maximum rent formula in concert with Planning staff. In addition, Economic Development suggests that a high degree of surveillance be provided from the management area into all public spaces, corridors, and parking areas either by direct views or cameras. Surveillance and security measures are incorporated into the management plan and conditions of approval. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on Thursday, January 13, 2000, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. (and tenants within a 300 ft) radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), tenants at the Town& Country commercial center, applicant, and interested parties. As of January 19, 2000.no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. ANALYSIS: The three main issues for the Planning Commission to consider when analyzing this project are compatibility with adjacent uses, parking and traffic circulation, and affordable housing. All three subjects are discussed in detail below. Staff Report— 1/25/00 9 (OOsr05) I . I Utilizing the above formula, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: Ilnri 7' n fneame N >> »_< ....... ._.»...........fie >::::;<>::>::<:�; 24 Very Low Units $390.00. $450.00 Income between 0-35% County Median Category A 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00 Income between.36-50% of County Median (CategoryB 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median (CategoryC 29 Low Units $808.00 $928.00 Income between 66-80% of County Median (CategoryD 106 Total Units * $28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner As seen in the above chart, the maximum rent allowable for the low income units is quite high for a single room occupancy type project. To put the above rental rates in context, HUD has listed the fair market value rental rate for a studio apartment in Orange County at $645.00, which includes a utility allowance. This type of project will typically target individuals qualifying at the very low income -levels because those who can afford the maximum rents allowed for low income will typically find a more standard one bedroom apartment. It should be clear that the City's goals are to provide the greatest number of housing units to very low income individuals. Therefore, the applicants may rent to more than the minimum number of very low income individuals in each category but may not exceed the number of units provided to low income persons. For example, the applicant may rent all 106 units to tenants under Category A(between 0- 35% of county median), or may rent the at least the required 24 Category A units and the remaining 82 units may be in Category B. At no time may the applicant exceed the unit numbers specified in any category without first satisfying the numbers required for the lower.income categories. Affordable housing will be a permanent feature of the SRO project and will be guaranteed by an irrevocable covenant recorded on the property. The covenant will ensure that any future property owner is informed of the affordable housing restrictions. The project will be subject to an annual review by the City to ensure compliance with affordable housing requirements and a review of management and parking services. The SRO project manager will be responsible for filing the annual report and shall include the range of monthly rents, the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. D - 3 100 Staff Report— 1/25/00 14 (00sr05) SUMMARY: Staff has evaluated the project with regard to general planning/land use compatibility issues and determined that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals, are in compliance with applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.(ZSO) standards applicable to the property, and will be compatible with adjacent development Based on the above analysis staff concludes that the proposed development-will be compatible with surrounding•uses due to the SRO's location and design and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. In addition the proposal will not have any adverse environmental impacts. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit 99-31 for the-.following:reasons: The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which encourage the development of a range of housing types, including Single Room.Occupancies.. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. The subject development proposal will be in compliance with the CG(General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. The project's scale will be compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. ATTACHMENTS: _Use Tl_f_:t?ie Aft 31 - SH:JM:kjl I 3 �a1 Staff Report—1/25/00 15 (00sr05) J� City of Huntington Beach P.O.Box 190-2000 Main Street * Huntington Beach,California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH From the desk of: Connie Brockway City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 Internet: www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us o(s) f G� � 7 SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on November_, 2000 by and among AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC.,a Nevada corporation, BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC.,a California corporation, and DR.JAMES LU (collectively"Amwest")and THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a charter city and municipal corporation("City"),THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,DAVID GAROFALO,TOM HARMAN,PAM JULIEN, PETER GREEN,RALPH BAUER AND DAVID SULLIVAN (collectively"Huntington Beach"). Amwest and Huntington Beach are collectively referred to herein as the"Parties." RECITALS A. In May 1999,Amwest applied for necessary land use entitlements for development of certain real property located at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, California("Subject Property"), including Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11. In connection therewith,Amwest sought entitlements to build and operate a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)development on the Subject Property(the"Development Plan")in conformity with the City's existing SRO ordinance. B. On March 14,2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering Amwest's Development Plan. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's application for a Development Plan on that date. Amwest appealed that determination to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. C. On May 15,2000,the City and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Development Plan. Findings supporting the denial of the Development Plan were subsequently prepared and ultimately adopted by the City Council on June 5, 2000. D. On July 13, 2000,Amwest filed an action against Huntington Beach entitled Amwest Environmental Group. Inc., et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.,bearing Orange County Superior Court Case No. CCO8364 (the"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit includes a Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Inverse Condemnation, Civil Rights Violations and Declaratory Relief. E. City of Huntington Beach staff has proposed changes to the Development Plan and is recommending that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approve the Development Plan as revised. Changes to the Development Plan include,but are not limited to, (1) changing the Development Plan from 53 single occupancy units and 53 double occupancy units to 91 single occupancy units and 15 double occupancy units, (2)requiring 95 parking spaces as opposed to the Development Plan's proposed 81 parking spaces,(3)reducing landscaping requirements so as to accommodate the proposed new parking requirements, and(4)restructuring rent levels. A Staff Report, which describes the proposed revised Development Plan("Revised Development Plan"), is attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein by reference. Amwest is agreeable to modifying its Development Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth on the Revised DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Development Plan,Exhibit A. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will consider and take action on the Revised Development Plan at a public hearing on November 6,2000. F. The Parties desire to avoid the risk and expenses attendant in further litigation and to reach a mutual, full and final compromise and settlement of the Parties' matters, claims, causes of action and the like arising out of the Lawsuit and Amwest's-development of the Subject Property. AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement. Section 2. Settlement of Lawsuit—Approval of Development Plan. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be rendered null and void in its entirety if the either the Revised Development Plan(or the original Development Plan)is not approved on November 6, 2000,or any subsequent date mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Moreover,Amwest has the unconditional and absolute right to declare this Agreement null and void if the Revised Development Plan is approved by the City Council with conditions different from or in addition to those recommended by City of Huntington Beach staff, as more specifically set forth in Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A. Should Amwest declare this Agreement null and void due to denial of the Revised Development Plan by the City Council,Amwest has the right to proceed with the prosecution of this Lawsuit. a. No Supplement of Prior Record. If this Lawsuit so proceeds,Huntington Beach knowingly agrees that no information, findings, or proceedings relating to the Revised Development Plan shall be included in the administrative record of proceedings for the denial of the original Development Plan, and denial of the Revised Development Plan is and shall not be the subject of the Lawsuit. In this regard,the parties agree that the Revised Development Plan has proceeded to public hearing for consideration and action only in the attempt to settle this Lawsuit and in no respect to supplement the record of proceedings for the City Council's denial of the Development Plan at its proceedings before the Planning Commission and City Council in the spring 2000. Section 3. Dismissal of Lawsuit. If the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approves the Revised Development Plan proposed in Exhibit A attached hereto, or approves the Revised Development Plan with other terms and conditions acceptable to Amwest,in its sole and absolute discretion, or approves the original Development Plan,Amwest agrees to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice within ten(10)calendar days of such approval. Amwest shall have the sole and absolute discretion in determining whether project conditions different from or in addition to those proposed by staff are acceptable in the original Development Plan or the Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A, and Amwest shall have no obligation to dismiss the Lawsuit if the a Development Plan,as revised,is approved with conditions other than those set forth Exhibit A. 2 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 4. Inadmissibility of Settlement Discussions. All actions and activities taken by Amwest and Huntington Beach since the filing of the Lawsuit and in furtherance of the Revised Development Plan shall be deemed inadmissible in any court proceeding pursuant to Evidence Code section 1152. The protections afforded by this Section 4 shall include any statements made and documents produced in connection with any public hearing on the Revised Development Plan. Section 5. Building Permit,Development and Entitlement Fees. Huntington Beach agrees that any and all building permit, development, entitlement and any all fees or charges related to the development and construction of the SRO project shall be in accordance with any fee structure in place and effective May 15, 2000. Section 6. Mutual Release. Except for the obligations and rights conferred by this Agreement, Amwest, on the one hand, and Huntington Beach, on the other, on behalf of themselves, their successors, assigns, executors, administrators, elected officials, officers, directors, employees,beneficiaries,representatives, and agents ("Releasors"),hereby release and discharge each other and their successors, assigns, executors, administrators, elected officials, officers, directors, employees,beneficiaries, representatives, and agents("Released Parties"), from any and all claims, demands, costs, contracts, liabilities, objections, actions and causes of action of every nature,whether in law or in equity, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,which Amwest, on one hand, and Huntington Beach, on the other, ever had or now have or may claim to have against each other, of any nature,type or description whether or not they were asserted in or arise out of the Lawsuit. a. Amwest, on one hand, and Huntington Beach, on the other, also waive and relinquish any and all rights which they may have under the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code,which states: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS TO WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECTED TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR." b. It is agreed and understood between the Parties that should this Agreement be deemed or declared null and void pursuant to Section 2,the mutual and general releases herein shall be deemed null and void. Section 7. Compromise. This Agreement is a compromise and settlement of the Lawsuit and claims, and is not intended and shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of the truth or correctness of any allegation in the Lawsuit or be admissible as evidence of the compromise of any issues by Amwest or admission of any facts asserted in the Lawsuit. 3 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 8. Attorney's Fees. Except as expressly set forth herein,the Parties agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the Lawsuit, and the negotiation, preparation, approval, execution and delivery of this Agreement, and of the documents related to or referenced in this Agreement. Section 9. Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute and deliver such other documents and to take such other and further actions as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effectuate and further perform the terms and the purposes of this Agreement. Section 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding among the Parties and none of the Parties shall be bound by any definitions, conditions,warranties, or representations other than as expressly stated in this Agreement. This Agreement supercedes all prior agreements or discussions between the Parties relating to the subjects addressed in this Agreement and the Parties are not bound by any representations or inducements which are not set forth in this Agreement. The Parties intend that this Agreement serve as the exclusive, full and final embodiment of their agreement. Section 11. Captions—Pronouns. Any titles, captions, or subheadings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the context of this Agreement or considered in any interpretation or construction of the Agreement. Whenever the masculine, feminine or neuter genders are used herein, as required by the context or particular circumstance, they shall include each of the other genders as appropriate. Whenever the singular or plural numbers are used,they shall be deemed to be the other as required. Wherever the present or past tense is utilized in this Agreement and the context or circumstances require another interpretation,the present shall include the past and future,the future shall include the present,and the past shall include the present. Section 12. Consideration. The Parties hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that each and every term and condition of this Agreement is of the essence of this Agreement, constitutes a material part of the bargain for consideration without which this Agreement would not have been executed and is a material part of the Agreement. Section 13. Severability. In the event that any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement shall be void or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then such provision shall be stricken and of no force and effect. The remaining provisions or this Agreement, however, shall continue in full force and effect, and to the extent required, shall be modified to preserve their validity. 4 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 14. Modifications. This Agreement may only be changed or modified and any provisions hereof may only be waived by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver,change or modification is sought. This Agreement may be amended only in writing by mutual consent of the. Parties. Section 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one agreement which shall be binding on all the Parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the Parties are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart. Section 16. Representations and Warranties. a. The Parties represent and warrant to and agree with each other as follows: (1) Each party has received independent legal advice from attorneys of its choice with respect to the advisability of making this settlement and the release provided herein and with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement. (2) Except as is expressly stated in this Agreement,no party has made any statement or representation to any other.party regarding any fact,which statement or representation is relied upon by any other party in entering into this Agreement. In connection with the execution of this Agreement or the making of the settlement provided for herein,no party to this Agreement has relied upon any statement,representation or promise of any other party or their attorney not expressly contained herein. (3) This Agreement is intended to be final and binding upon the Parties and is further intended to be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction among them regardless of any claims of fraud,misrepresentation, concealment of fact,mistake of fact or law, duress or any other circumstances whatsoever. Each party relies upon the finality of this Agreement as a material factor inducing that party's execution of this Agreement. Each party agrees that from the date of this Agreement, any and all rights and/or liabilities existing between or among the Parties hereto shall arise solely out of the terms,provisions,representations and warranties contained in this Agreement. (4) The terms of this Agreement are contractual and are the result of negotiations among the Parties. Each party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. Hence,in any construction to be made of this Agreement,the same shall not be construed against any party. (5) This Agreement has been carefully read by each of the Parties and the contents thereof are known and understood by each of the Parties. This Agreement is signed freely by each party executing it. 5 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 17. Warranty of Authority. Each party whose signature is affixed hereto in a representative capacity represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of and to bind the entity on whose behalf his or her signature is affixed. Further,the signatory for Huntington Beach warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to sign this Agreement and bind all those persons and entities collectively referred to as"Huntington Beach." Section 18. Notices. a. All notices shall be sent to the following address: (1) Amwest Environmental Group,Inc 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Attention: Dr. James Lu, President Beachview Investment, Inc. c/o Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Attention: Dr. James Lu, President With copy to: Douglas J. Evertz Stradling Yocca Carlson &Rauth 660 Newpor(Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, California 92660 (2) City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,California 92648 Attention: City Manager With copy to: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2600 Main Street—Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Scott Field,Esq., Deputy City Attorney Section 19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 20. Venue. Any action, suit or other proceeding instituted to remedy,prevent or obtain relief from a breach of this Agreement, arising out of a breach of this Agreement, involving claims within the scope of the releases contained in this Agreement, or pertaining to a declaration of rights under this Agreement, shall be instituted and maintained only in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. DATED: AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC. By: Dr. James Lu, President DATED: BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC. By: DATED: DR.JAMES LU DR.JAMES LU DATED: "HUNTINGTON BEACH" By: Its: Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stradling Yocca Carlson&Rauth,Attorneys for Plaintiffs Amwest Environmental Group,Inc., Beachview Investment, Inc.,and Dr.James Lu APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: City of Huntington Beach, Office of the City City Clerk Attorney,Attorneys for Defendants City of Huntington Beach, Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach,David Garofalo, Tom Harman, Pam Julien, Peter Green,Ralph Bauer and Dave Sullivan 7 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 EXHIBIT A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAFF REPORT (to be attached) DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 i Minutes City Council-Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach 5:00 P.M. - Room B-8 7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber Civic Center, 2000 Main Street . Huntington Beach, California 92648 Monday, November 20, 2000 An audiotape of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting and a videotape of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. i Call To Order i Mayor Garofalo called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency 1 of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:05 p.m. in Room B-8. i City Council— Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer Absent: Harman { I i (City Council) City Clerk Announces Late Communications Which Pertain to Items on the 1 Agenda Relative to Nowotny v. City . Other Communications Distributed by Appellant's Attorney. (120.80) Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings)Act, the City Clerk announced the following Late Communications regarding agenda items that had been received following distribution of the agenda: Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Jeffrey C. Freedman of Jenkens & Gilchrist, LLP as Special Counsel transmitting his intent to recommend to the City Council that it utilize procedures similar to those used by the Personnel Commission of the City of Huntington Beach in the consideration of recommended decisions from hearing officers. Communication titled Appeal by Charles Nowotny Re: Disability Retirement. t Communication dated November 18, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting the procedure Aj for conducting the hearing in the matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach. Communication titled Procedure for Conducting the Hearing in the Matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach; Office of Administrative Hearing Case No. L-20000030602; Hearing 5:00 p.m., November 20, 2000. Page 2 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (2) Public Comments Kreg Muller, Police Officer's Association representative, stated that he appreciated the fact that the Police Officer's Association and the city are back in negotiations and he appreciates that the Assistant City Administrator will be at the negotiation table. Russell Reinhart, Police Officer's Association representative, stated the need to be able to bring a complete proposal to their membership and urged the cooperation of Council. Joe Racano addressed Council regarding the agenda item regarding the Public Utilities Commission. He spoke regarding the importance of having the Public Utilities Commission reconsider its decision authorizing Southern California Water to provide water and waste services to Hearthside Bolsa Chica Mesa project. He referred to the 1978 study of the previous Council relative to preservation of Little Shell and urged the City Council to save the Little Shell with the inclusion of the buffer zone. Jan Vandersloot congratulated Shirley Dettloff for the action she took on behalf of the city in her role of a Coastal Commissioner. He stated that her service to the city was very much appreciated. He urged that Little Shell wetlands be kept in the city; that it will be easier for the city to obtain grant money and to gain restoration. Dr. Vandersloot requested the City Council join in a petition for a rehearing by the Public Utilities Commission to request reconsideration of its decision authorizing Southern California Water to provide water and waste service to Hearthside Bolsa Chica Mesa project. He stated that he believes that the City Council is giving up its rights in this mater. Dean Albright congratulated Shirley Dettloff for her action at the Coastal Commission in support of The Bolsa Chica. He distributed a map to the City Councilmembers showing the traffic problems and traffic counts which would be encountered if The Bolsa Chica were developed. (City Council) Adopted and Upheld in its Entirety Proposed Decision of the Office of Administrative Hearing Granting Disability Retirement Application in the Charles Nowotny v City of Huntington Beach Case and Denying Nowotny Appeal (630.40) The City Council considered a communication from the City Attorney requesting the granting of the application for a disability retirement in Nowotny v City of Huntington Beach. Attachments to staff report are available at the City Clerk's Office for public review. Also transmitted for Council information was a communication from the City Attorney's Office dated November 16, 2000 Re: In the Matter of Employers Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach, Office of Administrative Hearing Case No. L- 20000030602. Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings) Act, the City Clerk announced the following Late Communications regarding agenda items which had been received following distribution of the agenda: Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Jeffrey C. Freedman of Jenkens & Gilchrist, LLP as Special Counsel transmitting his intent to recommend to the City Council that it utilize (3) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 3 procedures similar to those used by the Personnel Commission of the City of Huntington Beach in the consideration of recommended decisions from hearing officers. Communication titled Appeal by Charles Nowotny Re: Disability Retirement. Communication dated November 18, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting the procedure for conducting the hearing in the matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach. Communication titled Procedure for Conducting the Hearing in the Matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach; Office of Administrative Hearing Case No. L-20000030602; Hearing 5:00 p.m., November 20, 2000. Late Communications Distributed to Council The following communications were distributed during this meeting: Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Jeffrey Freedman, Esquire, Jenkens and Gilchrist; Gregory Peterson, Peterson Law Firm; and Michael Westheimer, Esquire, Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore titled Appeal by Charles Nowotny Re: Disability Retirement. Communication titled In the Office of Administrative Hearings, State-of California OAH File Number L-20000030602. Communication titled For the Personnel Commission for the City of Huntington Beach-The Matter of the Dispute Between the City of Huntington Beach and Police Detective Charles Nowotny. Communication titled Taxpayers of Huntington Beach. Mayor Garofalo announced the procedure to be followed as outlined in the City Attorney's communication to the City Council, dated November 18, 2000. Gregory Peterson, Attorney at Law, Peterson Law Firm, representing the appellant addressed Council. He cited CALPers (Personnel) Rule 8, distributing copies of the section to Council. Mr. Peterson stated that the city has not been in compliance. He expressed the opinion that the action taken is retaliatory, and stems from the fact that Officer Nowotny filed for the arrest of an alleged felon. The Police Chiefs son. City Attorney Gail Hutton introduced Jeffrey Freedman, Attorney, Jenkens and Gilchrist, independent special counsel to the city who addressed Council. He rebutted Mr. Peterson's statements as irrelevant, stating that the proper procedures for determining a disability retirement have been taken, and that the award is appropriate. Mr. Freedman referred to Administrative Law Judge Roy W. Hewitt's adjudication (exhibits A-B in the staff report) as supportive documentation. Michael Westheimer, Attorney, Liebert, Cassidy&Whitmore, representing the City addressed Council. He referred to documents in the City Council agenda packet. Mr. Westheimer reiterated that the preponderance of medical evidence is compelling and points to the fact that even Officer Nowotny's doctor has diagnosed that he is precluded from performing his duties as a. policeman due to left knee problems which are so severe that it is both debilitating and degenerative. Mr. Peterson, Attorney, Peterson Law Firm, restated that Officer Nowotny is not disabled according to CALPers law and that disability retirement is merely a punitive action. He urged approval of Page 4 - Council/Agency Minutes — November 20, 2000 (4) Officer Nowotny's appeal, stating that the rules of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) need to be revisited in court. Mr. Peterson posed the question that since city could have retired Officer Nowotny 20 years ago with his knee problem, why is it just now taking the action to do so. Mayor Garofalo closed the hearing. Councilmember Sullivan inquired whether deliberation should be made in open or closed session, to which Mr. Freedman, Attorney, Jenkins & Gilchrist, responded that it should be in open session. Councilmember Julien stated that she will be opposing the approval of the recommended action, expressing her concern that Council is not equipped to judge and ADA requirements ought to be addressed. Mayor Garofalo concurred that he will also be opposing seeing no fair and equitable ADA issue resolved. Mayor Garofalo closed the hearing. Following discussion a motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to adopt the proposed decision of the Office of Administrative Hearing in its entirety. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Garofalo, Julien ABSTAINED: Sullivan ABSENT: Harman Motion to Recess to Closed Session —Approved A motion was made by Green, second Sullivan to recess to Closed Session on the following items. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (City Council) Closed Session— Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is Amwest Environmental Group, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., O. C. Superior Court Case No. 00 CC 08364. (120.80) (City Council) Closed Session— Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is Doherty v. City of Huntington Beach, O. C. Superior Court Case No. 00 CC00677. (120.80) (City Council) Closed Session— Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is Bolsa Chica Land Trust v California Coastal Commission, O. C. Superior Court Case No. 00 CC005991. (120.80) (5) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 5 (City Council) Closed Session — Pursuant to Government Code Section54956.9(c)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. One potential case: Coastal Commission Suspension Letter Related to CDP 97-15 dated September 12, 2000. (120.80) (City Council) Closed Session — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's negotiators, Matt Lamb and Ron Hagan, regarding negotiations with Jack Clapp concerning the purchase of Dwight's Beach Concession located on the east side of the Huntington Beach Pier, on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway, and north of the sand line from the Pacific Ocean. Instruction will concern price and terms of payment. (120.80) Reconvene City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting i (City Council) City Attorney's Report of Action Taken by the City Council in Closed Session on November 20, 2000 (Pursuant to Government Code §54957.1 —Amwest ' Environmental Group, et al v. City of Huntington Beach et al — OCSC Case No. OOCC 08364—Approved Settlement Agreement Previously Submitted on November 6, 2000 (120.80) City Attorney Hutton reported out of closed session that on Monday, November 20, 2000 the City Council convened in closed session to discuss the matter of Amwest Environmental Group et al v. City of Huntington Beach. She announced that the City Council voted to approve the Settlement Agreement previously submitted to Council on November 6, 2000 - (without the stipulation for a percentage of units to be senior housing). The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff i NOES: Bauer, Sullivan ABSENT: Harman (City Council) City Attorney's Report of Action Taken by the City Council in Closed Session on October 16, 2000 (Pursuant to Government Code §54957.1(a) (3) (B)) — Instructed City Attorney not to Request PUC (Public Utilities Commission) for Reconsideration of So Cal Water Company's Application to Provide Water and Waste Water System Services to Hearthside Home's Bolsa Chica Mesa Project (120.80) The City Attorney announced that Council voted on a closed session item: On Monday, October 16, 2000, the City Council convened in closed session to discuss the Matter of the Application of Southern California Water Company(U133W)for a Certificate of.Public Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 1001 to extend its West Orange County System to The Bolsa Chica Planned Community, Application 98-11-003; and Related Waste Water System Application. City Council voted to instruct the City Attorney not to request the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) to reconsider its decision authorizing Southern California Water to provide water and waste service to Hearthside's Bolsa Chica Mesa project. The Council voted as follows: Ayes: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer. Noes: Sullivan and Harman Absent: None Page 6 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (6) ` (City Council) City Attorney Report of Action Taken on November 20, 2000 (Pursuant to Government Code §54957.1(a) (3) (b)) —Approved Settlement Agreement Between City Council/Development Agency— Mayer Corporation (120.80) I Coastal Commission —Approved Deed Restriction — (Coastal Development Permit Suspension Letter) Wetlands along Beach Boulevard. Pending litigation based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. One potential case: Coastal Commission Suspension Letter Related to CDP 97-15 dated September 12, 2000. (120.80) City Attorney announced the Report of Action taken out of Closed Session: As set forth on the communication she handed to the City Clerk. On November 11, 2000, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency met in closed session to consider whether to initiate litigation against the California Coastal Commission over a suspension letter issued by the Commission regarding the City's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 97-15. A copy of the suspension letter is attached Attachment No. 1. The City Attorney/Agency Counsel announced the following action out: 1. Approved the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Attachment No. 2, and the Deed Restriction attached hereto as Attachment No. 3. 2. Authorized the Mayor Pro Tem/Chairman Pro Tern to execute the Settlement Agreement and Deed Restriction on behalf of the City/Agency. 3. Authorized the recordation of the Deed Restriction as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The vote was announced as follows: 5 in favor 0 against. The City Attorney then reported the vote out as 6-(1 abstention); then reported out 6-1 (Garofalo absent). On December 4, 2000 the City Council/Redevelopment Agency adopted a motion to direct the City Clerk to reflect in the November 20, 2000 minutes the correct vote as follows: 5 ayes (Garofalo, Harman absent). Copies of said Settlement Agreement were provided to the City Clerk. City Council —Redevelopment Roll Call Present: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer Absent: Harman ' Flag Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance— By Maureen Rivers— Huntington Beach Fourth of July Executive Board. Invocation — By Councilmember Dave Sullivan. City Clerk Announced Late Communications Which Pertain to Items on the Agenda Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Jeffrey C. Freedman of Jenkens & Gilchrist, LLP, Special Counsel transmitting his intent to recommend to the City Council that it utilize (7) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 7 procedures similar to those used by the Personnel Commission of the City of Huntington Beach in the consideration of recommended decisions from hearing officers. Communication titled Appeal by Charles Nowotny Re: Disability Retirement. Communication dated November 18, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting the procedure for conducting the hearing in the matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach. Communication titled Procedure for Conducting the Hearing in the Matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach; Office of Administrative Hearing Case No. L-20000030602; Hearing 5:00 p.m., November 20, 2000. Communication dated November 18, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting the procedure for conducting the hearing in the matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach. Communication titled Procedure for Conducting the Hearing in the Matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach; Office of Administrative Hearing Case No. L-20000030602, Hearing 5:00 p.m., November 20, 2000. Communication from City Attorney to City Council dated November 18, 2000, subject:: Procedure for Conducting the Hearing in the Matter of Employer's Application for Disability Retirement of Charles Nowotny v. City of Huntington Beach; Office of Administrative Hearing Case No .L- 20000030602; Hearing 5:00 p.m., November 20, 2000. Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Jenkens and Gilchrist, Esq., Gregory Peterson Esq. and Michael Westheimer, Esq; titled Appeal by Charles Nowotny Re: Disability Retirement. Communication titled In the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California OAH File Number L-20000030602. Communication titled For the Personnel Commission for the City of Huntington Beach-The Matter of the Dispute Between the City of Huntington Beach and Police Detective Charles Nowotny. Communication titled Taxpayers of Huntington Beach. Communication dated November 17, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting a request to remove the item relative to the administrative Public Hearing from the November 20, 2000 City Council Agenda. The communication is titled Late Communication—Item D-1 - 11120100 Meeting—Administrative Public Hearing on Special Assessments for Collecting Delinquent Civil Fines. Communication dated November 14, 2000 from Jeffrey& Nancy Lang requesting that Council concur with the Planning Commission and retain current RM zoning. Communication titled Proposed Zone Change Per Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03. Slide show presentation submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on November 20, 2000. Slide show presentation titled Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03 (General Plan Consistency—Beach Blvd. Corridor). Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Kevin C. Kelter of Southridge Homes transmitting proposed modifications relating to compliance with staff concerns over the project's Page 8 - Council/Agency Minutes — November 20, 2000 (8) design details. Communication titled Southridge Homes, Appeal of Tentative Tract Map No. 15964 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73 (13 Unit Subdivision Holly and Main Street). Slide show presentation submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on November 20, 2000. Slide show presentation titled Southridge Homes Appeal— 13-Unit Small Lot Subdivision— Tentative Tract Map No. 15964— Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73. Communication dated November 17, 2000 from the City Clerk's Office transmitting a communication from Tuchman and Associates, Attorneys at Law stating their intention of submitting an objection letter either on November 17, 2000 or November 20, 2000. Communication titled Communication dated November 16, 2000 from Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, to the Huntington Beach City Clerk titled Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. v. Huntington Center Associates, LLC—For Hearing November 20, 2000— Our File No. 9956. Communication dated November 16, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting the Mayor's Statement relating to the Public Hearing on Eminent Domain. Communication titled Mayor's Statement before Hearings on Eminent Domain Resolution for Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory, City Council Meeting of November 20, 2000. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Sean P. O'Connor of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP representing Montgomery Ward, LLC and Montgomery Ward Development, LLC transmitting Montgomery Ward's comments and objections to the proposed adoption of a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 315. Communication titled Proposed Agency Resolution No. 315 to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for Condemnation of Montgomery Ward's Property. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Aviv Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, submitted as a supplement to their letter dated November 7, 2000 and is in conjunction with the numerous letters that they have sent over the last several weeks re: November 20, 2000 public hearing. Communication titled City Council Meeting on Monday, November 20, 2000 Re:Adoption of Resolution of Necessity. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Aviv Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, submitted as a supplement to their letter dated November 20, 2000. Communication titled City Council Meeting on Monday, November 20, 2000 Re:Adoption of Resolution of Necessity. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Aviv Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, submitted as a second supplement to their letter dated November 20, 2000. Communication titled City Council Meeting on Monday, November 20, 2000 Re:Adoption of Resolution of Necessity. Slide show presentation dated November 20, 2000 from the Department of Economic Development. Slide show presentation titled Huntington Center— Hearing on Resolution of Necessity for Acquisition of Property— November 20, 2000—Item D-4. Attachment No. 6 submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on November 20, 2000. Attachment No. 6 consists of the Fiscal Impact Statement(FIS). Communication titled Attachment 6—FIS 2001-07 Approve Consulting Services Contract Amendment No. 3 with (9) November 20, 2000 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 9 EDAW, Inc. for Completion of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the Parkside Estates Project. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Jeffrey M. Oderman of Rutan & Tucker, LLP writing on behalf of HB CARES &Abdelmuti Development Co. transmitting their opposition to the proposed amendments to the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Program, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Zoning Text Amendment relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update. Communication titled Proposed Amendments to the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Program, Downtown Specific Plan, and Zoning Text Amendment Relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update. Communication submitted by the Department of Public Works to the City Clerk's Office on November 20, 2000 transmitting a list of current Public Works Commissioners. Communication . titled Public Works Commissioners— Updated February 16, 2000. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from the Department of Public Works transmitting a printout of the City's water services information and charges for the Equestrian Center located in Huntington Central Park. Communication titled Equestrian Center Water Cost. Communication from Burlington Coat Factory—site plans for Huntington Center. Communication from Loren Cohen, Burlington Coat Factory, titled Pacific Promenade Specific Plan. Communication from Economic Development Department dated November 20, 2000 titled Substitution of Resolution of Necessity— Resolution No. 315. Communication from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, LLP, dated November 20, 2000 titled Index of Documents Relating to Proposed Agency Resolution No. 15 to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for Condemnation of Montgomery Ward's Property. Communication from George Toberman Construction Company dated November 20, 2000 Re: Southeast Coastal Industrial Area Communication from Public Works Department dated November 20, 2000 titled Seapoint Avenue and Doral Drive— Traffic Signal Installation Presentation —To Mayor Dave Garofalo, Community Services Director Ron Hagan, and Division Head of Cultural Services Michael Mudd, a check in the amount of$75,000 from the Art Center Foundation Board of Directors,.Dr. Gerald Chapman, Diana Casey, Mike Adams, Dr. Gil Fujimoto, Helen Spencer, Mary Warren and John Gilbert. Presentation- By Mayor Dave Garofalo to Pat Steir, past President, and Maureen Rivers, past Vice President, Fourth of July Executive Board, a certificate from the Orange County Register for Best Parade in Orange County for 1999. Presentation —By Mayor Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Harman and Councilmember Dave Sullivan to Maureen Rivers and Karen Pederson, plaques for five years of outstanding service on the Fourth of July Executive Board. Page 10 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20,2000 (10) a Presentation — By Mayor Dave Garofalo to Jerry Kuhn, District Manager, Automobile Club of Southern California, a Proclamation recognizing the 1001h Anniversary on December 13, 2000 of the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA). Presentation —To Mayor Dave Garofalo, Mr. Tim Smith, and Mr. Ed Laird, Board Members, Orange County Education and Research Cancer Foundation by Members of the Guns and Hoses Golf Committee, from Huntington Beach Police Officer and Chairman of Guns and Hoses Committee Corwin Bales, H B Firefighters' Association President Rick Fey, and H.B Police Officers' Association President Russell Reinhart, a check for$25,000 for the Orange County Cancer Foundation. Presentation — By Mayor Dave Garofalo and Ms. Joanne Fernbach, Huntington Harbour Philharmonic (HHPC) Committee, Vice Chairman/Parliamentarian, and HHPC Committee Members, checks to representatives from schools in the Ocean View School District, Huntington Beach Elementary School District, Huntington Beach Unified School District, Hebrew Academy and St. Bonaventure Catholic School. FROM OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT: Hope View School: Mr. Dan Moss, Principal and Jan Overton, Music Teacher Harbour View School Mrs. Roni Ellis, Principal Village View School Mrs. Anna Dreifus, Principal and Mrs. Kester, Music Teacher Mesa View School Mr. Rodriguez, Assistant.Principal Marine View Middle School Mrs. Liz Williams, Principal and Mrs. Lyn Silver, Music Teacher FROM HUNTINGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: Smith School Mr. Mike Andrzejewski, Principal Dwyer Middle School Mr. Smith, Music Teacher FROM HUNTINGTON BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: Marina High School Dr. Carol Osbrink, Principal and Victor Rodriguez, Musical Director Huntington Beach Academy for the Performing Arts Mr. Craig Jensen, Vocal Music Director FROM TWO PRIVATE SCHOOLS Hebrew Academy Mrs. Nancy Field, Principal and Mrs. Kern, Music Teacher St. Bonaventure Sister Carmel, Principal and Mrs. Donna Jakubowski, Music Teacher Mayor's Award The Mayor's Award was presented to Police Sergeant Dave Bunetta in recognition of his apprehension and conviction of the criminal who assaulted women in Huntington Beach and other areas in the county. (11) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 11 (City Council) Final Report on the Urban Runoff/Coastal Action Plan for the Period June 1998 through September 2000 — Staff Report Requested (520.30) The City Council heard a presentation from the Director of Public Works, Robert F. Beardsley, regarding the Urban Runoff, Coastal Action Plan, Final Report: Huntington Beach Water Quality Investigation. The report covered the action plan; Important Conclusions; Possible Contamination Source Examined; Groundwater and Sewer Lines; Urban Runoff; Talbert Marsh; Orange county Sanitation District (OCSD) Outfall; OCSD Action Plan; Effect of AB411 and Conclusion of Comprehensive Study. Councilmember Green addressed Council regarding the report including pump station temporary diversions to the Orange County Sanitation District. Public Works Director Berdsley reported. Public Works Director Beardsley responded to Councilmember Bauer regarding what agency will serve as lead in the study. City Administrator Silver reported on the matter of the lead agency stating that the county would be lead as far as is presently known. He reported regarding financial aspects of the matter. The Director of Public Works responded to Councilmember Bauer stating that a report could be made as to what agency is in charge and also to communicate with the responsible agency. City Administrator Silver reported further. Counciimember Bauer requested a report to include a determination as to which agency is in s charge; to communicate with the responsible agencies, address lag time in measurements; feeding of birds should be discouraged in order to lessen contaminants. Mayor Garofalo presented comments. i Deferred Consent Calendar Items from November 6, 2000 The following Consent Calendar agenda items were considered by Council. These items had been deferred from the November 6, 2000 meeting. (City Council) -Adopted Goal Approved by CalTrans for the Annual Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Program for Local Agencies to Receive Funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for Fiscal Year 2000/2001—Authorized the Public Works Director to Execute DBE Program (340.70) I A motion was made by Sullivan, second Garofalo to 1. Approve the Annual Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)goal of 5.4%; and 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the attached Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for Local Agencies. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman Page 12 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (12) (City Council) Approved Stipend Increase from $100 to $150 Per Month for Reserve Police Officers and Approved $50 Per Day Additional Compensation for Part-Time Criminalists Placed on "On-Call" Court Status (700.20) A motion was made by Sullivan, second Green to : 1. Approve an increase in the stipend for Reserve Police Officers from $100 to $150 per month; and 2. Approve additional compensation of$50 per day for part-time Criminalists placed on an on-call court status that falls outside of actual hours worked. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (City Council) -Approved Amendment No. 2 Extending for an Additional Year the Professional Services Contract between the City and the Ferguson Group, LLC for Federal Funding Acquisition Assistance in its Intergovernmental Affairs Program— Approved Settlement Committee's Recommendation for a Waiver of Insurance Liability Requirements (600.10) A motion was made by Garofalo, second Sullivan to: 1. Approve and authorize execution of Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and the Ferguson Group, LLC to Assist the City in its Intergovernmental Affairs Program, and 2. Approve a waiver of insurance requirements as recommended by the Settlement Committee. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (City Council) Report Requested Regarding Calling for Consultant Bids on a Regular Cycle For Assistance In Obtaining Federal Funds (100.10) Mayor Garofalo requested that a report be prepared relative to establishing a policy of going out to bid on a regular cycle for professional services for federal funding acquisition assistance. (City Council) Request For Consideration be Given Regarding Employing a Consultant to Lobby the State and Consultant to Lobby the Federal Government (640.50) Mayor Garofalo requested that consideration be given to employing a consultant that lobbies the State Government and employment of a separate consultant to lobby the Federal Government on behalf of the city. Report Card System Suggested for Consultants Hired to Lobby Legislature (640.50) Mayor Garofalo suggested that a report card system be developed which would ask the legislators to rate the consultants which the city has hired to lobby them. (13) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 13 (City Council) -Approved Amendment No. 1 Extending for an Additional Year the Professional Services Contract between the City and Morshed &Associates for Federal Funding Acquisition Assistance in its Intergovernmental Affairs Program —Approved Settlement Committee's Recommendation of a Waiver of Insurance Liability Requirements (600.10) A motion was made by Sullivan, second Bauer to 1. Approve and.authorize execution of Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and Morshed&Associates to Assist the City in its Intergovernmental Affairs Program; and 2. Approve a waiver of insurance requirements as recommended by the Settlement Committee. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (City Council) -Authorized Appropriation From the General Fund and the Transfer into the Public Works Intelligent Transportation System Project Account for Fiber Optic Communication Links for City Facilities Along Gothard Street for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 (320.20) Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding the merits of this item. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he has spoken to Fire Chief Dolder regarding what a good opportunity this is for the city. He informed Council that he believes money will be saved by the city as a result of this project. i 4 A motion was made by Sullivan, second Bauer to: Authorize the appropriation of$590,000 from the Undesignated, Unappropriated General Fund Reserves and the transfer to the Public Works Department's Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Intelligent Transportation System Project Account. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (City Council) -Approved as Amended the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Traffic Signal Installation Priority List of 29.Citywide Intersections -Amended to Include Traffic Signal at Doral Drive and Seapoint Avenue—Information Requested on Future Traffic Priority Lists (580.10) The City Council considered approval of the 2000-2001 Traffic Signal Installation. Priority List submitted by the Public Works Director. The Council also considered a late communication from the Public Works Director dated November ' i 20, 2000 titled Seapoint Avenue and Doral Drive— Traffic signal Installation. It was requested by Council that the Public Works Director include in future lists, a list of all of the intersections that need attention, or may be taken off the priority list. Tom Brohard, Interim Traffic Engineer, stated that this would be done. Page 14 - Council/Agency Minutes — November 20, 2000 (14) A motion was made by Julien, second Green to: Approve the 2000-2001 Traffic Signal Installation Priority List and to include traffic signal installation at Seapoint Avenue and Doral Drive with a $35,000 expenditure for such signal. The priority list of 29 intersections was developed In accordance with the State of California's Traffic Manual that evaluates the following criteria: pedestrian and vehicle volumes, traffic speeds, number of traffic lanes, and reported accidents. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding examples of intersections where there is a lack of left turn arrows and requested to know whether the city has reviewed the matter and whether a program is in place. Mr. Brohard, Interim Traffic Engineer, responded that the city does have a review procedure and that outside grant funding is aggressively pursued for locations which may have a higher than anticipated number of accidents, left turn accidents in particular. He stated that funds are being expended in this area from a grant received, and that the Newland Street intersection is included. Councilmember Bauer requested that a list be made available. Councilmember Bauer stated that he believes there should be some debate on the rationale used when placing traffic signals at intersections such as Heil Avenue and Algonquin Street which is primarily a residential neighborhood, and where signals take some of the character away from it. .Councilmember Bauer also stated that he would like to know the rationale of the intersection of Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets being on the list as it may interfere with the flow of traffic. Councilmember Julien asked why some intersections were higher in priority on the list than were those intersections that had bad accidents. Interim Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard reported. (City Council) Deferred from November 6,2000 -Approved a Professional Services Contract Agreement between the City and Concept Marine Associates, Inc.for On-Call Construction Management Services (600.10) A motion was made by Julien, second Green to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and Concept Marine Associates, Inc. for Construction Management Services and authorize the Director of Public Works to compensate for such services in accordance with the contract provisions, not to exceed $1 million per contract year. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (15) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 15 The Following Administrative Item Is Brought Forward From November 6, 2000: (City Council) -Approved Introduction of Ordinance No. 3480 to Add HBMC §5.67 Pertaining to Non-Consensual Towing Services (Police Department Directed Towing) — Approved Introduction of Ordinance No. 3481 to Amend HBMC §5.66 Removing Permitting Requirements for Non-Consensual Towing Services—Adopted Resolution No. 2000-100 to Establish City Fee Schedule for Non-Consensual Towing Services (530.30) The.City Council considered a communication from the City Attorney and the Chief of Police regarding whether the city should delete permitting requirements and establish rate regulation for non-consensual towing services. Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from the Law Office of Rose Marie Hollander dated November 1, 2000 is included in the agenda packet. The letter is in opposition to various issues of the proposed agenda item, including, but not limited to nonconforming uses and the level of authority of the Police Chief. Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 13, 2000 from Robert and Connie Mandic is included in the agenda packet. The letter is written to the Towing Ordinance Council Committee dated November 13, 2000 and titled Police Directed Towing Ordinance. City Administrator Silver reported on the agenda item. A motion was made by Dettloff, second Green to approve the following recommended actions: 1. After City Clerk reads by title, approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3480— "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Adding Chapter 5.67 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Non-Consensual Motor Vehicle Towing Service; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-100— "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing a City Fee Schedule for Non-Consensual Towing Services Pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code§5.67.030;"and After City Clerk reads by title, approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3481 — "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 5.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Motor Vehicle Towing Services." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman Mayor Pro Tern Harman arrived at the Council meeting at 8:30 p.m. City Clerk Announces Late Communications from 5:00 p.m. City Council Meeting. The City Clerk announced that the communications submitted by the appellant's attorney during the 5:00 p.m. portion of this Council meeting is on file in her office. She stated that she had neglected to include these late communications when she had announced the late communications earlier in this meeting. Page 16 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (16) Public Comments George Arnold addressed Council regarding various city matters including the recent City Council election. He congratulated Councilmember Harman on his election to the State Assembly. John Scott, representing the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding the difficulties Ihat his association has encountered in obtaining a playground at Eader Park. He spoke in support of the item regarding proposed Eader Park playground equipment placed on this meeting's agenda by Councilmember Sullivan. Chuck Scheid spoke regarding what he believes are the huge increases being given out relative the Consent Calendar agenda item— Resolution No. 2000-13, Memorandum of Understanding between the city and the Fire Fighters'Association. Greg Petersen spoke regarding the item placed on the agenda by Councilmember Sullivan which requests the City Administrator to explore the possibility of the County Sheriff providing police services. He stated that he believes Council loses each law suit filed against the city because the city does not follow the law. He spoke regarding what he believes are the causes of costly litigation. He acknowledged the City Clerk's late introduction of the communications which he presented on behalf of the appellant during the 5:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. Linda Moon stated that the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the rest of the environmental community are elated at the California Coastal decision on The Bolsa Chica. She thanked Councilmember Bauer and Sullivan for appearing before the Coastal Commission and thanked Councilmember Harman for his letter to the Coastal Commission. She thanked Councilmember Dettloff for her eloquent arguments in support of the city's decision. James Snyder urged Council to approve the proposed renovation of the Huntington Center Mall as the decision of Council may well affect the city for years to come. f Pat Rogers, Marketing Director and Manager of Huntington Center, spoke regarding what she believes is a project planned to be spectacular and a project which conforms to the wishes of the majority of the residents and business persons in the city. Don McGee spoke regarding the sewage discharge into the ocean and asked what will happen if the pipe bursts. He spoke against eminent domain at Huntington Center and the removal of Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. He congratulated Councilmember Dettloff for her action as a Coastal Commissioner on The Bolsa Chica. Tarik Kayssi spoke on behalf of his family, requesting that the Burlington Coat Factory not be moved so that his mother will not lose her job. Alex Osman requested that Council not approve the eminent domain at Huntington Center so that she can retain her employment at Burlington Coat Factory Marram Kayssi presented reasons why Burlington Coat Factory should not be removed including the needs of single families and needs of children. (17) November 20, 2000 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 17 Connie Boardman, City Councilmember-elect, stated that she does not believe in condemnation of property where Burlington Coat Factory and Montgomery Wards are located, she stated the proposal for eminent domain may be due to what she believes may be a developer paying too much money. She disagreed with the statement made earlier in the meeting that ocean pollution is caused by the feeding of birds. She thanked Councilmember Dettloff for actions as a Coastal Commissioner and thanked Councilmember Harman for his support for the Coastal Commission decision. She stated she looks forward to working with Assemblyman Harman as a City Councilmember. She thanked Councilmember Sullivan stating that she hopes that she can do half the job that Councilmember Sullivan has done for the city. Eileen Murphy thanked Councilmember Dettloff for the great job she did on the Coastal Commission relative to The Bolsa Chica issue. She requested that Council reconsider its decision relative to not requesting that the Public Utilities Commission reconsider its decision relative to authorizing Southern California Water Company to provide water and waste service to Hearthside Bolsa Chica Mesa project. Cole Helnei spoke in opposition to eminent domain of Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. He spoke regarding the definition of the word eminent domain and contributions to Councilmembers from Ezralow Company. f Angie Tanner displayed a photo of her daughter. She requested that Burlington Coat Factory not be removed from Huntington Center as the company provides employee benefits to her and she does not wish to go on welfare. Diania Burresa.displayed Burlington Coat Factory men's wear to show the quality of goods. sold. She displayed other items for which the exact same item is sold elsewhere for more money than as charged at Burlington Coat Factory. Lynn Gutierrez spoke regarding the merits of Burlington Coat Factory including the employment its provides to so many segments of the work force. Fabian Hernandez spoke regarding what he believes is the unlawful use of eminent domain at Huntington Mall. John Sonnenberg stressed that not many employers offer medical benefits to part-time employees as does Burlington Coat Factory. He stated it is great place for employees to start out. He stated there are other ways to keep Burlington Coat Factory in the city. , Serafin.Rios spoke regarding his need to retain his job at Burlington Coat Factory. Sara Herman questioned why a good store such as Burlington Coat Factory is being taken away from the city. She stated that she believes that Council has already made its decision. i i Sean Cotter stated that his health has changed and he will be needing a medical procedure to j save his life. He informed Council that if he loses his benefits that he receives at Burlington Coat Factory he will not be able to have his needed care. Andrew Vehlinger stated that he had voted for Councilmember Julien. He requested her support. He stated that the Burlington Coat Factory works around his work schedules; that other stores at which he had applied for employment could not. Page 18 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (18) Ramiro Lopez informed Council that he is a student and likes his job at Burlington Coat Factory. He stated that his salary pays for his college, car, and books. He stated that Council's decision will affect the employees and the patrons in the community. Linda Withers spoke regarding the employee benefits provided to part-time workers by Burlington Coat Factory and questioned where else students can find these benefits.. She stated Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Mervyns only give medical benefits only to full-time employees. Erika Singh spoke regarding how she feels Burlington Coat Factory employees are her family and her family is far away in Mexico. She stated the uncertainty the proposed store removal is causing her. Patricia Rocha stated her employment at Burlington Coat Factory allows her to work close to her father who has cancer and diabetes and also to care for her newborn baby. She stated that Burlington Coat Factory is willing to give time-off when she needs it and to leave at a moment's notice in an emergency. She stated that the removal of Burlington Coat Factory is taking away from all of the families of all of the 136 employees. Lupe Hernandez stated that her family and community would be hurt by the removal of Burlington Coat Factory from the mall. Tony Dennis requested that Council stop and think and listen to the people who have spoken. He stated that Burlington Coat Factory is good for the community. Ronnie Paco stated that Burlington Coat Factory will fight for what is right. She requested that Council show them the people who support Council and the removal of Burlington Coat Factory. She stated that they can show 20,000 people in favor of Burlington Coat Factory remaining. Lynn Van Buren stated that she left Burlington Coat Factory to work at a store at South Coast Plaza for a higher paid commission basis and left after one day. She spoke regarding a customer at the South Coast Plaza store complaining about service and subsequently coming to Burlington Coat Factory where she received good service. Kevin Schmidt, Burlington Coat Factory Store Manager, distributed photos of Burlington Coat Factory employees. He requested that the photos be place in front of the podium for Council to view. He questioned if Burlington Coat Factory moves, does the city have a new location for it. Gregory Napier related his fear that his job at Burlington Coat Factory would be the second job he would be losing. Mr. Napier stated his opposition to.the"Italian Village Concept" proposed by Ezralow Properties for"The Crossings at Huntington Center." Mahmoud Ayache stated that he is a student who very much appreciates his job at Burlington Coat Factory. Tony Pellegrino stated his displeasure at the current method of the street maintenance program. He stated that he has learned that his street will not be resurfaced. He stated that he lives near Springdale Street and Slater Avenue. He informed Council that he will be meeting with the Public Works Director on this matter. Mr. Pellegrino stated that the street will be cut down and only three-quarters resurfaced, with the remainder left until a later date. He suggested a cure would be to wait longer and then do the entire street. (19) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 19 Bob Traver spoke in favor of the project proposed by Ezralow Company at Huntington Center. He stated that it would be a destination shopping center. Jerry Racano stated that he had been correct in his assessment of the cause of pollution of the ocean. He stated that he does not believe it is birds polluting the ocean. He thanked Councilmember Dettloff and stated that he was proud of Councilmember Bauer relative to his support of The Bolsa Chica at the Coastal Commission. He stated that he was disappointed in Councilmember Green's position on this issue. Councilmember Green stated he has studied the matter very carefully and believes it was an unjust taking and he believes there is a good law suit there. Tony Huizing stated that he did not believe a donut shop would be a big draw at the Huntington Mall. He spoke regarding the merits of Burlington Coat Factory, stating that it is not a lower end store and will not attract lower end customers. He stated that most of the current patrons will shop at the new center with Burlington Coat Factory remaining. Bonnie Eddrich stated that she has found out how many customers love Burlington Coat Factory. She stated that the patrons come from Los Angeles and other outlying areas to shop at the store. She stated that Burlington Coat Factory building would be fixed up but their goods are upscale and they are a money making store as evidenced by their success in the currently run-down mall. Bob Gibbons spoke in favor of the Ezralow Company project at Huntington Center. He stated that this project will enhance the community. Jim Upp, Executive Director of the Huntington Beach Auto Dealer's Association, stated that it is time to move forward with the Ezralow after years of inaction at the Huntington Center Mall. Norm Westwell congratulated Pam Julien, Debbie Cook, and Tom Harman on their recent election to the City Council and State Assembly respectively. He thanked Councilmembers Sullivan and Tom Harman for their service to the city. He spoke regarding Water Well No. 11 stating that he did not believe the well should have been filled in and turned over to Fire Department. Recess— 10:20 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (City Council) Announcement of Appointment by Councilmember Peter Green of Dawna Stanton to the Finance Board (110.20) The City Council addressed the agenda communication from Councilmember Peter Green, announcing the appointment of Dawna Stanton to the Finance Board to fill the unexpired term of Dick Harlow (expiring December 2002). A motion was made by Dettloff, second Green to receive the announcement of the appointment by Councilmember Peter Green of Dawna Stanton to the Finance Board to assume the remainder of Dick Harlow's term through December 2002. The motion carried unanimously. Page 20 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (20) (City Council) Approved the Appointments to Fill Three Vacancies on the Environmental Board -Terry Dolton/Albert Hendricker/John McGovern as Recommended by Council Liaisons Peter Green and Shirley Dettloff (110.20) The City Council considered a communication from the Planning Director regarding the recommended appointments by Council Liaisons Peter Green and Shirley Dettloff, to fill three vacancies on the Environmental Board. A motion was made by Dettloff, second Green to 1. Appoint Terry Dolton to a first full term . which will expire on December 31, 2004, and 2. Appoint Albert Hendricker to complete the term for Garry Kepes which will expire on June 30, 2002; and 3. Appoint John McGovern to complete the term for Alan Merow which will expire on June 30, 2003. The motion carried unanimously. (City Council) Announcement by Mayor Dave Garofalo of the New Huntington Beach Fully Automated Showmobile Available for Cultural Entertainment at the Pier Plaza and Other City Venues (900.10) Mayor Garofalo announced that the city has purchased a new showmobile that is fully automated, including sound and lighting capabilities for cultural entertainment at Pier Plaza and other city venues. A PowerPoint slide show report was presented by staff. The slide show report titled New Huntington Beach Snowmobile was presented by the Community Services Director Ron Hagan. (City Administrator) Adopted Resolution No. 2000-109 Approving Agreement between the City and the State for Federal Aid Program Supplement No. M010 to State Agreement No. 12-5181 for Funding of the Beach Boulevard Median Landscape Construction Improvements (600.20) The City Council considered Resolution No.2000-109 relative to the funding of the Beach Boulevard median landscape construction improvements. A motion was made by Green, second Bauer to adopt Resolution No. 2000-109— A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute Program Supplement No. M010 to Agreement No. 12-5181 for the Beach j Boulevard Median Landscape Construction Improvements." The motion carried by the following i roll call vote: i AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Pro Tern Harman thanked his fellow Councilmembers and stated he is proud of this Council for overcoming an economic slump, obtaining grants, and many other fine accomplishments during the time he has served with these Councilmembers. He thanked City Administrator Ray Silver and his staff from Department Heads on down. He thanked the residents for their confidence in electing him to the City Council and now to the State Assembly. (21) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 21 The Councilmembers commended Councilmember Sullivan and Mayor Pro Tern Harman. Councilmember Bauer listed in detail the issues in which Councilmember Sullivan and Mayor Pro Tern Harman were particularly responsible for accomplishing. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he had enjoyed serving with Councilmember Harman and that Councilmember Harman was responsible for the regional approach that the city has made. Councilmember Green and Councilmember Dettloff extended their appreciation-to Mayor Pro Tern Harman. City Administrator Ray Silver thanked Mayor Pro Tern Harman and Councilmember Sullivan for their support of management on a personal level even with times there was disagreement on issues. (City Council) Administrative Public Hearing—Opened and Continued to December 18, 2000 - Resolution No. 2000-102 —Approve Certification of Special Assessments for Delinquent Civil Fines for Municipal Code Violations Against Properties where Public Nuisances.Have Occurred (570.60) Communication from the City Treasurer and the City Attorney. The Mayor announced that this was the time scheduled for an administrative hearing as required by the California Government Code Section 38377.5 for the purpose of certifying special assessments against properties where public nuisances have occurred. This is a request for Council certification of recording Notices of Special Assessments against private property for the value of unpaid civil fines, plus interest and penalties, pursuant to Ordinance No. 3397 adopted by City Council on June 15, 1998. Also.presented for consideration was Resolution No. 2000-102 - `A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying Special Assessments for Collecting Delinquent Civil Fines for Municipal Code Violations." Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. The Mayor declared the public hearing opened, and on motion by Julian second Harman, Council continued the hearing open on proposed Resolution No. 2000-102 to December 18, 2000. The motion carried unanimously. (City Council) Public Hearing on Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03 (Beach Boulevard Corridor General Plan Consistency) to Rezone Six(6) Subareas of Properties (Subareas A-F) —Approved Introduction of Ordinance Nos. 3486 and 3489 - Failed - Ordinance Nos. 3484, 3485, and 3487 -Denied Ordinance No. 3488 (450.20) Mayor Garofalo announced that this was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To rezone six (6) subareas of properties to make their zoning designations consistent with their General Plan land use designations as follows: Subarea A: Rezone from RM (Residential Medium Density) and RMH (Residential Medium High Density to CG (General Commercial). Page 22 -Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (22) Location: Various Addresses: Aldrich, Stark, Holt, and MacDonald Avenues; and the first + 700 feet of Glencoe Avenue; and Alhambra Avenue w/o Beach Boulevard. Subarea B: Rezone from RM (Residential Medium Density) to (General Commercial). Location: Moonshadow Circle (s/e corner of Terry Drive and View Point Lane). RM (Residential Medium Density) to CG (General Subarea C: Rezone from Commercial). Location: n/e corner of Elm Street and Cypress Avenue. Subarea D: Rezone from RM (Residential Medium Density) to CG (General Commercial). Location: Various Addresses east side of A Street and west side of B Street, between Warner Avenue and Blaylock Drive). Subarea E: Rezone from CO (Office Commercial) to PS (Public-Semipublic). Location: s/e corner of Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue. Subarea F: Rezone from RM (Residential Medium High Density Residential to CG (General Commercial). Location: 712 Yorktown Avenue (between Beach Boulevard and Florida Street). Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is covered under Environmental Impact Report 94-1 certified by the City Council on May 13, 1996. Planning Director Zelefsky presented a staff report utilizing slides. Discussion was held between Planning Director Zelefsky and the Councilmembers. j Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. The City Clerk stated for the record Late Communications which had been announced earlier and which pertain to the public hearing as follows: Communication dated November 14, 2000 from Jeffrey and Nancy Lang requesting that Council concur with the Planning Commission and retain tcurrent RM zoning. Communication titled Proposed Zone Change Per Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03. Slide show presentation submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on November 20, 2000. Slide show presentation titled Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03 (General Plan Consistency—Beach Blvd. Corridor). Mayor Garofalo declared the public hearing open. Jeff Lang, property owner in Sub Area B, addressed Council and presented reasons why he is requesting that Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendation on his property which is in Sub Area B. Discussion was held between the Council and Mr. Lang. Tony Nguyen, property owner in Sub Area B, addressed Council to opposition to the recommended action as he believes it will lower his property value. (23) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 23 There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Julien recused herself from consideration of Subarea C due to a conflict of interest. Discussion was held by Council. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Bauer to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and direct that Sub Area E, a rezone from CO Office Commercial to PS Public/Semi-Public at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Newland Avenue be denied and that Sub Area E remain Office Commercial. A motion was made by Dettloff, second Green to approve the recommended action on Areas A through F with the exception of E with Councilmember Julien abstaining on Subarea C. It was determined following discussion votes would be taken on each area separately. (City Council) Ordinance No. 3484—Failed—West Side of Beach Boulevard from Aldrich Avenue to Heil Avenue—Zoning Map Amendment 00-03 Subarea A (570.60) A motion was made by Bauer, second Harman to sustain the Planning Commission recommendation on Subarea A and deny introduction of Ordinance No. 3484. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Bauer NOES: Dettloff ABSENT: None A motion was made by Sullivan, second Bauer to approve the following actions on Ordinance No. 3485 Subarea B, Ordinance No. 3486, Subarea C, Ordinance No. 3487 Subarea D, Ordinance 3489 Subarea F. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Julien (City Council) Ordinance No. 3485—Failed -Moon Shadow Circle—Zoning Map Amendment 00-03 Subarea B. Planning Commission Recommendation Sustained (570.60) (City Council) Ordinance No. 3486—Introduction Approved— Northeast Corner of Cypress Avenue and Elm Street—Zoning Map Amendment 00-03 —Subarea C — Sustained Staff Recommendation (570.60) Following a reading by title by the City Clerk of Ordinance No. 3486 -`An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation from RM(Medium Density Residential) to CG (General Commercial) on Real Property Located at the Northeast Corner of Cypress Page 24 -Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (24) Avenue and Elm Street(Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03, Sub-Area C)." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Julien (City Council)'Ordinance No. 3487 — Failed —Southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard—Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03—Subarea B— Planning Commission Recommendation Sustained (570.60) (City Council) Approved Introduction of Ordinance No. 3489 — Southeast Corner of Yorktown Avenue and Florida Street—Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03-Subarea F — (Staff Recommendation Approved) (570.60) Following a reading by title of Ordinance No. 3489 - `An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation from RM(Medium Density Residential) to CG (General Commercial) on Real Property Located near the Southeast Corner of Yorktown Avenue and Florida Street(Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03, Sub-Area.F." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None . ABSENT: None (City Council) Ordinance No. 3488— Denied—Southeast Corner of Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue—Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03—Subarea E— (To Remain ll Office Commercial) (570.60) ' A motion was made by Sullivan, second Dettloff that Ordinance No. 3488 be denied and that Subarea E remain Office Commercial. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote with all members present. (City Council) Planning Department Director to Initiate General Plan Amendment to be Consistent with City Council Actions and Introductions of Ordinances Taken Regarding Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03 (570.60) i A motion was made by Bauer, second Sullivan to direct the Planning Department to initiate a General Plan Amendment to be consistent with the introduction of Ordinance No. 3486— i and Ordinance No. 3489—and with actions made at this public hearing. The motion carried unanimously with all members present. (25) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 25 (City Council) Public Hearing —Granted with Modifications the Appeal Filed by Duf Sfreddo on Behalf of Applicant Southridge Homes, of Planning Commission's Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15964/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73 for a 13-Single Family Unit Subdivision Including Vacation of a Portion of Holly Street and Pedestrian Access from New Cul-de-Sac (South Side of Main Street, West of Holly Street) (420.40) Mayor Garofalo announced that this was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider the following: - Applicant/Appellant: Southridge Homes, c/o Duf Sfreddo. Request: To appeal the Planning Commission's denial to subdivide approximately 1.6 acres of land for development of 13 single-family homes. The request includes vacating a portion of Holly Street to construct a cul-de-sac on Holly Street at Main Street, and provide pedestrian access through a landscape easement from the new cul-de-sac to Main Street, west of Holly Street. Location: 2000 Main Street (City Hall, n/e corner of Main Street and Utica Avenue)., Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is covered under Environmental Impact Report 89-1. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. The City Clerk stated for the record Late Communications which had been announced earlier and which pertains to the public hearing: Communication dated November 15, 2000 from Kevin C. Kelter of Southridge Homes transmitting proposed modifications relating to compliance with staff concerns over the project design details. Communication titled Southridge Homes, Appeal of Tentative Tract Map No. 15964 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73 (13 Unit Subdivision Holly and Main Street). Slide show presentation submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on November 20, 2000. Slide show presentation titled Southridge Homes Appeal— 13-unit Small Lot Subdivision— Tentative Tract Map No. 15964— Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73. Planning Director Howard Zelefsky reviewed the communication submitted by Kevin Kelter of Southridge Homes which was part of the Late Communication packet and considerable discussion was held between Councilmembers and the Planning Director. Mayor Garofalo declared the public hearing open. Both of the following speakers, Kevin Kelter and Mike Adams, concurred with staff recommendations. Kevin Kelter, applicant, addressed Council and clarified the proposed modifications to the project. He provided the background of his Pacific Landing project which he stated is in the second phase. Mr. Kelter informed Council that he has met with the homeowners associations i Page 26 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (26) to address issues on elevation which is included in his Late Communication that had been announced earlier by the City Clerk. Mike Adams addressed the bulleted points on page 3 of his handout, clarifying that the site map on the back is irrelevant. Mr. Adams informed Council that he did prepare elevations, stating that he is comfortable with all the proposed changes. There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Planning Director Zelefsky presented the slide report announced earlier by the City Clerk as a Late Communication. Assistant Planner Ricky Ramos walked the Council through the Subareas. A motion was made by Bauer, second Julien to overrule the Planning Commission decision and grant the appeal filed by Duf Sfreddo on behalf of Southridge Homes on the denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15964 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73 and grant the appeal with modifications presented in the applicant's letter dated November 15, 2000 and with conditions to be determined by the Planning Director and based on findings for approval set-forth in the staff report as shown below. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Bauer NOES: Harman, Dettloff ABSENT: None *FINDINGS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15964/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-73 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15964: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15964 for a 13 unit single family residential subdivision is . consistent with the General Plan Land Use element designation of Residential Medium Density on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. The proposed tract map for a single family detached project as revised pursuant to the conditions of approval is a permitted use in the Medium Density Residential district. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The property was previously studied for a greater intensity of land use (15 units/acre) at the time that the General Plan designation and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning were adopted for the property. With the suggested conditions of approval, the size, depth, frontage, street width and other design features of the proposed subdivision are in compliance with the Specific Plan. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site was previously evaluated in Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and will comply with appropriate mitigation measures. There are no environmental impediments to the project. (27) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 27 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The proposed street closure and construction of the modified cul-de-sac will improve circulation flow along Main Street, and will allow the City to maintain all utility easements within the vacated portion of the street right-of-way. Public pedestrian access will be maintained between Holly Street and Main Street. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-73: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the 13 unit single family residential subdivision, closure of Holly Street and construction of a modified cul-de-sac will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The design of the proposed subdivision as revised by the conditions of approval properly adapts the proposed structure to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-73 will be compatible with surrounding uses pursuant to the conditions of approval. The proposed triangular shaped subdivision is surrounded on two sides by public street and by a proposed residential apartment project on the third side. The subdivision will be located in a residential area. Compliance with mitigation measures of Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and code provision will ensure that the project will be compatible with other area developments. 3. The proposed 13 unit single family subdivision will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington. Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed units meet all code provisions, including the lot size, frontage, density, building height, setbacks, and parking. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Medium Density Residential on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU 9.1.2: Require that single family residential units be designed to convery a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines: a. Modulate and articulate building elevation, facades and masses (avoiding undifferentiated "box-like" structures). d. Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. LU 9.3.2: Require that the design of new residential subdivions consider the following: b. Intergrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscape elements. g. Orient housing units to neighborhood and collector streets. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. Page 28 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (28) Consent Calendar Items Deferred The City Council deferred consideration until the December 4, 2000 Council/Agency Meeting of the following Consent Calendar items: (City Council) Contract Agreement between the City and RBF Consulting for Professional Planning Services to Prepare Environmental Documentation and Remedial Work Plan for Cleanup of Closed Gun Range Site in Huntington Central Park for Reuse/Relocation by the Hanson. Recycling Center—Authorize Expenditure of Funds (City Council) Commemorative Monument of War Hero, Marine Colonel Arthur A. Poindexter at the Central Library in Huntington Central Park (e/o Main Entrance (City Council) Extending Professional Services Contract between the City and Diehl, Evans and Company, LLP to Include Annual Audit Services for Fiscal Year 1999-2000—Approve Settlement Committee's Insurance and Indemnification Waiver Recommendations (City Council) Resolution No. 2000-108 Designating a Redevelopment Survey Area to Study Feasibility of Establishing a Southeast Coastal Project Area in the Vicinity of the ASCON Superfund Property/AES Generating Plant at Beach Boulevard, Hamilton Avenue, Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway . (City Council) Amendment No. 1 of the Lease Agreement Between the City and Alice Gustafson, DBA Breakfast in the Park in Huntington Central Park Consent Calendar-Item Removed for Separate Discussion The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion: (City Council) Resolution No. 2000-113 Approving MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the City and the Firefighters Association for October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2003— Authorize Appropriation of Funds for Increased 2000-01 Salary and Benefits (720.20) (City Council)Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Planning Services Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Shea Homes for the Completion of the Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for Parkside Estates (formerly Shea Homes at Metropolitan Water District Site on Graham Street) Consent Calendar- Items Approved On motion by Green, second Julien, Council approved the following consent Calendar items, as recommended. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Garofalo requested that his vote be recorded as abstaining on Consent Calendar item relative to the Professional Consulting Services Contract between the city and EDAW, Inc. and Consent Calendar item relative to General Terms and Conditions of the Rental Agreement with GE Capital Modular Space. (29) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 29 (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Minutes - Approved and adopted the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency regular meetings of October 16, 2000 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. . (City Council) Authorized Release of the Guarantee and Warranty Bond for Tract No. 15355, s/o Seapoint Avenue and Garfield Avenue to OC Ventures II, Inc. (420.60) - 1. Released Guarantee and Warrantee Bond No. 3SM 910 379 00; the security furnished for guarantee and warrantyof improvements; and, 2. Instructed the City Clerk to notify the Subdivider, OC Ventures II, Inc. of this action, and the City Treasurer to notify the Bonding Company, American Motorists Insurance Co., of this action. Funding Source: Not applicable. On November 15, 1999, the City Council accepted the improvements constructed and dedicated for public use within Tract no. 15355. (City Council) Approved Agreement between the City and Moore, Rutter and Evans for Contract Legal Services in Connection with Representing the City in Tort and Police Related Litigation (600.10) Approved the Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Moore, Rutter and Evans for Legal Services and to authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. Funding Source: Self Insurance, Liability, Contract Legal Services. (City Council) Approved Agreement between the City and Ferguson, Praet and Sherman for Legal Services in Tort and Police Related Litigation -Approved Waiver of 30 Day Insurance Cancellation Notice (600.10)— 1. Approved Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Ferguson, Praet& Sherman for Legal Services and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and 2. Waived the 30-day cancellation notice for the firm's Professional and General Liability policies. Funding Source: Self Insurance, Liability, Contract Legal Services. (City Council) Approved Agreement between the City and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs for Legal Services in Tort and Police Related Litigation —Approved Modifications to Insurance Requirements and Approved Waiver of Insurance Cancellation Notice (600.10) - 1. Approved Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Kinkle, Rodiger& Spriggs for Legal Services ; accepted the certificates of insurance as submitted; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and 2. Approved the deductible to the firm's professional liability policy in the amount of$15,000 and waive the 30-day cancellation notice. Funding Source: Self Insurance, Liability, Contract Legal.Services. (City Council) Approved Non-Standard Affiliation Agreement between the City and Coast Community College District to Allow Community Experience Rotation at Rodgers Senior Center for Nursing Students (600.10)—Approved the Non-Standard Affiliation Agreement between the City and Coast Community College District and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. Funding Source: Not applicable. (City Council) Approved Extension of Professional Services Contract between the City and Blanchard Solutions Group for "Raving Fans" Customer Service Training in Conjunction with the BEST (Building Excellent Service TodayrTomorrow) Program (600.10)—Approve the Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and Blanchard Solutions Group for Customer Service Training and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Funding Source— FY 2000-01 Non-departmental budget- $100,000. Page 30 -Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (30) (City Council) Authorized Appropriation from the Assembly Bill 2928 Revenues (Currently on Deposit in the Gas Tax Fund) and the Transfer into a Public Works Expenditure Account for Additional Street Improvements (Resurfacing and Tree Removal/Replacement Petition Street Requests) (320.10)—Approved the appropriation of $700,000 in AB 2928 funds for street improvements and authorized the Director of Finance to transfer the funds into an expenditure account. Funding Source: The funds from AB 2928 revenues on deposit in the Gas Tax Fund will be transferred into an assigned expenditure account upon approval of the Executive Steering Committee. (City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2000-112 Agreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Holly Seacliff Parcel 7A(Linear Park) (610.30)—Adopted Resolution No. 2000-112 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Agreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for a Property Commonly Known as Holly Seacliff Parcel 7A." Funding Source: Not applicable. (City Council) Approved Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Planning Services Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Shea Homes for the Completion of the Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for Parkside Estates (formerly Shea Homes at Metropolitan Water District Site on Graham Street) (600.10)— 1. Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for Costs Incurred for Professional Planning Services in Connection with the Environmental Impact Report 97-2 Relating to the Parkside Estates Project in the amount of$100,000; and 2. Approve the receipt of additional revenues, in the amount of$100,000, which shall be deposited into the city's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances account. Funding Source: Per above. (City Council) Approved the General Terms and Conditions of the Rental (Lease) Agreement with GE Capital Modular Space for Five Rental Office Trailers for the Community Services Department—Approved Indemnification Provisions (600.10) Approved the GE Capital Modular Space Terms and Conditions of Lease Agreement including approval of the indemnity provisions for five trailers to be used by the Community Services Department. Funding Source: Not applicable. Rental fee is budgeted separately and previously approved. i a (City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2000-113 Approving MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the City and the Firefighters Association for October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2003—Authorized Appropriation of Funds for Increased 2000-01 Salary and Benefits (720.20) The City Council considered a communication from the Acting Administrative Services Director recommending adopting of Resolution No. 2000-113 to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the Firefighters Association. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he associates himself with Mr. Chuck Scheid comments during the Public Comments portion of the Council meeting as it appears that the cost will only be $97,000; however,the cost is actually in the area of much more money during the life of this contract. He stated that he would be voting against the proposed resolution as 3% retirement at age 50 is too much. He stated that he does agree that the proposed salary raises should be approved. (31) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 31 A motion was made by Dettloff, second Harman to adopt 1. Resolution No. 2000-113 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving and Implementing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Huntington Beach Firefighters Association and the City of Huntington Beach for October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2003,"and 2. Authorize the appropriation of$97,172 to pay the increased salary and benefit costs for 2000-01. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer (Green and Julien were absent from the room.) NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None (City Council) Approved Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Consulting Services Contract between the City and EDAW, Inc.for Completion of the Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for Parkside Estates (formerly Shea Homes at Metropolitan Water District Site on Graham Street) (600.10) The City Council considered a communication from the Planning Director recommending approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Consulting Services Contract between the city and EDAW, Inc. for completion of the Environmental Impact Report for Parkside Estates formerly Shea Homes at the Metropolitan Water District Site on Graham Street. Following discussion a motion was made by Sullivan, second Harman to 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and EDAW, Inc. for Preparation of E/R 97-2 for professional.; and 2. Approve the receipt of additional revenues, in the amount of$100,000, which shall be deposited into the city's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances account. Funding Source: Per above. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer (Green absent from the room) NOES: None ABSTAINED:.Garofalo i (City Council) Adopted Ordinance No. 3483 Amending Chapter 4.2. of the Downtown Specific Plan Updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan (Generally Bounded by PCH/Sixth Street/Acacia Avenue/Second Street) (580.60) Following reading by title, a motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to adopt Ordinance No. 3483 titled 'An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 4.2 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan Relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan." By roll call vote: (Public hearing and introduction of Ordinance No. 3483 as amended on November 6, 2000.) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSTAINED: Garofalo, Julien Page 32 - Council/Agency Minutes — November 20, 2000 (32) (City Council) Approved Introduction of Ordinance No. 3490 Amending Chapter 2.111 of the H. B. Municipal Code Relating to the Public Works Commission to Change Appointment Policy Process from Majority Vote to Individual City Councilmember Vote (640.10) Following reading by title, a motion was made by Sullivan, second Dettloff to introduce Ordinance No. 3490—titled "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.111 o�the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Public Works Commission" on a policy change in the process from appointment by a majority vote of the City Council to individual appointments. and 2. Direct staff to notify existing Public Works Commission members of the change in the appointment process, following the second reading of the ordinance. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Garofalo (Redevelopment Agency) Specially Noticed Administrative Hearing — Failed -Acquisition of Property by Ezralow Properties through Eminent Domain - Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area -Condemnation of Burlington Coat Factory and Montgomery Wards - 7777 Edinger Avenue, -AP Nos. 142-071-91 and 142-071-93— Failed—Adoption of Agency Resolution No.315 (650.50) Mayor Pro Tern Harman read a statement regarding the type of hearing this is a specially noticed hearing held under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1245.235. He also spoke regarding the subject, and the need for two-thirds vote and other procedural matters regarding the conduct of this hearing. This statement is contained in the Late Communication report previously announced. The City Council considered a communication submitted by Economic Development Director David Biggs transmitting for Council consideration the following Statement of Issue from the staff report: On October 2, 2000, the Redevelopment Agency approved an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA)with Huntington Center Associates, LLC, for the redevelopment of Huntington Center. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the Executive Director or his designee, the Director of Economic Development, to initiate and conduct negotiations with Huntington Center Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc., a California corporation, and Montgomery Ward Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the acquisition of certain interests in real property located within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Those negotiations have not resulted in purchase and sale agreements to acquire those interests in real property. The issue before the Redevelopment Agency at this time is whether to authorize, by the adoption of a resolution of necessity, the filing of one or more actions in eminent domain to acquire those interests in real property. The following communications are included in the agenda packet: Communications of opposition from Aviv L. Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law representing Burlington Coat Factory dated 11/700, 11/7/00, 11/8/00, 11/8/00, 11/13/00, 11/13/00, 11/13/00, 11/14/00 with a petition listing approximately 1,231 signatures of persons opposed, 11/15/00, 11/15/00, 11/15/00, 11/15/00, 11/15/00 and 11/16/00. Bro,C'Atl J. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk -FROM: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney DATE: November 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Amwest v. City of Huntington Beach At the November 20, 2000 Council meeting, the City Attorney announced that the City Council had approved the settlement agreement of the above-referenced matter as originally submitted on November 6, 2000, and without the amendment that was added during the November 6, 2000 Council meeting. Consequently, the original agreement is the one to be signed. Enclosed please find an approved copy of the original agreement with Exhibit A attached. Since the agreement may be signed in counterpart, I would appreciate receiving at your earliest convenience a copy of the agreement signed by both the Mayor and yourself. (You may keep the original signature version.) I will forward that copy to the opposing counsel and obtain a counterpart copy with their signature. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Attachment c: Lee Burke, Deputy City Attorney SF-2000 Memos: Clerk—Amwest I l-27 SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT("Agreement")is entered into on November 27 2000 by and among AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC.,a Nevada corporation,BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC.,a California corporation, and DR.JAMES LU (collectively"Amwest") and THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,a charter city and municipal corporation("City"),THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,DAVID GAROFALO,TOM HARMAN,PAM JULIEN,PETER GREEN,RALPH BAUER AND DAVID SULLIVAN (collectively"Huntington Beach"). Amwest and Huntington Beach are collectively referred to herein as the"Parties." RECITALS A. In May 1999,Amwest applied for necessary land use entitlements for development of certain real property located at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, California("Subject Property"), including Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11. In connection therewith,Amwest sought entitlements to build and operate a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)development on the Subject Property(the"Development Plan") in conformity with the City's existing SRO ordinance. B. On March 14, 2000,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering Amwest's Development Plan. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's application for a Development Plan on that date. Amwest appealed that determination to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. C. On May 15, 2000,the City and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Development Plan. Findings supporting the denial of the Development Plan were subsequently prepared and ultimately adopted by the City Council on June 5, 2000. D. On July 13,2000, Amwest filed an action against Huntington Beach entitled Amwest Environmental Group. Inc., et al. v. City o Huntington Beach, et al.,bearing Orange County. Superior Court Case No. CCO8364(the"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit includes a Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Inverse Condemnation, Civil Rights Violations and Declaratory Relief. E. City of Huntington Beach staff has proposed changes to the Development Plan and is recommending that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approve the Development Plan as revised. Changes to the Development Plan include,but are not limited to, (1) changing the Development Plan from 53 single occupancy units and 53 double occupancy units to 91 single occupancy units and 15 double occupancy units, (2)requiring 95 parking spaces as opposed to the Development Plan's proposed 81 parking spaces, (3)reducing landscaping requirements so as to accommodate the proposed new parking requirements, and(4)restructuring rent levels. A Staff Report,which describes the proposed revised Development Plan("Revised Development Plan"),is attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein by reference. Amwest is agreeable to modifying its Development Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth on the Revised DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Development Plan,Exhibit A. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will consider and take action on the Revised Development Plan at a public hearing on November 6, 2000. F. The Parties desire to avoid the risk and expenses attendant in further litigation and to reach a mutual, full and final compromise and settlement of the Parties' matters, claims, causes of action and the like arising out of the Lawsuit and Amwest's development of the Subject Property. AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement. Section 2. Settlement of Lawsuit—Approval of Development Plan. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be rendered null and void in its entirety if the either the Revised Development Plan(or the original Development Plan)is not approved on November 6, 2000, or any subsequent date mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Moreover,Amwest has the unconditional and absolute right to declare this Agreement null and void if the Revised Development Plan is approved by the City Council with conditions different from or in addition to those recommended by City of Huntington Beach staff, as more specifically set forth in Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A. Should Amwest declare this Agreement null and void due to denial of the Revised Development Plan by the City Council,Amwest has the right to proceed with the prosecution of this Lawsuit. a. No Supplement of Prior Record. If this Lawsuit so proceeds,Huntington Beach knowingly agrees that no information, findings, or proceedings relating to the Revised Development Plan shall be included in the administrative record of proceedings for the denial of the original Development Plan,and denial of the Revised Development Plan is and shall not be the subject of the Lawsuit. In this regard, the parties agree that the Revised Development Plan has proceeded to public hearing for consideration and action only in the attempt to settle this Lawsuit and in no respect to supplement the record of proceedings for the City Council's denial of the Development Plan at its proceedings before the Planning Commission and City Council in the spring 2000. Section 3. Dismissal of Lawsuit. If the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approves the Revised Development Plan proposed in Exhibit A attached hereto, or approves the Revised Development Plan with other terms and conditions acceptable to Amwest, in its sole and absolute discretion, or approves the original Development Plan,Amwest agrees to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice within ten (10)calendar days of such approval. Amwest shall have the sole and absolute discretion in determining whether project conditions different from or in addition to those proposed by staff are acceptable in the original Development Plan or the Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A, and Amwest shall have no obligation to dismiss the Lawsuit if the a Development Plan, as revised, is approved with conditions other than those set forth Exhibit A. 2 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 4. Inadmissibility of Settlement Discussions. All actions and activities taken by Amwest and Huntington Beach since the filing of the Lawsuit and in furtherance of the Revised Development Plan shall be deemed inadmissible in any court proceeding pursuant to Evidence Code section 1152. The protections afforded by this Section 4 shall include any statements made and documents produced in connection with any public hearing on the Revised Development Plan. Section 5. Building Permit,Development and Entitlement Fees. Huntington Beach agrees that any and all building permit, development, entitlement and any all fees or charges related to the development and construction of the SRO project shall be in accordance with any fee structure in place and effective May 15, 2000. Section 6. Mutual Release. Except for the obligations and rights conferred by this Agreement,Amwest, on the one hand, and Huntington Beach, on the other, on behalf of themselves,their successors, assigns, executors, administrators, elected officials, officers, directors, employees,beneficiaries,representatives, and agents("Releasors"),hereby release and discharge each other and their successors, assigns, executors, administrators, elected officials, officers,directors, employees,beneficiaries, representatives, and agents ("Released Parties"), from any and all claims, demands, costs, contracts, liabilities, objections, actions and causes of action of every nature,whether in law or in equity, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,which Amwest, on one hand, and Huntington Beach, on the other, ever had or now have or may claim to have against each other, of any nature,type or description whether or not they were asserted in or arise out of the Lawsuit. a. Amwest, on one hand, and Huntington Beach, on the other, also waive and relinquish any and all rights which they may have under the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code,which states: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS TO WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECTED TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE,WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR." b. It is agreed and understood between the Parties that should this Agreement be deemed or declared null and void pursuant to Section 2,the mutual and general releases herein shall be deemed null and void. Section 7. Compromise. This Agreement is a compromise and settlement of the Lawsuit and claims, and is not intended and shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of the truth or correctness of any allegation in the Lawsuit or be admissible as evidence of the compromise of any issues by Amwest or admission of any facts asserted in the Lawsuit. 3 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 • • Section 8. Attorney's Fees. Except as expressly set forth herein,the Parties agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the Lawsuit,and the negotiation,preparation, approval, execution and delivery of this Agreement, and of the documents related to or referenced in this Agreement. Section 9. Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute and deliver such other documents and to take such other and further actions as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effectuate and further perform the terms and the purposes of this Agreement. Section 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding among the Parties and none of the Parties shall be bound by any definitions, conditions,warranties, or representations other than as expressly stated in this Agreement. This Agreement supercedes all prior agreements or discussions between the Parties relating to the subjects addressed in this Agreement and the Parties are not bound by any representations or inducements which are not set forth in this Agreement. The Parties intend that this Agreement serve as the exclusive, full and final embodiment of their agreement. Section 11. Captions—Pronouns. Any titles, captions, or subheadings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the context of this Agreement or considered in any interpretation or construction of the Agreement. Whenever the masculine, feminine or neuter genders are used herein, as required by the context or particular circumstance, they shall include each of the other genders as appropriate. Whenever the singular or plural numbers are used,they shall be deemed to be the other as required. Wherever the present or past tense is utilized in this Agreement and the context or circumstances require another interpretation,the present shall include the past and future,the future shall include the present,and the past shall include the present. Section 12. Consideration. The Parties hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that each and every term and condition of this Agreement is of the essence of this Agreement, constitutes a material part of the bargain for consideration without which this Agreement would not have been executed and is a material part of the Agreement. Section 13. Severability. In the event that any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement shall be void or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then such provision shall be stricken and of no force and effect. The remaining provisions or this Agreement,however, shall continue in full force and effect, and to the extent required, shall be modified to preserve their validity. 4 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 14. Modifications. This Agreement may only be changed or modified and any provisions hereof may only be waived by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change or modification is sought. This Agreement may be amended only in writing by mutual consent of the Parties. Section 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one agreement which shall be binding on all the Parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the Parties are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart. Section 16. Representations and Warranties. a. The Parties represent and warrant to and agree with each other as follows: (1) Each party has received independent legal advice from attorneys of its choice with respect to the advisability of making this settlement and the release provided herein and with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement. (2) Except as is expressly stated in this Agreement, no party has made any statement or representation to any other party regarding any fact,which statement or representation is relied upon by any other party in entering into this Agreement. In connection with the execution of this Agreement or the making of the settlement provided for herein,no party to this Agreement has relied upon any statement,representation or promise of any other party or their attorney not expressly contained herein. (3) This Agreement is intended to be final and binding upon the Parties and is further intended to be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction among them regardless of any claims of fraud,misrepresentation,concealment of fact, mistake of fact or law, duress or any other circumstances whatsoever. Each party relies upon the finality of this Agreement as a material factor inducing that party's execution of this Agreement. Each party agrees that from the date of this Agreement,any and all rights and/or liabilities existing between or among the Parties hereto shall arise solely out of the terms,provisions,representations and warranties contained in this Agreement. (4) The terms of this Agreement are contractual and are the result of negotiations among the Parties. Each party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. Hence, in any construction to be made of this Agreement,the same shall not be construed against any party. (5) This Agreement has been carefully read by each of the Parties and the contents thereof are known and understood by each of the Parties. This Agreement is signed freely by each party executing it. 5 DOC SOC\774732v3\24300.000 1 f Section 17. Warranty of Authority. Each party whose signature is affixed hereto in a representative capacity represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of and to bind the entity on whose behalf his or her signature is affixed. Further, the signatory for Huntington Beach warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to sign this Agreement and bind all those persons and entities collectively referred to as"Huntington Beach." Section 18. Notices. a. All notices shall be sent to the following address: (1) Amwest Environmental Group, Inc 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, California 92647 Attention: Dr. James Lu, President Beachview Investment, Inc. c/o Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, California 92647 Attention: Dr. James Lu, President With copy to: Douglas J. Evertz Stradling Yocca Carlson&Rauth 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, California 92660 (2) City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: City Manager With copy to: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street—Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Scott Field,Esq., Deputy City Attorney Section 19. Governine Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 Section 20. Venue. Any action, suit or other proceeding instituted to remedy,prevent or obtain relief from a breach of this Agreement, arising out of a breach of this Agreement, involving claims within the scope of the releases contained in this Agreement, or pertaining to a declaration of rights under this Agreement, shall be instituted and maintained only in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. DATED: AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC. By: Dr. James Lu, President DATED: BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC. By: DATED: DR.JAMES LU DR.JAMES LU DATED: "HUNTINGTON BEACH" By: ►_ J� A Its: Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stradling Yocca Carlson&Rauth, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., Beachview Investment, Inc., and Dr. James Lu j APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: m //fb1,0b d rJr(�i City of Huntington Beach,Office of the City City Clerk 2- Attorney,Attorneys for Defendants City of Huntington Beach, Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, David Garofalo, Tom Harman, Pam Julien,Peter Green, Ralph Bauer and Dave Sullivan 7 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b B. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission denied the proposed project on March 22, 2000 finding that the project is not compatible with the existing multi-family apartment units to the east and the commercial shopping center to the west. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and the project was reviewed by the City Council on May 15, 2000. After a public hearing regarding the proposed project, the City Council also denied the project. The applicant subsequently filed litigation titled Amwest Environmental Group, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. CC08364. The lawsuit includes a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Inverse Condemnation, Civil Rights Violation, and Declaratory Relief seeking a reversal of the Council's decision. Consequently, the applicant has revised the project in accordance with the comments and concerns raised at the previous public hearings. During the previous pubic hearings, many of the public speakers and some decision makers commented that a senior only project would be compatible with the surrounding uses at the subject location. However, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance contains particular development standards for senior apartment complexes and they are allowed only within residential areas. This property is zoned General Commercial and therefore, allows development of an SRO for all age groups but does not allow construction of a senior only apartment complex. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As stated above, two primary amendments have been made to the project proposal as follows: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units and 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area. After publication and mailing of the public hearing notice, the applicant further revised the proposal and is no longer requesting amendments to the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. For convenience, a matrix comparing the original proposal with the revised project is provided in Attachment No. 2. A full discussion of all issues associated with the project can be found in the previous Planning Commission and City Council reports attached to this document. The two proposed revisions are analyzed in detail below. ' S - 3 PL00-65b -4- 4 f/2100 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Occupancy Limits The zoning code allows two occupants per unit for units greater than 220 square feet in size. In this case, all 106 rental units are large enough to allow occupancy by two people. In response to concerns with intensity and available parking voiced during the Planning Commission public hearings, the applicant voluntarily proposed limiting the occupancy to one person in one-half or 53 units and to two people in the other half or 53 units. After hearing continued concerns with the number of occupants per room at the City Council meeting, the applicant has now revised the proposal to limit occupancy to one person in 91 units and allow two occupants in the remaining 15 units. The 15 units are 338 square feet in size and are larger than the 85 units at 260 square feet and six handicapped units at 268' square feet. Staff.concurs with the proposed reduction in occupancy. Additional Parking Spaces At the previous public hearings, concerns were raised regarding the number of parking stalls available at the proposed SRO project. Although the zoning code requires 56 parking spaces because the project is within 2,000 feet of a public bus stop, the applicant previously included 81 spaces plus two drop-off and pick-up stalls on the site. Because it appears that there are still concerns with the number of parking stalls, the applicant is agreeable to expanding the parking into the landscaping/recreational area on the east side of the property. Staff prepared an onion skin sketch, which demonstrates that approximately 14 additional spaces can be added in this area. The new parking total is now proposed at 95 parking spaces for 106 units. Staff concurs with the revisions to parking. Affordable Housing As required by the zoning code all 106 rental units will be provided as affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. Staff continues to recommend that 47 units be devoted to very low income and 59 units be devoted to low income individuals. This recommendation has been extrapolated from the percentage of very low and low income units the City is charged with providing as part of our share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. RHNA numbers and allocations of target households are established by SCAG. Staff recommends affordable housing requirements as reflected in Conditions of Approval No. 5.c. and 5.d. (Attachment No. 1) because the project targets very low and low income individuals and disperses qualifying residents across the range-of income levels. It is not likely that the units could be rented at the upper end of low income category because those rents are at or above market level rents for regular one bedroom units in the Huntington Beach community. D,36 PL00-65b -5- 11/2/00 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-656 Settlement of the Lawsuit and State Law Regarding Denial of Affordable Housing Projects If the City Council rejects the revised proposal and the related settlement agreement, it will be required to litigate the original project. However, State law compelled approval of that project. Government Code Section 65589.5 states: "(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project affordable to very low, low, or moderate income households or condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low, or moderate income households unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588 and that is in substantial compliance with this article, and the development project is not needed for the jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional housing need for very low, low, or moderate income housing. (2) The development project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low,' and moderate income households. As used in this paragraph, a 'specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (3) The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. (4)Approval of the development project would increase the concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood that already has a disproportionately high number of lower income households and there is no feasible method of approving the development at a different site, including those sites identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. D - 31.� PL00-65b -6- 11/2100 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PI00-65b (5) The development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation which is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (6) The development project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designations as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article." Staff does not believe that any of the above findings for denial of the SRO affordable housing project exists and therefore, believes that the City Council must approve the application. It is clear that (1) the City has not met the affordable housing obligations of the Housing Element, (2) a "significant, adverse impact upon the public health and safety...based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions," has not been quantified, (3) denial of the project is not necessary to comply with state or federal law, (4) the project does not increase the concentration of lower income households in the vicinity, (5) the land is not zoned or used for agriculture, and (6) the project is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and general plan. The only possible ground for denial would have been showing a "significant,_adverse impact upon the public health and safety," which could not be mitigated. The City was not able to effectively make this finding. Therefore, the City Attorney believes that denial of the original project will be found to be in violation of the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.5. D. SUMMARY Staff agrees with the applicant that the project meets or exceeds all development standards, will provide sufficient parking and circulation around the site, will not adversely impact surrounding uses in terms of traffic or crime, and is an appropriate location for an SRO project. Staff believes the project should be approved because it is well designed architecturally, includes a detailed Management Plan, staff will conduct periodic inspections and reviews of the site and management practices, and tenants will be subject to a detailed screening application including a criminal background check. D- V PL00-65b -7- 1112/00 8:64 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Staff recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) and permit the development of a .107 unit Single Room Occupancy residential project based on the following: - The proposal decreases the allowable occupancy to one person in 91 units and two persons in 15 units. - The revisions increase the number of parking stalls to 95 spaces for 106 units although the zoning code requires only 56 spaces. The project complies with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, which encourage development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. - The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. - The SRO complies with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. - The proposal is compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will.be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. - The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities, parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. 3.9 PL00-65b -8- 11/2/00 8:64 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PI-00-65b Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-11 was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-11 for twenty (20) days commencing on November 25, 1999 and ending on December 14, 1999. Comments were received from the Environmental Board and are included in the May 15, 2000 Request for Council Action. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. Attachment(s): City Clerk's P.,age Number ' No. Description 2 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval — Negative Declaration No. 99-11/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) Staff Recommendation) �$ 2. Matrix Comparing Previous Project with New Proposed Project 30 3. Applicant's Narrative Describing Revised Project dated November 1, 2000 and Additional Information dated November 1, 2000. -39 4. Sketch Depicting Revised Parking Layout dated October 25, 2000 Li) 5. Site plan, floor plan, elevations dated February 15, 2000 and GIS Aerial Ma 4^1 6. Settlement and Release Agreement 5� 7. City Council Request for Action and Findings for Denial dated June 5, 2000 (D� 8. City Council Request for Action dated' May 15, 2000 - without attachments --17 9. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated January 25, 2000 land March 14, 2000 - without attachments 0 PL00-65b �-' 3� -9- 1112100 8:64 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PI00-65b RCA Author. Jane James D-3. PL00-65b -10- 11/2100 8:54 AM <. 2� i s t e a a:a r3 � 4� �--E- 'r x Y tS.13b" i. '��,A* Y'� i. 4. ir+<�r � 4 �i`� �,� p ! ;a. � . �+' �. ' �„�,.-:f �£ �Tr� c � a ( *� >�y`s�'4.,,'' v -ter n--.. ''.L - h .i x 4.'F� '��' .: ll i.. 4 (31 4 x- 'r � < ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO..99-31 CMVISEDI SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-11 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31. 2. Standard conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R), will have a significant effect on the environment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (R): 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) for the establishment,maintenance and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy (SRO) complex will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping,lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed,the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities,parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the SRO is a unique hybrid between a residential and commercial project and will be harmonious with the existing Town & Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. Sufficient parking is provided on-site for the potential residents and the commercial center will encourage pedestrian activity between the sites. In addition,the proposed building will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent residential fourplexes. D- 3-13 (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.1 3. The proposed 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy complex will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project meets all development standards of the General Commercial zoning district including setbacks, building height, floor area ratio, landscaping, parking, and building design. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of GC-F2-d(General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-special design overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU9.5.1: Accommodate the development of housing types, such as multifamily development and Single Room Occupancies (SRO), intended to meet the special needs of senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low, and moderate income households in areas designated for residential and mixed-use on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the Housing Element.. The project provides for a unique type of residential unit, will serve the special needs of very low and low income individuals, will provide for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 15.5.1: Require that development located in areas designated as "Special Design Overlay (-d)" adhere to the specific design standards stipulated by design and development policies for specific.community subareas prescribed in the ensuing section of this element, as appropriate. The project meets the design and development policies for Subarea 6C-Five Points by incorporating landscaping along the street frontage and in the parking lot, by siting of structures.to encourage pedestrian activity to the adjacent commercial sites, by siting the building in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks, and by incorporating architectural treatments to minimize building bulk and mass. B. Housiniz Element Obiective HE 3.1: Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. D- 3.)4 (PL0065cond)— 1116100 Attachment No. 1.2 Policy HE 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. i The SRO project will be 100% affordable as it will be restricted to persons of very low and low incomes. The affordable housing project meets the above objectives and policies because it is a unique type of housing unit and is located adjacent to the Town& Country retail shopping center and many other retail shopping opportunities on Beach Boulevard. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (R) : 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 15, 2000 and the revised parking lot layout dated November 1, 2000 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. b. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) c. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way.- Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) d. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to,heating, air conditioning,refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) e. Depict all gas meters,water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units,mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive,not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. f. Outdoor lighting shall utilize energy saving lamps and shall provide a minimum foot candle of one and one-half as recommended by the Police Department. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. No skyward glare is permitted. (P ) (PD) �c1 . D- 3. (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.3 g. The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) at least 10 feet from the property line. h. All landscaping and sidewalk areas adjacent to parking spaces shall be increased by two feet to accommodate two feet of vehicle overhang and a 17 foot long asphalt space. Wheel stops shall be removed in these cases. i. A maintenance room/delivery reception area shall be provided near convenient vehicular access on the ground floor. Location, size, and design of the maintenance room shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director and may result in the loss of one unit. For affordable housing requirements, the loss of any unit shall come from the upper low income range (Category D). j. One surplus parking space in close proximity to the front entrance of the facility shall be designated,posted, and striped as"Van/Bus Drop-Off and Pick-Up" and one space shall be designated,posted, and striped as"20 Minute Tenant Loading and Unloading." k. The site plan shall be revised to depict all existing improvements (buildings, parking stalls, and landscaping)within 50 feet of the westerly property line. Adequate back-up space (26 feet) for any existing parking spaces to the west shall be accommodated within the subject site's drive aisle. Access to all parking spaces located adjacent to the subject site's west property line shall be accomplished through a recorded irrevocable reciprocal ingress and egress agreement as described in the conditions below. Archways located at the north and south end of the vehicular driveway shall be located so that no conflict with ingress and egress to existing parking stalls occurs. Final site plan details in this regard shall be subject to Planning Director approval. 1. The site plan shall be revised to reflect the code required 26 feet back-up space/drive aisle for the additional 14 new parking spaces on the east side of the property. The revisions may require the building footprint and other improvements to be shifted west by approximately two feet. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures,use and treatment of water,proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of-the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality . Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. L.7 (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.4 e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. 3.. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. An arborist report and a Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The arborist report shall inventory the location, number, species, and health of all existing trees on site and contain recommendations for their preservation by providing a horizontal control plan. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed, and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Condition of Approval No. 8. i. below, and Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1•) with minimum 36 inch box trees or palm equivalent and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) b. A grading plan,prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PWV) c. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on- site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW ) d. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality Management Plan"shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. (PW ) e. The applicant shall provide an on and offsite sewer study including flow test as required by the Department of Public Works. (PW ) f. The applicant shall provide an on and off site hydrology and hydraulic study as required by the Department of Public Works. (PW ) g. If applicable, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works,Planning, and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No.431-92 and the conditions of approval, including methods to minimize remediation related impacts on the surrounding properties. (PW ) D- 3.'� (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.5 h. The name and phone number of a field supervisor who is on-site shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/grading concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity.. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc: Signs shall include the number of the applicant's contact, City contact(Jack Miller at 714-536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and"I-800-CUTSMOG"if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. i. The applicant shall notify,all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading., j. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works in developing a truck haul route if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. k. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD'•s Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. 1. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval detailing how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no Wastes or pollutants shall escape the site. m.. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both Public Works and Planning Departments identifying wind barriers around remediation equipment. n. Site plans and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. 18 D3 (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.6 b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) c. Residential type structures on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans, prepared under.the supervision of a person experienced-in the field of acoustical engineering,with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including -buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) , e. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. The subject property shall enter into an irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent westerly property for the entire length of the westerly property line. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. (Code Requirement) D - 3. 19 (PL0065cond)— 1116100 Attachment No. 1.7 c. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide very low income and low income units with the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall designate 47 units (44.3 percent) for persons of very low income and 59 units (55.6 percent) for persons of low income. Income levels shall be based on the County Median and shall be further defined as depicted in the following chart: House- County 24 Very Low. 23 Very Low 30.Low Units 29 Low Units Bold Median Units Units Income between Income between Size Income between Income between 51-65% of 66-80% of 0-35% of 36-50% of County Median County Median County Median County Median (Category C) (Category D) (Category A) (Category B) 1 $47,800 $16,730 $23,900 $31,070 $38,240 2 $54,650 $19,127 $27,325 $35,522 $43,720 This agreement shall be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall also review and approve a covenant to be recorded on the property specifying the terms and conditions of maximum income and maximum rental levels as discussed here. The covenant shall be recorded on the property prior to issuance of building permits. Income restrictions shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be reflected and verified during the six month or annual review. d. Maximum rental rates shall be determined as indicated by the by the following example and the following chart: Example: Maximum Rent 1 Person Household Earning tip to 35%of County Medicin $47,800 (county median) x .35%.(35% of county median) _$16,730 (maximum income) x 30% (maximum amount of income towards housing expenses) _$5,019 (yearly housing expenses) divided by 12 (months/year) _$418.00 (Maximum rent if utilities paid by property owner); or minus $28.00 (utility expense) _$390.00 (Maximum rent per month when utilities paid by tenant) p _.3 � (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.8 Utilizing the above formula, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: Unit Type and Income Levels 1 Person Household 2 Person Household Maximum Rent* Maximum Rent* 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 Income between 0-35% County Median (Category A) 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00 Income between 36-50% of County Median (Category B) 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65%of County Median (Category C) 29 Low Units $928.00 $1,065.00 Income between 66-80% of County Median (Category D) 106 Total Units * $28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner Rental rates shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be reflected and verified during the six month or annual review. e. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property. The "Acceptance of Conditions"shall be recorded on the property at the Orange County Recorder's Office and a certified copy returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. A copy of the recorded document and the conditions of approval for the project shall be provided to the management company. g. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PV ) . h. A grading permit shall be issued. (PV ) 6. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks shall be utilized on the site and shall be available throughout the day during site grading to keep soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the operations. (PV ) To, 3. 24 (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.9 b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 AM or leave the site no later than 5:00 PM and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (P`V) c. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.(PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or shall have water applied to exposed surfaces prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. If applicable, any remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment. k. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts). 1. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. m. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. (PW) 7. Prior to final building permit inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including: 1) A new sewer lateral shall be required. (PW) 2) All new and existing utilities shall be installed underground. (PW) 3) The existing speed bumps in the alley shall be painted white. (P`V) _ 3 ZL (PL0065cond)—1116100 Attachment NoA.10 4) The existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with a commercial driveway approach per current City standards. (PW) 5) The proposed entry arch shall be clear of the east-west drive aisle for the adjacent shopping center that is located near this arch. (PW) 6) The existing water meter and service serving the site may potentially be utilized for irrigation purposes if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Water Division; however,the meter shall be replaced with a touch-read meter. (PW) 7) A new domestic water service shall be installed per Water Division standards and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) [minimum 2 inches in size]. All meters shall be a touch read type. (PW) 8) If fire sprinklers are required for the proposed building, the building shall have a separate fire service with an appropriate backflow protection device. (PW) 9) Separate backflow protection shall be installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division standards for domestic, irrigation and fire water services. (PW) 10)The applicant shall remove and replace the existing asphalt driveway located on the west side of the property. (PW) 11)The applicant shall remove the existing block wall adjacent to the public alley to the east and replace it with an 8 foot high solid grouted block wall on the private side of the property line. (PNV) 12)An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) 13)A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: a) manual pull stations, b) water flow,valve tamper and trouble detection, c) 24 hour supervision, d) smoke detectors, e) annunciation, f) audible alarms, g) graphic display, and h) voice communication(FD) 23 (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.11 14) A Class III wet standpipe system shall be installed. Prior to system installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (FD) 15) Fire hydrants shall be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the-Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Your project requires two fire hydrants (City Specification No. 407). (FD) 16) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) 17) Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification No. 401. Include Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. In addition, see City Specification No. 402 spelling out minimum 13 feet, six inches distance requirement for archways. (FD) 18) For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification No. 426. (FD) 19) Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification no. 428. (FD) 20) Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are six feet, eight inches wide by four feet, three inches deep with a 42 inch (minimum) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54 inch depth. (FD) 21) Exit signs and exit path markings shall be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and the California Administrative Code, Title 24. (FD) 22) Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards(FD) b. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. d. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber,wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8. The use shall comply with the following: a. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) D 3 Zy (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No: 1.12 b. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. c. The comprehensive Management Plan submitted on March 6, 2000 shall constitute the final Management Plan for the facility. All present and future property owners and managers shall abide by the provisions of the Management Plan for operation of the SRO facility. The Management Plan establishes management policies, operations,emergency procedures, security program including video cameras monitoring building access points, rental procedures and rates, maintenance plans, staffing needs, and tenant mix, selection, and regulations to be carried out during operation of the SRO use. d. An on-site 24-hour manager is required and shall abide by the provisions of the Management Plan discussed throughout these conditions of approval. e. No more than one person shall be permitted to reside in any unit which is less than 220 square feet in size. No more than two persons shall be permitted to reside in any unit, excluding the manager's unit. Furthermore, occupancy shall be limited to one person maximum in at least 91 of the total rental units regardless of floor area size. The remaining 15 of the total rental units may be occupied by two persons if the floor area is at least 338 square feet in size. f. All common indoor space shall have posted in a conspicuous location a notice from the City's Planning Department regarding contact procedures to investigate housing code violations. g. A minimum of two pay telephones shall be provided in the lobby area. The telephone service shall allow only outgoing calls. h. All pool gates and emergency exits around the recreation area shall be posted with"Emergency Exit Only" signs and shall be locked to prevent entry but shall allow exiting as required by the Building and Safety and Fire Departments. i. All access to the site shall be from the main entry located on the west side of the building. Residents and guests shall not be provided with access keys or cards to any other exterior door or entry except for the bicycle storage area. j. The projections and recesses in the building fagade creates alcoves. Landscaping in the alcove areas shall be limited to turf only with no shrubs or other intensive landscaping. All shrubs shall be limited to a maximum height of two feet. (PD) k. No gate or restricted vehicle access shall be added to the property at any time without prior written approval of the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments. Any future gates at the vehicular accessway shall comply with City Fire Specification No. 403. ZS (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.13 1. The project shall be subject to review and on-site inspection by the City which includes the review of management services. The property will be subject to a review every six months for the first three years of operation and shall be subject to an annual review thereafter. This review schedule shall start anew each time the ownership or management company at the site is amended. The SRO project owner shall be responsible for filing a sixth month or annual report to the Departments of Planning and Economic Development. The sixth month or annual report shall consist of the range of monthly rents,the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. m. Only the uses described in the narrative shall be permitted. n. The exterior and common areas of the site shall be subject to random inspections by Code Enforcement staff, at the discretion of the Planning Department. This condition shall not be interpreted to imply that privacy rights normally enjoyed by tenants of the facility may be compromised. o. Leases shall be a minimum of one month; no weekly leases shall be offered. 9. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed 2. Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R),pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. zb (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.14 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays: 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2)days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 10. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PV I I. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid based upon the August, 1998 City park land appraisal value of $516,500 per acre pursuant to Section 254.08.H. of the HBZSO prior to issuance of building permits. 12. School impact fees, as negotiated with the school district, shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 13. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PV) 14. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 15. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Planning Department and Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. D- 3. 21 - (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.15 MI, _...<. .,_.�...> r ...;•� _'}...... ,� .--!.-:>�m ,.�:�„.' ... ---. �n:,-�%rS. s.: n_ ...t r }�� u N^. 5=,.,9 s D ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY .r.a',.. ,.+. .. . §<..... e >„.,.,'wa � .«,.. F J.e. .3a u S$ ,*w' ..' `z�,;^;�±`F ..s.* `ta r.�r-�`rr�.a .t's• Z } •,.s1 ,:y.,.K.�. � ,-$'<',., k;"g '�, ,r 6+ fc{'. {, v$ � ,yM't •;. :u,c�:`':' �',,< ,. ,.,.,:: .�..?n' ...: :.,. c � ,-.,.. q„,.!+r Y:: ^n....:+�+,.. A,.E x re-:t 6F ;r��. ,,, ..&,y. .kFf;. "{c tl ,•; k. +�',x.* '�t�.V!n ..}gt {,, '. � .'.... !f'.,fi .yy�l ,.y+,,� ,.1.` .. '`F ....<. .r, i .dt' :c:.a. {, f.. .•� .!'..- '� .dk�". �<wmY,6, «�skSE; i,,..•�.. ? ^^''aY^ir.i', r • .�.eC�. .i t A 'St`%sF ¢€.a::mTS�v'� ,3;'`� ., a+z`'" '�,W��+',�¢v,� r'"s.�' � '�+ •.''',.. t"�7p.C: � ',E [_ '„fir r.t':rN' ,•�.. y t'}�+ :�":,x rt;.�',4�{tx7,'re''u:v2',44. z..sh.,c,n x � ..3 :., y.�', i� �"`k'p +3.f_�S;..j'`iK �; "7'�` x�t�' '^ 's ��„y, �•.^ F,�.s't E�a, !ti 1 �'pd ? �:f *.q. 5�;�I,K�i=y�' G.$'4.`�:' z- :ISSUES Q NE yP,R PO - .n..:, . 7r ,.' ..... 1, 'v' 4 a�d•1 C'•. °.��, 4 �f Ff, 'k t','' �31 OA Y ,,��`'�� ' fT c n '>d" S� �� 'tf�a"rrS r.� a� �4 t k��w '±. .. t S 70-, i � e,.,,� G�3 A _.F?; {4`P,;c3..�J.Faa'tw�'4KFs':'!I ,t' Occupancy 53 units— 1 person 91 units— 1 person Limits 53 units—2 person 15 units—2 person Income Maximum Rent Restrictions Unit Tyne and Income Levels I person 2 person Same 24 Very Low Units $390 $450 Income between 0-35%County Median 23 Very Low Units $569 $655 ' Income between 36-50%County Median 30 Low Units $748 $860 Income between 51-65%of County Median 29 Low Units $928 $1065 Income between 66-80%of County Median 106 Total Units Parking' 81 spaces+2 drop off spaces Approx. 95 total spaces by reducing landscaping and rec area and adding approximately 14 new spaces(May be able to add additional spaces through joint use of parking agreement with Town and Country Shopping Center) Seniors Only Doesn't meet zoning requirements—Senior Apartment complex may only be permitted within a Residential Zone and must comply with unique development standards for senior residential projects; SRO's are defined as commercial projects and are permitted by CUP in Commercial Zones. This property is zoned General Commercial Stringent Security Cameras Management Random Code Enforcement Same On-site Manager 24 hours Locked Facility Strict Application Requirements (g' �natrix2) <{ ,e sah}'1 z " ',� -�Y,� x .• t a r j .s y.�. ._.r s r a' 3130 NOV. -0F 00(WED) 10;41 G NTUkY 2i 6EAGH�IDE H E T�i, '14 900 451� P. 02 RECEIVED November 1,2000 NOV - 1 2000 Ms.Jane James DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING � Laity of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA. 92649 NOTE: Any Inlbrmation Provided Herein Is For The Purpose of Settlement Of Litigation Only Dear Jane, Please find attached, the revised agreed upon maximum rent schedule for the Ellis Ave. SRO. We bereby agree with the CiVs request to reduce 91 units to one person maximum occupancy, with the remaining 15 to be rented to a maximum-of 2 persons, either very low or low income eategorles. 1 have attached the following rent schedules from your previous submittal,-the only changes%kill he the maximum occupancy as agreed. 34 Units Rrnu:d to Very Low Income Occupant (restricted to I person per unit) S390.00 per month maximiun` 23 Units Rented to Very Low Income OccuWt (restricted to 1 person per tacit)SS69.00 per.month maximum, 30 Units Rented to Low tnuome Occupant (restricted to I person per unit)rented at$748.00 per month maximum* 29 Units Rented to Low Inoomo Occupant%(IS would allow for a maximum oft persons per unit)rented at $929.00 per month maximum for t person household• 15 Units will allowed to rent to a maximum of 2 persons with your recommended rental schedules for the 2 persons category applicable. OS28.00 may be added to each maximum if all utilities are paid by owner. Additionally,we are in agreement to increase the total on site parking for the project within the excess landscape area,as you have suggested. Ice ardr Randy Allison encl. exhibit"A" a i4V. -G i' co(WED) 10 i CENTURY 1.1 EEAGHS DE H E TEL:i t 4 95C 49`5 P. CO3 '."his agrectltcnt shall be reviewed and apprevcd as to form and content I~y the City Attar ney, Tltc (:ity Attorney shall also review and approve a covenant to be recorded on the property specifying the terms and conditions of ntaximurn income and maximum rental levels as discussed here. Tile covenant shall be recorded on the property prior to issuance efbuilding permits. d Nlaximurn recital rates shall be detertt;ined, as indicated by the by the following example and the fcllow•ing c^art: ,l?rr:,nrunr lleiit I PLI.CS riil) flj!Lao1 'wut;, Jwled;rur S47,1100 (county median) ] a (JS°10 of cottnly median) S16,730 (maximum income) 21&1(maximum amount of income towards housing expenses) 55,019 (yearly housing expenses) ivide b ,.(,? (months/year) S418.00 (Maximum rent iftitilitics paid by property owner); or _Minus g (utility expense) $190 00 (Maximum rent per month when utilities paid by terlant) lJolixinb th,. above formula, max:rtt;tm relttal rates have Uccn determincd as follows: a i Unil,ly��4� rzll.t�:�lEGurt't, ; ,'i;irltr.::'.t:'s ':. r�f'tt��((�1f4t1.'s� p1tlw•€ = �1eraK,�/} sp�. J.1• t . . . ..n'j„ •' '..'N(p i �' y;,.L. a••+..7C.'• S1w..». 1•'i r•t,.a;•,.. p i••: �� ?::it•..:;� ;'�' Mulll' $ •1li'i�:'1'' t.a»> �7 jl jtc(�Efr�� 24 Very Low Units S390,00 S450.00 Income between 0•35% County Median Kii tgo A) 23 Very Low Units $569.00 5655.00. Income between 36-50% of County Median 30 Low Units y $748.00 $860.00r� Income between 51,•65% of County Median I � 29 Low Units $928.00 $!,065,00 Income between 65.90% of County Median I _ aiB 0 D i 106 Toml Units _ • $28.00 may be added to eitch maxirttum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner Rental rates shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be rerected.and verified during the annual review. i (00S OS)— 1125100 AtlAclttlttrtt No. 1.6 it�d kCBT:i i 1202E TO '''ON EE?EE0821£ 'ON 3NONd c3=12id��iN3 ONE:_ t-t02u 11/01/2030 11:08 5625555256 CEF•S INC PAGE 01 T Anr ::s'tee, >..n.r:G. .r}:. . '. .. ..R •• .w:•Si.[:.' ....y. .yt.Dn. W.- .�cS�Ja y. '? +.: s T`4f.�yw i '+:3-.T,.:`•t.'3''. ..`'�'t .�t.,.. ?t:i. ���._ Jr.•. - :1; }fir:`• ..and 1 ya .er.:+: .E�..?tiny C 1... :T.•...• .�. .�.:- .ni.'�I:'.t:r: • •} �.� [,wa*.tr_i sScC�' r � r��.p,f'Ws`�t.•..._i;;'!v ;..«�•"tr t^a ''�.r!-t.�..��'.i d;y(!J� �'s .?ii�ia� �t�.. �• �,l iay�:. .'tt«• r••R.;R.: �'h. .. ai..:[:•(' .'�t��e�' 'a.:+;t. w.*;:`�dnti,Ma' �YV�:I.'.:+"�+!�:y'iY�.�'Y:I�T��„l.��i.���t;vt,�i•, ,�•[..ir tSil[:•- rN r,;�:.ti�•.t RECEIVEL To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Department Date: October 30,2000 NOV 01 2000 . Re: Facts for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy(SRO)Affordable Housing at 81.02 Ellis Avenue,Huntington Beach,California DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Due to the submittals of inaccurate information from some neighbors of the subject project site,the applicant would like to provide the following facts for your reference., _ O: Does this pro-iect provide insufficient parking spaces? Facts: • Number of parking space for the existing revised design are approximately'70%beyond the City Code requirements(i.e.,0.89 parking raflo or 95 spaces provided,0.5 parking ratio or 56 spaces required). • Orange County SILO Design.Guidelines require 0 to 0.5 parking ratio (i.e.,0 for high-density areas,0.5 for low-density areas). • San Diego's SRO parking ratios are 0.25 to e.5. • City of Phoenix requires only 0.2 parking ratio. IP Both Irvine Inn and Fullerton City Lights experienced less than 0.5 parking ratio requirement • This SRO nroiect vrovides more narking spaces(95 vs.69 equivalent, see ralcpl&Ugn below) than that of the surrounding 4-plex apartments: Q: Is the densiri' of the suhiect SRO-to high? Facts: • The subject project is less dense than the four-plex buildings adjacent to the project site,in most density Issues,as shown below: • Facts for Density Issues: see summary table'below 1 D- 3, 11/01/20,30 11:03 5625955256 C07S INC PACE 02 W, VVI -gw%." BuDding/Land 18.4% 1 51.6% 2.8 coverage Potential No.of 113 118 1.04 TenaatO FMaximum No. 121 167 1.4 Tenants# Potential 340 sq. ft 335 sq. ft. 0.985 I Area/F— Parkin 0.72,6 95 69 g§Pikiiii� Supporting data for the above table: Building(land cover)Area: SRO- 14162 sq. ft. - 4-plex-4025 sq.ft./building Land Area: SRO=76800 sq. R. 4-plex-7800 sq. fL i building Equivalent No. of Building: SRO=76800n800=9.85 buildings of 4-plex. P Potential No. of Tenants: SRO= 106+ 15 x 50%- 113 tenants 4-plex-(2p+3p Ir' 3p_4p)x 9.85 - 12 people x 9.85 - 118 tenants Maximum No. of Tenants: SRO-91 + 15 x 2 - 121 tenants (Controllable!). 4-plex=(4p+ 4p+4p+5p7)x 9.85 17 people x 9.85- 167 tenants or more (No Control!) Room Area/Tenant: SRO =38,380 sqftil 13 tenant=340 sq. ft. 4-plex-4,025 sq-ft./12 tenant=335 sq. fL (The subject project provides more room area per person than that of the adjacent 4-plex!) N# Parking Spaces; SRO=95 space: 4-plex=7 spic-lbuilding'x 9.85=61 spaces. (The subject project provideis more parking spaces than the adjacent 4-plex!) 2 i_/01/2030 I_:0S 5,25955256 CEFS INC PAGENa �3 '�+`•r :- - •��;Y., °: - a:�:;..:a,..-: ::` ..;�"' :ram:'.` "�;.� _ .Y.S. >•r.,Y -tip•y yy '31:w...r...' 1.` ;r...,^A, �y h..>.a •r.�u,;:'" ..�...:: •'• _ • • may' ...} t` wy.,{.,�`� K/(i, •... Y.Y,.�• .`v:k,...::'. i.ry'y•.•;1r.•i +�/>,•�f��,,••.w:•:1.iii ..::�.`:!^�.4rw :?�..... J:.- .f�"•'4..'�. •.... �•l>`'-.... � .. ..wa . Q: Will this project cause traffic vrqblen s? Facts: • The City's evaluation found that the subject project would not cause significant impacts to the traffic problems. • The subject project will result in much less trafric than previous use as-'a.•nursery-schooi.(Note:maximum 95 trips vs. 240 trips per morning or afternoon traffic jam period!) + Any other commercial developments would result in more traffic problems! Q: Will this project cause noise problem? Facts: • According to the City's study.,the project would result in "less than significant impact or no impact"in terms of noise;problem. e The adjacent 44plex buildings would produce more noise problems than that of the subject project,when density issues are considered(as shown above). -0�'ill this project cause crime problem to the ad{acent 12rop Facts: • Statistics of Irvine or Fullerton City Lights(two Am►iiar projects)did not show"crime"problems affecting their neighxiorhood. • Types of tenant in the SRO facilities are almost retired or disabled people(accounted for about.45%oftenauts),and low-income people such as clerks,nurses,waitress,new teachers, new graduates,busboy, single mothers,etc.(account for about 52•to 54.51106 . These types of people do not cause"crimes". o The SRO renting.procedure involves a detailed co'-!me background and credit cheekiag/screening process. (The nearby 4-plex properties do not conduct such a detailed checks as the SRO projects.) 3 'Df 3. ; 11/0:/2030 11:8 5625955256 CEFS Ir;C PACE 04 i AL ..�y•,,.'iti}..•'.•.iS. "'ti'„`rY.ai<•'�'!•� 'liV,• p ��•yyy}'}.p.�-J+,v.a�i!Fp�(�}�{���j� \+�: {{l.�M. jy:f�"� - 'C _ ��r .'7:\:?S'',Y7;;;,•. .8.`L7:a .1�!e?.:� •'�•�i. •',z V=..f.r •'C.�:?Y.. i!f•;rl::n:i� •t.ry�l�h•�.x,m.:.�y:�.�';�.•�<� � �f,!��V!•:.'\:'La��f,}�!7Gi€�:..�L..),�.�" .:tii,.•.t.Y+! .`?':�••x • The SRO facilities provide a very tight security;with 24-hour. :personnel on-duty}and:14-hour TV manitoriuo tbrc ughout.the entire surrounding public areas. (The nea by 4�­plexes do norhate this:type -of-arrangement.) All the doors and access areas of the SRO faeility.have electronic .security locks and non-tenants visiting the faciUsy regiiire reporting to the management personnel.(The nearby 4-plexes do not have this type of control.) Q: Does the Developer have experience to manage this SRO? Facts: .r a A management company(Solari Enterprises,Inc.)with extensive SRO facility management experience have contracted for this projec . • TbeMAnagement Plan approved by the City will be strictly followed. The.City wM review the operstiou of the subject Ate.seau-aauuakt• •for.its compliance•Nvith.the•CUP.conditions. • T ils project is privatery fitndedin the mafti-million d'ollilm. lie owner/lnvestors of the project will not allow tut project to fail. : Is this SRO.proiect compatible with the surrounding properties? Facts: • The subject project is a residential facility but operated like x commercial facility. Therefore,it is comparable with the surrounding land usss. .(In fact,ibis project probably will be the best type of . facility in.terms of•compatibility,•because,•it.is-compatible with both. -sides.of-properties. Dther-types of'oommer'cial or residential•facllitW probably only"compatible"with-one side of the property!) • Other similar facilities(land uses)are lo¢;ited only one block away:. (For example,there are four high density"senior facilities sire near-b), they are Wycliffe Gardens,14 stories;Hunt ingtun_T&.race;North,.3 stories;Huntington Terrace,I storha; Rive Points•Senior.Apartm=4 4.stories,)' 4 .3D l:!E.'2000 ._:08 5i2597523o CEFS INC PAGZ- 05 *w V `; ?y:�ti1' '``�:.i ^S:' `��• tt.,C .� 3A A°SQ:1 �ra "s �� t^F;u•:�, M;�:�.� Ly+�`. •i�-r• •.t. !pw. '�'�} !�, j; % t� l �!yQ� ""_;fin. :c .y,.:,::. :•!•',( •!�id-rf.r•. .. . :.._ ,:..... .._Y3+'9.1!•1:� T•�a`.I�'��:!7`�Z �:R�a�M.31 tl!.'r!�1.::-:i� -. ,.• 1a�. - Q: Would the subiect SRO Project reduce the surrounding Dr�oae_rtr value? Facts: • The subject first-clam.new and beautiful design, if built,could serve as an example for the revitalizatioa of the surrounding area,in which many running down buildings are existed. (Therefore,the sub ect prolect could increase the surrounding-nrope tv value!) • The existing site conditions,without a new development,may attract bomeless people and"crime"to the site,wbkh pose great health and safety impacts to the surrounding properties. (The subject development could improve the property value—approximately S4.25 million dollars will be added to the property value. Other types of developments are either economically unfeasible or too:risky. If the subject project is not developed,•the site may be vacant for another many years,which alight reduce the surrounding property value.) • The subject property would improve business for the.surrounding, nommercial stores(due.to4w fact that singles usually-do not drive,so money saved from-the low..rent•can•be spent in the nearby stores),and therefore,would•improve the-prep" value. Q: Can we deny an affordable housing project without valid evidences of detrimental effects? Facts: • Laws of the State of California provide limited reasons for denying an affordable housing project any denial without"valid"reason could jeopardize the City of Huntington Beach legally with respect to its housing program. • This project can Assist the City to,meet its governmental.goal of affordable housing. (According to a City report,as of 36ne 3001999, the City needs 2,141 units of affordable housing,and only needs 1,586 units of moderate and upper housing units. The total units of affordable housing anticipated to be constructed by 6130199 in Huntington Beach is only 23 uults'w Masi developers will hot Invest into affordable housing due to low profit potential.) • Huntinzta,BrAsh needs affordable housing badly. 'H a sincerely hope tbat.•after You realig&what this groiect weans to the community,you take ooitive WIN and support this project. S .D- 3. 37 RECEIVED NOV 01 2000 ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING f l 70 M.S '�31vE :Ti�YJE S , C/Tjr PI•ANiv/A-ea C7J 374 -1540 11-1 -oG TO: City of Huntington Beach ,City council members .2000 :tarn Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -from: CharlES Tsang, Project Manager SRO Project at Ellis Ave, Huntington Beach. Dear City Council Members: Y am .!_ittnc; this letter in support of the proposed SRO project at rllis Ave, I also want to clarify several points of the.- projects: 1 . The -project. is-designed based on the Planning Code of the City, including all aspects of the design from the Density allowance to Parking requirement to .the height of the building ALL based on the planning code and are allowed and reviewed by the staff to make sure it has conform to the city planning codes, ate indicated in the Staff. report. 2. The project allow More parking spaces required by the the c:.ty planning code, originally the number of parking spaces designed provide only 1/2 space per unit as dictated in the code, the last revised parking add more spaces to 86 spaces, almost 30 moro spaces than required, if the staff will, allow more spaces in the current landscaping area then even more parking spaces can be added(up 'to 95 spaces) , this will put the number of parking spaces to almost 1 to 1 ratio, this is not only far exceed the City. planning code for SRO requirement but will be twice-or • more than the County SRO design guideline which require all SRO project in the -inner city area to be 0-1 space per unit only. 3. Tie project over all architectural design provide a better project then the two well known SRO projects in the area: Irvine Inn and City Light SRO projects and adopt all the good points of each projects especially in the security control area. Please note that, the Irvine Inn provide more parking .spaces (1 to 1 ratio) due to the fact%that it is located outside of main traffic area that has limited public transportation and the City Light provide 1/2 of spaces per unit, the Architectural design and construction will be better with the.:proposed SRO paoj:eots than the two existing ones. I hope the council member will refer to these facts in.. the up commirg 11-.6-00 public hearing and approve the project. Tod WdTT:TO 000z_30_ '^aN 6etr£6080T£ 'ON SNCHd SSSI'c+dL13 NS ON)JS1 WO8 I ,r Sn ?� _ ''� � � -i a�y's `:s� t Y. '--> .x -._ S j x- -' .�'<� 7X� ::.ari �l•Y Y : A' 'N 4 - 39 PARKING LAYOUT REVISED VA . L _ ,;VM"00�: •�6rta1.�i POOL 14 NEW PARKING - IV 4. . RELOCATED STALLS ADDEDlkl : k4 M1 - r77- IM• •:•M.�l. ryl r-�K A ��. 11 � T A w . '� .n rr�+••r•-r r w♦1 aw n ti F I FI• .F l� A. r ^'' M• � n• ^• I• wo.r.qr1�. q,�• �1 w h r r•ri �,,., f A. rZ.l A /1. 'm 11— �- �:vyl;�,: ' 31 M M r .w dr..ew M M r•t � .H err w�'.r11 •• 1 � •�'1•• '^� j 6 4 =• • • A. IA• A. A A. A. ni • " 1 • w :.'•� °i i ITWRr� i F' A' A u c� c• a c■ i..? ;•.1 .I a M M •r ••• � Rlo�f�}j% I — •I y•, '1 ..� w_�'. ..r�lwr••.A•• nl►Iwr•.•+ n..•.♦..•1.•rl. '.-'• � I ���^ �� r nM+•rra w•vw•.v.•r•u•••♦1/'w•. •) �.•il� I '^^ � �'T+ � � •j I.r�..1•� �- .��„���"i.(w- •� •f` •�' .•.••a"�w.w.•n w.•rw f°""M•" AMrr•"/'•IA• ''I .�•.•.rr 1 � !.• j1 .�.Rl..w•- �,...•r�,.C�.I,..r..•,r.) r�I1rM r•ryr•:�.•/..;. S� +rr• :,..,•d"�;;, '�'�� 1 ,—; o r �~�•'� A M }t M Ilc M !y R��N M M W l0 .A w1 w, N r ' FEB142000 A jai 1.1cn•1.1 1RMtegNN Ir,Uw ps1R.1 .•�,.�"�•�'~' �"MovpwVw NO.11.OLM. p wr••1•r, r nr••1�••w orwAr•• .? :w+r�Rn+ww. ' /�.•��(i J 3q-) ,Y ,�-_ •, J}-. >`d d -s��'"4Y -'r ri-- .s r .k- '.per L'y-�,P6 ".c� Sas;.} � � ,r5; �TA C .7 WIN Ell DROJECr ANALYSIS f� ' .n ,. v tusAvfru usr OF rACN ww.IwlMmal rArJl a rta_w NII•J.wr,M lwK•ra••1•r0•wf .ter f:y• ..•t• F E B 1 5 2000 ftwPowmarAxorpam I)N.IOOI.q•LT.CO ,._... ...Y,,....•..,r�.._ Y.arr• wiM LLlgwrr Yy • Mt3 AOAA(K Ar111•I AYOIM!LRQ IAf1 iQi•Tf qA A„•� ry, COO7N16'IOIQ sx?*"rm%%INQII 'C\{Ll l t'.{\,V I r•Iu.11 �-��_ - _ __ r r.. Iylu•11 a �1r' fasawt. !p a~..,••�Ie.W•Ve�.11 IW�IyIULL r� •!�.T.�. RF�.•�_ MA`�i1V�I� •AIMf•O:•,VACLf/q UMT• pCAAf r >A .' •y-� i 1.9•Cil A[A RfSD(Nf f1AIIC�• 7LAw7 7T= •1 IfACii rM►(AfONNM OW• ICM•A•,01013 CAAfCAIqw , I • • ' . 'IMJ' •M •t L_ /1`y 1 � =I r�r,r I • 1 • f I �r••LLI A Y Lam. •w�,{••�li ' (-- AVENUE,f ,ya�_j•. OU•uNIWr�MV•« i I__y J' y.• �4r•r•••�prwrllrr�.rl� \�J. •j'� r Iplgwq•YN rprl[•TTTfIL � I 1 I I 'f...•.r .ao�* 1 1 , I •[ly!,hr terorls l«'••r•IPMr•r• '. i ( ... FLU �N610MO0111u0 IrCO1CeMTNL o.♦p110P►/BNT� M,+w•�'«•'••!Je'•1•• '•Ll'.-C+F w•• . 'II �1•M� M,WrJ I I •. ? .fir, �il ,. 1 , •!;;;;•a.,�. • • I 4r al. ' .1L •', J Io Fes'I- A � • i a;m;:.•� I I r A a .. "� ;w• u •'a 'w ' t• A A I /�1• 11 A ` w n• h, n• I, snow.gIr•pne N'�Qt •.I I T 1 ara I•✓I MI NSA I ^• ll.�! A. A N• l;�_ .•�'�Y`',•'ter:. A. • iv I ^ w ~• .1 1 c G ='A A. • A. ;A A. A A. A. 1;. N 1 a, I• • ,•• ''%e \IU arcl�ki*. Ph 1w rq w.r � i A• a c• cr a c• _— :��ii 1 .1 T M r1• I.1 f• Yj'r:. Na/I✓.Irw \\\ \\• \� _ H• rTOfF 1._Yy JI• •A .w..m' • ••ul .•.s mlw,wrn • Tlr tw•t� I 1 ••11 ,1 +rf' N••••r•.Io. `w.si.•r.•omw al••.r,fir•.� •, ten.�jlo:r _� wa•• ITM1 I b wAA�M•Ir. fbA � err wr+••�:...�• S M1Mf11•V ATq• '�I rw 1 I'�r-�/\7' M :I.v w....r�'` `-"e •--•t I• i !^ •Iw/•T,OArrr/ 1.,' 1 ♦ ! •.• P' r N —— �— 1, Y'• MOA! _... f' N I•"'-'r4 • rrrr, / . M Af M N •i A, A• M AY H rA W i0 a. I,I rr• Ar I r I I I I I I I {111111 +.\ .R.•�.�• If.s ✓ Irnrr me ` ` 1"rn.r a.«rl..�+ M •.c(.•I Df I w i w I w I Mr K a• IN r. ,•,(,••I,s r• F E Q 14 2000 ' •. N Iwq,r 3 ♦ r \ y 1 r71e1wI1t:IrufA rnr�a e+rf6.�' ww Iww•.la wwr.r `J)1 , C 71 J'.�••"'Y IIa• wy,•r-�n�.e• • �NEVNKI•f'16 IWAIY d�•-� •fm•i�wa..; •!• �/. ,,,,, •,., AT IrY.aI) �•• I . N fr�tY I •1G�_ 1 ' ' I 1 --------------- a BE�i CH VIEW SRO INN ATTACHMENT NO. z:2. aLeft,&/ram a v • I a t $s•Yi•ii> r---- _ 4a7 �> -+• i was 4ip fav ; nay �1� fro , WTI, s r> 4. frs > Yis iy _ Q Ir!!' IL s 64,o , i 0 z°� ATTACHMENT NO. 2 . 3 a Typical Upper Floors E ese1 2nd and 3rd 1 r� t .tar w a,.Nu p.iw anrh'e . Syr wn.a.uMrw •�, u— "^ate uj ELUS AVENUE ., � ���,f ss'' C.:' P b'• I �� n' 4'1, n' .�'� � br2irloNLEEs—= CA •,f,ry j /•.ny Ate. M7r.•Y. � f` � tOT{IfT P. Cr3- IMI r d'M w� rt9N Y(. .• • R j-- wAr.rw� ��•w....n..e«o RHAR l3LEV/•IbN- 901lrM A Mic..t.orOwT&Au. --swswt Yf• W O /.�M^WW/.YO� I /Iw•MJM-'• ..WF+M. i X _MRJr IRM•flN.�!K Pw..10..rf�wr 4w.r. W couRtyAf[D I V^VT • ram• AA~�4?f ,• r1.'�iY%�"'. {.' �.1+IIIOM w.vr.u...71w er.lrr-s/a'it �.n�s.nr. Rloftif 11 U I U Q ��. . boker '1 r' .I architect I1 ,,,,,,,,,C.�,-.,�I,,...: I ! d._,,...a..,.e.,.. t—��/O t M1RM 1PMn/VI M4 M./•M�.MOb/T t re.iw�a« i--�-+� M .. :�.iM......r p.r LIrw.•1 n.unav� t--�t"'r'.'e'.'nf �.:� FE0142000 A3 as)Rio go.." ;�,-V. , 07 .h, no.. ff.......... MS III SEW J;, I Tl I LIP-1,:.1.-P 1-1-r M, 1p 7�1 . .... .... ... Wa It, Ap- � ` t' y! t /C � .vl d Itti -C � �t� �1,a � + Y.'&�•1`.t�"�� � � �h F*"M"z 7 F 10 - �� • 1�-3. - 1 % 3 � ' � ' j -•r j r a Ott.� �,.s '+-� s _�S} -�t �_ -_ f r-.„p�''".,�,�`C'"�,'�*�� �a F c §a y9.��� ` - '- .. ,� y ,� y I NOV'01-00 10:15 Fron:STRADIING YOCCA 3 Q 2541H T-M P.D4/22 Joy-54.3 SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT("Agreement")is entered into on November 2000 by and among AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC.,a Nevada corporation,BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC.,a California corporation,and DR.JAMES LU. (collectively"Amwest")and THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,a charter city and municipal corporation("City"),THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,DAVID GAROFALO,TOM HARMAN,PAM JULIEN,PETER GREEN,RALPH BAUER AND DAVID SULLIVAN (collectively"Huntington Beach"). Amwest and Huntington Beach are collectively referred to herein as the"Parties." RECITALS A. 1n May 1999,Amwest applied for necessary land use entitlements for development of certain real property located at 8102 Ellis Avcnuc,Huntington Beach,California("Subject Property"),including Conditional Use Permit No.99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11. In connection therewith,Amwest sought entitlements to build and operate a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)development on the Subject Property(the"Development Plan")inconformity with the City's existing SRO ordinance. B. On March 14,2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering Amwest'a Development Plan. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's application for a Development Plan on that date. Amwest appealed that determination to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. C. On May 15,2000,the City and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Development Plan. Findings supporting the denial of the Development Plan were subsequently prepared and ultimately adopted by the City Council on June 5,2000. D. On July 13,2000,Amwest filed an action against Huntington Beach entitled Amwest - Environmental Group, Inc., et al. v._Ciry ofHunrington Beach, et al.,bearing Orange County Superior Court Case No. CC08364 (the"Lawsuit'). The Lawsuit includes a Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Inverse Condemnation,Civil Rights Violations and Declaratory Relief. E. City of Huntington Beach staff has proposed changes to the Development Plan and is recommending that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approve the Development Plan as revised. Changes to the Development Plan include,but are not limited to,(1)changing the Development Plan from 53 single occupancy units and 53 double occupancy units to 91 single occupancy units and 15 double occupancy units,(2)requiring 95 parking spaces as opposed to the Development Plan's proposed 81 parking spaces, (3)reducing landscaping requirements so as to accommodate the proposed new parking requirements,and (4)restructuring rent levels. A Staff Report,which describes the proposed revised Development Plan("Revised Development Plan"),is attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein by reference. Amwest is agreeable to modifying its Development Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth on the Revised DOCSOLN"A1320%A300.0001 NOU-01-2220 15:15 9497254100 96% P.04 NOV-01-00 16:15 From:STRADIING YOCCA 3 9497254100 r-873 P.05/22 Job-540 Development Plan,Exhibit A. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will consider and take action on the Revised Development Plan at a public hearing on November 6,2000. F. The Parties desire to avoid the risk and expenses attendant in further litigation.and to reach a mutual, full and final.compromise and settlement of the Parties' matters,claims,causes of action and the like arising out of the Lawsuit and Amwest's development of the Subject Property. AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Section 1. Recitals. 7be foregoing Recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement. Section 2. Settlement of Lawsuit—Approval of Development Plan. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be rendered null and void in its entirety if the either.the Revised Development Plan(or the original Development Plan)is not approved on November 6,2000,or any subsequent date mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Moreover,Amwest has the unconditional and absolute right to declare this Agreement null and void if the Revised Development Plan is approved by the City Council with conditions different-from or in addition to those recommended by City of Huntington Beach staff, as more specifically set forth in Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A. Should Amwest declare this Agreement null and void due to denial of the Revised Development Plan by the City Council,Amwest has the right to proceed with the prosecution of this Lawsuit. a. No Supplement of Prior Record. If this Lawsuit so proceeds,Huntington Beach knowingly agrees that no information, findings,or proceedings relating to the Revised Development Plan shall be included in the administrative record of proceedings for the denial of the original Development Plan,and denial of the Revised Development Plan is and shall not be the subject of the Lawsuit. In this regard,the parties agree that the Revised'Development Plan has proceeded to public hearing for consideration and action only in the attempt to settle this Lawsuit and in no respect to supplement the record of proceedings for the City Council's denial of the Development Plan at its proceedings before the Planning Commission and City Council in the spring 2000. Section 3. Dismissal of Laws twit. If the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approves the Revised Development Plan proposed in Exhibit A attached hereto,or approves the Revised Development Plan with other terms and conditions acceptable to Amwest,in its sole and absolute discretion,or approves the original Development Plan,Amwest agrees to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice within ten(10)calendar days of such approval. Amwest shall have the sole and absolute discretion in determining whether project conditions different from or in addition to those proposed by staff are acceptable in the . I original Development Plan or the Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A, and Amwest shall have no obligation to dismiss the Lawsuit if the a Development Plan,as revised, is approved with conditions other than those set forth Exhibit A. 2 DOCSOCi77473MtI4300.000 t D-3 a. NOV-01-00 16:16 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 94biiZ4i�6 Section 4. Inadmissibility of Settlement Discussions. All actions and activities taken by Amwest and Huntington Beach since the filing of the Lawsuit and in fUnherance of the Revised Development Plan shall be deemed inadmissible in any court proceeding pursuant to Evidence Code section 1152. The protections afforded by this Section 4 shall include any statements made and documents produced in connection with any public hearing on the Revised Development Plan. Section S. Building Permit,Dave)opment and Entitlement Fees. Huntington Beach agrees that any and all building permit,development,entitlement and any all fees or charges related to the development and construction of the SRO project shall be in accordance with any fee structure in place and effective May 15,2000. Section 6. Mutual Release. Except for the obligations and rights conferred by this Agreement,Amwest,on the one hand, and Huntington Bcach,on the other,on behalf of themselves,their successors,assigns, executors, administrators, elected officials,officers, directors, employees,beneficiaries,representatives,and agents("Releasors"),hereby release and discharge each other and their successors, assigns, executors,administrators, elected officials,officers,directors,employees,beneficiaries, representatives,and agents("Released Parties"), from any and all claims, demands,costs,contracts, liabilities,objections,actions and causes of action of every nature,whether in law or in equity, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,which Amwest,on one hand,and Huntington Beach on the other,ever had or now have or may claim to have against each other,of any nature,type or description whether or not they were asserted in or arise out of the Lawsuit. a. Amwest,on one hand,and Huntington Beach,on the other,also waive and rb—..lui any and all rights which they may have under the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civi Code,which states: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS TO WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECTED TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE,WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR." b. It is agreed and understood between the Parties that should this Agreement be deemed or declared null and void pursuant to Section 2,the mutual and general releases herein s: be deemed null and void. Section 7. Compromise. This Agreement is a compromise and settlement of the Lawsuit and claims, and is not intended and shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of the truth or correctness of, allegation in the Lawsuit or be admissible as evidence of the compromise of any issues by Am- admission of any facts asserted in the Lawsuit. �_2•� 3 J DMOCN77473MV4300.0001 4d4774dIso grly I NOV-01-00 IS:Ii fron:STRAOLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.07/22 Job-540 Section 8. Attornev's Fees. Except as expressly set forth herein,the Parties agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the.Lawsuit,and the negotiation,preparation, approval, execution and delivery of this Agreement, and of the,documents related.to or referenced in this Agreement. Section 9. Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute and deliver such other documents and to take such other and further actions as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effectuate and further perform the terms and the purposes of this Agreement. Section 10. Entire Aereement. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding among the Parties and none of the Parties shall be bound by any definitions,conditions,warranties, or representations other than as expressly stated in this Agreement. This Agreement supercedes all prior agreements or discussions between the Parties relating to the subjects addressed in this Agreement and the Parties are not bound by any representations or inducements which are not set forth in this Agreement. The Parties intend that this Agreement serve as the exclusive, full and final embodiment of their agreement. Section 11. Captions—Pronouns. Any titles,captions,or subheadings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the context of this Agreement or considered in any interpretation or construction of the Agreement. Whenever the masculine,feminine or neuter genders are used herein, as required by the context or particular circumstance,they shall include each of the other genders as appropriate. Whenever the singular or plural numbers are used, they shall be deemed to be the other as required. Wherever the present or past tense is utilized in this Agreement and the context or circumstances require another interpretation, the present shall include the past and future,the future shall include the present;and the past shall include the present. Section•12. Consideration. The Parties hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that each and every term and condition of this Agreement is of the essence of this Agreement,constitutes a material pan of the bargain for consideration without which this Agreement would not have been executed and is a material part of the Agreement. Section 13. Sevembllity. In the event that any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement shall be void or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever,then such provision shall be sMcken and of no force and effect. The remaining provisions or this Agreement,however, shall continue in full force and effect, and to the extent required,shall be modified to preserve their validity. • 4 _ 2) 51 c0CS00074732v3124300.0001 ✓ NOV-01-00 16:17 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.08/22 Job-540 Section 14. Modifications. This Agreement may only be changed or modified and any provisions hereof may only be waived by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver,change or modification is sought. This Agreement may be amended only in writing by mutual consent of the Parties. Section 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one agreement which shall be binding on all the Parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the Parties are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart. Section 16. Representations and Warranties. a. The Parties represent and warrant to and agree with each other as follows: (1) Each party has received independent legal advice from attorneys of its choice with respect to the advisability of making this settlement and the release provided herein and with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement. , (2) Except as is expressly stated in this Agreement,no party has made any statement or representation to any other parry regarding any fact,which statement or representation is relied upon by any other party in entering into this Agreement. In connection with the execution of this Agreement or the making of the settlement provided for herein,no party to this Agreement has relied upon any statement,representation or promise of any other patty or their attorney not expressly contained herein. (3) This Agreement is intended to be final and binding upon the Parties and is further intended to be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction among them regardless of any claims of fraud,misrepresentation, concealment of fact,mistake of fact or law,duress or any other circumstances whatsoever_ Each parry relies upon the finality of this Agreement as a material factor inducing that parry's execution of this Agreement. Each party agrees that from the date of this Agreement,any and all rights and/or liabilities existing between or among the Parties hereto shall arise solely out of the terms,provisions,representations and warranties contained in this Agreement. (4) The terms of this Agreement are contractual and are the result of negotiations among the Parties. Each parry has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. Hence,in any construction to be made of this Agreement,the same shall not be construed against any pay. (5) This Agreement has been carefully read by each of the Parties and the contents thereof are known and understood by each of the Parties. This Agreement is signed freely by each parry executing it. D -3. 5z 5 DOCSOCN774732v3\24300.0001 NOV-U_1-00 16:11 �ron:�iRAUL IVu YOLLA i 9491254100 T-873 P-09122 Jab-540 Section 17. Warranty of Authority. Each parry whose signature is affixed hereto in a representative capacity represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of,and to bind the entity on whose behalf his or her signature is affixed. Further, the signatory for Huntington Beach warrants and represents that he or she has.the authority to sign this Agreement and bind all.those persons and entities collectively referred to as"Huntington Beach." Section 18. Notlets. a. All notices shall be sent to the following address: (1) Amwest Environmental Group,Inc 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Attention:Dr.James Lu,President Bcachvicw Investment,Inc. c/o Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Attention: Dr.James Lu,President With copy to: Douglas J.Evertz Stradling Yocca Carlson 8t Rauth 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, California 92660 - (2) City'of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: City Manager With copy to: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street—Box 190 Huntington Beach,California 92648 Attention: Scott Field,Esq.,Deputy City Attorney Section 19. Governint=_Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6 DOCS0071A712OU4300.0001 � 53 3� NCU--01-2020 15:17 9497254100 96% P.09 NOV-01-00 16:18 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.10/I2 Job-540 Section 20. Venue. Any action, suit or other proceeding instituted to remedy,prevent or obtain relief from a breach of this Agrccmcnt,arising out of a breach of this Agreement,involving claims within the scope of the releases contained in this Agreement, or pertaining to a declaration of rights under this Agreement, shall be instituted and maintained only in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. DATED: A.vIWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC. By: Dr.James Lu,-President DATED: BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC. By: DATED: DR.JAMES LU DR.JAMES LU DATED: "HUNTINGTON BEACH" By: Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stradling Yocca Carlson &c Rauth,Attorneys for Plaintiff's Amwest Environmental Group,Inc., Beachview Investment,Inc., and Dr.James Lu APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of Huntington Beach,Office of the City ,g Attorney,Attorneys for Defendants City of 1 11I Go Attorney, Huntington Beach,Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach,David Garofalo, Tom Harman,Pam Julien,Peter Green,Ralph Bauer and Dave Sullivan � ✓ 7 DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 NOV-CI-00 16:18 FramuSTRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P-11/22 Job-549 EXHIBIT A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAFF REPORT .(to be attached) p_ 3 5s DOCSOO774732v3\24300.0001 NOU-01-2220 15:18 9497254100 96% P.11 D- 3 . ACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATIY. June 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: &PL00-34 J Council/Agency Meeting.Held: 680 epd �0Gu Deferred/Continued to: tp pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied dlErrWs Signature '1111 rl A Council Meeting Date: June 5, 20Q�J ` Department !D Number: PL00-34 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ REQUEST FOR ACTION L� r N --:c-, SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS NT- SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator o??J r.; n PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning 4� ZJ_A/" SUBJECT: APPROVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On May 15, 2000 the City Council denied a request to permit development of a three-story, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit. The City Council directed staff to complete Findings for Denial based on comments by City Council members. The attached Findings for Denial are transmitted for your consideration. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. "Accept Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." `) D V 3. PL00-34 -2- 05/31/00 1:22 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-34 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 2. "Modify Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31." Attachment: NumberCity Clerles Page Description Findings for Denial — Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 t a.1 ay .r." t:S-' � u*"".�=i;k.�'"r' '_'h v � .l"i'-.".>• 14':RGA:Au ',-Jane James D , PL00-34 -3. 05/31100 1:22 PM .1 ) CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 5, 2000 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/ FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The City Council finds that the project may have an impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood through adverse effects of increased traffic and noise and that the project is an incompatible land use in the proposed location due to insufficient parking, increased traffic, an increase in density and intensity and overall building height and design. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy(SRO) complex will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity,detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood, and detrimental to surrounding commercial and residential properties because of the following factors: 1)the proposed 106 unit development is too intense due to the density of units, 2)there are not enough controls to enforce the conditions of approval,and 3)the proposed location is inappropriate due to insufficient parking, increased density and intensity, and overall building height and design. 2. As required in Government Code Section 65589.5 (d) (2),the City Council finds that the project will have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety because the rooms are too small for compatible habitation by two people, 81 parking spaces is inadequate for residents, siaff members and visitors,and the traffic generated by the project will adversely impact the surrounding street system and will pose a threat to public safety. 3. The conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the SRO is too intense due to density and will not be harmonious with the existing Town& Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. The proposed building is not an adequate buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent residential fourplex apartment units because the project will increase traffic in the area and the structure is too dense. In addition,the proposed units are inadequate in size for two occupants and insufficient parking is provided on-site for the potential residents. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. As required by Government Code Section 65589.5 (d)(6)the City Council finds the project inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F2-d(General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-special design overlay)on the subject property. Specifically,it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: 3 5� (00sMdenyfmd)—615100 1 A. Land Use Element Obiective LU 9.2: Provide for the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise,light,vehicular traffic,visual character, and operational hazards. The project is found to be incompatible with the adjacent residential properties and inconsistent with the General Plan due to insufficient parking, increased traffic, an increase in density and intensity,and overall building height and design. B. Public Facilities and Services Element Goal PF 1: Protect the community from criminal activity,reduce the incidence of crime and provide other necessary services within the City. Policy PF 1.3.2: Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact their operators, occupants,visitors or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. The project may increase the incidence of crime,the SRO occupants and visitors will have an impact on the safety and welfare of the community,and the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. i 6 (OOsr22denyfmd)—615100 2 i b) -s �, - ... x 3,a,-. t C- aY4x Mt .��t[tK�_ .a,.�rr�'•. TT� I Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied -City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2000 Department ID Number. PL00-27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION �, SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrators 0 PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning _ c. SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 AND NEGAYIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) Estatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Dr. James Lu, representing Amwest Environment Group, Inc., of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11. This application represents a request to permit development of a three-story, Single Room Occupancy residential project with 106 efficiency _ apartment units and one manager's unit. The Planning Commission denied the request and is recommending denial (Recommended Action - A) finding that the project is -not compatible with the existing multi-family apartment units to the east and the commercial shopping center to the west. Staff is recommending approval (Recommended Action - B) because the project: o Provides 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals, o Meets or exceeds requirements for setbacks, parking, landscaping, floor area ratio, building height, and o Is compatible with surrounding development as a result of a detailed Management Plan, security provisions, and floor plan design which controls access to the entire property. It should be noted that if the City Council upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the project, it is necessary to make concrete findings in conformance with California State law regarding denial of an affordable housing project (Attachment No. 13). State law allows for denial of affordable housing projects only under limited circumstances and only wher particular findings can be made. These mandatory findings are discussed in detail in the Analysis section of this report. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 r' Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1).'" ' Planning Commission Action on January 25, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO DENY .NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 -AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31, WITH FINDINGS, FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, CHAPMAN ABSENT: LAIRD, MANDIC ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED AND WAS AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED DUE TO LACK OF FOUR_ AFFIRMATIVE VOTES Planning Commission Action on March 14, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31, WITH FINDINGS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SPEAKER, BIDDLE, SHOMAKER, MANDIC NOES: CHAPMAN, LIVENG_ OOD, KERINS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:- . Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)", and 2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings and suggested conditions of approval , Z (ATTACHMENT NO:2):". . b3 1 PL00-27 -2- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Altemative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant/ Appellant: Dr. James Lu and Mr. Charles Tsang, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 100, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 . Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (South of Ellis Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard) Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 represents a request to construct a 107-unit Single Room Occupancy residential complex pursuant to Section 211.04 and 230.46 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. Single Room Occupancies (SRO) are classified as a quasi-residential use in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, an SRO is defined as "Buildings designed as a residential hotel consisting of a cluster of guest units providing sleeping and living facilities in which sanitary facilities and cooking facilities are provided within each unit; tenancies are weekly _ or monthly." Each unit in the proposed project will have a separate bathroom and efficiency kitchen. An on-site manager will reside full time at the complex. The project is proposed on a 1.76-acre lot currently occupied by a dilapidated abandoned day care center. The 38,390 square foot SRO complex is designed as a three-story structure with one common entrance and exit. -.The SRO project is a unique hybrid of.a. hotel and.an apartment complex: The units are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. Three floor plans are proposed for the efficiency units; 85 units will be 260 square feet, 15 units will be 338 square feet, and six handicapped units are proposed at 268 square feet. The on-site manager's unit will be 780 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a day bed, table, chairs, closet, bathroom, microwave, garbage disposal, and refrigerator. The project also has indoor and outdoor recreational areas with a pool, lounge, and a common kitchen area. The complex provides a bike storage area and trash chutes on all three floors. One maintenance utility room with hot and cold running water is also provided on each floor. Although each unit is provided with an efficiency kitchen, the common recreation area also includes a fully equipped kitchen. One central laundry room is provided on the ground floor and each residential unit isb rovided with separate lockable storage areas. D_ 3. PL00-27 -3- 51410012:13 PM . ht:UUCJ ! C'VEC Hl. Ivir MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Zoning code requirements specify that all SRO units shall be provided as affordable housing and restricted to very low and low-income individuals as defined by the City's Housing Element. The managers unit is exempted from this requirement. State law requires the City to provide a certain number of housing units to meet the overall housing goals for the region. SCAG identified the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and the percentage of those RHNA numbers designated for very low and low income households. Based on these percentage requirements, 44.3 percent or 47 units will be provided to very.low income individuals and 55.6 percent or 59 of the 106 total units will be provided to low income individuals. The SRO management and leasing personnel will be responsible for screening potential tenants and qualifying each tenant based on their income. As each unit is large enough to accommodate either one or*two people, affordability will be based on household sizes of one and two occupants. The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary(Attachment No. 6) because other commercial and residential development options have failed at the site and there is a high demand for Single Room Occupancies in Southern California and in particular, Orange County. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting six people spoke in favor of the •� 1 proposed project while ten speakers voiced their objections to the proposed SRO. Although many issues and concerns were raised during the public hearing, the majority of the comments can be grouped into the following four main categories: ■ Insufficient Parking Potential for increased Crime • Lack of Management Experience - ■ Incompatible with Adjacent Residential Staff has also received approximately 300 letters and petition type signatures in opposition to the project (Attachment No. 10). Most of the written communication regarding the' '. project opposes the development proposal for many of the same reasons cited above. Staff has also received approximately 50 letters and petition type signatures in favor of the proposed residential project (Attachment No. 9). ! In response to concerns raised at the first Planning Commission hearing, the applicant ! revised the site plan, finalized the Management Plan, and contracted with a professional management company to manage the facility. in summary the revisions proposed by the applicant were as follows: Reconfigure parking lot for 13 additional parking stalls plus one van/bus drop-off and �{ one tenant loading and unloading space for a total of 83 parking spaces (25 space a- surplus); PL00 27 .¢. 5141001213 PM I 65 D �3. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 ■ Agrees to limit occupancy to one person per unit on 50% of units (53) and allow two persons per unit on 50% of units (53); ■ Contracted with Solari Enterprises (current manager for Fullerton Lights SRO and other properties) for professional management services and submitted Final Management Plan; New site plan depicts adjacent property improvements; applicant accommodates existing non-conforming parking spaces at adjacent retail center to the west; ■ Applicant proposes minimum monthly leases, no weekly leases offered; ■ Applicant requests amendment to affordable housing requirements; staff continues to recommend original affordability and rental structure • ' ■ Applicant suggests quarterly review of property and management practices, including affordability requirements during first year of operation, yearly review thereafter, staff suggests six month reviews for first three years, yearly review thereafter. Six month reviews to commence again at any time ownership or management company changes. At the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting, four speakers expressed their support for the project while five spoke in opposition to the request. The applicant explained the revisions proposed and summarized above. After discussion of the proposed changes by the applicant, the Planning Commission discussed their visits to the Irvine Inn, an SRO project in Irvine. While most agreed that the �... Irvine Inn is a successful, well-managed property, the Planning Commissioners opposed to the project felt Irvine Inn was a good location because of its isolation in an industrial area. Some of the commissioners expressed their belief that single room occupancies can b; . good projects but that this is not the right location. Some commissioners also believed thr... there is not enough control over tenants, the project is too intense, and it does not fit in with its surroundings. The Planning Commissioners who supported the project expressed their belief .that affordable housing is necessary in our community and that this project represents an improvement to a degraded property. After discussion of numerous project issues, the Planning Commission denied the project on a 4-3 vote determining that the proposed location is inadequate for a single room occupancy. residential project. C. APPEAL: The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project on March 22, 2000 (Attachment No. 3). The reasons for the appeal are summarized as follows: ■ Proposed SRO meets or exceeds'all City code requirements ■ Project is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not cause adverse impacts to traffic or crime ■ Planning Commission did not explain their finding that the `location is not itable'for an SRO PL00-27 -5- 5!4l0012:13 r D 3.�° REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Project provides affordable housing for very low and low income individuals ■ Development of the property eliminates a dilapidated and abandoned structure ■ Other options for development of the site were not feasible . ■ Laws of the State of California provide limited reasons for denying an affordable housing project. The Planning Commissioners' reasons for denying the project do not justify the standards outlined by State law. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff believes that the City Council should support the appeal filed by the. applicant and approve the proposed single room occupancy residential facility. Staff agrees with the applicant that the project meets or exceeds all development standards and will provide sufficient parking and circulation around the site, will not adversely impact surrounding uses in terms of traffic or crime, and is an appropriate location for an.SRO project. Staff believes the project should be approved because it is well designed architecturally, includes a detailed Management Plan, staff will conduct periodic inspections and reviews of the site and management practices, tenants will be subject to a detailed screening application including a criminal background check, and the property will provide affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. Because of its unique location, a discussion on compatibility with surrounding uses is provided. Affordable housing, a major component of the project, is also analyzed in detail, as well as an exploration of the limited reasons for denying an affordable housing project as established by California State law. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses The proposed SRO residential project is located between a retail shopping center and fourplex apartment units. The project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes.of hotel rooms, but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. The project will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial areas on Beach Boulevard and the adjacent apartment complexes to the east of the site. It has been designed so that it is not intrusive on any adjacent developriment and the conditions of approval preserve the shared access between the subject site and the retail center to the west. It will also be compatible because an adequate number of parking spaces are provided on-site and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation are included so that parking on other sites should not be impacted. The proposed three story building will be compatible with the two story fourplex apartment units to the east. Although the project is one story higher, it is setback 47 feet, a substantial distance, from the east property line. Privacy issues and visibility into the adjacent units; therefore, should not be a concern. In addition, the structures will be separated by an eight (8)foot high block wall and an alley serving as access to the fourplex units. The front portion of the project, nearest Ellis, is closer to the fourplex units, but is only one story and wilt not impact privacy of adjacent residents.- 3-6) �L/ l v PL00-27 -6- 91410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION ' MEETING DATE: May 16, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 There are a number of mature eucalyptus and palm trees existing on the site. It is standard City.policy to require all existing healthy trees to be preserved and incorporated into the new site plan to the greatest extent feasible. To this end, a standard condition of approval requiring an arborist report is recommended. The arborist report will contain an inventory of existing trees, their health status, recommendations for preservation, and a horizontal control plan plotting the existing trees in relation to the proposed site plan. The architectural design for the proposed residential project incorporates significant . Massing modulation and fenestration details which adequately articulate and segment the building. Plaster cornice treatment and window trim coupled with trellis accent features. provide additional building relief. The primary exterior building wall material will be stucco. A combination low block wall topped by wrought iron and off-set by plaster and tile based pilasters is proposed at the front setback. A trellised pedestrian arcade is planned from Ellis to the main entrance. The vehicle entrance from Ellis is also covered by an archway with decorative pilasters. The proposed materials palette is complementary to surrounding development. Staff is in support of the proposed architectural design. During the public hearings, many speakers expressed concerns that the project would lead to increased crime in the vicinity of the project. Some speakers expressed a belief that people earning lower than the average County income are more likely to.engage in criminal activity than those earning more than median income. Some speakers also stated that criminal activity such as drug use and prostitution would increase in the area as a result of the project. Staff does not believe there is any evidence that low income equates to increases in _ criminal activity. Staff does believe, however, that an excellent management system is the key to a successful SRO residential project. A high level of security and diligent management practices will ensure controlled access to the residential units and 24-hour management will encourage compliance with all management regulations. The applicant has submitted a narrative describing lack of criminal activity at other SRO projects in Fullerton and Irvine.. In addition, Mr. Bruce Solari, representing the professional management company for Fullerton City Lights SRO, testified that high levels of security discourage true criminals from SRO facilities because criminals find'the security practices intrusive. The applicant and Solari Enterprises have entered into an agreement to provide professional management services as described in the required Management Plan (Attachment No. 7). 1 PL00-27 -7- 5/4/0012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 t Staff agrees that stringent qualification, application, and deposit requirements are an important aspect for quality management at the proposed SRO residential facility. Therefore, staff has reviewed the Management Plan to ensure that these practices are included as part of the duties of the manager. As expected, the Management Plan includes an example of an application in which prospective tenants must disclose all income, provide references, and complete a questionnaire. Management staff must then verify all income, check references, conduct a credit check and criminal background report, and require a deposit if tenancy is approved. By approving the Management Plan as part of this conditional use permit application and referencing it in the attached conditions of approval, the Management Plan becomes part of the approved project'and must-be adhered to at all times and by any subsequent property owner. Requested amendments to the Management Plan must be reviewed by staff prior to implementation and if warranted may even require approval by the Planning Commission. Staff concurs with the suggestion to require month to month rents and prohibit weekly occupancies. This requirement has been included in the suggested conditions of approval. It is staffs opinion that the proposed SRO residential project is probably a less intrusive, less disruptive use than almost any other type of commercial use that would be allowed under the current commercial zoning. Staff believes that the SRO project1s; a good transition between the commercial to the west and the residential to the east. Affordable Housing As required by the zoning code all 106 rental units will be provided as affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. The number.of units.devoted to very low(47 units) and low(59 units) income individuals has been extrapolated from the percentage of very low and low income units the City is charged with providing as part of our share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. RHNA numbers and allocations of target households are established by.SCAG. The SRO management and leasing personnel will be responsible for screening potential tenants and qualifying each tenant based on their income. 'As each unit is large enough to accommodate either one.or two people, affordability will be based on household sizes of one and two occupants. It should be noted, however, that in response to concerns with the intensity and available parking at the site, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to restrict occupancy to a maximum of one person in one half or 53 of-the total units.. Staff.supports this suggestion and has included the occupancy limitation in the suggested conditions of approval. i l ..65 PL00-27 -8- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Staff is concerned that by simply specifying 47 units for very low income and 59 units for low income that the property owner may only qualify individuals at the top end of each income category. Therefore, staff is recommending that qualifying residents be dispersed across the range of income levels. For example, instead of allowing all 47 very low units to be rented to people earning 50% of the County median (representing the top end of the percentages) we recommend that at least one-half of the 47 units be rented to people earning no more than 35% of the County median. The other one-half of the 47 units may be rented to residents earning between 35-50% of County median. The same principle applies to the 59 low income units. Staff recommends that one-half of the 59 low units be rented to persons earning between 50-65% of County median and one-half betweeri 65- 80% of County median. Maximum Income Levels are shown in the chart below (Note: for ease of discussion, each income level has been designated as Category A, B. C, or D): ..... ....... .n. ... .. :::,::;rs ::. . ..- ............,..... .. ?: s'.. :.... _J e . e : otinr ........>.................:.n:.......» ,.....i?3.,::::::c:an.»......_.... x,/,............ 1 ? F.::c:::3i::::::�a•:,:r.::r?:.?:::iii:.:•_, __ r.?'ri:::::'? ......- .... ..•:..:::: .,...>::?:?:::: .... . .............•,•::-::= .,;...d:za ••_:.zY_..,:::::. _ ....._... T..::.: ::Units::::::..; ......._Units...,...._.k::::...._.:'-- n�ts:� AA : ........... .. -•,r.... ..... ...,....»... :,.... ._. ._.. ,...._>3:.».._......;..._::.:�z::-?3?.-:::::,» sii6':::z; , x•_,i::r a,:k::=::rk'...- -»_::_.......... °:,SP)S»-_?-:z?3?: ,"?�_:sas•::w3:r L..;Sack}......... :::»:»•: .: :;.u>?3»N mC:.os..s!• ::::::: ..:..._.r._.._...3,::u3i„iii« »:::»::. i'y'ii3?:' ZP ,:}:!p:?•,i••,»;;•}?k};')9>'i»?; } 3!! ,}?Ei3i?f:iii.,iiiii#3 i??x�}-_ ;2 '; '�i ,Y,',m'�:>: �j_.�,.; Sf. .....,11r j1..•::.,. :.: fcome%,.:..>::.:»:.::::lncome�,::::1.:.._._,_inconer'...._.. �,.Incc�rne..? INE .,..:....k,_.a?! i_..3.-!? k::»r..................... ,r:,za,;,>r:iiv?s5,: .: }n?.»...F 3. s..>...,ssz.z,3..P;8'??.>»s. y.a.ys,>:}..,.::.. #^' ••---»-:.a;K»::»:a'3,Ya3^2�,.,,r,6»,.r'::?i!'d, >ai»:M:}� .�J.. is?»:3i.;�:z•,•»•,,•::::::;.,},...,. .; 3 •».'..: �i, u3.3...:.::.......x::::},�;�:• "_ _ .3� »::>.:,•:»,,,r.,, ,..} ,,:tt?>?3,;�,:;?: :;} . .,r'. �twen::: .:,.. .betw :e : . btNieeb:e ee ?.:,?.!!t?iK :t:i, *.:, i a,l!: :„ l,._�...3.. >. ,.:}. r:'::';i: ».. »,•-s:•y r,,::.,,;,». ?I? il-::.:»,:-::•:»:»:��i �ts»:3,:�,::•,:»�:>i}; .;•.;t.....,.....»,.:>,?�,,3??Yr..:,a >--'p:??3� :._>.......}�...}...,:...,3r,:°i�'?a>;::, ,.t ...._ .::_. ..........l,:•?,I::� �:.�•#_:. m:,..>t}- 5: Q•:o _:.......... 6.-50: ):::: _ :..o:o :••:::-,::!'•. ._.,....,. ,.3s............. »......,e..h...l..._I f ,c:::3:•rsr.:--s:»:::'i✓.-.,•»z:•r.....,_: !. •p;mne». .n,,.r..z..,,�s}j?}•:,::-:::Y-.».....>:•>:}Y),},.,>n.hru) k•:z..», .,»,..,:.,.._h.}r};,t"?,;:::... , ........... - _ ..•�. t.......Co.un -noun ;.�.=eount - - ' Co'u'n... �:. ,-,::;;!}.:::::::•:::::>•3::,?.......•.....)>r.:»:::.... ..>:.. ..._......._ , �sr?•?:::::>__ .::>»••..:::::: - sirs ......,3.....r... ..,._..>.................................: .....:.....:t..........»,t:.••::..a::::::u::::: sr._•:::-.•::r.:..�•iii:,3:ir.::::: _ ,....;}; ?'-i:+:a K:i;... ..,._._..,s..:.................... i;i::iii:?:siE:..,.} ..:,a c":•:;;r.:i:::?i ::c::::::: :c:F.: ..___...a.c.,;....... � ,:`,::, ....,.,...,_..........:....... ............:..»Y••::...:..,......Median::.: . :_r:::::::Mediart: ed�an:_-=;� :r :. :, „»a•-,.:»:>:.:::...::..::.??::i :::,>:.,iE;r.::i,ii}}::;.,>r::: :. •, :»::-:>,»:,....:,:::r.::3::>:::rs:,_:»:::::zr'•-:•:r:,,,•::::::::::::,.-nKs:u::-»::;::z::c:_e,:r=_:�::... .a>Ya3..?. r ...;..;.:;,.:...,,..>: ..._ _,.,..x�;Y.:y,>:? _:_,.......,fir..__;.::,}_••,. Cate' o:? >A°' ";.Cate o -8- -:Cate o,::C : :.Ca€� o : °D ......,C::'•i;i?:e,i?# za?i#??i i} ni?rii?i,w??:ri??ii•.,1>.}:::::: :.:?:::,k:_.,.};?i »:::::::....:.._.»___....._...} ....,........:__..._....._.. -- •.,?, .r,_:.:.#i• ..., .Y,; ......_._....._..._...._..... _._.-.... z•-r::>:b,}-:»;_...:,.is ........... .......�...»„3::�._.::>tr•::�?.;;}......?,$:k?:»?>>r .x,:>,-::::i-=a?:?:•n»:-:�_:k:,s:,>;�;;}.;,>...�.._. .__,>:.�::::_... -::>:x:: _.,>r__):kn-.,,.,�+:::�}...,_w . _ ?�_::•i;'s''�:ir :':;3;==:: _ _ _ _:.... ?:?:-.:,:.zr.:.-�:?>:0:::r.•?iiii:3:.:�•::,:.s.c=::»::::.::..:::::-...=rs:::a::z::s=..r.3... .. _:.r M.::3•~�?i..ia^.».:E._.r.. 1 1 $47,8001 $16 730 1 $23,900 $31,070 33,450 2 J $54,6501 $19,127 5 $35,522 `$38,250 *HUD Income Standards for Orange County are adjusted for the Low Income category and do not exactly reflect 80% of County Median In addition to specifying the maximum income levels for all residents, staff is also specifying the maximum rental rates for all units. It is generally accepted that persons of very low and low income levels should spend no more than 30% of their income towards housing expenses. However, it would be very difficult for the SRO management to set different,rental rates for each resident based on their exact income level. This approach would potentially result in different rents for all 106 units. In order to effectively manage the rental rates and allow the property owner to anticipate the amount of rent for each unit staff recommends the following approach. Staff recommends that rent for all residents earning a maximum of 35% of the County median be based on the 35% level and a maximum of 30% of income towards housing expenses. 'D, -7'' PL00-27 -9- 514100 12:13 PM I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT iD NUMBER: PL00-27 Using this methodology, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: _ ..a Y..:.^...z?...:.._T......_... :::: ':: _:;_»::p::: .._:......:rY.•.:r.,?;;:?3...».ri,.,...::"iee .. - els:3;i- :;> Unct..7' e..and.:ln.corrre ..f.e�son._.H.os<rs..ehold,: a..3i3a..s s ..,3....,>...,....3..3,.....3:>.::T::-:-:k'::a,.3:...............w.......,,,.,,,Fl 3e•.r, ;�,�,:. .............. .. .:_.... .._.,.:,:::.r.::.....:...._......_..._—..__ ..>...;....:,••)>3: _........... Householclr: ...:.�,::?:"::••:•::�•:::ru::::>::::>:.._.......:::...._-:......_................a:a:s3r.....L...._.k»r.......a.,1....l.....,_............__...... ...............�•._...._.......-...:S:k:.....��_- —_>=!�^xi•i.i�liaiFd'aiisir]�,w :.:.,;.:,::x,.._n• ,...:.::..:r.._.-,::.•,.:,;a.>.r..,. .s:::.....s_,:;;::::..n».. ..-.�...r...._._...,.. �.3.., •_3i:r.... ...__ .)_�_:::cii:_,rr_1O• 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 Income between•0-35% County Median (Category A 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00' Income between 36-50% of County Median (Category B 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 income between 51-65% of County Median (Category C .29 Low Units $808.00 $928.00 income between 66-80% of County Median (CategoryD f 106 Total Units `- "'$28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner" As seen in the above chart, the maximum rent allowable for the low income units is quite high for a single room occupancy type residential project. To put the above rental rates in context, HUD has listed the fair market value rental rate for a studio apartment in Orange. County at $645.00, which includes a utility allowance. This type of project will typically target individuals qualifying at the very low income levels because those who can afford the maximum rents allowed for low income will typically find a more standard one bedroom apartment. It should be clear that the City's goals are,to provide the greatest number of housing'units to very low income individuals. Therefore, the applicants may rent to more than the . minimum number of very low income individuals in each category but may not exceed the number of units provided to low income persons. For example, the applicant may rent all 106 units to tenants under Category A(between 0-35% of county median), or may rent at least the required 24 Category A units and the remaining 82 units may be in Category B. At no time may the applicant exceed the unit numbers specified in any category without first satisfying the numbers required for the lower income categories. 3.-7) PL00-27 -10- 5/410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Affordable housing will be a permanent feature of the SRO residential project and will be' guaranteed by an irrevocable covenant recorded on the property. The,covenant will ensure that any future property owner is informed of the affordable housing restrictions. The project will be subject to an annual review by the City to ensure compliance with affordable housing requirements and a review of management and parking services. The SRO project manager will be responsible for filing the annual report and shall include the range of monthly rents, the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. State Law Regarding Denial of Affordable Housing Projects _ Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, research has been conducted relative to State law requirements for denying affordable housing projects. If the City Council wishes to deny the proposed residential project, the Council must make findings in compliance with the following provisions. Government Code Section 65589.5 (Attachment No. 13) states: "(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing.development project affordable to very low, low, or moderate income households or condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low, or moderate income households unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588 and that is in _ substantial compliance with this article, and the development project is not needed for the jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional housing need for very low, low, or moderate income housing. (2) The development project as proposed would have a specific, adverse . impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse -impact .without rendering the development unaffordable to- low, and. moderate income households. As used in this paragraph, a 'specific, adverse impaict7 means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, •based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (3) The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. - 3 -7-L b - PLOO-27 -11- 5/4/00 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 (4) Approval.of the development project would increase the concentration of lower income households in a . neighborhood that already . has a disproportionately high number of lower income households and there is no feasible. method of approving the development at a different site, including those sites identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. (5) The development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation which is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or.which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (6) The development project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designations as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has .adopted a housing element pursuant to this article." Staff does not believe that any of the above findings for denial of the SRO affordable housing project exists and therefore, believes that the City Council must approve the application. it is clear that (1) the City has.not met the affordable housing obligations of the Housing Element, (2) a "significant, adverse impact upon the public health and safety...based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or . conditions," has not been quantified, (3) denial of the project is not necessary to comply with state or federal law, (4) the project does not increase the concentration of lower income households in the vicinity, (5) the land is not zoned or used for agriculture, and (6) the project is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and general plan. Therefore, staff believes that denial of the proposed project would result in a violation of the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.5 as quoted above. F. SUMMARY Staff .recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 99-1'1 and Conditional Use Permit No.' 99-31 and permit the development of a 107 unit Single Room Occupancy residential project based on the following: The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions-of approval and-the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. 3.33 PL00-27 -12- 51410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 - - Goals and objectives of the City's General Plan encourage development.of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The , affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. Compliance with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. Compatibility with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character.The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities, parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. The reasons for denying an affordable housing project as described in Government Code Section 65589.5 do not apply to the proposed project. Environmental Status: .Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant'. impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Attachment No. 8)was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA). . The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-11 for twenty (20) days commencing on November 25, 1999 and ending on December 14, 1999. Comments were received from the Environmental Board as discussed below. PL00-27 -13- 51410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Environmental Board Comments: The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. On December 20, 1999, the Environmental Board provided a letter addressing several issues including: • A negative declaration is the appropriate level of documentation for the project. • Checklists are not complete regarding Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing • Clarification is needed regarding parking facilities and overflow parking • Vehicle ingresslegress routes are not clear • Impact of the project on traffic during peak hours needs further clarification A response to the Environmental Board's comment letter has been prepared (Attachment No. 8) and the Negative Declaration has been amended where necessary. The Environmental Board's comments do not change the conclusion of the initial study and the recommendation for a negative declaration. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. Attachments}: - . . - Description ��"�." -= ....... .. IRA ...............:.... .........a:::a... .....:-:::: (Staff Ree9rAFA9AdatlG4)— ..... Sit , , 1 eSems date aia'iiCe` , 1 1q . 1S "� . PL00-27 -14- 51410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 ' Page Number No. Description Plemmin = :--- s: ............. ...... ... . 01--*--Gemmissien Minutes dated MeFeh - 1 �CAY�luthor.Jane Ja es�1 . ,� �f r ���.s�,; �. ,f ����..x. ;�:���. ..�-a:��. � G�"�,. ��•�� ,_;�.�, 1� _ �6 PL00-27 -15- 51410012:13 PM D-3-T7 T ATTACHMEN 9 - City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Ja 1!! T FF REPORT HUNnINCTON BEACH - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James,Associate Plannerq DATE: March 14, 2000 u 0 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (Continued From The February 8,2000 Planning Commission Meeting With The Public Hearing Closed -Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy) APPLICANT Dr. James Lu AND Mr. Charles Tsang PROPERTY Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. OWNER: 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA.92647 LOCATION: 8102 Ellis Avenue(South of Ellis, approximately 400 feet east of Beach) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 1/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Permit development of a new three-story, Single Room Occupancy project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit ♦ Continued Item - January 25,2000 Planning Commission meeting: Motion to deny project failed on a 3-2 vote (2 commissioners absent). Item automatically continued to February 8,2000 Planning Commission meeting with the public hearing closed. - February 8,2000 Planning Commission meeting: Item continued to March 14,2000 at applicant's request. Applicant expressed intent to respond to issues and concerns raised at previous public hearing(See Issues Matrix—Attachment No. 3) ♦ Applicant's Revised Site Plan and Management Plan' Reconfigure parking lot for 13 additional parking stalls plus one van/bus drop-off and one tenant loading and unloading space for a total of 83 parking spaces(25 space surplus); staff concurs - Agrees to limit occupancy to one person per unit on 50%of units (53) and allow two persons per unit on 50%of units (53); staff concurs - Contracted with Solari Enterprises for professional management services and submitted Final Management Plan; staff concurs - New site plan depicts adjacent property improvements; applicant accommodates existing parking spaces at adjacent retail center; staff concurs D , 3 �$ Applicant proposes minimum monthly leases, no weekly leases offered; staff concurs - Applicant requests amendment to affordable housing requirements; staff continues to recommend original affordability and rental structure Applicant suggests quarterly review during first year of operation, yearly review thereafter; staff suggests six month reviews for first three years,yearly review thereafter—.six month_ reviews to commence again at any time ownership or management company changes ♦ Recommendation—Approve Staff s Recommendation based upon: - The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design,project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. - Goals and objectives of the City's General Plan encourages development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. - Compliance with the CG(General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive-of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. - Compatibility with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided-to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality_visual image and character. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(Sl: . The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: ' . i A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings for denial! B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and direct staff accordingly." Staff Report—3/14/00 2 (00sr22) ISSUES: At the January 25,2000 Planning Commission meeting approximately six people spoke in favor of the proposed project while ten speakers voiced their objections to the proposed SRO. Although many issues and concerns were raised during the public hearing,the majority of the comments can be grouped into the following four main categories: ■ Insufficient Parking ■ Potential for Increased Crime ■.. Lack of Management Experience ■ Incompatible with Adjacent Residential Staff has also received approximately 60 letters and petition type signatures in opposition to the project(Attachment No. 6). Most of the written communication regarding the project opposes the development proposal for-many of the same reasons cited above. These issues,the applicant's response to them, and staffs recommendation have all been summarized in an SRO Issues Matrix for easy,review(Attachment No. 3). These items are discussed in detail below. In response to the objections raised by some members of the Planning Commission and the parties who spoke at the public hearing,the applicant has submitted revised plans, a revised narrative, and a new Management Plan(Attachment No.'s 2 ,4, and 5). Staff has also explored many of the issues raised during the public hearing and offers some alternative recommendations in an effort to alleviate several concerns of the public. Each of the four categories of concern are discussed in detail below along with an explanation of the revisions proposed by the applicant. Suggestions made during the public hearing for improvement to the project are listed in bullets under each category. Discussion under each category concludes with any new conditions of approval suggested by staff. Issue-Insufficient Parking Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Require additional parking ■ Limit occupancy to one person per room The applicant has revised the site plan for a more efficient use of parking spaces by eliminating large landscaped planters areas,rearranging the circulation pattern,and adding 11 compact parking stalls. Therefore,the applicant increased the total number of parking spaces to 81 tenant spaces plus one space for van loading and unloading and one space for tenant loading and unloading. Single Room Occupancy projects located within 2,000 feet of a public bus stop are required to provide parking based on the following ratios: ^ ga D �. Staff Report—3/14/00 3 (00sr22) t Parking Ratio Number of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Provided 0.5 Spaces Per Unit X 106 Units = 5.3 Spaces 78 1.0 Spaces Per Resident Staff X 2.Resident Staff. 2-Spaces 2 . 0.5 Spaces Per On-Site Personnel X 2 Personnel = 1 Space 1 25 Surplus Spaces Total Parking Required 56 Spaces i81 Parking Spaces Provided Plus 1 Van Loading Space and 1 Ten pace As demonstrated"in the above chart,the proposed project provides a surplus of.25 parking spaces located within the site boundaries. As previously recommended by staff and requested by the . Planning Commission, one of the surplus parking spaces has been designated as a van/bus drop-off and pick-up space to accommodate Dial-A-Ride and other public transportation vehicles and one space has been designated for tenant loading and unloading. By zoning code standards, the size of the units proposed would allow a maximum of two occupants per unit. The applicant has made additional strides in reducing the demand for parking by volunteering to limit occupancy on 50% of the units to one tenant maximum. Staff agrees with the applicant's proposal and has included a condition of approval to limit the number of occupants to one on 53 units and allow a maximum of two occupants in the remaining 53 units. Staff believes that the revised parking lot layout, increased number of parking spaces,provision of loading-and unloading spaces for vans and tenants,provision of locked bicycle storage areas, and limitation of one tenant within 53 of the.proposed units all combine to reduce or alleviate the. concerns with insufficient parking expressed during the previous public hearing. Issue-Potential for Increased Crime Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Maintain stringent qualification/application/deposit requirements ■ Require month to month rents;prohibit weekly occupancies ■ Require minimum income per unit;prohibit zero income During the last public hearing,many speakers expressed concerns that the project would lead to increased crime in the vicinity of the project. Some speakers expressed a belief that people earning lower than the average County income are more likely to engage in criminal activity than those earning more than median income. Some speakers also stated that criminal activity such as drug use and prostitution would increase in the area as a result of the SRO project. Staff Report—3/14/00 4 (OOsr22) � I Staff does not believe there is any evidence that low income equates to increases in criminal activity. Staff sloes believe, however, that an excellent management system is the key to a successful SRO project. A high level of security and diligent management practices will ensure controlled access to the residential units and 24-hour management will encourage compliance with all management regulations. The applicant has submitted a narrative describing'lack of criminal activity at other SRO. projects in Fullerton and Irvine. In addition, Bruce Solari,representing the professional management company for Fullerton City Lights SRO,testified that high levels of security discourage true criminals from SRO facilities because criminals find the security practices intrusive. The applicant and Solari Enterprises have entered into an agreement to provide professional management services as described in the required Management Plan(Attachment No. 5). Staff agrees that stringent qualification, application, and deposit requirements are an important aspect for quality management at the proposed SRO facility. Therefore, staff has reviewed the Management Plan to ensure that these practices are included as part of the duties of the manager. As expected,the Management Plan includes an example of an application in which prospective tenants must disclose all income,provide references, and complete a questionnaire. Management staff must then verify all income, check references, conduct a credit check, and require a deposit if tenancy is approved. By approving the Management Plan as part of this conditional use permit application and referencing it in the attached conditions of approval, the Management Plan becomes part of the approved project and must be adhered to at all times and by any subsequent property owner. Requested amendments to the Management.Plan must be reviewed by staff prior to implementation and if warranted may even require approval by the Planning Commission. Staff concurs with the suggestion to require month to month rents and prohibit weekly occupancies.. This requirement has been included in the suggested conditions of approval. Staff does not concur with the suggestion to require a minimum income per unit and prohibit incomes as low as zero because it is important to target all income levels for affordable housing. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to exclude any income category. Using an example of a minimum wage employee working full time hours or 2,080 hours per year. The minimum wage employee earning $5.15 per hour would total $10,712.00 per year. The public speaker's suggestion of limiting the minimum income level to $13,000.00 would effectively eliminate this person from residency at the project. Issue -Lack ofManaQement Experience Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Inspect property and management every six months ■ Require future owners to comply with conditions ■ Require reserve account for operations . I D -3�12 Staff Report—3/14/00 5 (OOsr22) i Many speakers cited concerns with the applicant's lack of management experiences related to SRO facilities. Although the applicants have not managed an SRO facility in the past,they have explained their history with development projects and apartment management in a newly submitted narrative (Attachment No. 4). More importantly,the applicant has.submitted a written agreement.with Solari Enterprises as the professional management company for the facility: Solari Enterprises.currently operates the Fullerton Lights SRO project. In response to the Planning Commission-and staffs request, the applicant has submitted a final management plan.(Attachment No. 5)..Staff recommends that the Management Plan become part of the approval action and suggests a condition of approval stating that all practices established within the Management Plan&e.mandatory and must be. - complied with by any future property owner or future management company. To this end, failure to comply with all established management practices may result in revocation of the conditional use permit. One speaker at the public hearing suggested that Code Enforcement conduct an inspection every six months in order to alleviate concerns that a mismanaged and poorly maintained property could languish for one year until the next review. The applicant's revised narrative also suggested that a quarterly review of the project be conducted during the first year of operation and a.yearly review thereafter. Staff agrees with the more restrictive recommendation-and.suggests-that-a condition of. approval be added to establish an ongoing Code Enforcement inspection of the property. and review of the management practices every six months for the first three years of operation and yearly reviews thereafter. A suggested condition of approval has been included to require the.inspection and review process to begin anew each time ownership of the property changes or.each time anew management company is hired to oversee the project. Therefore, each new owner or new management company will also be subject to reviews and inspections.every six months for the first three years of operation and yearly thereafter. Staff has reviewed the maintenance plan section of the Management Plan and concludes that on- going maintenance,repair, and upkeep of the facility, including the responsibilities of the management company,are addressed in the document. The maintenance plan, coupled with the inspection and review process, ensures proper upkeep and longevity of a successful project. Issue -Incompatible with Adjacent Residential Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Inspect property and management every six months ■ Require future owners to comply with conditions The proposed SRO project is located between a retail shopping center and fourplex apartment units. An aerial GIS map of the facility has been prepared by staff to clearly depict the location of the property in relation to other uses and to demonstrate the location of adjacent improvements (Attachment No. 2). n a3 I-� _ Staff Report—3/14/00 6 (00sr22) The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel 'rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. The project will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial areas on Beach Boulevard and the adjacent apartment complexes to the east of the site. The project has been designed so that it is not intrusive on any adjacent development and the conditions of approval preserve the shared access between the..subject site and the retail center to the west. The project will also be compatible because an adequate number of parking spaces is provided on-site and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation are included so--that parking on other sites should not be impacted. The proposed three story building will be compatible with the two story fourplex apartment units to the east. Although the SRO project is one story higher it is setback 47 feet, a substantial distance, from the east property line. Privacy issues and visibility into the adjacent units,therefore, should not be a concern. In addition,the structures are separated by a six(6)foot high block wall and an alley . serving as access to the fourplex units. The front portion of the SRO project,nearest Ellis, is closer to the fourplex units but is only one story and will not impact privacy of adjacent residents. It is staff s opinion that the proposed SRO project is a less intrusive, less disruptive use than almost any other type of commercial use that would be allowed under the current commercial zoning. Staff believes that the SRO project is a good transition between the commercial to the west and the residential to the east. SUMMARY: Staff has evaluated the project with regard to general planning/land use compatibility issues and determined-that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals, are in compliance with applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) standards applicable to the property, and will be compatible with adjacent development. Based on the above analysis staff concludes that the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding uses due to the SRO's location and design and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. In addition the proposal will not have any adverse environmental impacts. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit 99-31 for the following reasons: • The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design,project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced.in accordance with ZSO requirements. Goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which encourage the development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community,and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. Compliance with the CG(General Commercial)zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. � 3 Staff Report—3/14/00 7 (00sr22) I • Compatibility with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. ATTACHMENTS: le a o .use PeFwi. > HOOL Hans and Elevations dated Febramy > e , .5. L'iae Management Plan deted Mar-sL, 6 7GQQ "eskien to the pfeigesed SRO ptejeet dater, , SH:JM:kjl • D, 3.' Staff Report—3/14/00 8 (00sr22) :...........:::....:::::.::.::::.......:...::::......:::. is: ' ::: �'�� '...:::::.:::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......:::::::.:::.... Hn H TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Associate Planner DATE: January 25, 2000 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy) LOCATION: 8102 Ellis Avenue(South of Ellis, approximately 400 feet east of Beach) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 represent a request by Mr. Charles Tsang and Dr. James Lu on behalf of Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., to accommodate the siting of a new three-story, Single Room Occupancy project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit and install landscaping and hardscape improvements on the project site. The site adjoins commercial uses to the south and west and residential uses to the north and east. Staff has evaluated the project with regard to general planning/land use compatibility issues and. determined that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals, is in compliance with applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) standards applicable to the property, and will be compatible with adjacent development. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the following reasons: The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which encourages development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units.will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. The subject development proposal will be in compliance with the CG(General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. The project's scale will be compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity.Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. D, 3 ' I � D d.m PROJECT SITE RI s' r r ramm,--ma R I RI _ OR a w. C 2 +RI = r ' R I R2 _ RI = RI r ' = 3 r R 3 2� � $ •west RI '.R3 .� Rs R3 RI r r C4 R R3 R3 a R2 �.RI f ��• ua �nm ca � C4 I "RI s RI RI '• !. �,JA Rf X3 .a a ' R2 R2 tl Rz io as i' R2 RI } Po C 2 . C2 C4 a.Poe 1 I � OP a I R3 R — , R3 r R2 if R3 1V1 R A ' J ' OP � �i R3 � .., '. R3,R3 R2 R3 a toata�ct• R*:;:. !R3 r.�m C4 �R3 � • _ ww,.,rt I OR R2 R2 R VICINITY MAP ND 99-11/CUP 99-31 THE CITY OFHUNTINGTON BEACH D' �,• RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 9.9-11 with findings (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative.actions such as: A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings for. denial.." B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and direct staff accordingly." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT Mr. Charles Tsang AND Dr. James Lu PROPERTY Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. OWNER: 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 REQUEST: To permit the development of a 107 unit Single Room Occupancy project. The project consists of efficiency apartment units for very low and low income individuals. i DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Negative Declaration: Nov. 25, 1999 May 25, 2000 (Six Months) Conditional Use Permit: December 15, 1999 Within three months from Negative Declaration Approval 0 D- Staff Report—1/25/00 2 (OOsc05) (33) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 33 Communications of opposition from the Law Office of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP representing Montgomery Wards dated 11/13/00; 11/13/00, 11/14/00, 11/14/00 and 11/16/00. Communication of opposition from Law Offices of Altheimer& Gray representing Montgomery Wards dated 11/14/00. Communication from The Ezralow Company (Huntington Center Associates, LLC) dated 11/16/00. The City Clerk stated for the record Late Communications which had been announced earlier and which pertain to the public hearing; Communication dated November 17, 2000 from the City Clerk's Office transmitting a communication from Tuchman and Associates, Attorneys at Law stating their intention of submitting an objection letter either on November 17, 2000 or November 20, 2000. Communication titled Communication dated November 16, 2000 from Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, to the Huntington Beach City Clerk titled Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. v. Huntington Center Associates, LLC— For Hearing November 20, 2000— Our File No. 9956. i Communication dated November 16, 2000 from the City Attorney's Office transmitting the Mayor's Statement relating to the Public Hearing on Eminent Domain. Communication titled Mayor's Statement before Hearings on Eminent Domain Resolution for Montgomery Wards and ' Burlington Coat Factory, City Council Meeting of November 20, 2000. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Sean P. O'Connor of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP representing Montgomery Ward, LLC and Montgomery Ward Development, LLC transmitting Montgomery Ward's comments and objections to the proposed adoption of a resolution of necessity pursuant to Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 315. Communication titled Proposed Agency Resolution No. 315 to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for Condemnation of Montgomery Ward's Property. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Aviv Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, submitted as a supplement to their letter dated November 7, 2000 and is in conjunction with the numerous letters that they have sent over the last several weeks re: November 20, 2000 public hearing. Communication titled City Council Meeting on Monday, November 20, 2000 Re:Adoption of Resolution of Necessity. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Aviv Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, Attorneys at Law, submitted as a supplement to their letter dated November 20, 2000. Communication titled City Council Meeting on Monday, November 20, 2000 Re:Adoption of Resolution of Necessity. Communication dated November 20, 2000 from Aviv Tuchman of Tuchman &Associates, i Attorneys at Law, submitted as a second supplement to their letter dated November 20, 2000. Communication titled City Council Meeting on Monday, November 20, 2000 Re:Adoption of Resolution of Necessity. Slide show presentation dated November 20, 2000 from the Department of Economic Development. Slide show presentation titled Huntington Center—Hearing on Resolution of Necessity for Acquisition of Property— November 20, 2000— Item D-4. Page 34 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (34) Communication from Burlington Coat Factory—site plans for Huntington Center. Communication from Loren Cohen, Burlington Coat Factory, titled Pacific Promenade Specific Plan. Communication from Economic Development Department dated November 20, 2000 titled Substitution of Resolution of Necessity—Resolution No. 315. Communication from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, LLP, dated November 20, 2000 titled Index of Documents Relating to Proposed Agency Resolution No. 15 to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for Condemnation of Montgomery Ward's Property. Mayor Pro Tern Harman read a statement relative to this noticed hearing. He reported on the Late Communication in the packet from the Economic Development Director dated November 20, 2000 titled Substitution of Resolution of Necessity—Agency Resolution No. 315 which required the adding of a portion of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 142-071-099. The staff report was presented by the Economic Development Director. Mayor Pro Tern Harman declared the hearing open. Murray Kane, Special Counsel, and Irene Ibarra, representing Relocation Consultants, also reported. Mr. P. Schwartze, representing Montgomery Wards, informed Council that staff had failed to provide all the facts. He presented reasons why the proposed action should not be taken. He stated that there is a way to keep Montgomery Wards at its location. Loren Hohman, Director Real Estate for Montgomery Ward, presented a chronology of events regarding this project beginning in 1996. Sean O'Connor, attorney, representing the law offices of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton representing Montgomery Wards addressed Council in opposition to the proposal. Jack Rubens, representing Montgomery Wards presented reasons in opposition to the proposal before Council. He presented a chronology of events. Bruce Hackel informed Council of the benefits extended to Burlington Coat Factory employees. Rocy Lacross presented a request that Councilmember Julien abstain from voting on this matter, referring to money which had been received by her campaign committee. Aviv Tuchman, of Tuchman and Associates, attorneys at law, representing Burlington Coat Factory, spoke regarding the campaign contributions received by Councilmembers which had been noted on their campaign statements of Councilmembers Harman and Julien. He stated that there is no reason this matter can not be considered on December 4, 2000. He showed the contract that Burlington Coat Factory signed in order to be in the Huntington Center. He spoke regarding good faith negotiations and the offer that was made to them of a $100,000 before the appraisers came on the property. Mr. Tuchman spoke regarding why he believes the city is not in a position nor is it proper to interpret the Burlington Coat Factory lease. He stated that this is the first time that one stop employment has (35) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 35 been mentioned by the consultant as an effort to assist Burlington Coat Factory employees. Mr. Tuchman stated that there is no public purpose to condemn Ezralow and to give it back to Ezralow. He stated that there is no public purpose by giving public money to private developers. Bryan Ezralow stated what he believes will be the many merits of the project. He cited economic benefits to come. He gave reasons why Huntington Center had not been successful. There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. At Mr. Kane's request, Economic Development Director Biggs clarified a statement he had made regarding fair market value which was taken out of context. Murray Kane ,Special Counsel, repeated statements made by the attorneys representing Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. Discussion was held by Council. Councilmember Green stated why he on principle can not support eminent domain. Councilmember Dettloff spoke at length regarding her reasons for favoring the project. Gus Duran, Housing Redevelopment Manager, responded to Councilmember Sullivan's questions regarding the contract with the appraiser which had been referred to by Mr. Tuchman. Mr. Kane referred to the Environmental Impact Report done in 1996 at the time of the merger of the Redevelopment Project area in response to Councilmember Sullivan's questions. Mr. Kane reported on the environmental status. Irene Ibarra reported on the sales performance of Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory.as opposed to Mervyn's Department Store relative to Councilmember Sullivan's question regarding the space usage. Murray Kane, Special Counsel in response to Councilmember Julien stated that it is to the Redevelopment Agency's interest to keep negotiations open. Agency Counsel Gail Hutton responded to the question of Councilmember Julien regarding how reconsiderations could be made by Councilmember on a prevailing side. Murray Kane also responded to Councilmember Julien's questions. A motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to adopt Agency Resolution No. 315- "A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Finding and Determining the Public Interest and Necessity for Acquiring and Authorizing Condemnation of Certain Real Property Located in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project(7777 Edinger Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 14..2-071-91 and 142-071-93."(ATTACH M ENT 1*) The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Julien, Sullivan, and Green ABSENT: Garofalo Page 36 - Council/Agency Minutes— November 20, 2000 (36) I (City Council) Motion Failed Re: Councilmember Sullivan's Request that the Huntington Beach Equestrian Center be Charged for City Provided Water Services at the Same Rate as Other Home Owners and Businesses (1000.10) The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: It is my understanding that the city provides water free of charge to the Huntington Beach Equestrian Center. I see no reason why the"horseless" in Huntington Beach should provide that benefit out of their tax dollars to the Equestrian Center. Discussion was held. A motion was made by Sullivan to direct the City Administrator to attempt, at the earliest opportunity, for example if there is a request for a Conditional Use Permit at the Equestrian Center, to request that the Equestrian Center be charged at the same rate as home owners and businesses are charged for city water. The motion failed for lack of a second. The following item from Councilmember Green was brought forward: (City Council) Approved as Amended—Re: Councilmember Green's Request for the Formation of City Council Ad-Hoc Committee to Set City Policy on Non-Profit Corporation Cost to Lease Such City Facilities as the Playhouse at the Central Library (120.25) The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: At the October 16, 2000 City Council meeting staff was directed to review the provisions in Option No. 2 as recommended by the Library Board of Trustees for a lease with the Huntington Beach Playhouse. The purpose of this review was to determine if the provisions proposed for the lease with the Huntington Beach Playhouse were consistent with those for leases between the city and other non-profit organizations. This review(see attachment*) shows a difference in requirements. In order to establish city-wide consistent lease standards, I believe that an Ad-Hoc Committee of the Council should meet to work with staff on setting consistent standards. * The attachment is a matrix titled Lease Comparison with Four City Non Profits Including Huntington Beach Playhouse. Following discussion a motion was made by Green, second Sullivan that the Mayor establish an Ad-Hoc Committee to recommend standard lease provisions for leases between the city and Huntington Beach non-profit organizations to return as amended with recommendation by February .20, 2001. The motion carried unanimously with Garofalo recorded absent. (City Council) Motion Failed Re: Councilmember Sullivan's Direct the City Administrator to Explore the Possibility of County Sheriff Providing Police Service (530.10) The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue:The leadership of the Police Union (P.O.A.)seems to be extremely unhappy with the city staff and City Council. This has resulted in, among other things, costly lawsuits filed almost continually against the city. I don't know if the union leadership represents the majority view in the Huntington Beach Police Department. If the J (37) November 20, 2000 =Council/Agency Minutes - Page 37 P.O.A. leadership represents the majority view, probably the police would be happier with another employer. Councilmember Sullivan presented reasons why he had placed this item on the agenda for Council consideration. Councilmember Harman commented on the subject. Councilmember Julien presented reasons in opposition. A motion was made by Sullivan, second Harman to direct the City Administrator to explore with County Sheriff the possibility of the Sheriff absorbing the Huntington Beach Police Department into his department, evaluating the cost and logistics for discussion purposes only. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Harman NOES: Julien, Green, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: Garofalo (City Council) Motion Failed Re: Councilmember Sullivan's Request to Appropriate Funds for Additional Play Equipment at Eader Park (920.40) The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: There was some confusion during the budget process as to whether the City Council funded additional play equipment at Eader Park as requested by the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association. Councilmember Sullivan presented reasons why he had placed this item on the Council agenda. A motion was made by Sullivan, second Harman to appropriate funds to provide addition play equipment at Eader Park. Councilmember Dettloff stated that she believed a priority list should be followed and that Eader Park is on a list for a grant. Councilmember Green suggested that it be sent back for consideration by the Community Services Commission. The vote on the motion made by Sullivan, second Harman failed to pass by the following roll i call vote: AYES: Julien Sullivan, Harman, NOES: Green, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: Garofalo (City Council) Motion Failed Re: Councilmember Sullivan's Request that Council Take a Position Relative to Refund Re: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers'Association Lawsuit vs. Huntington Beach (630.40) The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers'Association has filed a lawsuit challenging some of the property tax that Huntington Beach collects for employee retirement. What are the financial implications if we lose this suit? Page 38 - Council/Agency Minutes — November 20, 2000 (38) The City Attorney responded to Councilmember Sullivan regarding her position regarding this matter. Councilmember Sullivan presented reasons why he believed his proposed motion should be approved. A motion was made by Sullilvan, that the City Council take a position on what refunds, if any, will be returned to Huntington Beach taxpayers if any of the property tax payments are Puled illegal by the courts and that the money be refunded to the taxpayers and interest from the time the law suit was filed. The motion failed for lack of a second. City Attorney Hutton reported further. Councilmember Sullivan advised the citizens of how to apply for a refund should it become possible. (City Council) Direct Staff to Determine Whether Chevron Trucks have Detrimental Effects on Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street (800.10) Councilmember Sullivan requested that if staff believes the Chevron trucks have detrimental effects on Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street as they proceed to the highway that Chevron compensate the city for street damages. (City Council) Request that Chevron Company Contact City Regarding Landscaping of Tank Facility Near Huntington Center Library Councilmember Sullivan requested that Chevron Company be contacted regarding the need to landscape its tank facility located near the Huntington Center Central Library at Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street. Adjournment—City Council/Redevelopment Agency 3:10 a.m. Mayor Garofalo adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, December 4, 2000 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers with the meeting to begin at 6:00 p.m. to seat new Councilmembers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. G45� City Clerk and ex-officio Cle of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk-Clerk Mayor-Chairman (4) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda Page 4 The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will regularly convene in joint session for the purpose of considering the following City Council-Redevelopment Agency Agenda Items. The Huntington Beach Parking Authority, Civic Improvement Corporation, and the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority are also agencies on which Council serves as members. On each Agenda these Agencies may have items scheduled. 7:00 P.M. -Council Chamber Reconvene City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting The City Attorney Shall Determine If Any Actions Taken By The City Council or Redevelopment Agency In Closed Session Shall Require A Reporting On Those Actions As Required By Law (Government Code §54957.1(a) (3) (B)). (City Council)City Attorney's Report of Action Taken by the City Council in Closed Session on October 16, 2000 (Pursuant to Government Code §54957.1(a) (3)(B))—Instructed City Attorney not to Request PUC (Public Utilities Commission)for Reconsideration of So Cal Water Company's Application to Provide Water and Waste Water System Services to Hearthside Home's Bolsa Chica Mesa Proiect (120.80) The City Attorney will announce that Council voted on a closed session item: On Monday, October 16, 2000, the City Council convened in closed session to discuss the Matter of the Application of Southern California Water Company(U133VV)for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 1001 to extend its West Orange County System to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community,Application 98-11-003; and Related Waste Water System Application. City Council voted to instruct the City Attorney not to request the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) to reconsider its decision authorizing Southern California Water to provide water and waste service to Hearthside's Bolsa Chica Mesa project. The Council voted as follows-Ayes: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer. Noes: Sullivan and Harman. (1) City Attorney announced above Report of Action Taken (2) City Attorney announced Action approving Amwest Settlement Agreement —Amwest v. City submitted on 11-06-00 (4-2-1 Bauer, Sullivan No; Harman absent) (3) City Attorney announced Report of Action taken out of Closed Session: On Monday, 11120100 the City Council convened in Closed Session to consider whether to initiate litigation against the California Coastal Commission over a suspension letter issued by the Commission regarding the City's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 97-15. (1) Approved the Settlement Agreement(2)Authorized the Mayor Pro Tem/Chairman Pro Tem to execute the Settlement Agreement and Deed Restriction on behalf of the City/Agency(3) Authorized the recordation of the Deed Restriction as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (5-0-2 Harman, Garofalo absent) Roll Call Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer [Present-Harman absent] Flaq Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance— Maureen Rivers— H.B. Fourth of July Executive Board Invocation — Councilmember Dave Sullivan �'�-G�.' e ��-- ''`/ /,� j�"� ��-ey,� ��/d.-�' � s•"' rid? °�'`'���`' -=.....-y 12, -12 -C!p � RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF TNE.A"D.q E.. �1 •-COUNCICMEETING OF _ OFFICE OF THE CIT LERK mow/ CON_NIE BROCKWAY,-CITY-CLERK--•--•----- - -- I I v� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: HONORABLE MAYOR DAVID GAROFALO AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: November 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Report of Action Taken Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1 November 20, 2000, City Council Closed Session PLEASE ANNOUNCE IN OPEN SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 20, 2000, THAT: On Monday, November 20, 2000, the City Council convened in closed session to discuss the matter of Amwest Environmental Group, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 00 CC 08364. City Council voted to approve the settlement agreement previously_ submitted on November 6, 2000, without the senior-citizen housing restriction. The Council voted as follows: 4 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions. Ayes: Garofalo, Dettloff, Green, and Julien; Noes: Sullivan and Bauer. Tom Harman was absent at vote. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney G H/ab C cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk L7 "- ` C Closed/Report/Blank File Notes Office of the City Clerk Huntington Beach, California J� City of Huntington Beach P.0.Box 190-2000 Main Street �* Huntington Beach,California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH I From the desk of: Connie Brockway City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 �-F-�- Internet: www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us i e rf1/xe Gam, �r f T (17) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 17 Mayor Pro Tern Harman left at 1:35 a.m. (City Council) Public Hearing —Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised)/ Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Filed by Dr. James Lu for a 107 Unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Affordable Housing Development at 8102 Ellis Avenue (400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard) -Approved Settlement Agreement between the City and Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 00 CC 08364 (420.40) Mayor Garofalo announced that this was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. . Request: To approve revised plans for development of a 107 unit single room occupancy/efficiency apartment project (106 rental units plus one manager's unit). The revised project consists of: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units, 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area, and 3) amending the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 400 feet e/o Beach Boulevard). Environmental Status: An initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item would not have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. *" Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from Angela Fan dated November 1, 2000 titled Opinion Regarding the Development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facility at 8102 Ellis Ave., Huntington Beach. The letter transmits support of the proposed Single Room Occupancy(SRO) project. ** Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. To City Council and the Planning Department dated October 30, 2000 and titled Facts for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy(SRO)Affordable . Housing at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach. (This communication is identified in the agenda packet as ATTACHMENT NO. 3.) Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk has been mailed, published and posted. Planning Director Howard Zelefsky presented an oral report giving the background of the project. Associate Planner Jane James delivered a PowerPoint slide presentation titled Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy— Conditional Use Permit No. 99-32 (Revised)—Negative Declaration No. 99-11 that had been announced earlier as a Late Communication by the City Clerk. f (18) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 18 The City Clerk announced the following Late Communications that pertain to this public hearing: Communication submitted by Christobel J. Berger to the City Clerk's Office on November 6, 2000 transmitting a letter from Fred W. Bruning, Attorney at Law representing Mrs. Berger. The communication conveys Mrs. Berger's opposition to the proposed SRO project. Communication titled Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised)/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy). Communication of opposition dated November 6, 2000 from Kurt E fler, Property Manager for the Keller Limited Partnership transmitting a letter from the Marta Keller Limited Partnership in opposition to the proposed Ellis Avenue SRO. Communication titled Conditional Use Permit #99-31/Negative Declaration No. 99-11/Ellis Avenue SRO. i Slide show presentation submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on November 6, 2000. Slide show presentation titled Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy— Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised)—Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Assistant City Attorney Scott Field informed Council that he had spoken with the applicant who stated that 40% of the housing for the SRO has been reserved for seniors. Mayor Garofalo declared the public hearing open. Liz Phibbs spoke in favor of the project, quoting that what has been funded for redevelopment housing projects is not sufficient; that the city needs more affordable housing to overcome crowding in apartments which invites gangs and illegal drug activity. Elmer Phibbs read the latest edition of housing statistics from the Orange County Register. He spoke regarding the Wycliffe Senior Housing project and its five-year waiting list, mentioning that persons with Section 8 rental assistance vouchers lose them due to the unavailability of low income housing. Speaking in favor of the Single Room Occupancy project, Mr. Phibbs stated that you can not equate the poor with the stigma of crime. Magda Saborio-Saldana addressed what she perceives to be the prevalent attitude that people who earn very little working in the city, are not expected to live here. She cited the example of allowing low-income workers for Wal*Mart. Ms. Saborio-Saldana quoted income figures needed to be able to afford rents in the city. She stated her support of the SRO project. Maggie Sewell stated that she is in favor of the Amwest SRO housing project and distributed material to Council addressing an opposing argument regarding devalued property. Ms. Sewell reiterated Mrs. Phibbs' comment that the poor are unfortunately considered synonymous with drug addicts. Joan Selfridge spoke in support of the project, stating that she is a retired social worker on a fixed income who would qualify for SRO living. She expressed her anger at having the poor equated with crime. Ms. Selfridge informed Council that she knows the area because there used to be a pre-school there, and that the volume of traffic was as heavy then as it is now. William P. Bernard spoke in favor of the Single Occupancy Room project and stated that as a Housing Commissioner he can see many reasons why there is a need to increase low income senior housing. He cited a Los Angeles Times Newspaper article that the city is being commended for affordable housing. Mr. Bernard informed Council that Alan Baldwin, the (19) November 6, 2000 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 19 Executive Director of the Orange County Community Housing Corporation (OCCHC) who has been involved with numerous affordable housing projects in the city was also mentioned in the publication. Mr. Bernard stated that he had spoken with a representative of Mercy Housing, who provided him with a cheat sheet that dispels many myths that argue against the concept of an SRO lifestyle; that the typical profile of family living are workers. Robert Cronk spoke in opposition to the Single Room Occupancy project, presenting his argument of the use of a common driveway. He stated that ingress and egress to the SRO would be blocked; an impediment to traffic. Mr. Cronk also expressed his disapproval of the size of the living accommodations of each SRO unit. Barbara Boskovich informed Council that she is not opposed to the concept of low-income housing but that the SRO project is in the wrong location. She expressed an issue of concern is the traffic east or west of Ellis Avenue, where a left-turn into the Jack-in the Box on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard is currently a risk-taking venture. Ms. Boskovich spoke relative to further traffic complications, referring to the gridlock from Beach Boulevard east to Patterson Lane and suggested the prohibition of left-hand turns. She also recommended the use of opaque glass for residences facing the property. Ms. Boskovich mentioned the applicant, Dr. Lu's alleged code enforcement violations, and stated she would like a three to six month lease term imposed on the property. Kenneth L. Kent spoke in favor of the Single Room Occupancy project, which he perceives as not altering the neighborhood. Mr. Kent related a situation involving an SRO resident who illegally cooked meals in his room against the rules. Pat Goodman related support of the SRO and experience on a project that served homeless people with AIDS and HIV. Robert Butler, owner of a four-plex on Demion Lane stated his belief that if the SRO project is approved there will be an increase in traffic. He concurs with the previous speaker, Ms. Barbara Boskovich that traffic is a major impact. Mr. Butler stated that a Traffic Engineer's report is in order. He expressed confidence with the staff and Planning Commission opinions that the SRO in Irvine is well-managed, but mentioned that the management group in that city do not allow two people per room. Angela Fan informed Council that she works for a medical group a block from the proposed Single Room Occupancy project. Ms. Fan urged Council to approve the item and raise the quotas for SROs in Huntington Beach as they are needed by low-income workers in the city. Fred Kent spoke in opposition to the Single Room Occupancy project proposed at 8102 Ellis Avenue, informing Council that he owns property on nearby Demion Lane. Mr. Kent stated that he is applying the principles of Real Estate when he says that changes in housing density caused by the SRO will pull down the value of property, while the value of the SRO will be pulled up. Mr. Kent spoke regarding safety concerns, health and moral issues and the general welfare of the community and urged Council to veto the project. Hans Van Herk, owner of property on Demion Lane spoke in opposition to the Single Room Occupancy project. He stated that he would like to remind Council that the SRO is incompatible as it is too dense and would be detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood.. Mr. Van Herk requested postponement of the project. He stated that he does not consider it to be low-income housing. He spoke of the lack of privacy and the need to increase the height of (20) November 6, 2000 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 20 fencing surrounding the property. Mr. Van Herk mentioned that the opaque windows suggested by the previous speaker, Ms. Boskovich appears to be a good idea, and that he also concurs with her recommendations of not permitting left-hand lane turns from Beach Boulevard east to Patterson Lane and requesting a six month review of the applicant's operation. James Lu, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., appellant and applicant for the Single Room Occupancy project stated that he does not fix blame on the neighbors for their opposition; rather that he appreciates their concerns in order that he can take them into consideration for future improvements on his property. He spoke regarding density in comparison to housing on Edwards Hill. Dr. Lu rebutted as inaccurate the square footage of the rooms as calculated by the previous speaker, Mr. Cronk. Charles Tsang, representative of Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. and Project Manager of the SRO stated that of all items that have been addressed, no one has brought up certain areas worth mentioning: 1.) parking requirements; that there are more spaces than are needed; and 2.) the composition and tenant mix that provides needed housing for senior citizens, the disabled, and workers such as nurses and busboys. Bruce Solari, owner and operator of Solari Enterprises and representative of the applicant informed Council that he manages affordable housing throughout Southern California. He promoted the amenities of the "City Lights" SRO in Fullerton as being the most valuable and crime-free. Mr. Solari spoke regarding preventative measures which his company undertakes, and that he considers the best guarantee of successful management of SROs to be the screening process, criminal background checks and annual reviews. Mr. Solari answered Mayor Garofalo affirmatively that there is a security person on site. Randy Allison, applicant/attorney and representative of Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. informed Council that he had worked with staff to mitigate reasons for denial and the concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Allison reiterated what Assistant City Attorney Field had announced at the commencement of this public hearing that his company is willing to reserve 40% of the SRO units for seniors. Mayor Garofalo inquired if a shared easement with the Town and Country Center adjacent to the property has been granted, to which Mr. Allison answered in the negative but that steps will be taken to work on this matter. Jim Martin expressed his objection to the Single Room Occupancy project. He stated that despite the city staff and Planning Commission determination, he deems the housing project to be inappropriate as an improper fit for the community; being too tall, too big, and in too dangerous an area. Regarding the latter, Mr. Martin mentioned that there are three bars in the neighborhood and that the area has a history of several code violations. Mr. Martin opted for a better-planned project. There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Green informed Council that he is going to make a motion to approve the recommended action with the exception that the Settlement Agreement include a proviso that 40% of the housing be reserved for senior citizens age 55 and over. (21) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 21 Councilmember Dettloff stated that she is going to be supporting the motion as before, and that the city ordinance provides for SROs. Councilmember Sullivan stated currently, the SRO has a good management company with Solari Enterprises, but there are no measures in place to prevent the housing project from going with an inferior management company at a later date. Councilmember Sullivan requested revisiting the city's affordable housing ordinance for possible revision. He stated that he will not be supporting the main motion to approve the recommended action. Councilmember Julien expressed her concern over the number of tenants per room some with double occupancy-and confirmed with Planning Director Zelefsky that the Single Room Occupancy project is planned for 106 units. A motion was made by Green, second Dettloff to 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with Findings for Approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 R with Findings and Suggested Conditions of Approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1*); and 3. Approve as amended for 40% seniors age.55 and up the Settlement and Release Agreement between Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) and authorize execution with non-substantial changes by the Mayor and City Clerk. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: Harman A motion was made by Sullivan, second Garofalo to put on the agenda as an emergency item the subject of staff studying a revised affordable housing ordinance. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Green ABSENT: Harman A motion was made by Sullivan, second Garofalo to direct staff to submit to the Planning Commission a request for study to improve the current SRO ordinance: 1) one person per. room; 2) increased parking; and 3) increased room size. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman " See Appendix B at the end of these minutes for ATTACHMENT NO. 1. Consent Calendar Items Deferred to November 20,2000 A motion was made by Bauer, second Green to defer the following consent calendar items to November 20, 2000. The motion carried by the following roll,call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Harman (31) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 31 Appendix B ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO..99-31 (REVISED) SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-11 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative D:claration and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31. 2. Standard conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R), will have a significant effect on the environment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 0: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy(SRO) complex will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting,and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed,the project will provide a high level of security,one centralized entrance and exit,a 24-hour on-site manager,and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities,parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the { property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the SRO is a unique hybrid between a residential and commercial project and will be harmonious with the existing Town & Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. Sufficient parking is provided on-site for the potential residents and the commercial center will encourage pedestrian activity,between the sites. In addition,the proposed building mill serve as a buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent residential fourplexes. (32) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 32 3. The proposed 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy complex «•ill comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project meets all development standards of the General Commercial zoning district including setbacks, building height, floor area ratio, landscaping,parking, and building design. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of GC-F2-d (General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-special design overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policv LU 9.5.1: Accommodate the development of housing types, such as multifamily development and Single Room Occupancies (SRO), intended to meet the special needs of senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low, and moderate income households in areas designated for residential and mixed-use on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the Housing Element.. The project provides for a unique type of residential unit,will serve the special needs of very low and low income individuals, will provide for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policv LU 15.5.1: Require that development located in areas designated as "Special Design Overlay(-d)"adhere to the specific design standards stipulated by design and development policies for specific community subareas prescribed in the ensuing section of this element, as appropriate. The project meets the design and development policies for Subarea 6C-Five Points by incorporating landscaping along the street frontage and in the parking lot,by siting of structures to encourage pedestrian activity to the adjacent commercial sites, by siting the building in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks, and by incorporating architectural treatments to minimize building bulk and mass. B. Housine Element Objective HE 3.1: Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. (33) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 33 Policv HE 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. The SRO project will be 100% affordable as it will be restricted to persons of very low and lo«- incomes. The affordable housing project meets the above objectives and policies because it is a unique type of housing unit and is located adjacent to the Town & Country retail shopping hopping opportunities on Beach Boulevard. center and many other retail s SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERIMIT NO. 99-31 (R) : I. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 15, 2000 and the revised parking lot layout dated November 1, 2000 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. b. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) c. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not*limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility'ineters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way.- Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) d. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes,but is not limited to,heating,air conditioning,refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechaniacal equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review.and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) e. Depict all gas meters,water meters,electrical panels,air conditioning units,mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall.be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive,not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. f. Outdoor lighting shall utilize energy saving lamps and shall provide a minimum foot candle of one and one-half as recommended by the Police Department. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. No skyward glare is permitted. (PW) (PD) (34) November 6, 2000 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 34 g. The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) at least 10 feet from the property line. h. All landscaping and sidewalk areas adjacent to parking spaces shall be increased by two feet to accommodate two feet of vehicle overhang and a 17 foot long asphalt space. Wheel stops shall be removed in these cases. i. A maintenance room/delivery reception area shall be provided near convenient vehicular access on the ground floor. Location, size, and design of the maintenance room shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director and may result in the loss of one unit. For affordable housing requirements, the loss of any unit shall come from the upper low income range (Category D). j. One surplus parking space in close proximity to the front entrance of the facility shall be designated, posted, and striped as "Van/Bus Drop-Off and Pick-Up"and one space shall be designated,posted, and striped as "20 Minute Tenant Loading and Unloading." k. The site plan shall be revised to depict all existing improvements (buildings, parking stalls,and landscaping) within 50 feet of the westerly property line. Adequate back-up space (26 feet) for any existing parking spaces to the west shall be accommodated within the subject site's drive aisle. Access to all parking spaces located adjacent to the subject site's west property line shall be accomplished through a recorded irrevocable reciprocal ingress and egress agreement as described in the conditions below. Archways located at the north and south end of the vehicular driveway shall be located so that no conflict with ingress and egress to existing parking stalls occurs. Final site plan details in this regard shall be subject to Planning Director approval. 1. The site plan shall be revised to reflect the code required 26 feet back-up space/drive aisle for the additional 14 new parking spaces on the east side of the property. The revisions may require the building footprint and other improvements to be shifted west by approximately two feet. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local,state,or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos,lead,and PCB's. These i requirements include but are not limited to: survey,identification of removal methods, containment measures,use and treatment of water,proper truck hauling,disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. I t d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. i (35) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 35 e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. ; 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. An arborist report and a Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Depariment of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The arborist report shall inventory the location, number, species, and health of all existing trees on site and contain recommendations for their preservation by providing a horizontal control plan. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type,size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed, and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Condition of Approval No. 8. i. below, and Chapter 2.32 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable.Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees or palm equivalent and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PNV) (Code Requirement) b. A grading plan,prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (P`V) . I c. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on- I site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties,retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PV ) d. In accordance with NPDES requirements,a"Water Quality Management Plan"shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. (PV ) e. The applicant shall provide an on and offsite sewer study including flow test as required by the Department of Public Works. (PV ) f. The applicant shall provide an on and off site hydrology and hydraulic study as required by the Department of Public Works. (PV ) g. If applicable, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works,Planning,and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No.431-92 and the conditions of approval, including methods to minimize remediation related impacts on the surrounding properties. (PV ) (36) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 36 h. The name and phone number of a field supervisor who is on-site shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/grading concems. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent properly owners during the construction activity. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the number of the applicant's contact, City contact (Jack Miller at 714-536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. i. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. j. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works in developing a truck haul route if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. k. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD'-s Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. 1. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval detailing how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site. m. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both Public Works and Planning Departments identifying wind barriers around remediation equipment. n. Site plans and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls,walls, and fences consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits(architectural,structural,electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. (37) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 37 b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) c. Residential type structures on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans, • prepared under the supervision of a person experienced-in the field of acoustical engineering,with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets,'utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) e. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. The subject property shall enter into an irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent westerly property for the entire length of the westerly property line. The ` subject property owner shall be responsible for making necessary improvements to implement the l reciprocal driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the j Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and,when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of ` the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. (Code Requirement) (38) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 38 c. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide very low income and low income units with the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall designate 47 units (44.3 percent) for persons of very low income and 59 units (55.6 percent) for persons of low income. Income levels shall be based on the County Median and shall be further defined as depicted in the following chart: House- County - 24 Very Low 23 Very Low 30 Low Units 29 Low Units hold Median Units Units Income beween Income between Size Income between Income beteen 51-65% of 66-80% of 0-35% of 36-50% of County Median County Median County Median County Median (Category C) (Category D) (Category A) (Category B) 1 $47,800 $16,730 $23,900 $31,070 $38,240 2 $54,650 $19,127 $27,325 $35,522 $43,720 This agreement shall be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall also review and approve a covenant to be recorded on the property specifying the terms and conditions of maximum income and maximum rental levels as discussed here. The covenant shall be recorded on the property prior to issuance of building permits. Income restrictions shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be reflected and verified during the six month or annual review. d. Maximum rental rates shall be determined as indicated by the by the following example and the following chart: Example• Maximum Rent I Person Household Earning zip to 35%of County Median $47,800 (county median) x .35% (35%of county median) =$16,730 (maximum income) x 30% (maximum amount of income towards housing expenses) =$5,019 (yearly housing expenses) divided by 12(months/year) =$418.00 (Maximum rent if utilities paid by property owner); or minus$28.00 (utility expense) _$390.00 (Maximum rent per month when utilities paid by tenant) (39) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 39 Utilizing the above formula, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: Unit Type and Income Levels 1 Person Household 2 Person Household Afaximrun Rent" Maxinurm Rent* 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 Income between 0-35% County Median + (Category A) 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00 Income between 36-50% of County Median (Category B) 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median (Category C) 29 Low Units $928.00 $1,065.00 Income between 66-80% of County Median (Category D) 106 Total Units * $28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner Rental rates shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be reflected and verified during the six month or annual review. - e. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property. The"Acceptance of Conditions"shall be recorded on the property at the Orange County Recorder's Office and a certified copy returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. A copy of the recorded document and the conditions of approval for the project shall be provided to the management company. g. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) h. A grading permit shall be issued. (PW) 6. During demolition, grading, site development,and/or construction,the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks shall be utilized on the site and shall be available throughout the day during site grading to keep soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the operations. (P`Y) (40) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 40 b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 AM or leave the site no later than 5:00 PM and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PtiV) c. Vet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.(PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or shall have water applied to exposed surfaces prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PNN� f. Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PNN� i g. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (P`V I M i. If applicable, any remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PNV) j. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%)by weight for construction equipment. k. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts). 1. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. in. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. (PW) 7. Prior to final building permit inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the following shall be completed: a. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein., including: ; i 1) A new sewer lateral shall be required. (PNV) I 2) All new and existing utilities shall be installed underground. (PW) 3) The existing speed bumps in the alley shall be painted white. (P`V) (41) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 41 4) The existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with a commercial driveway approach.per current City standards. (PNV) 5) The proposed entry arch shall be clear of the east-west drive aisle for the adjacent shopping center that is located near this arch. (PNV) 6) The existing water meter and service serving the site may potentially be utilized for irrigation purposes if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Water Division; however, the meter shall be replaced with a touch-read meter. (PNV) 7) A new domestic water service shall be installed per Water Division standards and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Plumbing Code(UPC) [minimum 2 inches in size]. All meters shall be a touch read type. (PNV) 8) If fire sprinklers are required for the proposed building, the building shall have a separate fire service with an appropriate backflow protection device. (PNV) 9) Separate backflow protection shall be installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division standards for domestic, irrigation and fire water services. (PNV) 10)The applicant shall remove and replace the existing asphalt driveway located on the west side of the property. (PNV) 11)The applicant shall remove the existing block wall adjacent to the public alley to the east and replace it with an 8 foot high solid grouted block wall on the private side of the property line. (PNV) 12)An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) 13)A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: a) manual pull stations, b) water flow,valve tamper and trouble detection, c)' 24 hour supervision, d) smoke detectors, e) annunciation, f) audible alarms, g) graphic display,and h) voice communication(FD) (42) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 42 14) A Class III wet standpipe system shall be installed. Prior to system installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public «'orks Department and approved by the Fire Department. (FD) 15) Fire hydrants shall be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to - installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the-Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Your project requires two fire hydrants (City Specification No. 407). (FD) 16) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) 17) Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification No. 401. Include Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. In addition, see City - Specification No. 402 spelling out minimum 13 feet, six inches distance requirement for archways. (FD) 18) For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification No. 426. (FD) 19) Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City.Specification no. 428. (FD) 20) Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are six feet, eight inches wide by four feet, three inches deep with a 42 inch (minimum) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54 inch depth. (FD) 21) Exit signs and exit path markings shall be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and the California Administrative Code, Title 24. (FD) 22) Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards(FD) b. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. d. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber,wire,pipe,and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8. The use shall comply with the following: a. Service roads and fire access lanes,as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required,the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD)- (43) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 43 b. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. c. The comprehensive INfanagement Plan submitted on March 6, 2000 shall constitute the final Management Plan for the facility. All present and future property oN ners and managers shall abide by the provisions of the Management Plan for operation of the SRO facility. The Management Plan establishes management policies, operations, emergency procedures, security program including video cameras monitoring building access points, rental procedures and rates, maintenance plans, staffing needs, and tenant mix, selection, and regulations to be carried out during operation of the SRO use. d. An on-site 24-hour manager is required and shalt abide by the provisions of the Management Plan discussed throughout these conditions of approval. e. No more than one person shall be permitted to reside in any unit which is less than 220 square feet in size. No more than two persons shall be permitted to reside in any unit, excluding the managr's unit. Furthermore, occupancy shall be limited to one person maximum in at least 91 of the total rental units regardless of floor area size. The remaining 15 of the total rental units may be occupied by two persons if the floor area is at least 338 square feet in size. f. All common indoor space shall have posted in a conspicuous location a notice from the City's Planning Department regarding contact procedures to investigate housing code violations. g. A minimum of two pay telephones shall be provided in the lobby area. The telephone service shall allow only outgoing calls. h. All pool gates and emergency exits around the recreation area shall be posted with "Emergency Exit Only"signs and shall be locked to prevent entry but shall allow exiting as required by the Building and Safety and Fire Departments. i. All access to the site shall be from the main entry located on the west side of the building. Residents and guests shall not be provided with access keys or cards to any other exterior door or entry except for the bicycle storage area. j. . The projections and recesses in the building fagade creates alcoves. Landscaping in the alcove areas shall be limited to turf only with no shrubs or other intensive landscaping. All shrubs shall be limited to a maximum height of two feet. (PD) k. No gate or restricted vehicle access shall be added to the property at any time without prior written approval of the Planning,Public Works,and Fire Departments. Any future gates at the vehicular accessway shall comply with City Fire Specification No. 403. _ (44) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 44 - 1. The project shall be subject to review and on-site inspection by the City which includes the review of management services. The property will be subject to a review every six months for the first three years of operation and shall be subject to an annual review thereafter. This review schedule shall start anew each time the ownership or management company at the site is amended. The SRO project owner shall be responsible for filing a sixth month or annual report to the Departments of Planning and Economic Development. The sixth month or annual report shall consist of the range of monthly rents, the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. m. Only the uses described in the narrative shall be permitted. n. The exterior and common areas of the site shall be subject to random inspections by Code Enforcement staff, at the discretion of the Planning Department. This condition shall not be interpreted to imply that privacy rights normally enjoyed by tenants of the facility may be compromised. o. Leases shall be a minimum of one month; no weekly leases shall be offered. 9. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R)shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed 2. Negative Declaration No. 99-11'and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R)shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R),pursuant to a public hearing for revocation,if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 1' (12) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 12 D-3. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised)/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Filed by Dr. James Lu for a 107 Unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO)Affordable Housing Development at 8102 Ellis Avenue (400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard) -Approve Settlement Agreement between the City and Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 00 CC 08364 (420.40) Public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. Request: To approve revised plans for development of a 107 unit single room occupancy/efficiency apartment project (106 rental units plus one manager's unit). The revised project consists of: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units, 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area, and 3) amending the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 400 feet e/o Beach Boulevard). Environmental Status: An initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item would not have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. `* Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from Angela Fan dated November 1, 2000 titled Opinion Regarding the Development of a Single Room Occupancy(SRO) Facility at 8102 Ellis Ave., Huntington Beach. The letter transmits support of the proposed Single Room Occupancy (SRO) project. ** Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. to City Council and the Planning Department dated October 30, 2000 and titled Facts for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Affordable Housing at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach. (This communication is identified in the agenda packet as ATTACHMENT NO. 3.) On File: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report is available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after November 2, 2000. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 714/536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. 1. Staff Report 2. City Council Discussion 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Following Public Input, Close Public Hearing (Continued on the Next Page) (13) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 13 Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with Findings for Approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 R with Findings and Suggested Conditions of Approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and 3. Approve Settlement and Release Agreement between Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) and authorize execution with non-substantial changes by the Mayor and City Clerk. [City Clerk announced Late Communications] [Approved 1 and 2; and 3 as amended for 40% seniors age 55 & up. Approved 5-1-1 (Sullivan-No; Harman-Absent)] [Motion to put on agenda as an emergency item the subject of staff studying revised affordable housing ordinance. Approved 5-1-1 (Green - No; Harman - Absent)] [Motion to direct Planning Commission to begin study to improve current SRO ordinance: one person per room, increase parking and increase room size. Approved 5-1-1 (Green - No; Harman - Absent)] Council/Agency Meeting Held: - 6 Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved Denied b*f-WCIek S' nature Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-65b r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratorW - - a r PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of PI IL HUTTON, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (REVISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT); APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH CASE ENTITLED AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (OCSC # CC08364) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a revised request for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised) and Negative Declaration No. 99-11 by Dr. James Lu, representing Amwest Environment Group, Inc. This application represents a request to permit development of a three-story, Single Room Occupancy residential project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit. The City Council denied the project on May 15, 2000 and approved findings for denial on June 5, 2000 (Attachment No. 7). On July 13, 2000 the applicant filed suit, challenging the denial (Amwest Environmental Group v. City of Huntington Beach, OCSC #CC08364). The applicant has now revised the proposed development in response to concerns raised at the previous public hearing. The revised project consists of: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units, and 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area. After publication and mailing of the public hearing notice, the applicant further revised the proposal and is no longer requesting amendments to the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. If the project is approved as resubmitted it would result in dismissal of the litigation. Staff is recommending approval of the revised . request (Recommended Action - A), because: - The proposal decreases the allowable occupancy to one person in 91 units and two persons in 15 units. - The revisions increase the number of parking stalls to 95 spaces for 106 units although the zoning code requires only 56 spaces. - The project complies with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, which encourage development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. - The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. - The SRO complies with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. - The proposal is compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be .provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. - The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities, parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. - If the City rejects this proposal, the City will be forced to litigate the original project. In the opinion.of the City Attorney, it is likely that the court would find that Government Code Section 65589.5 requires approval of the original project. Also transmitted for your consideration is a settlement agreement of the lawsuit. The agreement provides that: (1) In exchange for approval of the revised project, the litigation will be dismissed. (2) All building permits and other fees will be levied according to the fee schedule in place as of May 15, 2000, the date the original project was denied. (3) The revised proposal is submitted to settle the litigation. If the revised proposal is denied, then the City will litigate the prior proposal. (4) All discussions regarding the revised proposal since the filing of the lawsuit will be inadmissible as settlement discussions. (5) The six Council Members named in the original lawsuit will be waiving their right to file a malicious prosecution or similar suit against the Plaintiffs for filing their suit. l REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Na T-1 1'eD NS PM-,;�NpEb - R T, RAC-�r+ P.)a-,N1Pn 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (Attachment No. 1)", and 2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." 3. "Approve the Settlement and Release Agreement between Amwest Environmental Group and the City of Huntington Beach (Attachment No. 6) and authorize execution with non-substantial changes by the Mayor and City Clerk." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R)." 2. "Reject the Settlement and Release Agreement." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. Dr. James Lu 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 100, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (South side of Ellis Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard) PL00-65b-Amwest 11-6 -2- 11/3/00 10:04 AM 1 _ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31(R) represents a request to construct a 107-unit Single Room Occupancy residential complex pursuant to Section 211.04 and 230.46 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. Single Room Occupancies (SRO) are classified as a quasi-residential use in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, an SRO is defined as"Buildings designed as a residential hotel consisting of a cluster of guest units providing sleeping and living facilities in which sanitary facilities and cooking facilities are provided within each unit; tenancies are weekly or monthly." Each unit in the proposed project will have a separate bathroom and efficiency kitchen. An on-site manager will reside full time at the complex. The project is proposed on a 1.76-acre lot currently occupied by a dilapidated abandoned day care center. The 38,390 square foot SRO complex is designed as a three-story structure with one common entrance and exit. The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. Three floor plans are proposed for the efficiency units; 85 units will be 260 square feet, 15 units will be 338 square feet, and six handicapped units are proposed at 268 square feet. The on-site manager's unit will be 780 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a day bed, table, chairs, closet, bathroom, microwave, garbage disposal, and refrigerator. The project also has indoor and outdoor recreational areas with a pool, lounge, and a common kitchen area. The complex provides a bike storage area and trash chutes on all three floors. One maintenance utility room with hot and cold running water is also provided on each floor. Although each unit is provided with an efficiency kitchen, the common recreation area also includes a fully equipped kitchen. One central laundry room is provided on the ground floor and each residential unit is provided with separate lockable storage areas. Zoning code requirements specify that all SRO units shall be provided as affordable housing and restricted to very low and low-income individuals as defined by the City's Housing Element. The manager's unit is exempted from this requirement. State law requires the City facilitate provision of a certain number of housing units to meet the overall housing goals for the region. SCAG identified the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and the percentage of those RHNA numbers designated for very low and low income households. Based on these,percentage requirements, staff recommends that 47 units (44.3 percent) be provided to very low income individuals and 59 (55.6 percent) of the 106 total units be provided to low income individuals. The applicant agrees with staffs recommended mix of affordable units. A comparison of the original project proposal with the revisions now under review can be found in Attachment No. 2. The applicant has indicated that the SRO development request is necessary because other commercial and residential development options have failed at the site and there is a high demand for Single Room Occupancies in Southern California and in particular, Orange County. The applicant has also provided additional information regarding the revised project (Attachment No. 3). PL00-65b -3- 1112/00 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b B. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission denied the proposed project on March 22, 2000 finding that the project is not compatible with the existing multi-family apartment units to the east and the commercial shopping center to the west. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and the project was reviewed by the City Council on May 15, 2000. After a public hearing regarding the proposed project, the City Council also denied the project. The applicant subsequently filed litigation titled Amwest Environmental Group, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. CC08364. The lawsuit includes a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Inverse Condemnation, Civil Rights Violation, and Declaratory Relief seeking a reversal of the Council's decision. Consequently, the applicant has revised the project in accordance with the comments and concerns raised at the previous public hearings. During the previous pubic hearings, many of the public speakers and some decision makers commented that a senior only project would be compatible with the surrounding uses at the subject location. However, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance contains particular development standards for senior apartment complexes and they are allowed only within residential areas. This property is zoned General Commercial and therefore, allows development of an SRO for all age groups but does not allow construction of a senior only apartment complex. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As stated above, two primary amendments have been made to the project proposal as follows: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units. and two tenants in 15 units and 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area-. After publication and mailing of the public hearing notice, the applicant further revised the proposal and is no longer requesting amendments to the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. For convenience, a matrix comparing the original proposal with the revised project is provided in Attachment No. 2. A full discussion of all issues associated with the project can be found-in the previous Planning Commission and City Council reports attached to this document. The two proposed revisions are analyzed in detail below. I PL00-65b -4- 1112100 6:64,AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Occupancy Limits The zoning code allows two occupants per unit for units greater than 220 square feet in size. In this case, all 106 rental units are large enough to allow occupancy by two people. In response to concerns with intensity and available parking voiced during the Planning Commission public hearings, the applicant voluntarily proposed limiting.the occupancy to one person in one-half or 53 units and to two people in the other half or 53 units. After hearing continued concerns with the number of occupants per room at the City Council meeting, the applicant has now revised the proposal to limit occupancy to one person in 91 units and allow two occupants in the remaining 15 units. The 15 units are 338 square feet in size and are larger than the 85 units at 260 square feet and six handicapped units at 268 square feet. Staff concurs with the proposed reduction in occupancy. Additional Parking Spaces At the previous public hearings, concerns were raised regarding the number of parking stalls available at the proposed SRO project. Although the zoning code requires 56 parking spaces because the project is within 2,000 feet of a public bus stop, the applicant previously included 81 spaces plus two drop-off and pick-up stalls on the site. Because it appears that there are still concerns with the number of parking stalls, the applicant is agreeable to expanding the parking into the landscaping/recreational area on the east side of the property. Staff prepared an onion skin sketch, which demonstrates that approximately 14 additional spaces can be added in this area. The new parking total is now proposed at 95 parking spaces for 106 units. Staff concurs with the revisions to parking. Affordable Housing As required by the zoning code all 106 rental units will be provided as affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. Staff continues to recommend that 47 units be devoted to very low income and 59 units be devoted to low income individuals. This recommendation has been extrapolated from the percentage of very low and low income units the City is charged with providing as part of our share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. RHNA numbers and allocations of target households are established by SCAG. Staff recommends affordable housing requirements as reflected in Conditions of Approval No. 5.c. and 5.d. (Attachment No. 1) because the project targets very low and low income individuals and disperses qualifying residents across the range of income levels. It is not likely that the units could be rented at the upper end of low income category because those rents are at or above market level rents for regular one bedroom units in the Huntington Beach community. PL00-65b -5- 1112/00 8:64 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-66b Settlement of the Lawsuit and State Law Regarding Denial of Affordable Housing Projects If the City Council rejects the revised proposal and the related settlement agreement, it will be required to litigate the original project. However, State law compelled approval of that project. Government Code Section 65589.5 states: "(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project affordable to very low, low, or-moderate income households or condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low, or moderate income households unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588 and that is in substantial compliance with this article, and the development project is not needed for the jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional housing need for very low, low, or moderate income housing. (2) The development project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low, and moderate income households. As used in this paragraph, a `specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (3) The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. (4) Approval of the development project would increase the concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood that already has a disproportionately high number of lower income households and there is no feasible method of, approving the development at a different site, including those sites identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. PL0046b -6- 1112100 8:64 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00=65b (5) The development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation which is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (6) The development project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designations as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article." Staff does not believe that any of the above findings for denial of the SRO affordable housing project exists and therefore, believes that the City Council must approve the application. It is clear that (1) the City has not met the affordable housing obligations of the Housing Element, (2) a "significant, adverse impact upon the public health and safety...based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions," has not been quantified, (3) denial of the project is not necessary to comply with state or federal law, (4) the project does not increase the concentration of lower income households in the vicinity, (5) the land is not zoned or used for agriculture, and (6) the project is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and general plan. The only possible ground for denial would have been showing a "significant, adverse impact upon the public health and safety," which could not be mitigated. The City was not able to effectively make this finding. Therefore, the City Attorney believes that denial of the original project will be found to be in violation of the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.5. D. SUMMARY Staff agrees with the applicant that the project meets or exceeds all development standards, will provide sufficient parking and circulation around the site, will not adversely impact surrounding uses in terms of traffic or crime, and is an appropriate location for an SRO project. Staff believes the project should be approved because it is well designed architecturally, includes a detailed Management Plan, staff will conduct periodic inspections and reviews of the site and management practices, and tenants will be subject to a detailed screening application including a criminal background check. PL00-65b -7- 11/2/00 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Staff recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) and permit the development of a 107 unit Single Room Occupancy residential project based on the following: The proposal decreases the allowable occupancy to one person in 91 units and two persons in 15 units. - The revisions increase the number of parking stalls to 95 spaces for 106 units although the zoning code requires only 56 spaces. The project complies with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, which encourage development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. - The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. - The SRO complies with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. - The proposal is compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. - The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities, parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. PL00-65b -8- 1112/00 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-65b Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental.assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-11 was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-11 for twenty (20) days commencing on November 25, 1999 and ending on December 14, 1999. Comments were received from the Environmental Board and are included in the May 15, 2000 Request for Council Action. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. Attachment(s): City Clerk s Page Number No. Description 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval — Negative Declaration No. 99-11/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) Staff Recommendation 2. Matrix Comparing Previous Project with New Proposed Project 3. Applicant's Narrative Describing Revised Project dated November 1, 2000 and Additional Information dated November 1, 2000. 4. Sketch Depicting Revised Parking Layout dated October 25, 2000 5. Site plan, floor plan, elevations dated February 15, 2000 and GIS Aerial Ma 6. Settlement and Release Agreement 7. City Council Request for Action and Findings for Denial dated June 5, 2000 8. City Council Request for Action dated May 15, 2000 - without attachments 9. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated January 25, 2000 and March 14, 2000 - without attachments PL00-65b -9- 1112/00 8:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-66b RCA%Autt or. Jane James PL00-65b -10- 11/2/00 8:54 AM M--,w ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (REVISED) SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-11 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31. 2. Standard conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R), will have a significant effect on the environment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 M: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy (SRO) complex will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities,parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the SRO is a unique hybrid between a residential and commercial project and will be harmonious with the existing Town & Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. Sufficient parking is provided on-site for the potential residents and the commercial center will encourage pedestrian activity between the sites. In addition, the proposed building will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent residential fourplexes. (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.1 3. The proposed 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy complex will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project meets all development standards of the General Commercial zoning district including setbacks, building height, floor area ratio, landscaping, parking, and building design. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of GC-F2-d (General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-special design overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 9.5.1: Accommodate the development of housing types, such as multifamily development and Single Room Occupancies (SRO), intended to meet the special needs of senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low, and moderate income households in areas designated for residential and mixed-use on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the Housing Element.. The project provides for a unique type of residential unit, will serve the special needs of very low and low income individuals, will provide for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 15.5.1: Require that development located in areas designated as "Special Design Overlay (-d)" adhere to the specific design standards stipulated by design and development policies for specific community subareas prescribed in the ensuing section of this element, as appropriate. The project meets the design and development policies for Subarea 6C-Five Points by incorporating landscaping along the street frontage and in the parking lot, by siting of structures to encourage pedestrian activity to the adjacent commercial sites, by siting the building in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks, and by incorporating architectural treatments to minimize building bulk and mass. B. Housing?Element ObLective HE 3.1: Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.2 Policy HE 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. The SRO project will be 100% affordable as it will be restricted to persons of very low and low incomes. The affordable housing project meets the above objectives and policies because.it is a unique type of housing unit and is located adjacent to the Town& Country retail shopping center and many other retail shopping opportunities on Beach Boulevard. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (Lk) : 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 15, 2000 and the revised parking lot layout dated November 1, 2000 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. b. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) c. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) d. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) e. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. f. Outdoor lighting shall utilize energy saving lamps and shall provide a minimum foot candle of one and one-half as recommended by the Police Department. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. No skyward glare is permitted. (PV) (PD) (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.3 g. The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) at least 10 feet from the property line. h. All landscaping and sidewalk areas adjacent to parking spaces shall be increased by two feet to accommodate two feet of vehicle overhang and a 17 foot long asphalt space. Wheel stops shall be removed in these cases. i. A maintenance room/delivery reception area shall be provided near convenient vehicular access on the ground floor. Location, size, and design of the maintenance room shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director and may result in the loss of one unit. For affordable housing requirements,the loss of any unit shall come from the upper low income range (Category D). j. One surplus parking space in close proximity to the front entrance of the facility shall be designated, posted, and striped as"Van/Bus Drop-Off and Pick-Up" and one space shall be designated, posted, and striped as "20 Minute Tenant Loading and Unloading." k. The site plan shall be revised to depict all existing improvements (buildings,parking stalls, and landscaping)within 50 feet of the westerly property line. Adequate back-up space (26 feet) for any existing parking spaces to the west shall be accommodated within the subject site's drive aisle. Access to all parking spaces located adjacent to the subject site's west property line shall-be accomplished through a recorded irrevocable reciprocal ingress and egress agreement as described in the conditions below. Archways located at the north and south end of the vehicular driveway shall be located so that no conflict with ingress and egress to existing parking stalls occurs. Final site plan details in this regard shall be subject to Planning Director approval. 1. The site plan shall be revised to reflect the code required 26 feet back-up space/drive aisle for the additional 14 new parking spaces on the east side of the property. The revisions may require the building footprint and other improvements to be shifted west by approximately two feet. I 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.4 e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. An arborist report and a Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The arborist report shall inventory the location, number, species, and health of all existing trees on site and contain recommendations for their preservation by providing a horizontal control plan. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed, and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Condition of Approval No. 8. i. below, and Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees or palm equivalent and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) b. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) c. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on- site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW) d. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. (PW) e. The applicant shall provide an on and offsite sewer study including flow test as required by the Department of Public Works. (PW) f. The applicant shall provide an on and off site hydrology and hydraulic study as required by the Department of Public Works. (PW) g. If applicable, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works, Planning, and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval, including methods to minimize remediation related impacts on the surrounding properties. (PW) (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.5 h. The name and phone number of a field supervisor who is on-site shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/grading concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the number of the applicant's contact, City contact(Jack Miller at 714-536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and"I-800-CUTSMOG" if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. i. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. j. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works in developing a truck haul route if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. k. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. 1. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval detailing how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site. m. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both Public Works and Planning Departments identifying wind barriers around remediation equipment. n. Site plans and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.6 b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) c. Residential type structures on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) e. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. The subject property shall enter into an irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent westerly property for the entire length of the westerly property line. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. (Code Requirement) (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.7 c. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide very low income and low income units with the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall designate 47 units (44.3 percent) for persons of very low income and 59 units (55.6 percent) for persons of low income. Income levels shall be based on the County Median and shall be further defined as depicted in the following chart: m - �:. House .- County k 24�ery`Low 23'�ery Low 30 Low=Units; 29 Low'Unit $% � /cold Medaan Units- Units h Income between Income.between= ? x " Size Income between . Income between 51 65% of 66.80% of - ru/i R 0-35/o of 36 50% of County 1Vledian County 1Vledian Owl- ty Median t Couny Median (Cate o C (Categ Coun ory D) � g ?J' ) (Caste Category B) � . 1 $47,800 $16,730 $23,900 $31,070 $38,240 2 $54,650 $19,127 $27,325 $35,522 $43,720 This agreement shall be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall also review and approve a covenant to be recorded on the property specifying the terms and conditions of maximum income and maximum rental levels as discussed here. The covenant shall be recorded on the property prior to issuance of building permits. Income restrictions shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be reflected and verified during the six month or annual review. d. Maximum rental rates shall be determined as indicated by the by the following example and the following chart: Example: Maximum Rent 1 Person Household Earning up to 35%of County Median $47,800 (county median) x .35% (35% of county median) = $16,730 (maximum income) x 30% (maximum amount of income towards housing expenses) = $5,019 (yearly housing expenses) divided by 12 (months/year) = $418.00 (Maximum rent if utilities paid by property owner); or minus $28.00 (utility expense) _ $390.00 (Maximum rent per month when utilities paid by tenant) (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.8 Utilizing the above formula, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: 7nit"Type aril l" e'- Levels 1 Person Household 2 Person Household 4,44 _ MaximumRent* _ 1lMaximum Rent* 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 Income between 0-35% County Median (Category A) 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00 Income between 36-50% of County Median (Category B) 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median (Category C) 29 Low Units $928.00 $1,065.00 Income between 66-80% of County Median (Category D) 106 Total Units * $28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner Rental rates shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments shall be reflected and verified during the six month or annual review. e. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property. The"Acceptance of Conditions" shall be recorded on the property at the Orange County Recorder's Office and a certified copy returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. A copy of the recorded document and the conditions of approval for the project shall be provided to the management company. g. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) h. A grading permit shall be issued. (PW) 6. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks shall be utilized on the site and shall be available throughout the day during site grading to keep soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the operations. (PW) (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.9 b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 AM or leave the site no later than 5:00 PM and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.(PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or shall have water applied to exposed surfaces prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. If applicable, any remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment. k. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts). 1. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. in. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. (PW) 7. Prior to final building permit inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including: 1) A new sewer lateral shall be required. (PW) 2) All new and existing utilities shall be installed underground. (PW) 3) The existing speed bumps in the alley shall be painted white. (PW) (PL0065cond)—11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.10 4) The existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with a commercial driveway approach per current City standards. (PW) 5) The proposed entry arch shall be clear of the east-west drive aisle for the adjacent shopping center that is located near this arch. (PW) 6) The existing water meter and service serving the site may potentially be utilized for irrigation purposes if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Water Division;however, the meter shall be replaced with a touch-read meter. (PW) 7) A new domestic water service shall be installed per Water Division standards and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) [minimum 2 inches in size]. All meters shall be a touch read type. (PW) 8) If fire sprinklers are required for the proposed building, the building shall have a separate fire service with an appropriate backflow protection device. (PW) 9) Separate backflow protection shall be installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division standards for domestic, irrigation and fire water services. (PW) 10)The applicant shall remove and replace the existing asphalt driveway located on the west side of the property. (PW) 11)The applicant shall remove the existing block wall adjacent to the public alley to the east and replace it with an 8 foot high solid grouted block wall on the private side of the property line. (PW) 12)An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) 13)A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: a) manual pull stations, b) water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection, c) 24 hour supervision, d) smoke detectors, e) annunciation, f) audible alarms, g) graphic display, and h) voice communication(FD) (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.11 14) A Class III wet standpipe system shall be installed. Prior to system installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (FD) 15) Fire hydrants shall be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Your project requires two fire hydrants (City Specification No. 407). (FD) 16) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) 17) Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification No. 401. Include Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. In addition, see City Specification No. 402 spelling out minimum 13 feet, six inches distance requirement for archways. (FD) 18) For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification No. 426. (FD) 19) Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification no. 428. (FD) 20) Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are six feet, eight inches wide by four feet, three inches deep with a 42 inch (minimum)right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54 inch depth. (FD) 21) Exit signs and exit path markings shall be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and the California Administrative Code, Title 24. (FD) 22) Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards(FD) b. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. d. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8. The use shall comply with the following: a. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) (PL0065cond)—11/6100 Attachment No. 1.12 r b. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles,vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. c. The comprehensive Management Plan submitted on March 6, 2000 shall constitute the final Management Plan for the facility. All present and future property owners and managers shall abide by the provisions of the Management Plan for operation of the SRO facility. The Management Plan establishes management policies, operations, emergency procedures, security program including video cameras monitoring building access points, rental procedures and rates, maintenance plans, staffing needs, and tenant mix, selection, and regulations to be carried out during operation of the SRO use. d. An on-site 24-hour manager is required and shall abide by the provisions of the Management Plan discussed throughout these conditions of approval. e. No more than one person shall be permitted to reside in any unit which is less than 220 square feet in size. No more than two persons shall be permitted to reside in any unit, excluding the manager's unit. Furthermore, occupancy shall be limited to one person maximum in at least 91 of the total rental units regardless of floor area size. The remaining 15 of the total rental units may be occupied by two persons if the floor area is at least 338 square feet in size. f. All common indoor space shall have posted in a conspicuous location a notice from the City's Planning Department regarding contact procedures to investigate housing code violations. g. A minimum of two pay telephones shall be provided in the lobby area. The telephone service shall allow only outgoing calls. h. All pool gates and emergency exits around the recreation area shall be posted with"Emergency Exit Only" signs and shall be locked to prevent entry but shall allow exiting as required by the Building and Safety and Fire Departments. i. All access to the site shall be from the main entry located on the west side of the building. Residents and guests shall not be provided with access keys or cards to any other exterior door or entry except for the bicycle storage area. j. The projections and recesses in the building fagade creates alcoves. Landscaping in the alcove areas shall be limited to turf only with no shrubs or other intensive landscaping. All shrubs shall be limited to a maximum height of two feet. (PD) k. No gate or restricted vehicle access shall be added to the property at any time without prior written approval of the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments. Any future gates at the vehicular accessway shall comply with City Fire Specification No. 403. (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.13 1. The project shall be subject to review and on-site inspection by the City which includes the review of management services. The property will be subject to a review every six months for the first three years of operation and shall be subject to an annual review thereafter. This review schedule shall start anew each time the ownership or management company at the site is amended. The SRO project owner shall be responsible for filing a sixth month or annual report to the Departments of Planning and Economic Development. The sixth month or annual report shall consist of the range of monthly rents,the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. in. Only the uses described in the narrative shall be permitted. n. The exterior and common areas of the site shall be subject to random inspections by Code Enforcement staff, at the discretion of the Planning Department. This condition shall not be interpreted to imply that privacy rights normally enjoyed by tenants of the facility may be compromised. o. Leases shall be a minimum of one month; no weekly leases shall be offered. 9. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed 2. Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R) shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (R), pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. l.14 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building.permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 10. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 11. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid based upon the August, 1998 City park land appraisal value of $516,500 per acre pursuant to Section 254.08.H. of the HBZSO prior to issuance of building permits. 12. School impact fees, as negotiated with the school district, shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 11 An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 14. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 15. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Planning Department and Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. (PL0065cond)— 11/6/00 Attachment No. 1.15 � '...� _ _ `� =::- . � � �._ �-IDS" _� ,'�' '. . :� e"-. � ..�� " �'_ '.-� ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY yY + 3 �.' ' �'•' i�F! Y .�6'}.,.. '"d� !� °"� .4 3�5'_.$. 't' � •y:� SE�',X4 t =vp�. .F...,. i �. 3] '�, < }t.� ,'.t' �'S i:•. P e .l� ��.T+.. &:, W,;It?'a °3 ,�'3: vi,,. r`kT �4.. Y t5v4.ia.,N Y t�<.f3 i •�3 t'. ..a,.;,s: s,. Y,�,' �„rr< ^, .�..•�`.. ,� ::� a :,�.'� �.;. �: S'» ,��,, <EBu ;. ,�:, �, 4... I ;;3. �� '. a rISSVES= 'OLD�P'ROPOS ��� �' '�` NEWPROPOS � � Occupancy 53 units— 1 person 91 units— 1 person Limits 53 units—2 person 15 units—2 person Income Maximum Rent Restrictions Unit Type and Income Levels 1 person 2 person Same 24 Very Low Units $390 $450 Income between 0-35%County Median 23 Very Low Units $569 $655 Income between 36-50%County Median 30 Low Units $748 $860 Income between 51-65%of County Median 29 Low Units $928 $1065 Income between 66-80%of County Median 106 Total Units Parking 81 spaces+2 drop off spaces Approx. 95 total spaces by reducing landscaping and rec area and adding approximately 14 new spaces(May be able to add additional spaces through joint use of parking agreement with Town and Country Shopping Center) Seniors Only Doesn't meet zoning requirements—Senior Apartment complex may only be permitted within a Residential Zone and must comply with unique development standards for senior residential projects; SRO's are defined as commercial projects and are permitted by CUP in Commercial Zones. This property is zoned General Commercial Stringent Security Cameras Management Random Code Enforcement Same On-site Manager 24 hours Locked Facility Strict Application Requirements (g.j j\sro\matrix2) ,�� -� - x.. �; - � v_ - � �� � �r � mot' �" e. __ NDV. -011 00(WED) 10:47 CENTURY 21 BEACHSIDE H B T�U! '14 960 4975' P. 002 RECEIVED November 1,2000 NOV - 1 2000 Ms.Jane James DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 1•luntington Beach,CA. 92648 NOTE: Any Inibrmation Provided Herein is For The Purpose of Settlement Of Litigation Only Dear Jane, Please find attached, the revised agreed upon maximum. rout schedule for the Ellis Ave. SRO. We hereby agree with the City's request to reduce 91 units to one person maximum occupancy. with the remaining 15 to be rented to a maximum.of 2 persons, either very low or low income categories. 1 have attached the following rent schedules from your previous submittal,'the only changes will he the maximum occupancy as agreed. 24 Units Ranted to Very Low Income Occupant (restricted to l person per unit) S390.00 per month maximum* 23 units Rented to Vory Ltvw Income occupant (restricted to ) person per unit)SS69.00 per month rnsximum* 30 Units Rented to Low tnuonte Occupant (restricted to 1 person per unit)rented at$748.00 per month maximum* 29 Units Rented to Low Income Occupants(IS would allow for a maximum oft persons per unit)rented at $928.00 per month maximum for 1 person household* 15 Units wilt allowed to rent to a maximum of 2 persons with your recommended rental schedules for the 2 persons category applicable. $S28.00 may be added to each maximum if all utilities are paid by owner. Add itioually, we are in agreement to increase the total on site parking for the project within the excess landscape area,as you have suggested. Re ttrdr Randy Allison encl. exhibit"A" NOV. -01' 00(NED) 10:47 CENTURY :1 EEACHSIDE H 8 TEL:714 960 4975 P, 003 This agreemcnt shall be reviewed and approved as to form and cem ent by the City A.tnrney, The (:ity 1lrtorney steal! also review and hpprove a covenant to be recorded on the property speeifyin8 the terms and conditions of ntaxiinurr income and maximum rental levels as discussed here. The covenant shall be recorded on the property prior to issuance-of building permits. d Maximum rental rates shall be determined as indicated by the by the following example and the following c^zrt: 1 Person HqqSeklcl q!5Yc o t'a,u�r A eclrci�r $47,900 (county median) 3 ° (35% of county median) s S 16,730 (maximum income) &•, &a (maximum amount of income towards housing expenses) fa 55,019 (yearly horsing expenses) divided ,I (months/year) S418.00 (N-faxitnLun rent ifutilities paid by property owner); or .Miny1, na Q (utility expense) 5390 00 (Maximum rent per month when utilities paid by tenant) Ut,lixing the above ffirmula, rnaxnnun [eptai lates have been determined as follows. rT_��'�.•: :! .J - W. .rZ;: f. •:.n Y.r•�wA!w111 iy r^. 14 and. flf .,�(E�� ,� (�:,,�;r;" �' �:,•''�;;'L�':'r, ,�7.41�.3�riµ� �'��;�: 4!,,,,.r.�Ot� �•�i'(�(;, wr,; IL �F " h ,I,al�it:' ,_Y .:..i"(li,l�' r r �'L.�.` �1, 1/111 4hC Y•1!a�'' y', i:.i; J b °M:. 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 _ Income between 0.35% County Median 1 - (r^argo A) __,----- 23 Very Low units $569.00 $655.00 Income between 36-50% of County Median 30 Low Units 9 $748.00 $960.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median jC_- arefiar}'C' 29 Low Units $928.00 $1,065,00 Income between 66.80% of County Median are o G i 106 Total Units • $28.00 may be added to eitch maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner Rental rates shall be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect current County Median numbers. All adjustments,shall.be retlected.and verified during the annual review. (0060) - 1/25/00 ALIgltlnem No. 1.9 t0d kbeT:T T 20e2 T0 'noN aE7�506@*� : DN 3r�t7Nd 585i 2fda3iN3 9NdSl WOO U • ' ,ice 1 1/ ,` i 11/01/2000 11:08 5625955256 CEFS INC PACE 01 v'A\ .'•'. '•ry•r.lh_:. :_.-.�.. _ :_.t:�..' 'Kv•o!�?:. .c.y:..;.,s."' Y`i.::\ni.i.ti:.s.:.�y_,�:.�v.u^�'[..n':'";-'.[ ',;., mjM-. °`.ri Y..a.=';H:,�� n '"` tk y- Y t , ��•n h•Jy�i \ \� y c 4} vh ., r- t s_ -l:r. K .t -^Xj.�i s� -.h•�„ !J'� ! `"C i-�'J�• of l w�.�•1 � , -4 ti .i.�. S.r ,?'e'ti��r •.Mr:1. _. .:?st+.. ��. ,a. _ ,0- ,� ''a;c ��:';�• rf:`ar,ry, '�: :fi�f•e,A,lyC .i1.�?�+ .'{'iAj; vLJ�... �4, M: `-✓z.:.:. .-v).. .!:+Q '+�:+; ,,;:;,T:,'• !�:.r:' 'i •:���. ti'hif%;,•:'E�3;,F,;;.•g:,�i'f:.,,j;yG..Jv%$'.:�.:;t RECEIVED To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Department Date: October 30,20W NOV 0 12000 Re: Pacts for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy(SRO).Affordable Housing at 8102 Ellis Avenue,Huntington Beach,California DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Due to the submittals of inaccurate information from some neighbors of the subject project site,the applicant would like to provide the following facts for your reference: O: Does this praiect provide insufi�cient Darking spaces? Facts: Number of parking space for the existing revised design are approximately 70%beyond the City Code requirements(l.e.,0.89 parking ratio or 95 spaces provided,0.5 parking ratio or 56 spaces required, • Orange County SRO Design Guidelines require 0 to 0.5 parking ratio (i.e.,0 for high-density areas,U for low-density areas). i San Diego's SRO parking ratios are 0r25 to o.5. • City of Phoenix requires only 0.2 parking ratio. 0 Both Irvine Inn and Fullerton City Lights experienced less than 0.5 parking ratio requirement. • This SRO nroiect provides more narking spaces(95 vs.69.eauivalent. seecalcglAliop below)than that of the surrounding 4olex ap Et ents! is the density of the subieet SRO Qo114h? Facts: o The subject project is less dense than the four-plex buildings adjacent to the project site,in most density issues,as shown below: • Facts for Density Issues: see summary table below 11/01/2000 11:08 5625955256 CEFS INC. PA13E 02 .w.. s..a k .. .,1.- .::.1W:1•. .. :'p.r`+ ;t;`:::i ":fi' +J.at;•i''�'.'s'us;;;;:.y;'%i:%;is ,:, M�c. 9n ' �� hC dlaY?ip;��ruu��'"rs ,� �. �a'e� �"t5'C=�f�r pj,��'�h",wy�x��+q+r�.. �w r `ti M t .�i r ).a ':,5.'^;t� + snllding4.and 1&4% E 51.6°!0 2.8 Coves e Potential No.of 113 f 118 1.04 Tenants# Maximum No. 121 167 1.4 Tenants# Potential 340 sq.ft. i 335 sq.ft. 0.985 Area! rson** Parking SpaceAW 95 69 1 0.726 Supporting data for the above table.- Building(land cover)Area: SRO= 14162 sq. ft. 4-plex=4025 sq. ft.1 building Land.Area. SRO=76800 sq. ft. 4-plex= 7800 sq. fL r building Equivalent No. of Building: SRO=76800/7800=9.85 buildings of 4-plex. # Potential No. of Tenants: SRO= 106+ IS x 50°:o- 113 tenants 4-plex-(2p+3p+ 3p_4p)x 9.85 - 12 people x 9.85 — 118 tenants Maximum No. of Tenants: SRO-91 + 15 x 2 — 121 tenants Controllable!) 4-plex-(4p+4p+4p+5p)x 9.85 = 17 people x 9.85= 167 tenants or more (No Control!) Room Area/Tenant: SRO=38,380 sq.ft i l 13 tenant=340 sq. ft. . 4-plea—4,025 sq.ft./12 tenant=335 sq, ft. (The subject project provides more room area per person than that of the adjacent 4-plex!) ## Parking Spaces: SRO=95 space: 4-plex—7 spo/building x 9.85=69 spaces. (The subject project provides more parking spaces than the adjacent 4-plex!) 2 11/0 /2000 11:06 5cj25955256 CEFS INC PACE ?3 A, L `S•5=. .1':: t Jos ' `4 `. xti .. ia••.�:k-;k'y�:�� •� ti µ. � LQ „�a-0:. 1`S'lM1Y!i•.6s.y°7�'7"1�t 7�oyq; •{ :u•✓ i.u`. p, _ �M,�y..7� _ _Mr'.!k.•atiJ'J�FBI.k)+71f�"lfyF�,�Ty'•�s+•e;� �]• E ,' 4R?C rMri 4aS .p;V �.- yay•Ly y��^i4'v kF/ j '7 •1M. � +YF,`� 'r ^ Q_ Will this project cause traffic probleMs? acts: • The City's evaluation found that the subject project would not cause significant impacts to the traffic problems. • The subject project will result in much less traffic'than previous use as wnursery school.(Note:maximum 95 trips vs. 240 trips per morning or afternoon traffic jam periods) • Any other commercial developments would result in more traffic problems! Q: Will this-project, cause noise problem`.' F • According to the City's study.,the project would rasblt in"less than significant impact or no impact"in terms of noise`problem. • The adjacent 4-plea buildings would produce more noise problems than that of the subject project,when density issues are considered(as shown above). 0:Will this project cause bl „ crime Proem to the adjacent L�.pe Facts: • Statistics of Irvine or Fullerton City Lights(two;Jmilar projects)did not show"crime"problems affecting their neigh0orhood. • Types of tenant in the SRO facilities are almost retired or disabled people(accounted for about 45%of tenants),and low'income people such as clerks,nurses,waitress,new teachers,new graduates,busboy, single motber9,etc,(account for about 52 to 54.5"/). These types of people do not cause"crimes". • The SILO renting.procedure involves a detailed cR-Ime background and credit cheekingtsereening process. (The nearby 4-plex properties do not conduct such a detailed checks as the SAO projects.) 3 i 1110112000 11:08 5625955256 CEFS INC PACE 04 r•✓'.:1'.4° `^-A..ol._ ..1,. :...:J.� ''r:.•F_.V'a ::�:•'ayn,w::- ..(... 1 }% - 1 x.� ci 1 r !N - ) P -1��N -tw y� • ,o-� -y y 4: ` - _' - - . �-;}:.:f:.w::.�.e�y):' �.hr: ::.'-r :,�1, )r<!•.Z;; A7w .- 1 ':rw�•.h'N.:1�..`e:;i.. .l _ _t `..,:: iL :�;t;•Jy,�.�jF hl vt'4.•��:n..�..-[k h� a�.. `!�sW.T+iq!�Z.� .. �'Y& 7C,'�_ -.. -'u:+w.f '- s • The SRO facilities provide a very tight security;,with.24-hour. :personnel on-duty}and 2- 4-hour TV monitoring thmughout.the entire surrounding public areas. (• -he nearly"lexes do nor have this:type. of.-arrangement) • All the doors aad access areas of the SRO facility have electronic security locks and non-tenants visiting the facility req 1-Fe repw1ing to the management personnel.(The nearby 4-plexes do not have this type of control.) Q: Does the Developer have experience to mane&e this. SRO? Facts! l a A management company(Solari Enterprises,Inc.?with extensive SRO facility management experience have contracted for this projee' • 7'UAVwagemant Plan approved by the City will be strictly followed. The.City will review the operatioa of the suayect site.s!;Mi%a$uuali .for its tompliance vith.the.CL'P•conditions. • This project is privately%ndedin the multi-mill;ou dollars. The owner/investors of the project will not allow the. project to fail. Is this SRO project comp t ble with the surrriut�din� properties? Facts: • The subject project is a residential facility) but operated like a commercial facility. Therefore,it 1s comparable with the surrounding land uses. .(In fact,this project probably will be the best tjrpe of facility in•terau-of•eonzpatibility,-beeaus%.it.is-eompidbU with boih- sides-of-properties. Mier types of'oommeroial or residential facilities probably only"compatible"with-one side of the property!), • Other similar facilities(land uses)are located.only one block away. (For example,there are four high densih'rsenior facilities are near-by, they are Wycliffe Gardens,14 stories;Runt iugtuu.Txa:race.Nortb,.3 stories;Huntington `zerraee,I atom;Fiv-e;Polats.Senior Alpar-tmeu '-- 4 stories.). . i 4 1:!c.!2000 .:_:08 5L.25955256 CEFS INC PACE 05 Oil t ` ,„. ^. q, F, - rry7F,4`:ya�y�--.��! 1ACFR'!-_ �..s-li.�. " st��l..'F,-�Fws +' .RS:„k.�! (Q: Would the subject SRO Project reduce the surrounding yr�rtY value? Facts: • The subject first-class,new and beautiful design,if built,could serve as an example for the revitalization of the surrounding area,in which many running down buildings are existed. (The,fore.the sub- ect l_arolect could increase the surrounding prouerty value!l • The existing ske conditions,without a new development,may attract homeless people and"crime"to the site,which pose great health and safety impacts to the surrounding properties. (The subject development.could improve the property value—approximately$4.25 million dollars will be added to the property value. Other types of developments are either economically unfeasible or too;risky. If the subject project is not developed,-the site may be vacant';for another many years,which might reduce the surrounding property value.) • The subject property would Improve business for the sit rrounding, commercial stores(due#o Ae fact thatsingles.usually.do_not drive,so money saved from.the low,.rent.ean.be spent in thF nearby.stones),-and- .therefore,would.improve the-prop"value. Q: Can we deny an affordable housing proiect without valid evidences of detrimental eff Facts: • Laws of the State of California provide limited reasons'for denying an affordable housing project Any denial without valid"reason could Jeopardize the City of Huntingtoo Beach legalt'v with respect to its housing program. • This project can assist the City to.meet Its governmental'goal of affordable housing. (According to a City report,as of June 30, 19999 the City needs 2,141 units of affordable housing,and onlj needs 1,586 units of moderate and upper housing units. The total units of affordable housing anticipated to be constructed by 6/30/99 in Huntington Beach Is only 23 units! Most developers will not invest into affordable housing due to low profit potential.) • Huntington Bea da ch needs afforble housing badly. NN a sincerely rrw w ��� bopgthat..a,fter You realized what this groiect means to the co duel y,you take nggitive action and sunggrt this'uroimt. i 5 RECEIVED NOV O 1 2000 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ?D M� .we -TAl�'1�5 , C1 TY PI•ANN/ArF C-�11 374 -/540 TO: City of Huntington Beach ;City council members 2000 Ma4frt Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . rom` Charle9 Tsang, Project Manager SRO Piojer..t at Ellis Ave, Huntington Beach. Hear City Council Members: Y am ':`.ittncj this letter in support of the proposed SRO project at Ellis Ave, I also want to Clarify several points of the projects: 1 . The -project. irs...des igned based on the Planning Code of ths .Ci:.y, inpluding all aspects of the design from the Density. allowance to Parking .requirement to -the height of the building ALL based on the planning code and are allowed and reviewed by the staff to make sure it has conform to the city planning codes, as indicated in the Staff report. 2. The project allow More parking spaces required by the the city planning code, originally the number of parking spaces designed provide only 1 /2 space per unit as dtotated in the code, the last revised parking add more spaces to 86 spaces, almost 30 Moro spaces than required, it the staff will, allow more spaces in the current landscaping area then even more parking spaces can be added(up to 95 spaces) , this will put the number of parking spaces to almost 1 to 1 ratio, this is not only far eKesed the City planning code for SRO requirement but will be twice-or - more than the County SRO design guideline which require all SRO project in the ...inner .city area to .be 0-J space per unit .only. 3 . The project over all architectural design provide a better project then the two well known SRO projects in the area: Irvine Inn and City Light SRO projects and adopt all the good points of each projects especially in the security control area. Please note that, the Irvine Inn provide more parking..spaces ( 1 to 1 ratio) due to the Eac.tzthat it is located outside of main traffic area that has limited public transportation and the City Light provide 1/2 of spaces per unit, the;. Architectural design and construction will be better with the.:proposed SRO puoj:eets than the two existing ones. I hope the council member will refer to these facts in . the up commirg 11 -6-00 public hearing and approve the project. Tod WdTT:LO OeeZ Z0 '^ON 68trr6080t£ 'ON SNONd SSSIL48LS_N9 E)NdSl WOad Or REVISED PARKING LAYOUT { AV r POOL 14 NEW PARKING A RELOCATED , STALLS ADDED ZX Nw wwur�www. q ��• Ir1 � I ♦� _ _ aria. is w �: !—_ `�'r�—os.`�aec.`.t�9`W+�-,rf. \ •�.. 1 � it � i1 .`� i � rw. � • w1 w w. Rf N r•• •... M H• w'�q R A ars . w• a w :• A A A• .A P N. �• . wow.r�law 1 '•r r i• • trn.,,•rq •,•„ A. I�.l A /1. 'r•r #— ♦ �o[„'i ;:: won 'II M M .� r w+ tw•nw ^'w M M 1•t t4 .M. ;:�".,'�r .1 I RT w N ,i. j O , s A A. • A. A. A A. A. nL • �� "�iw 64 • R"a�dr•.. r r r M t L, tr d � ho M 1r•. M r•f •:- 1.=q.; . i A A n h A �••' PI fy •� .. ,rw••ra I..r.ro..or.rwa•,eryr:... ' r•vr.�re,r' .� ....• nr.eraw.•w,► O.��I A.. i .• `�wµw. 3 .�;~rrc_.�.y..,.r w ,�.o IAr• �r��..°i•O.wr M• s"^°"•t°"*'N'w• Nwrrr MeM '.� ,s•e,,,r,o •< a . •r�+rr .1•�w wr,el raww/r,rrro tijw,...y.r!sy I �nr wei. a"r'�7i+R •� ' .1. ••cu••v r1.>•+T / A M w N N N AI M r�'a N wr W reD ar A w� Ir M I � �� ,i ••.i • nw/rwpn.a w.+ F — -� � T w I•alw IN(w Iw(w(~IA lerlw IHlwf wrlrrl» FE814M WM.Ar.q IwQ"'r t✓aVr.wo+•r•ge it IyY . tv*i r7RIMMRINe^eC•M1 palil ww anrlAr,• mm wr•s wRw-no.vs•s. 1 jNeuprgreo rov,W eler-1 ,-prr.nn+wAwr; r g may. -`` .g. � a �.�'.-`�, .mom � � � � y t PROJECOMOCCL SIS iw 7 SIr AMDKY LASTOFlK CHOLVDTIAI nlarO ��ef .. fLLL AVi1111S•fAYT Or eFACM 0.VD-MUrTMOfON OfAtl/G F E B IawJ wwrrpf..rr.•fo.y [• nllrq OSRaCT:00 A:..r.rw •.•afJ »rW aenr•raa. - �' 2000 ��: WISRO VATS•IIIANACEREUW em nroo•I • � ;•'w.. AVERAOEeno.uln=•ml°R ��,y}I;�•.- COIOIRNC71ot S1.0ty TPE"I. I a ^CU 47 "•i to'l7 0.aaAi sr(F—O esr<aeoslyfrr.ae ti .fa1J J; •I'.. Mawr. iF,merrae Alr Arr lYv irvf•1 1 � 1N!J7' aae•i'- r .. ►ARIeY/I ►A Sl G IOAM3PMREMCEMSTOff• R WII•T • >ti Ww� OVACES M,ERSOOlE1PM• ,ClA Arr • rw . ( TOTN,ARI00 AEOU'" SI CARS I(w •b it A•• R`+__ r(- . TOTAL►AMOrOrw OM: OfCARS(/tef L•s) rA.e.r T N to �Of .>m•l aa,rm•r lorsaAmwo•mo dslenm.srlsl • Ir'•' I I • � • I 'aal Ian J L_ , l�t. e re ur i a s o ISJ Ln► •r f-'- L��'•s� O r•••r I r l a rOJ w0 J 1_ •t• i a ~ A;;ZU , —^4r RurgbR�✓i A.....ia...rw.m•rw..•r ;wFa1�i . I o•r•w.uw.�Irww i Ike J1 j+= .. w.r'ao A.•.e.sre •= Irw.•r• —a•r •yt AF ' MSlllff.t•OM irDPIgIRMI. I I , �may' I � I I I I rvs��I:;F•' f'•Ar rP✓s wreArf- I I I � I I ii' \ -.,.�i•!'M' .�.+.-nr .us, - �Ns16NGOflr+i ;•E61CeavTNL LR..4IOPI•IENT� ;r'o�+w•e'm••••ii>s An•.•A :•,ti�.'i=may.' � ° ��� � aw••�AR.•.�Rsf �s+Mw. A•1•r \ m.y.wr'L,•.rrrw.•_. } A n••• 5 e, I o ru 1 nm ; ��.+ �" •-I I � *' A are - fA• +0°�' I I � ,n 1 'R I Ir A. P PI' A (i N ` Ra M � nr rsa _►aa 1-, sun'rpniara �.I 9''" IL r1 s. •I I rA R Awi yrrq _ r•.•I R. r�:�l A. A, I,— :'`�•-`•:•'l?r: . =1 II � ^• I" �� r.r brave :. �, . ''`a''T;:• ttl a s' rr• (•R rwi 1 L G k Q A Ia• •♦ A. .A. A. A•N u LI cY Le L■ .:.::: P a RM j C`. (. •1 ���� a' Rn r1 .�' ;,���.: P,l t •r., ,.. rM r.f archrtt'. n A M1 A ri A A NT I M I rHI a .,, •'� p. \��L1�w/MO TM • �rrsa 4*1 �.sY'►Ilor: d' ''�ro. nriv�Jr...e.l f'wr.° _a �� r �..•sr•'r • err w axrwrr -.Am rfF I -! r�!aielr.: 1 j �.�-11-- -_ w•T�,w..w,)r j pw.ff 'Q: �f,�rw:.w. S .TI,wnRf N•c» +••' I D//'i� • II MMT•IO1e `IIMr,•flVrp ufel' � I •�'a•r ewwtp al.PrrNf ier.tr�••vr M, wl Wsrwf Mf �°�� �+(e� •i ' Ry 1 fMaM�l••Yr.(Ib•:•wrAf01 :Ft"M M�R•'e•%..!f 1 MewWI_-1 \`-11 (eAgrN N N Af M A Ae AT RO M N M ,A W >a A r•1 Are AC Ar f0 a1 pew - ••} rAaT�rfue cm•fw.a •. . m I0"'1wr lrElfneraTtlle TerLta eux.1 rv.ew IRvrw•anerra! A•x \ /•p`I �`Fwr rAerR/Iorf � f. y .lE.,f�.l.:i - om•—.Pw--,I n.,Ab. J i NE✓RNCRUi6 ROA1L Cato.- "iaal'.GerWMfl�.; . i I a .+ter -- - ---- --- -----fT!/J- - --- -- -------- wvt -- -- fdi✓KLIL co AtN �M � ( I•�►ALJ \ n I 0 v D BF JCH— JEW SRO IN PL411 �.`. ATTACHMENT NO. 1I�► (�+ !. ; _,7 `_ -r •� •w •7'CTtx I -h �w',s'a'-.'F _ r,.ryf' r�`�:I 1 i u•r_ 1 S_ El I 1 f 1 ' I I _ - s �SP SiP spa 7______ •- _ . i. •_ I Yaa '_ra j_, _ 3 �a iYa 3.a �aa ... Wt iYP -�P I its Z� v.DP i lva xaa Era I ?N 81 a > - eta a ssa It Yaa to � e 749 _ 1 I �# 3 li l � a �I WS t i T v elm ATTACHMENT NO.92 . 3 R D 13I ;;°• ? Typical Upper Floors + �� 8 z Ii 5 i N i • ' : �a a 2nd and 3rd �► �� �d� Q .: ta�l _ F , fy .. l Q r [ .. `•i . � y�y Win► �. � ,w�....I.. J 'µI o• j u WW nm Fm MM II AVENUE .ay.►,r.w ~� ', !s• n. ' ( ���I—� N' 4 I� is� �L�•I SRO G�c av��r r •t- � Stlq.Roan Oamorwf IT i • riwr•rwrR - H4e4 Fw/ n �I..rrrw CE f�` cl .. � .fWnYe rrw ry 7 IY—* �u,' •—�• IWM NYOOJ I I I I M' I I d+lr.sw nsw •�: for Ne.uv. � 4 .+reaw�v.. w "wr Y— au�rn� �Z TYPICAL h+P�T N'AN. 9E6H EN7. y►" �r '� lM�M AMVYGI C ir > W - - , — —... r.� t I .,..wA..�w t •C n�w,Yas. ( row-vs.-�• w,sr.a�+. r X courcrv+Fo Ehoi W ....�.. i---��.,. �•M......wn.. /e.r.�-ate. / ,IrMVIM . T1r II i =F2 r bolter J ' i ; = U' architect I --- . VV �t RMI�1M'rW M�1�tAR I I�NY�a(�'NOMUM �AI.�J��. YYryHr �''T—' �.Mr wy�. rlF�lgld�w PY/Ifww `n�.u).rresrwvrL west ELe�AnON z` "i FEBIa2000 A3 t k ItS....:LY:.13EL ftw�wvlv e ; -----B:-e INS —fts r I, hu"4•'r+'t .-� , jT_G��,�, '� _N':p ���,� ' ' •y� �f ! � 1 � _ _�-f J I � wwyl � ;:(yam � .r�r e �� � ,� '`�.�• I - ryT�'>�„ b •.M ;.�".� i�fit, I c q � I - . 1° •.iOeY yy�' 3ll :d, �q,3 4 'Krl '^.ar-:... •:�i � � . 1■/ �� r��1 ! �� .! 1 �s � I _: � t ,� ;t B ; I... Via° i �■fy('�t I� I �I tx e, - �t �'��� i� ` I '".<,ss ..L7�.i.Yp„n..eft w ���'�a�✓ , f f� ,.. ( � t � �� t �, ax•M9_ , jP�.� y� I y -. r -.j�+T a•ry's-.;�' ,� �'F 1x: I ! `: ,.T M•;A It. ,. � •a4�7y�x� `�a`v �ml� � }Ft aIMP ,' A 1: t 4aia;� 5� i ✓ht.I .. x< ° `�':� �+ gcl�''rR;..�y� v�'>yyr��.tt �4 vflx_{5• ( 1'1Rr .., .s !l;v4`PG7�,tr ! S1K "Myk �. ji Ai Vf �-w. k+l. uu ,.a-.<s �...+•. �t A"m!-�i=�n w ,✓1<i.''^'�'.F''.t. ur{'�"r-.., ! y��' �.. �'zy,•: Demio i NOV-01-00 16:15 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-673 P.04/22 Job-540 SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This S TTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT("Agreement")is entered into on November 2 0 by and among AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC.,a Nevada corporation, BEA IEW INVESTMENT,INC.,a California corporation,and DR.JAMES LU (collectively"Amwe ")and THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a charter city and ; municipal corporation(`City"),THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,DAVID GAROFALO,TOM HARMA.N,PAM JULIEN,PETER GREEN,RALPH BAUER AND DAVID SULLIVAN (collectively"Huntington Beach"). Amwest and Huntington Beach are collectively referred to herein as the"Parties." RECJTALS A. In May 1999,Amwest applied for necessary land use entitlements for development of certain real property located at 8102 Ellis Avenue,Huntington Beach,California("Subject Property"),including Conditional Use Permit,No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11. In connection therewith,Amwest sought entitlements to build and operate a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)development on the Subject Property(the"Development Plan") in conformity with the City's existing SRO ordinance. B. On March 14,2000,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering Amwest's Development Plan. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's application for a Development Plan on that date. Amwest appealed that determination to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. C. On May 15,2000,the City and City Council of the,,City of Huntington Beach denied Amwest's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Development Plan. Findings supporting the denial of the Development Plan were subsequently prepared and ultimately adopted by the City Council on June 5,2000. D. On July 13, 2000,Amwest filed an action against Huntingt,n Beach entitled Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.,bearin Orange County Superior Court Case No. CCO8364 (the"Lawsuit'D. The Lawsuit includes a tition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Inverse Condemnation,Civil Rights Violations a Declaratory Relief. E. City of Huntington Beach staff has proposed changes to the Develo ment Plan and is recommending that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approve the D velopment Plan as revised. Changes to the Development Plan include,but are not limited to,(1) chan 'ng the Development Plan from 53 single occupancy units and 53 double occupancy units to 91 Ingle occupancy units and 15 double occupancy units,(2)requiring 95 parking spaces as oppo ed to the Development Plan's proposed 81 parking spaces, (3)reducing landscaping requirements h1taff is to accommodate the proposed new parking requirements,and (4)restructuring rent levels. Report,which describes the proposed revised Development Plan("Revised Development Platy"), is attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein by reference. Amwest is agreeable to modifying its Development Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth on the Revised ROCS OC1774732�3\2A300.0001 NOU-01-2000 15:15 9497254100 96% P.04 'NOV-01-00 16:15 From:STRADIING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-8T3 P.05/22 Job-540 Developmen Plan,Exhibit A. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will consider and take action an c Revised Development Plan at a public hearing on November 6,2000. . F. \nh ire to avoid the risk and expenses attendant in further litigation and to reach a mutual, fulompromise and settlement of the Parties' matters,claims,causes of action and the likeof the Lawsuit and Amwest's development of the Subject Property. AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Section 1. Re The forego a a substantive part of this Agreement. Section 2. SeLaws 't—Approval of Development Plan. The Parties agree that this Agre ent shall be rendered null and void in its entirety if the either the Revised Development Plan(or{ e original Development Plan)is not approved on November 6,2000, or any subsequent date utually agreed upon by the Parties. Moreover,Amwest has the unconditional and absolute right to de are this Agreement null and void if the Revised Development Plan is approved by the City Cou cif with conditions different from or in addition to those recommended by City of Huntington Beach taff,as more specifically set forth in Revised Development Plan,Exhibit A. Should Amwest dec re this Agreement null and void due to denial of the Revised Development Plan by the City Council, west has the right to proceed with the prosecution of this Lawsuit. a. No Supplement of Prior Record. If this wsuit so proceeds,Huntington Beach knowingly agrees that no information, findings,or proceedin s relating to the Revised Development Plan shall be included in the administrative record of proceedi for the denial of the original Development Plan,and denial of the Revised Development Plan 'sand shall not be the subject of the Lawsuit. In this regard,the parties agree that the Revised Develo ent Plan has proceeded to public hearing for consideration and action only in the attempt to settle thi Lawsuit and in no respect to supplement the record of proceedings for the City Council's denial o the Development Plan at its proceedings before the Planning Commission and City Council in the ring 2000. Section 3. I,?uWssal of Lawsuit. If the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approves the Re sed Development Plan proposed in Exhibit A attached hereto, or approves the Revised Development an with other terms and conditions acceptable to Amwcst,in its sole and absolute discretion,or approves the original Development Plan, Amwest agrees to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice within t�n(10)calendar days of such approval. Amwest shall have the sole and absolute discretion in determining whether project conditions different from or in addition to those proposed by staff are acceptable in the original Development Plan or the Revised Development Plan, Exhibit A, and Amwelskshall have no obligation to dismiss the Lawsuit if the a Development Plan,as revised, is approved with conditions other than those set forth Exhibit A. 2 DOC SOCM4732 V3\3a 300.0001 NOV-01-00 16:16 From:STRADItNG YOCCA 3 9497254100 ection 4. Inadmissibility of Settlement Discussions. All actions and activities taken by Amwest and Huntington Beach since the filing of the La uit and in furtherance of the Revised Development Plan shall be deemed inadmissible in any coup roceeding pursuant to Evidence Code section 1152. The protections afforded by this Section 4 shall clude any statements made and documents produced in connection with any public hearing on the R ised Development Plan. Section S. Building Permit,Development and Entitlement Pees. Huntin n Bcach agrees that any and all building permit, development, entitlement and any all fees or charge elated to the development and construction of the SRO project shall be in accordance with an fee structure in place and effective May 15,2000. Section 6. Mutua ,Release. Except for the obit ations and rights conferred by this Agreement,Amwest,on the one hand, and Huntington Beach,on the other,on behalf of themselves,their successors,assigns, executors, administrators, elected officials,officers,directors,employees,beneficiaries,representatives,and agents("Releasors"),hereby release and discharge each other and their successors, assigns, executors, administrators,electe� officials,officers,directors,employees,beneficiaries, representatives,and agents("Releised Parties"), from any and all claims,demands,costs,contracts, liabilities,objections,actions and causes of action of every nature,whether in law or in equity, known or unknown,suspected or unsuspected,which Amwest,on one hand,and Huntington Beach, on the other, cvcr had or now have or may claim to have against each other,of any nature,type or description whether or not they were assorted in or arise out of the Lawsuit. a. Amwest, on one hand,and Huntington Beach, on the other,also waive and relinquish any and all rights which they may have undeT\the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code,which states: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES', OT EXTEND TO CLAIMS TO WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECTED TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THETIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE,WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SET'n EMENT WITH THE DEBTOR." b. It is agreed and understood between the Parties that should this Agreement be deemed or declared null and void pursuant to Section 2,the mutual and general releases herein sha be deemed null and void. Section 7. Compromise. This Agreement is a compromise and settlement of the\LUawsuitand claims, and is not intended and shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of the=\ f or correctness of an" allegation in the Lawsuit or be admissible as evidence of the compromi any issues by Amwc admission of any facts asserted in the Lawsuit. 3 C 0050C17747320\24300.0001 9497254100 96% NOV-01-00 16:16 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-973 P.07/22 Job-540 Section 8. \aexpressly 's Fees. Exc set forth herein,the Parties agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurrtion with the Lawsuit, and the negotiation,preparation, approval,execution and deliverement,and of the documents related to or referenced in this Agreement. Section 9. ocuments. The Parties agre\execute and deliver such other documents and to take such other and further actions as may bly necessary or appropriate to effectuate and further perform the terms and the purposes eement. Section 10. Entire At. This Agreement embodies th entire understanding among the Parties and none of the Parries shall be bound by any definitions, con itions,warranties, or representations other than as expressly stated in this Agreement. This Agreem �t supercedes all prior agreements or discussions between the Parries relating to the subjects address d in this Agreement and the Parties are not bound by any representations or inducements which are n-t set forth in this Agreement. The Parties intend that this Agreement serve as the exclusive, full and fi 1 embodiment of their agreement. Section 11. Captions—Pronouns. Any titles,captions,or subheadings contain in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the context of this A ement or considered in any interpretation or construction of the Agreement. Whenever the masculin feminine or neuter genders are used herein, as required by the context or particular circumstance,the hall include each of the other genders as appropriate. Whenever the singular or plural numbers are ed, they shall be deemed to be the other as required. Wherever the present or past tense is utilized in is Agreement and the context or circumstances require another interpretation,the present shall i elude the past and future,the future shall include the present,and the past shall include the present. Section 12. Consideration. The Parties hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that each d every term and condition of this Agreement is of the essence of this Agreement,constitutes a mate 'al part of the bargain for consideration without which this Agreement would not have been execute and is a material part of the Agreement. Section 13. Severability. In the event that any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreem nt shall be void or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then such provision shall be stricken and f no force and effect. The remaining provisions or this Agreement,however, shall continue in full rce and effect, and to the extent required, shall be modified to preserve their validity. e 4 rOCSOC1174732v3\24300.0001 NOV-01-00 16:17 From:STRADIING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.08/22 Job-540 Section 14. Modifications. This Agre\ent only be changed or modified and any provisions hereof may only be waived by a writiy the party against whom enforcement of any waiver,change or modification is so Agreement maybe amended only in writing by mutual consent of the Parties. Section 15. Counterparts.. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one agreement which shall be b nd`ng on all the Parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the Parties are not signatory to the original or thsame counterpart. Section 16. Representations and Warranties. a. The Parties represent and warrant to and agree with each other as follows: (1) Each party has received independent legal advice from attorneys of its choice with respect to the advisability of making this s°ettlement and the release provided herein and with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement. (2) Except as is expressly stated i>`t this Agreement,no party has made any statement or representation to any other parry regarding any fact,which statement or representation is relied upon by any other parry in entering into this Agreement. In connection with the execution of this Agreement or the making of the settlement provided NT herein,no party to this Agreement has relied upon any statement,representation or promise of any other parry or their attorney not expressly contained herein. (3) This Agreement is intended to be fin\anbinding upon the Parties and is further intended to be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction among them regardless of any claims of fraud,misrepresentation, concealment of fact,mistake\of fact or law, duress or any other circumstances whatsoever_ Each parry relies upon the finality ofois Agreement as a material factor inducing that parry's execution of this Agreement. Each party agrees that from the date of this Agreement, any and all rights and/or liabilities existing between or among the Parties hereto shall arise solely out of the terms,provisions,representations and warranties contained in this Agreement. (4) The terms of this Agreement are contractual and are th` result of negotiations among the Parties. Each party has cooperated in the drafl-ing and preparation o this Agreement. 14ence,in any construction to be made of this Agreement,the same shall not be c,nstrued against any Party (5) This Agreement has been carefully read by each of the Parties nd the contents thereof are known and understood by each of the Parties. This Agreement is signed freely by each parry executing it. S DOCSOC1774 732v3\24300.0001 kirn i_rai_11MOM 1 CZ* 17 QdQ77c�d1 MCA Qsz% P CA NOV-01-00 16:17 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.09/22 Job-540 Section 17. Warranty of Authority. Each party whose signature is affixed hereto in a representative capacity represents and warrants that he ors a is authorized to cxccute this Agreement on behalf of and to bind the entity on whose behalf his or her signature is affixed. Further, the signatory for Huntington Beach warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to sign this Agreement and bind all those persons and entities collectively referred to as"Huntington Beach." Section 18. Notices. a. All notices shall be sent to the following address: (1) Amwest Environmental Group, Inc 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, California 92647 Attention:Dr.Jame s Lu,President Bcachvicw Investment,Inc. c/o Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach,California 92647 Attention: Dr.James Lu,President With copy to: Douglas J. Evertz Stradling Yocca Carlson &Rauth 660 Newport Center Drive, Suit��1600 Newport Beach, California 92660 (2) City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: City Manager With copy to: City Attorney C1ry of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street—Box 190 Huntington Beach,California 92648 Attention: Scott Field,Esq.,Deputy City Attorney Section 19. Governine Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6 DOCSOCN774732O U4300.0001 NOU-01-2000 15:17 9497254100 96% P.09 NOV-01-00 16:18 From:STRADIING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.10/22 Job-540 Section 20. Venue. Any action, su' or other proceeding instituted to remedy,prevent or obtain relief from a breach of this Agrcemen arising out of a breach of this Agreement,involving claims within the scope of the releases conta' ed in this Agreement, or pertaining to a declaration of rights under this Agreement, shall be institute and maintained only in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. DATED. AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,INC. By: Dr.James Lu,President DATED: BEACHVIEW INVESTMENT,INC. By=, DATED: DR.DAMES LU DR.JAMES LU DATED: "HUNTINGTON BEACH" By: Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stradling Yocca Carlson&Rauth,Attorneys for Plaintiff's Amwest Environmental Group,Inc., Beachview Investment,Inc., and Dr. James Lu APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of Huntington Beach, Office of the City ,g Attorney,Attorneys for Defendants City of 1 Huntington Beach,Planning Commission ofWIL the City of Huntington Beach,David Garofalo, Tom Harman,Pam Julien,Peter Green,Ralph Bauer and Dave Sullivan DOCSOC\774732v3\24300.0001 NOV-01-00 16:19 From:STRADLING YOCCA 3 9497254100 T-873 P.11/22 Job-540 y`` M EXHIBIT A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAFF REPORT (to be attached) b� I DOCSO07747324\24300.0001 I NOU-01-2000 15:18 9497254100 96;1 P.11 � - ��« � - � - > � � � - - \��\ � � 2- _�.> �. �. � . . � � .. ° < .� <�\. . y a . « ? «. z � . < . _ - - - _ - - : �\ �%\ - : � � � � � � - �\�\�\ �\ - . <aa� . : :y� �- -._� � + ® «±. - - �» . �: � � 2 y � -w> s- � . . �® - _ - . � . - �m . _ . . � : � . & . <�z =�z �v � w : © %�z� �; m�2 �\:2 . ����f » �y _ �1} - <��=�: � ���<� O CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - )X� ->A I +N1Nb MEETING DAT : June 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:4PLOO-34 e Council/Agency Meeting Held: (z—50O 'a�i��e '�le G,, 40 Deferred/Continued to: to pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied ClevrWs Signature 'c7ijr� Council Meeting Date: ` June 5, 200 Department ID Number: PL00-34 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION �-- - CV SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS '�'' >_SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator OZIJ �� D PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning 14 SUBJECT: APPROVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On May 15, 2000 the City Council denied a request to permit development of a three-story, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit. The City Council directed staff to complete Findings for Denial based on comments by City Council members. The attached Findings for Denial are transmitted for your consideration. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. "Accept Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1). V PL00-34 -2- 05/31/00 1:22 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-34 Alternative Action(s): I The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 2. "Modify Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31." Attachment: City Clerk's • . . - NumberDescription 1. Findings for Denial Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 I PL00-34 -3- 05/31/00 1:22 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 5, 2000 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/ FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The City Council finds that the project may have an impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood through adverse effects of increased traffic and noise and that the project is an incompatible land use in the proposed location due to insufficient parking, increased traffic, an increase in density and intensity and overall building height and design. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31: 1. .Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy(SRO)complex will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity, detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood, and detrimental to surrounding commercial and residential properties because of the following factors: 1)the proposed 106 unit development is too intense due to the density of units, 2)there are not enough controls to enforce the conditions of approval, and 3)the proposed location is inappropriate due to insufficient parking,increased density and intensity, and overall building height and design. 2. As required in Govemment.Code Section 65589.5 (d) (2),the City Council finds that the project will have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety because the rooms are too small for compatible habitation by two people, 81 parking spaces is inadequate for residents, staff members and visitors, and the traffic generated by the project will adversely impact the surrounding street system and will pose a threat to public safety. 3. The conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the SRO is too intense due to density and will not be harmonious with the existing Town& Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. The proposed building is not an adequate buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent residential fourplex apartment units because the project will increase traffic in the area and the structure is too dense. In addition,the proposed units are inadequate in size for two occupants and insufficient parking is provided on-site for the potential_ residents. i 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General.Plan. As required by Government Code Section 65589.5 (d) (6)the City Council finds the project inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F2-d(General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-special design overlay)on the subject property. Specifically, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: (00sr22denyfmd)—615100 1 A. Land Use Element Obiective LU 9.2: Provide for the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light,vehicular traffic,visual character, and operational hazards. The project is found to be incompatible with the adjacent residential properties and inconsistent with the General Plan due to insufficient parking, increased traffic, an increase in density and intensity, and overall building height and design. B. Public Facilities and Services Element Goal PF 1: Protect the community from criminal activity,reduce the incidence of crime and . provide other necessary services within the City. Policy PF 1.3.2: Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact their operators, occupants,visitors or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. The project may increase the incidence of crime,the SRO occupants and visitors will have an impact on the safety and welfare of the community, and the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. i (OOsr22denyfmd)—6/5/00 2 CouncilIAgency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2000 Department ID Number. PL00-27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION c O r SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS =' C_ SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrators? ` PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning _r SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) - Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Dr. James Lu, representing Amwest Environment Group, Inc., of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11. This application represents a request to permit development of a three-story, Single Room Occupancy residential project with 106 efficiency . apartment units and one manager's unit. The Planning Commission denied the request and is recommending denial (Recommended Action - A) finding that the project is not compatible with the existing multi-family apartment units to the east and the commercial shopping center to the west. Staff is recommending approval (Recommended Action - B) because the project: o Provides 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals, o Meets or exceeds requirements for setbacks, parking, landscaping, floor area ratio, building height, and o Is compatible with surrounding development as a result of a detailed Management Plan, security provisions, and floor plan design which controls access to the entire property. It should be noted that if the City Council upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the project, it is necessary to make concrete findings in conformance with California State law regarding denial of an affordable housing project (Attachment No. 13). State law allows for denial of affordable housing projects only under limited' circumstances and only when particular findings can be made. These mandatory findings are discussed in detail in the Analysis section of this report. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: i Motion to: 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on January 25, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO DENY ..NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31, WITH FINDINGS, FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE- AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, CHAPMAN ABSENT: LAIRD, MANDIC ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED AND WAS AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED DUE TO LACK OF .FOUR ` AFFIRMATIVE VOTES Planning Commission Action on March 14, 2000. THE MOTION MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31, WITH FINDINGS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SPEAKER, BIDDLE, SHOMAKER, MANDIC NOES: . CHAPMAN, LIVENGOOD, KERINS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:.. . Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)°, and 2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings and suggested conditions of approval ; Z-(ATTACHMENT NO:•2y + PL00 27 -2- 5/4/00 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 r Alternative Action(s1: The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant/ Appellant: Dr. James Lu and Mr. Charles Tsang, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 100, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (South of Ellis Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard) Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 represents a request,to construct a 107-unit Single Room Occupancy residential complex pursuant to Section 211.04 and 230.46 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. Single Room Occupancies (SRO) are classified as a quasi-residential use in the.City's Zoning and Subdivision I Ordinance. Specifically, an SRO is defined as "Buildings designed as a residential hotel consisting of a cluster of guest units providing sleeping and living facilities in which sanitary facilities and cooking facilities are provided within each unit; tenancies are weekly or monthly." Each unit in the proposed project will have a separate bathroom and efficiency kitchen. An on-site manager will reside full time at the complex. The project is proposed on a 1.76-acre lot currently occupied by a dilapidated abandoned day care center. The 38,390 square foot SRO complex is designed as a three-story structure with one common entrance and exit. The SRO project is.a unique hybrid of a hotel and.an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. Three floor plans are proposed for the efficiency units; 85 units will be 260 square feet, 15 units will be 338 square feet, and six handicapped units are proposed at 268 square feet. The on-site manager's unit will be 780 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a day bed, table, chairs, closet, bathroom, microwave, garbage disposal, and refrigerator. The project also has indoor and outdoor recreational areas with a pool, lounge, and a common kitchen area. The complex provides A bike storage area and trash chutes on all three floors. One maintenance utility room with hot and cold running water is also provided on each floor. Although each unit is provided with an efficiency kitchen, the common recreation area also includes a fully equipped kitchen. One central laundry room is provided on the ground floor and each residential unit is provided with separate lockable storage areas. 3 PL00-27 -3- 51410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Zoning code requirements specify that all SRO units shall be provided as affordable housing and restricted to very low and low-income individuals as defined by the City's Housing Element. The manager's unit is exempted from this requirement. ,State law requires the City to provide a certain number of housing units to meet the overall housing goals for the region. SCAG identified the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and the percentage of those RHNA numbers designated for very low and low income households. Based on these percentage requirements, 44.3 percent or 47 units will be provided to very low income individuals and 55.6 percent or 59 of the 106 total units will be provided to low income individuals. The SRO management and leasing personnel will be responsible for screening potential tenants and qualifying each tenant based on their income. As each unit is large enough to accommodate either one or two people, affordability will be based on household sizes of one and two occupants. The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary(Attachment No. 6) because other commercial and residential development options have failed at the site and there is a high demand for Single Room Occupancies in Southern California and in particular, Orange County. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting six people spoke in favor of the �• proposed project while ten speakers voiced their objections to the proposed SRO. Although many issues and concerns were raised during the public hearing, the majority of the comments can be grouped into the following four main categories: ■ Insufficient Parking . ■ Potential for Increased Crime ■ Lack of Management Experience ■ Incompatible with Adjacent Residential Staff has also received approximately 300 letters and petition type signatures in opposition to the project (Attachment No. 10). Most of the written communication regarding the' project opposes the development proposal for many of the same reasons cited above. Staff has also received approximately 50 letters and petition type signatures in favor of the proposed residential project (Attachment.No. 9). In response to concerns raised at the first Planning Commission hearing, the applicant revised the site plan, finalized the Management Plan, and contracted with a professional management company to manage the facility. In summary the revisions proposed by the applicant were as follows: ■ Reconfigure parking lot for 13 additional parking stalls plus one van/bus drop-off and �{ one tenant loading and unloading space for a total of 83 parking spaces (25 space surplus); PL00 27 .4. 5/4/0012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT 1D NUMBER: PL00-27 r ■ Agrees to limit occupancy to one person per unit on 50% of units (53) and allow two persons per unit on 50% of units (53); ■ Contracted with Solari Enterprises (current manager for Fullerton Lights SRO and other properties) for professional management services and submitted Final Management Plan; ■ New site plan depicts adjacent property improvements; applicant accommodates existing non-conforming parking spaces at adjacent retail center to the west; ■ Applicant proposes minimum monthly leases, no weekly leases offered; ■ Applicant requests amendment to affordable housing requirements; staff continues to recommend original affordability and rental structure ■ Applicant suggests quarterly review of property and management practices, including affordability requirements during first year of operation, yearly review thereafter, staff suggests six month reviews for first three years, yearly review thereafter. Six month - reviews to commence again at any time ownership or management company changes. At the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting, four speakers expressed their support for the project while five spoke in opposition to the request. The applicant explained the revisions proposed and summarized above. After discussion of the proposed changes by the applicant, the Planning Commission discussed their visits to the Irvine Inn, an SRO project in Irvine. While most agreed that the Irvine Inn is a successful, well-managed property, the Planning Commissioners opposed to the project felt Irvine Inn was a good location because of its isolation in an industrial area. Some of the commissioners expressed their belief that single room occupancies can be good projects but that this is not the right location. Some commissioners also believed that there is not enough control over tenants, the project is too intense, and it does not fit in with its surroundings. The Planning Commissioners who supported the project expressed their belief that affordable housing is necessary in our community and that this project represents an improvement to a degraded property. After discussion of numerous project issues, the Planning Commission denied the project on a 4-3 vote determining that the proposed location is inadequate for a single room occupancy residential project. C. APPEAL: The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project on March 22, 2000 (Attachment No. 3). The reasons for the appeal-are summarized as follows: ■ Proposed SRO meets or exceeds all City code requirements ■ Project is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not cause adverse impacts to traffic or crime ■ Planning Commission did not explain'their finding that the °location is not suitable'for an SRO S PL00-27 .3_ I 51410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 ■ Project provides affordable housing for very low and low income individuals ■ Development of the property eliminates a dilapidated and abandoned structure ■ Other options for development of the site were not feasible ■ Laws of the State of California provide limited reasons for denying an affordable housing project. The Planning Commissioners' reasons for denying the project do not justify the standards outlined by State law. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff believes that the City Council should support the appeal filed by the. applicant and approve the proposed single room occupancy residential facility. Staff agrees with the applicant that the project meets or exceeds all development standards and will provide sufficient parking and circulation around the site, will not adversely impact surrounding uses in terms of traffic or crime, and is an appropriate location for an SRO project. Staff believes the project should be approved because it is well designed architecturally, includes a detailed Management Plan, staff will conduct periodic inspections and reviews of the site and management practices, tenants will be subject to a detailed screening application including a criminal background check, and the property will provide affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. Because of its unique location, a discussion on compatibility with surrounding uses is provided. Affordable housing, a major component of the project, is also analyzed in detail, as well as an exploration of the limited reasons for denying an affordable housing project as established by California State law. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses The proposed SRO residential project is located between a retail shopping center and fourplex apartment units. The project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel rooms, but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. The project will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial areas on Beach Boulevard and the adjacent apartment complexes.to the east of the site. It has been designed so that it is.not intrusive on any adjacent development and the conditions of approval preserve the shared access between the subject site and the retail center to the west. It will also be compatible because an adequate number of parking spaces are provided on-site and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation are included so that parking on other sites should not be impacted. The proposed three story building will be compatible with the two story fourplex apartment units to the east. Although the project is one story higher, it is setback 47 feet, a substantial distance, from the east property line. Privacy issues and visibility into the adjacent units, therefore, should not be a concern. In addition, the structures will be separated by an eight (8)foot high block wall and an alley serving as access to the fourplex units. The front portion of the project, nearest Ellis, is closer to the fourplex units, �0 but is only one story and will not impact privacy-.of adjacent residents: - - (11' '� • PL00-27 -6- 91410012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 There are a number of mature eucalyptus and palm trees existing on the site. It is standard City policy to require all existing healthy trees to be preserved and incorporated into the new site plan to the greatest extent feasible. To this end, a standard condition of approval requiring an arborist report is recommended. The arborist report will contain an inventory of existing trees, their health status, recommendations for preservation, and a horizontal control plan plotting the existing trees in relation to the proposed site plan. The architectural design for the proposed residential project incorporates significant massing modulation and fenestration details which adequately articulate and segment the building. Plaster cornice treatment and window trim coupled with trellis accent features provide additional building relief. The primary exterior building wall material will be stucco. A combination low block wall topped by wrought iron and off-set by plaster and tile based pilasters is proposed at the front setback. A trellised pedestrian arcade is planned from Ellis to the main entrance. The vehicle entrance from Ellis is also covered by an archway with decorative pilasters. The proposed materials palette is complementary to surrounding development. Staff is in support of the proposed architectural design. During the public hearings, many speakers expressed concerns that the project would lead to increased crime in the vicinity of the project. Some speakers expressed a belief that people earning lower than the average County income are more likely to.engage in criminal activity than those earning more than median income. Some speakers also stated that criminal activity such as drug use and prostitution would increase in the area as a result of the project. Staff does not believe there is any evidence that low income equates to increases in criminal activity. Staff does believe, however, that an excellent management system is the key to a successful SRO residential project. A high level of security and diligent management practices will ensure controlled access to the residential units and 24-hour management will encourage compliance with all management regulations. The applicant has submitted a narrative describing lack of criminal activity at other SRO projects in Fullerton and Irvine. In addition, Mr..Bruce Solari, representing the professional management company for Fullerton City Lights SRO, testified that high levels of security discourage true criminals from SRO facilities because criminals find the security practices intrusive. The applicant and Solari Enterprises have entered into an agreement to provide professional management services as described in the required Management Plan (Attachment No. 7). PL00-27 -7- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Staff agrees that stringent qualification, application, and deposit requirements are an important aspect for quality management at the proposed SRO residential facility. Therefore, staff has reviewed the Management Plan to ensure that these practices are included as part of the duties of the manager. As expected, the Management Plan includes an example of an application in which prospective tenants must disclose all income, provide references, and complete a questionnaire. Management staff must then verify all income, check references, conduct a credit check and criminal background- report, and require a deposit if tenancy is approved. By approving the Management Plan as part of this conditional use permit application and referencing it in the attached conditions of approval, the Management Plan becomes part of the approved project'and must.be adhered to at all times and by any subsequent property owner. Requested amendments to the Management Plan must be reviewed by staff prior to implementation and if warranted may even require approval by the Planning Commission. Staff concurs with the suggestion to require month to month rents and prohibit weekly occupancies. This requirement has been included in the suggested conditions of approval. It is staffs opinion that the proposed SRO residential project is probably a less intrusive, less disruptive use than almost any other type of commercial use that would be allowed under the current commercial zoning. Staff believes that the SRO project is a good �r transition between the commercial to the west and the residential to the east. Affordable Housing As required by the zoning code all 106 rental units will be provided as affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. The number of units.devoted to very low (47 units) and low(59 units) income individuals has been extrapolated from the percentage of very low and low income units the City is charged with providing as part of our.share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. RHNA numbers and allocations of target.households are established.by SCAG. The SRO management and leasing personnel will be responsible for screening potential tenants and qualifying each tenant based on their income. As each unit is large enough to accommodate either one or two. people, affordability will be based on household sizes of one and two occupants. It should be noted, however, that in response to concerns with the intensity and available parking at the site, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to restrict occupancy to a maximum of one person in one half or 53 of.the total units...Staff supports this suggestion and has included the occupancy limitation in the suggested conditions of approval. PL00-27 -8- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Staff is concerned that by simply specifying 47 units for very low income and 59 units for low income that the property owner may only qualify individuals at the top end of each income category. Therefore, staff is recommending that qualifying residents be dispersed across the range of income levels. For example, instead of allowing all 47 very low units to be rented to people earning 50% of the County median (representing the top end of the percentages) we recommend that at least one-half of the 47 units be rented to people earning no more than 35% of the County median. The other one-half of the 47 units may be rented to residents earning between 35-50% of County median. The same principle applies to the 59 low income units. Staff recommends that one-half of the 59 low units be rented to persons earning between 50-65% of County median and one-half between 65-. 80% of County median. Maximum Income Levels are shown in the chart below (Note: for ease of discussion, each income level has been designated as Category A, B, C, or D): :..........................................:......... ................................................:...........:....::......;......,........::..:....::.. .. »:: - - :::».._........as.a..,,>....:.. .......r......7>>. s>.... ...>........ .x. .. ..x,..,r.:_..,....._.., >3.>...: .}'», •iiii3?iF s s-_x 33 ...... ^•3 .. o Lflw i3 3 3 2 Loet>W- £ounf .:2.4.Ve 23 Ve L w.. 3...._.......r...»sr>......'}.r3.:r: .....s-> .J.,3..._».:,ai•.::::»:33?::•i z:>'i:>/•.»::>::.. -.>•..............." :':z:r,3.. ...Y;. .:z$ - .............:........:.s.. ?.3?: ..>_ .33.s..... ..,:>:.z.3,:. ...,:.......s:»:...s3..c:. ..... arr:..;_?i L'?i: •:�,(x.>.3 :;i:i}}z?3:"s3ir< .,333isiz:di?3>ii?i3•».......><- ..}a,..» ........,>.. ....,s. 'i»,...r,s}£ ,,,,,: ..... ..s. : :.,:......s....... s>:r?i?{ r;3i»�. :r {,� ...-. . ., ...s:_.,:::::.r....... : :.a•icc3siii3 it--?'•'iYL'1. ttS ?"i•3�3? ?,:a. :a. +3.' V-0 Low Un�ts�:::.: �.0 _ „3-.., -»...>...is ....::.:r.: _ •i3 - -3....... 33' »s., .........s.......s3 ........................._,s: ....>::.::.....»3?:->:?s?;w}:,T>" r»}:�..i ?}.,,c- •ms�t:,33 s L'•,�:n::»:a..ir.r;::»•`^::::»:»r::.... _a':.,»:: ,,:r�-•x:••: ...s....,...>......._...>............._........».;._.:^:�:?'s.ii.. .)}�:. .3':.��..s i�i}�..3 -'is 3s3�.»•sir .....,»:: :r.,..3...,>.».r..'r:•.>�....,Y��.3 33,,.....».. 3 xx,r. ..r..»..ii...a s,.. ,»;;;..:� ...?s..:>. ii333:••:�:e» �i?isi.i...3. : xb�9..»..3�3...�:'r. � »:r..... ?33i'3?''i$ >j??}3?'ix: o i.» MSIXE?:r•i?3:?ii},? }ra;} ,},,::::; Came;,; i333;>x? ?:?:?lncorne;;i?:>i}r;; n3::s?:tnc.o. nei'?3 = .IRGO[17:e€: :.':>.,i?» rX ��....)3�'3 S�-^s:33333 v�ilt�,a 3,..,,.,.,�::•»': ><x, .,....}z �7 ..,a,' :r„'???.s' ,3...»:»::: ss}}ir,.ssr»}?. •...?•.f.} >i, i i»......:»3..v.::: - .,:i3?:ns3't3;3,k; :::3•ii33i3i.53» 3 '�''i> :.z• :x r?:m'£i 3 s..i» :.s....}.,,. 3,.ie ..»•:....,s•... 3; s.. , sa.. r._ .:z:,}.p�',.,,N}„?_3.}.3 rr s.::3:- ;,r -i .r s£, i• i,q••:.,is»=:..>:,::>:}.,:,,., : '�>, . .� :?}:��i. ;�:>>:::: ••e :;?>;�: e� e ;:??" �gib. .s:.....r>-.x.::.. , .��r?'s ibe#wee ,: ;,b°e#we...c , > >b..._tuue... .,•r. > .:��lns:�», ' .3:...3:,:^s .x3,.:?, ;i. ?x.. ,.33st4i3 3#i s' .3>p }s?. ,- .,>:>.3.?}»: ,,yr »r 3,ss 3};:r....lx;»3^�3 i3?,.:......_ .3,)?}°:...rxi»:::»3;;........:iE'. .. ,..s�. .,.,3. . s. 3 ,9}?si :'-xix s_...", 3,'>:: 3i}, �??,.}i:i#; }s 3i C - b i -':I' -3 s.,i'i't3 3? b- i3rifl,}j Ti .,�..,t�.. 5:. >Qf:., :;.3.6..- ..4aa:.A#._.. =G,SA . $Qa.. tx,• ,...::.: ...,y,�is3•'rx:.... �s»???"••?::n st':::si3 r.3:^•,5.,..s..:...3:�?:;:::ii..............�.......,,.....,.» ..x:»s:..?».�?s? -}»sv»:." '•-:3:-.m s » 3 .::.:.»:•s:,. ,3 i»••::'rr a,>,;:,::c.. .::.. :3:1»•3:::;3::::srs3s•3:x::..»:»:>::::::».:.,si',:..:.>...:::»r::.,v._:..>:,•..... .',»..3. s»3i,....... 3. •li 3> is ss.. .:.... >»...3s»...z.r...},ri.... .,?> ............. :.3. , as <,'.}ssi>' ....,. atx.>7,::.:•»ss?�.:}>?Y:s?,si,?;:r.,., >,3:..Y.r. 33u?iepr j'y 3.,3 =}a., :3gi, •rr.?�»•.x..:sqs.>...:3.....�•:ran::.:::,..3a.r.:}»-:>: r::kit...Ca ....-...'..... ...... tl KO MIE.t: : i'V oMn. ..._.>........... ....... ........._.»........ �:n:...-•r •:r.:3:••::.,.... ...rrrz::....._.z...s.:....zs:k::::: -:::=Gs,ii}3i7.. .£3.,.�jr '-' >..._s...........s......s............. . ..s>:::3: :. r...•.::??xn s. s3s......::••::-:::::........__..:..»... •::...3;..i,....r..... ii;;f .t3s3i z1 :it i ::,:3_».:;�,:».:.,.-.:.::ii?:}::........ ► ....... :..._.....M.ed�an... :� . M.ed�. i'riE::n::::::::::::::::::r:•,.,::::r:::::,:::::>::�5:::r•s•.:;••s::•r:::,:,::»•?33,•�3F}:F..:•}}>:i,»..,.�.;•:;zxr>r:.r>'33 :,.. s».:»xx�s.;:•::>rxis»:at':::�3:•>3?:•:::3:�..,,3,3>»:�.»?i3.333.»s..._a.: ...>?.x3,.»x.,x:^::-•i...,..._......n:»:»z:a:'•»s��.>..... ....a.?3;s33..:3--: •s»?.....s�vs.3..__.>,, .3'. �i>.ii33 a-;},s ..........,.?;.. �:::..j...jx:.:r:o.,.3j ............ . �............. :Cate... »},..,...3,;w. ............3,r?Y},..,.,;>:,::»•T 3i. :»}�:::...:.........�7...,... »..yr.::.»::.:.::::?........::: :,.. .....,�•; - •s?,? ..3,?s :.aa....»,.. ...».•.,sz• .z:,. s.x... .3t.x..................3... av..3:».......... _...^,. . .............. ..ra-...}g... s....3. ...,.....a-..�. f.....>x...>s...,...._.....ar... s..-v r....,- >....i.: .....>:_....»s>?:3i.-•rr>'r.::. ':.:3::..x'»3:s»:� ,..3: ,.,3».....v»r.}3»..,,;::3:.�5».,..,...,;3::iiii::r•• „fir s �:�'>::as::}::::ss>::::sa33:?:�i:'E:»::..... 1 1 $47,8001 $16,730 $23,900 )31,070 t * 33,450 2 $54 650 $19,127 5 1 $35,522 *$38,250 *HUD Income Standards for Orange County are adjusted for the Low Income category and do not exactly reflect 80% of County Median i In addition to specifying the maximum income levels for all residents, staff is also specifying the maximum rental rates for all units. It is generally accepted that persons of very low and low income levels should spend no more than 30% of their income towards housing expenses. However, it would be very difficult for the SRO management to set different rental.rates for each resident based on their exact income level. This approach would potentially result in different rents for all 106 units. In order to effectively manage the rental rates and allow the property owner to anticipate the amount of rent for each unit staff recommends the following approach. Staff recommends that rent for all residents earning a maximum of 35% of the County median be based on the 35% level and a maximum of 30% of income towards housing expenses. PL00-27 -9- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Using this methodology, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: e3- e::Levels::�:q.,: ?;::>:: :. . _ 2�a�sd?r►Has»......,...::»:•:rElnifT . .. ..andfn.com. €. . ;;�i;:}.:..%.,..�], i:Qrson ..:»s...r..:.........._................].. .......,......._.�..............a......>....:.:3.,r ..-,...:],....:. .i.>::'3. ._.s.3?.x'r-::.»s..;]i?i•s-::rr ''p ....,,p,. » ».... +�...]...._.-......_..s..s..,.s;...IHs}asd:>:?»•>.,v..1333� ..}33»..]:.s.,3.......s:_........... ...... ;E? Y -. .r.•:.av -- ............. ]s........ J x z. 9,a�•= 'iiar�= � »r ..?ii?v.]i??a?ii..; . »......_�]]..s....::::.:::......sa...:•:»:r....._...._:..._:...._:Laa......>3.................3.-.>...]. s i...3........:�•]33.;...::::]�::'::,....?, ts.sr--:73ii.3'. ::.?3?;j.]ag .....,. ].».:>xs::»?::. .. r............m:»:::........0»::]::r»?,x?:»r''»;:e:.}>,r.ikp>-::•s:.<.-s: '::•_ :..w... s,:>3E s.•:.•€_,� ........ r..3.:.?:i-»:}..,•,..,"::::•::•,sr:::r.:_-_.......,.»3]»33ia>i�is.�}]'i]•e>^ _ .:. :•:}::: zri.•3o-::: -_3..>- � �i3:y�iiEiF ...:,>.»]3.>si_..Ti..i.....]......a.....•]».::...::._>]::r_:»:::::�:,%:%.:,......:z3.. ..3.>r.,l........e i.»,3.}... :.>>,;.».:::::%•.: �u$.�r.:Q�(f»;]'.:'E�:aa., r:»:.:./{I��[/ Y ::•3>•i ........,.._....__.................... .........].,........_....._..._...•;i......, ...,. .,......._,....,.,:... . ...,�:::::�.}.::?a:..:.j>......_. ..... ':3u... IT7 m'f�ent..]]):"c'33 ..ii z�-...... - ss• ._.......•......._.. ...._•:::3;�.3,�:3•....;2,-z33?:d:sv3s:},3s��}];».�::]>s.,i_ 3:?;;... 3.,r.?s'ii';`si,s 3�..:..]... �' .. �' 3.. _:';;1? ?3...�...];;�: a ]';k.is r]:?3�?i3iii?3::::::c»......,:...>.�_ ......:a... :.: 3,.. .�> a']�....•s: 3 '�.}x.. :%.t�s. :3:.. - »s3u:-�-:::••;]. =},,, .»...,sk. ._..,. ]3..... ..... _x>.,.., •>. »:..... ...�c::::::�:,: zs xiAz._-.?>:.zs::.•:'.,..;3>.:i?i3iiz:...3 3'sr: ..3,,. .z...a,.. ..}>.....vice• 3..... ss?... .. ..... ..... s,:::: ..._...;,,,�,.a..:.,.�_....::::z.x..._.....a.. ..r. »»s•s,.€.....s....a..]........, ... s..,.., �/ yy��/M :>:•:::: >3•�, r....zias.�£r:.:.ii?ii°•:,:::......�...]s.•>....s>. -.. ..] _.....3..._.i�i _.. >•. .... .r M.i/fi3■':�s.�/i_�Eia?:jsr� � � r'::...,..•,.».>.%»..].....»......._... >'�. �s>•]s3>..]]]3...>3»...a..aa,.....»o..ii]...>•3iaA...>E3>....n...� ,r...>.:.sa°:: ::r....x ri.......�. 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 Income between 0-35% County Median (Category A 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00* Income between 36-50% of County Median (Category B 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median (Category C 29 Low Units $808.00 $928.00 Income between 66-80% of County Median (Category D 106 Total Units *$28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner As seen in the above chart, the maximum rent allowable for the low income units is quite high for a single room occupancy type residential project. To put the above rental rates in context, HUD has listed the fair market value rental rate for a studio apartment in Orange County at $645.00, which includes a utility allowance. This type of project will typically target individuals qualifying at the very low income levels because those who can afford the maximum rents allowed for low income will typically find a more standard one bedroom apartment. It should be clear that the City's goals are to provide the greatest number of housing'units to very low income individuals. Therefore;the applicants may rent to more than the. minimum number of very low income individuals in each category but may not exceed the number of units provided to low income persons. For example, the applicant may rent all 106 units to tenants under Category A (between 0-35% of county median), or may rent at least the required 24 Category A units and the remaining 82 units may be in Category B. At no time may the applicant exceed the unit numbers specified in any category without first satisfying the numbers required for the lower income categories. 1� PL00-27 -10- 5/4/0012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Affordable housing will be a permanent feature of the SRO residential project and will be guaranteed by an irrevocable covenant recorded on the property. The covenant will ensure that any future property owner is informed of the affordable housing restrictions. The project will be subject to an annual review by the City to ensure compliance with affordable housing requirements and a review of management and parking services. The SRO project manager will be responsible for filing the annual report and shall include the range of monthly rents, the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. State Law Regarding Denial of Affordable Housing Projects Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, research has been conducted relative to State law requirements for denying affordable housing projects. If the City Council wishes to deny the proposed residential project, the Council must make findings in compliance with the following provisions. Government Code Section 65589.5 (Attachment No. 13) states: °(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing.development project affordable to very low, low, or moderate income households or condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low, or moderate income households unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588 and that is in substantial compliance with this article, and the development project is not needed for the jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional housing need for very low, low, or moderate income housing. (2) The development project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact .without rendering the development unaffordable to tow, and moderate income households. As used in this paragraph, a `specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, ,based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the .date the application was deemed complete. (3) The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. PL00-27 -11- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 (4) Approval of the development project would increase the concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood that already has a disproportionately high number of lower income households and there is no feasible. method of approving the development at a different site, including those sites identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. (5) The development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation which is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (6) The development project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designations as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article." Staff does not believe that any of the above findings for denial of the SRO affordable housing project exists and therefore, believes that the City Council must approve the application. It is clear that (1) the City has not met the affordable housing obligations of the Housing Element, (2) a "significant, adverse impact upon the public health and safety...based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions," has not been quantified, (3) denial of the project is not necessary to comply with state or federal law, (4) the project does not increase the concentration of lower income households in the vicinity, (5) the land is not zoned or used for agriculture, and (6) the project is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and general plan. Therefore, staff believes that denial of the proposed project would result in a violation of the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.5 as quoted above. F. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and permit the development of a 107 unit Single Room Occupancy residential project based on the following: The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. PL00-27 -12- 514100 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Goals and objectives of the City's General Plan encourage development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. Compliance with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements.. Compatibility with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. - The SRO will improve property values because it will replace a dilapidated abandoned building with a new structure, landscaping,.lighting, and.other site improvements. Based upon the physical design of the project and the conditions imposed, the project will provide a high level of security, one centralized entrance and exit, a 24-hour on-site manager, and restricted access throughout the site. The proposed project consists of a pleasing architectural design, common recreation amenities, parking, and landscaping which all serve to increase the value of the property and ensure that it does not result in a detriment to the surrounding properties.The reasons for denying an affordable housing project as described in Government Code Section 65589.5 do not apply to the proposed project. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant* impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Attachment No. 8)was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-11 for twenty (20) days commencing on November 25, 1999 and ending on December 14, 1999. Comments were received from the Environmental Board as discussed below. 8 �3 PL00-27 -13- 5/4/0012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Environmental Board Comments: The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. On December 20, 1999, the Environmental Board provided a letter addressing several issues including: • A negative declaration is the appropriate level of documentation for the project. • Checklists are not complete regarding Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing • Clarification is needed regarding parking facilities and overflow parking • Vehicle ingress/egress routes are not clear • Impact of the project on traffic during peak hours needs further clarification A response to the Environmental Board's comment letter has been prepared (Attachment No.'8) and the Negative Declaration has been amended where necessary. The Environmental Board's comments do.not change the conclusion of the initial study and the recommendation for a negative declaration. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. AttachmenUs): - . . - NumberDescription GFeWPRace ilendetien) , 2000 and .................... .........__........ .............:... , ..............:.. ........... _....... ..:.... . ._... .................. t PL00-27 -14- 514/0012:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 City Clerlelo P . . - NumberDescription - - 9— betteis and Pefibons in Suppoit of Request (Note. onlyl" 3 :...:...::::... St i 3 ::::::::::::::::::: . , ....:........ . :. ..................... All I PL00-27 -15- 51410012:13 PM .� � ��`� �� �� �� Y � � � _3 • fCi �of�I3untin tonBeach Planning De artmentA�` 3STAFFREPORT ;HUMINGTON BEACH - ,,,, x LL r ;3 L 'x .,� t.-s r tar k ...._ '.:`s , a. -.� ... ;z .r�'�, -"'> TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James,Associate Plannern2v DATE: March 14,2000 u 0 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (Continued From The February 8,2000 Planning Commission Meeting With The Public Hearing Closed -Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy) APPLICANT Dr. James Lu AND Mr. Charles Tsang PROPERTY Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. OWNER: 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 LOCATION: 8102 Ellis Avenue (South of Ellis, approximately 400 feet east of Beach) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Permit development of a new three-story, Single Room Occupancy project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit ♦ Continued Item - January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting: Motion to deny project failed on a 3-2 vote (2 commissioners absent). Item automatically continued to February 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting with the public hearing closed. - February 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting: Item continued to March 14, 2000 at applicant's request. Applicant expressed intent to respond to issues and concerns raised at previous public hearing (See Issues Matrix—Attachment No. 3) ♦ Applicant's Revised Site Plan and Management Plan Reconfigure parking lot for 13 additional parking stalls plus one van/bus drop-off and one tenant loading and unloading space for a total of 83 parking spaces (25 space surplus); staff concurs Agrees to limit occupancy to one person per unit on 50% of units (53) and allow two persons per unit on 50% of units (53); staff concurs Contracted with Solari Enterprises for professional management services and submitted Final Management Plan; staff concurs New site plan depicts adjacent property improvements; applicant accommodates existing parking spaces at adjacent retail center; staff concurs i f J - Applicant proposes minimum monthly leases,no weekly leases offered; staff concurs - Applicant requests amendment to affordable housing requirements; staff continues to recommend original affordability and rental structure Applicant suggests quarterly review during first year of operation, yearly review thereafter; staff suggests six month reviews for first three years, yearly review thereafter—six month reviews to commence again at any ownership or management company changes ♦ Recommendation—Approve Staffs Recommendation based upon: - The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. - Goals and objectives of the City's General Plan encourages development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. - Compliance with the CG(General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. - Compatibility with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and direct staff accordingly." Staff Report—3/14/00 2 (00sr22) ISSUES: At the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting approximately six people spoke in favor of the proposed project while ten speakers voiced their objections to the proposed SRO. Although many issues and concerns were raised during the public hearing,the majority of the comments can be grouped into the following four main categories: ■ Insufficient Parking ■ Potential for Increased Crime ■ Lack of Management Experience ■ Incompatible with Adjacent Residential Staff has also received approximately 60 letters and petition type signatures in opposition to the project(Attachment No. 6). Most of the written communication regarding the project opposes the development proposal for many of the same reasons cited above. These issues, the applicant's response to them, and staff s recommendation have.all been summarized in an SRO Issues Matrix for easy review(Attachment No. 3). These items are discussed in detail below, In response to the objections raised by some members of the Planning Commission and the parties who spoke at the public hearing,the applicant has submitted revised plans, a revised narrative, and a new'Management Plan(Attachment No.'s 2 , 4, and 5). Staff has also explored many of the issues raised during the public hearing and offers some alternative recommendations in an effort to alleviate several concerns of the public. Each of the four categories of concern are discussed in detail below along with an explanation of the revisions proposed by the applicant. Suggestions made during the public hearing for improvement to the project are listed in bullets under each category. Discussion under each category concludes with any new conditions of approval suggested by staff. Issue -Insufficient Parking Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Require additional parking Limit occupancy to one person per room The applicant has revised the site plan for a more efficient use of parking spaces by eliminating large landscaped planters areas,rearranging the circulation pattern, and adding 11 compact parking stalls. Therefore,the applicant increased the total number of parking spaces to 81 tenant spaces plus one space for van loading and unloading and one space for tenant loading and unloading. Single Room Occupancy projects located within 2,000 feet of a public bus stop are required to provide parking based on the following ratios: Staff Report—3/14/00 3 (OOsr22) Parking Ratio Number of SpacesRequrred� Number of SpacesProv35- ided� a 0.5 Spaces Per Unit X 106 Units = 53 Spaces 78 1.0 Spaces Per Resident Staff X 2 Resident Staff = 2 Spaces 2 0.5 Spaces Per On-Site Personnel X 2 Personnel = 1 Space 1 25 Surplus Spaces Tote P kuig� ed 65 Space e 8�1NP,au k S.M,Pr ve od h _14 Plus�1Uan�Loading Space As demonstrated in the above chart, the proposed project provides a surplus of 25 parking spaces located within the site boundaries. As previously recommended by staff and requested by the Planning Commission, one of the surplus parking spaces has been designated as a van/bus drop-off and pick-up space to accommodate Dial-A-Ride and other public transportation vehicles and one space has been designated for tenant loading and unloading. By zoning code standards,the size of the units proposed would allow a maximum of two occupants per unit. The applicant has made additional strides in reducing the demand for parking by volunteering to limit occupancy on 50%of the units to one tenant maximum. Staff agrees with the applicant's proposal and has included a condition of approval to limit the number of occupants to one on 53 units and allow.a maximum of two occupants in the remaining 53 units. Staff believes that the revised parking lot layout, increased number of parking spaces,provision of loading and unloading spaces for vans and tenants,provision of locked bicycle storage areas, and limitation of one tenant within 53 of the proposed units all combine to reduce or alleviate the concerns with insufficient parking expressed during the previous public hearing. Issue -Potential for Increased Crime Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Maintain stringent qualification/application/deposit requirements ■ Require month to month rents;prohibit weekly occupancies ■ Require minimum income per unit; prohibit zero income During the last public hearing, many speakers expressed concerns that the project would lead to increased crime in the vicinity of the project. Some speakers expressed a belief that people earning lower than the average County income are more likely to engage in criminal activity than those earning more than median income. Some speakers also stated that criminal activity such as drug use and prostitution would increase in the area as a result of the SRO project. Staff Report—3/14/00 4 (OOsr22) Staff does not believe there is any evidence that low income equates to increases in criminal activity. Staff does believe, however,that an excellent management system is the key to a successful SRO project. A high level of security and diligent management practices will ensure controlled access to the residential units and 24-hour management will encourage compliance with all management regulations. The applicant has submitted a narrative describing lack of criminal activity at other SRO projects in Fullerton and Irvine. In addition, Bruce Solari, representing the professional management company for Fullerton City Lights SRO,testified that high levels of security discourage true criminals from SRO facilities because criminals find the security practices intrusive. The applicant and Solari Enterprises have entered into an agreement to provide professional management services as described in the required Management Plan(Attachment No. 5). Staff agrees that stringent qualification, application, and deposit requirements are an important aspect for quality management at the proposed SRO facility. Therefore, staff has reviewed the Management Plan to ensure that these practices are included as part of the duties of the manager. As expected,the . Management Plan includes an example of an application in which prospective tenants must disclose all income,provide references, and complete a questionnaire. Management staff must then verify all income, check references, conduct a credit check, and require a deposit if tenancy is approved. By approving the Management Plan as part of this conditional use permit application and referencing it in the attached conditions of approval,the Management Plan becomes part of the approved project and must be adhered to at all times and by any subsequent property owner. Requested amendments to the Management Plan must be reviewed by staff prior to implementation and if warranted may even require approval by the Planning Commission. Staff concurs with the suggestion to require month to month rents and prohibit weekly occupancies. This requirement has been included in the suggested conditions of approval. Staff does not concur with the suggestion to require a minimum income per unit and prohibit incomes as low as zero because it is important to target all income levels for affordable housing. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to exclude any income category. Using an example of a minimum wage employee working full time hours or 2,080 hours per year. The minimum wage employee earning $5.15 per hour would total $10,712.00 per year. The public speaker's suggestion of limiting the minimum income level to $13,000.00 would effectively eliminate this person from residency at the project. Issue -Lack ofManagement Experience Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Inspect property and management every six months ■ Require future owners to comply with conditions ■ Require reserve account for operations Staff Report—3/14/00 5 (OOsi22) C Many speakers cited concerns with the applicant's lack of management experiences related to SRO facilities. Although the applicants have not managed an SRO facility in the past, they have explained their history with development projects and apartment management in a newly submitted narrative (Attachment No. 4). More importantly, the applicant has submitted a written agreement with Solari Enterprises as the professional management company for the facility. Solari Enterprises currently operates the Fullerton Lights SRO project. In response to the Planning Commission and staffs request, the applicant has submitted a final management plan.(Attachment No. 5). Staff recommends that the Management Plan become part of the approval action and suggests a condition of approval stating that all practices established within the Management Plan are mandatory and must be complied with by any future property owner or future management company. To this end, failure to comply with all established management practices may result in revocation of the conditional use permit. One speaker at the public hearing suggested that Code Enforcement conduct an inspection every six months in order to alleviate concerns that a mismanaged and poorly maintained property could languish for one year until the next review. The applicant's revised narrative also suggested that a quarterly review of the project be conducted during the first year of operation and a yearly review thereafter. Staff agrees with the more restrictive recommendation and suggests that a condition of approval be added to establish an ongoing Code Enforcement inspection of the property and review of the management practices every six months for the first three years of operation and yearly reviews thereafter. A suggested condition of approval has been included to require the inspection and review process to begin anew each time ownership of the property changes or each time a new management company is hired to oversee the project. Therefore, each new owner or new management company will also be subject to reviews and inspections every six months for the first three years of operation and yearly thereafter. Staff has reviewed the maintenance plan section of the Management Plan and concludes that on- going maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the facility, including the responsibilities of the management company, are addressed in the document. The maintenance plan, coupled with the inspection and review process, ensures proper upkeep and longevity of a successful project. Issue -Incompatible with Ad iacent Residential Public Speaker's Suggested Solutions: ■ Inspect property and management every six months ■ Require future owners to comply with conditions The proposed SRO project is located between a retail shopping center and fourplex apartment units. An aerial GIS map of the facility has been prepared by staff to clearly depict the location of the property in relation to other uses and to demonstrate the location of adjacent improvements (Attachment No. 2). Staff Report—3/14/00 6 (OOsr22) The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel iooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. The project will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial areas on Beach Boulevard and the adjacent apartment complexes to the east of the site. The project has been designed so that it is not intrusive on any adjacent development and the conditions of approval preserve the shared access between the subject site and the retail center to the west. The project will also be compatible because an adequate number of parking spaces is provided on-site and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation are included so that parking on other sites should not be impacted. The proposed three story building will be compatible with the two story fourplex apartment units to the east. Although the SRO project is one story higher it is setback 47 feet, a substantial distance, from the east property line. Privacy issues and visibility into the adjacent units, therefore, should not be a concern. In addition,the structures are separated by a six(6)foot high block wall and an alley serving as access to the fourplex units. The front portion of the SRO project, nearest Ellis, is closer to the fourplex units but is only one story and will not impact privacy of adjacent residents. It is staff s opinion that the proposed SRO project is a less intrusive, less disruptive use than almost any other type of commercial use that would be allowed under the current commercial zoning. Staff believes that the SRO project is a good transition between the commercial to the west and the residential to the east. SUMMARY: Staff has evaluated the project with regard to general planning/land use compatibility issues and determined that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals, are in compliance with applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) standards applicable to the property, and will be compatible with adjacent development. Based on the above analysis staff concludes that the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding uses due to the SRO's location and design and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. In addition the proposal will not have any adverse environmental impacts. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit 99-31 for the following reasons: • The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design,project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees.which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. Goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which encourage the development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. • Compliance with the CG(General Commercial)zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. Staff Report—3/14/00 7 (00sr22) • Compatibility with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity based upon scale of building. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. ATTACHMENTS: Use De it Are nQ 21 v f _c r.•.,,,1 M Ragef fie fft 121 An a.,.ea A-4a f.1, 6 2nnn SH:JM:kjl Staff Report—3/14/00 8 (00sr22) till: rt�€� :to�:.��ach.;F��r�n1n a3� art�e�t.::.:;«.::.::.::.::::<.>;:...........:.::.:.:.:.;::>;: J :<.:::::::I ::::::<<::.::::.;;;:.::::::::.:::::::<: : :. N M NTINGTO B A U F fH z i:i� i i.....iai 3 ? :?S;'i i i i;i Y;.`%k; 3#3 £i'ifi ii# 'i'3 3 3S i`i 3i%: ir''`?''3 i 'isi:':'j":3i`??> 'i i i`i?i ii 3S iY i:i%ii' i ii i i ii i..3`i+?i%'3`i£ '' i` ':i:::i %'i`'i 3?i'i TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Associate Planner DATE: January 25, 2000 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy) LOCATION: 8102 Ellis Avenue (South of Ellis, approximately 400 feet east of Beach) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 represent a request by Mr. Charles Tsang and Dr. James Lu on behalf of Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., to accommodate the siting of a new three-story, Single Room Occupancy project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit and install landscaping and hardscape improvements on the project site. The site adjoins commercial uses to the south and west and residential uses to the north and east. Staff has evaluated the project with regard to general planning/land use compatibility issues and determined that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals, is in compliance-with applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) standards applicable to the property, and will be compatible with adjacent development. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the following reasons: + The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. + The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which encourages development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for.very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units.will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. + The subject development proposal will be in compliance with the CG(General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. + The project's scale will be compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. l PROJECT WL SITE 771 1 RI �A , =I= R RI • rAD1YM1'O{a °` I R r \i 2 $ R 1t ■.. �� a.em�on f € Y1-- R RI RI :R2" ..R3 • R3 R3 RI $ r wamo R3 " o :C4 co RZ RI i �• +aHREM oa _ }, . C4 —• RI ; RI R Fd Rt =o- R2 4.W R2 S R2 11/ tl R2 R3 Rs ' - RI 77 .,a R3 3 R3 ..� i� C 2 C2 C4 C? R3 R ! R3 Y R2 LQj 1'16R3 M CP s li R3RS MIR3 �+ R2 R3 ircunm+ �r R3 C4� R3 ' R2 R2 R - VICINITY MAP ND 99-11/CUP 99-31 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and direct staff accordingly." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT Mr. Charles Tsang AND Dr. James Lu PROPERTY Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. OWNER: 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 REQUEST: To permit the development of a 107 unit Single Room Occupancy project. The project consists of efficiency apartment units for very low and low income individuals. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Negative Declaration: Nov. 25, 1999 May 25, 2000 (Six Months) Conditional Use Permit: December 15, 1999 Within three months from Negative Declaration Approval Staff Report— 1/25/00 2 (00sr05) SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE,ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: `` » ... LA € N.....::...::..........:::G R . ' t ..::::::::..:::.:................................................................................. ............................................ .:...::::::: ...:....::.:.:............:::...............::::...,...................... ....................................................................................................................................... Subject Property: CG-F2-d (General CG(General Commercial) Former Day Care Commercial-Max 0.5 FAR-design overlay) North (across Ellis) RM-15 (Medium Density RM(Medium Density Single Family and of Subject Property: Residential-15 Residential) Apartments units/acre East of Subject RMH-25 (Medium High RMH(Medium High Fourplexes Property: Density Residential-25 Density Residential) units/acre South and West of CG-F2-d (General CG(General Commercial) Town& Country Subject Property: Commercial-Max 0.5 Retail Shopping Center FAR-design overlay) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 represents a request to construct a 107 unit Single Room Occupancy complex pursuant to Section 211.04 and 230.46 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. Single Room.Occupancies (SRO) are classified as a quasi-residential use in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, an SRO is defined as`Buildings- designed as a residential hotel consisting of a cluster of guest units providing sleeping and living facilities in which sanitary facilities and cooking facilities are provided within each unit; tenancies are weekly or monthly." Each unit in the proposed project will have a separate bathroom and efficiency kitchen. An on-site manager will reside full time at the complex. The project is proposed on a 1.76 acre lot currently occupied by a dilapidated abandoned day care center. The 38,390 square foot SRO complex is designed as a three story structure with one common entrance and exit. The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. Three floor plans are proposed for the efficiency units; 85 units will be 260 square feet, 15 units will be 338 square feet, and six handicapped units are proposed at 268 square feet. The on-site manager's unit will be 780 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a day bed, table, chairs, closet, bathroom, microwave, garbage disposal, and refrigerator. The project also has indoor and outdoor recreational areas with a pool, lounge, and a common kitchen area. The complex provides a bike storage area and thrash chutes on all three floors. One maintenance utility room with hot and cold running water is also provided on each floor. Although each unit is provided with an efficiency kitchen, the common recreation area also includes a fully equipped kitchen. One central laundry room is provided on the ground floor and each residential unit is provided with separate lockable storage areas. Staff Report— 1/25/00 3 (00sc05) Zoning code requirements specify that all SRO units shall be provided as affordable housing and restricted to very low and low income individuals as defined by the City's Housing Element. The manager's unit is exempted from this requirement. State law requires the City to provide a certain number of housing units to meet the overall housing goals for the region. SCAG identified the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and the percentage of those RHNA numbers designated for very low and low income households. Based on these percentage requirements, 44.3 percent or 47 units will be provided to very low income individuals and 55.6 percent or 59 of the 106 total units will be provided to low income individuals. An affordable housing plan outlining the details of the affordable housing practices will be recommended as a condition of approval. The project will positively contribute to the City's housing stock for residents of very low and low income levels. The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary(Attachment No. 3)because other commercial and residential development options have failed at the site and there is a high demand for Single Room Occupancies in Southern California and in particular, Orange County. Code Enforcement History: The site has been the subject of Code Enforcement complaints because it is believed the abandoned building is occupied by homeless people. Although the property owner has posted the site with No Trespassing signs and has attempted to lock and secure the building, the Police Department and Code Enforcement staff have requested that the building be demolished. For economic reasons, the property owner would like to demolish and begin construction of a new project as one cohesive effort. i Planninz Commission Tour of Irvine Inn On January 5, 2000, Planning Commissioners Chapman, Kerins, and Mandic, along with staff, toured the Irvine Inn, a 192 unit SRO in Irvine. The tour group learned that the units, site design, central access point, common recreational area, and security provisions are very similar to the proposed Huntington Beach project. The major difference between the two projects is the financing arrangements for the construction and operation of the sites. However, financing is not a land use issue and is not discussed in this report. It is noted that the Huntington Beach applicants have indicated that project development and operation will all be privately financed while the Irvine project was financed by a combination of tax credits, investors, non-profit organizations, and the City of Irvine. The key lesson learned during the tour of the Irvine Inn is that the success of an SRO project lies in the management of the facility. The management company of the Irvine project explained the tenant application process, income verification, and the methods and procedures for securing the facility. Although no management company has been selected by the applicant, the applicant has indicated that they are contacting the same management company that operates the Irvine site. Although the City can not dictate who the management is at the proposed SRO, the management plan and practices will be subject to a yearly audit by the Planning and Economic Development Departments. A condition of approval to this effect has been added to the project. Staff Report— 1/25/00 4 (OOsr05) Community Meeting On January 18, 2000, the applicant held a community meeting at the New Orleans's Cafe on Beach Boulevard. The applicant hand delivered and mailed invitations to approximately 150 property owners and commercial and residential tenants around the project site. Approximately 10 property owners, owner's representatives, and commercial tenants attended the meeting. The applicant introduced the project, described the benefits of the development, and responded to questions. Much of the discussion focused on affordable housing, management experience, housing subsidies, rental rates, and parking issues. The applicant and City staff responded to audience questions and have also addressed these issues throughout the body of this report. In response to questions, the applicant informed the audience that the project is privately funded and not a HUD project. Therefore, the applicant stated that they are not obligated to accept a certain percentage of tenants with housing subsidies or housing vouchers. However, it should be noted that a potential buyer for the project has made an application for grant money to the County of Orange. The County grant application was not made by the applicant and current property owner, however, it is possible that the property and development may be sold to a new owner. A future property owner may receive financial assistance from sources requiring more stringent affordable housing than the City's recommendations. Regardless of the ownership of the site, if the project is approved as recommended by staff the minimum affordable housing requirements outlined in the conditions of approval must be adhered to. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is CG-F2-d (General Commercial-Maximum 0.5 FAR-design overlay). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy L U 9.5.1: Accommodate the development of housing types, such as multifamily development and Single Room Occupancies (SRO), intended to meet the special needs of senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low, and moderate income households in areas designated for residential and mixed-use on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the Housing Element.. The project provides for a unique type of residential unit, will serve the special needs of very low and low income individuals, and will provide for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Staff Report— 1/25/00 5 (OOsr05) PolicyLU IS.S.1: Require that development located in areas designated as"Special Design Overlay(-d)" adhere to the specific design standards stipulated by design and development policies for specific community subareas prescribed in the ensuing section of this element, as appropriate. The project meets the design and development policies for Subarea 6C-Five Points by incorporating landscaping along the street frontage and in the parking lot, by siting of structures to encourage pedestrian activity to-the adjacent commercial sites, by siting the building in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks, and by incorporating architectural treatments to minimize building bulk and mass. In addition, the project will be required to enter into an irrevocable reciprocal access agreement with the property owners to the west in order to maintain a safe and convenient circulation pattern around the site. B. Housing Element Objective HE 3.1: Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. I Policy HE 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. The SRO project will be 100% affordable as it will be restricted to persons of very low and low incomes. The affordable housing project meets the above objectives and policies because it is a unique type of housing unit and is located adjacent to the Town& Country retail shopping center and many other retail shopping opportunities on Beach Boulevard. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the CG General Commercial zone and complies with the.requirements of that zone. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of CG General Commercial: .:.I��a..�,�C3...::::.:.:::..:..:.:....:..:::..:.: C.......................................OMS.............................:.::....:........................................: :::::.:.:..:......................... 211.06 Lot Area Min. 10,000 s . ft. 76,800 s . ft. Lot Width Min. 100 ft. 160 ft. Setbacks (D, E, O) Front (Ellis) Min. 10 ft. 10 ft. (F) Side (West P.L. Min. 10 ft. 54 ft., 6 in. (F) Side (East P.L. Min. 10 ft. 47 ft. (F) Rear South P.L. Min. 10 ft. 180 ft., 6 in. G) FBuilding Height Max. 50 ft. 738 ft. i Staff Report— 1/25/00 6 (00sr05) ..................... . .... .... .. .......... . .. .................. .... ..... ..... ..... ... .... ..... ..... ................. . .. ..... ............ .. ... .... ....... ............ ......... .................. . Wall Dimensions Requires projections/recesses Complies Floor Area Ratio Zoning Max, 1.5 (111,200 sq. ft.) General Plan Max. .5 (38,400 sq. ft.) 38,390 sq. ft. (H) Site Landscaping Min. 8 % (6,144 sq. ft.) 13.8 % (.10,650 sq. ft.) 230.46 Unit Size Min. 170 sq ft Min. 258 sq ft B.1 Max. 400 sq ft Max. 338 sq ft B Average 275 sq ft Average 271 sq ft 2 B 3 B 4 Kitchen and Bathroom Must have garbage disposal, Provided with garbage a counter top, refrigerator, stove disposal, counter top, or microwave refrigerator, and microwave B 4 If stoves not provided in unit, Common kitchen provided b then must be common kitchen B 4 Bathroom must have lavatory, Provided with lavatory, c toilet, and shower or bathtub toilet, and shower/tub B 4 Min. 48 cubic ft closet/unit Complies d 230.46 Open Space C.1 Common Min. 400.sq. ft. Plus 15 sq. ft./ unit over 30= 1,155 sq. ft. Total Required = 1,555 sq. ft. 10,122 sq. ft. C Entryway Single, controlled entry in view Complies 2 of manage 's desk C Mailbox Min. l/unit Complies C Handicapped Access Accordance with state law To be verified through plan 4 check C Handicapped Units One handicapped unit/20 units 6 units provided 5 106/20= 6 units C Laundry Facilities Separate room near rec area Complies 6 C Cleaning Supply/Utility One/Floor with hot and cold Complies 7 Closet water C Storage Lockers Secured/10 cubic ft/unit Complies C Housing Violation Contact Posted in common indoor spaces Conditioned Staff Report— 1/25/00 7 (00sr05) C Bicycle stalls Min. 1/10 units Complies 10 C Trash Disposal Trash Chutes and Central Complies 11 Collection required C Pay Telephones Min. 2 telephones for outgoing Conditioned 12 calls only 230.88 Fences&Walls Max. 6 ft. 6 ft. 231.04.B Off-Street Parking - Min. 0.5 sp/unit x 106 = 53 Number Min. 1.0 sp/resident staff 2 =2 Min. 0.5 sp/personnel x 2 Total Required = 68 parking spaces 56 232.08.C. J Landscaping Imp. Min. 10 wide planters loft. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Attachment No. 4)was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-11 for twenty (20) commencing on November 25, 1999 and ending on December 14, 1999. Comments were received from the Environmental Board as discussed below. Environmental Board Comments: The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. On December 20, 1999, the Environmental Board provided a letter(Attachment No. 4) addressing several issues including: • A negative declaration is the appropriate level of documentation for the project.. • Checklists are not complete regarding Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing • Clarification is needed regarding parking facilities and overflow parking • Vehicle ingress/egress routes are not clear • Impact of the project on traffic during peak hours needs further clarification A response to the Environmental Board's comment letter has been prepared (Attachment No. 4) and the Negative Declaration has been amended where necessary. The Environmental Board's comments do not change the conclusion of the initial study and the recommendation for a negative declaration. Staff Report— 1/25/00 8 (00sr05) Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services and Building and Safety have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police Department recommends conditions of approval to reduce the incidence of crime at the subject site. For example, landscaping at all building alcoves should be kept to a minimum and limited to turf only so that potential criminals can not be concealed. The Police Department's recommendations have also been included in the conditions of approval. The Department of Economic Development has also reviewed the project and developed the guidelines for affordable housing and maximum rent formula in concert with Planning star In addition, Economic Development suggests.that a high degree of surveillance be provided from the management area into all public spaces, corridors, and parking areas either by direct views or cameras. Surveillance and security measures are incorporated into the management plan and conditions of approval. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on Thursday, January 13, 2000, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. (and tenants within a 300 ft) radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), tenants at the Town& Country commercial center, applicant, and interested parties. As of January 19, 2000 no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. ANALYSIS: The three main issues for the Planning Commission to consider when analyzing this project are compatibility with adjacent uses, parking and traffic circulation, and affordable housing. All three subjects are discussed in detail below. Staff Report— 1/25/00 9 (OOsr05) Compatibility with Adjacent Uses The proposed SRO project is located between a retail shopping center and fourplex apartment units. The SRO project is a unique hybrid of a hotel and an apartment complex. The units are the sizes of hotel rooms but are provided with more amenities than a typical hotel. The project will serve as a buffer between the existing commercial areas on Beach Boulevard and the adjacent apartment complexes to the east of the site. The project has been designed so that it is not intrusive on any adjacent development and the conditions of approval preserve the shared access between the subject site and the retail center to the west. The project will also be compatible because an adequate number of parking spaces is provided on-site and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation are included so that parking on other sites should not be impacted. The proposed three story building will be compatible with the two story fourplex apartment units to the east. Although the SRO project is one story higher it is setback 47 feet, a substantial distance, from the east property line. Privacy issues and visibility into the adjacent units, therefore, should not be a concern. In addition, the structures are separated by a six(6)foot high block wall and an alley serving as access to the fourplex units. The front portion of the SRO project, nearest Ellis, is closer to the fourplex units but is only one story and will not impact privacy of adjacent residents. There are a number of mature eucalyptus and palm trees existing on the site. It is standard City policy to require all existing healthy trees to be preserved and incorporated into the new site plan to the greatest extent feasible. To this end, a standard condition of approval requiring an arborist report is recommended. The arborist report will contain an inventory of existing trees, their health status, recommendations for preservation, and a horizontal control plan plotting the existing trees in relation to the proposed site plan. The architectural design for the proposed SRO incorporates significant massing modulation and fenestration details which adequately articulate and segment the building. Plaster cornice treatment and window trim coupled with trellis accent features provide additional building relief. The primary exterior building wall material will be stucco. A combination low block wall topped by wrought iron and off-set by plaster and tile based pilasters is proposed at the front setback. A trellised pedestrian arcade is planned from Ellis to the main entrance. The vehicle entrance from Ellis is also covered by an archway with decorative pilasters. The proposed materials palette is complementary to surrounding development. Staff is in support of the proposed architectural design. Security provisions at the SRO will also ensure compatibility between the project and adjacent uses. A high level of security and diligent management practices will ensure controlled access to the residential units and 24-hour management will encourage compliance with all management regulations. A draft Management Plan has been submitted for review (Attachment No. 3). A final version of the Management Plan will be approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy of the units. It is staffs opinion that the proposed SRO project is probably a less intrusive, less disruptive use than almost any other type of commercial use that would be allowed under the current commercial zoning. Staff believes that the SRO project is a good transition between the commercial to the west and the residential to the east. Staff Report— 1/25/00 10 (OOsr05) i Parking and Traffic Circulation Access to the site will be via a single driveway from Ellis Avenue. The existing driveway at the site currently serves as secondary access to the Town& Country Shopping Center in addition to numerous parking spaces on the east side of the retail stores. Since no formal shared access agreement appears to exist between the two property owners a condition of approval to-record an irrevocable reciprocal access agreement has been included. The existing driveway to the abandoned day care center is in disrepair and severely in need of improvement. Construction of the new SRO includes replacement of all asphalt in the driveway and striping of new parking stalls which will result in a vast improvement in the existing site conditions. Single Room Occupancy projects located within 2,000 feet of a public bus stop are required to provide parking based on the following ratios: :..::.....:..:.:.:......................... umier:::::,v:>: s. .a ... .. ... ..:..:..:..:...:.....:.11imir:: >:: ttes::, - t►rfrl::>::>:::: .......................:..:..:::..:..:..::.:.:...............:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. .:::::::::::::::::::. ...:.:,.::..:::::.:.:.::..:::::...::....::::::::::::::::::::::. 1:::P.....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...................................................................................................................... XX ........................................................................................................ ......... .................................... ........ ............................................................................................................ 0.5 Spaces Per Unit X 106 Units = 53 53 Spaces 1.0 Spaces Per Resident Staff X 2 Resident Staff = 2 Spaces 2 0.5 Spaces Per On-Site Personnel X 2 Personnel 1 12 Surplus Spaces . 8:::: es. ... As demonstrated in the above chart, the proposed project provides a surplus of 12 parking spaces located within the site boundaries. The project is located approximately 550-600 feet from two public bus stops on Beach Boulevard. One bus stop is just south of the intersection and one stop is located just north of the intersections. The design of the parking lot is well laid out as parking is provided along the main drive aisle entering the project area in addition to parking at the rear of the site. 'In this manner, parking is provided close to the main entry but concentrating the parking at the back of the site allows the building to be placed closer to the street. The proximity of the building to the street encourages pedestrian activity and improves the visual relationship to the street and sidewalk. Four parking spaces for disabled access are provided near the main entry and all other parking will remain unassigned for a first come first served basis. Residents and guests will then be required to walk to the main entry on the west side of the building for access to the site. Staff recommends that one of the surplus parking spaces be converted to a designated van/bus drop-off and pick-up space to accommodate Dial-A-Ride and other public transportation vehicles. A locked.covered bike storage area is also provided on site in accordance with code requirements. Residents will be provided with a gate access card but are expected to provide their own individual bike locks. Staff Report—1/25/00 11 (OOsr05) During the community meeting on January 18, 2000, concerns regarding overflow parking were expressed. When the SRO ordinance was adopted, staff research concluded that typically not all SRO residents own vehicles and that the proximity to public bus stops, bicycle storage areas, and area for van drop-off and pick-up all combine to ensure an adequate parking supply. However, in an effort to alleviate the community's concerns regarding overflow parking, staff recommends that the project be conditioned to add additional parking spaces by reconfiguring the parking lot layout or by encroaching into the surplus landscaping on the site should parking become a problem. Staff recommends that parking and vehicle ownership be included as part of the annual review of the property. Proximity to public bus stops on Beach Boulevard, a surplus of parking spaces provided, covered bike storage area, and a van drop-off and pick-up area all combine to ensure that the project is provided with an adequate number of parking spaces to serve residents of the facility. Affordable Housing As required by the zoning code all 106 rental units will be provided as affordable housing for very low and low income individuals. The number of units devoted to very low(47 units) and low(59 units) income individuals has been extrapolated from the percentage of very low and low income units the City is charged with providing as part of our share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. RHNA numbers and allocations of target households are established by SCAG. The SRO management and leasing personnel will be responsible for screening potential tenants and qualifying each tenant based on their income. As each unit is large enough to accommodate either one or two people, affordability will be based on household sizes of one and two occupants. Staff is concerned that by simply specifying 47 units for very low income and 59 units for low income that the property owner may only qualify individuals at the top end of each income category. Therefore, staff is recommending that qualifying residents be dispersed across the range of income levels. For example, instead of allowing all 47 very low units to be rented to people earning 50% of the County median (representing the top end of the percentages)we recommend that at least one-half of the 47 units be rented to people earning no more than 35% of the County median. The other one- half of the 47 units may be rented to residents earning between 35-50% of County median. The same principle applies to the 59 low income units. Staff recommends that one-half of the 59 low units be rented to persons earning between 50-65% of County median and one-half between 65-80% of . County median: Staff Report— 1/25/00 12 (00sr05) Maximum Income Levels are shown in the chart below (Note:.for ease of discussion, each income level has been designated as Category A, B, C, or D): ..X ..Uh ... ....X..a...........,.......................................................-.....-...............S.......................................................%.......... ........ ........X.......:.........:.........X........'.........:.......:..X... ..................X..................:................­....................... .............................F..........:................................................ ................................a.... ........ ...........................................".................................,................... ......................... .... .].:....:.....].X..... ...:............0W........................................L%............... .. .............. .............:............ ....o......................... .........:.................. X . .... .� ..;.;. i......W.................. ..............................". .. .' .. ...................."...........X................:.. .....................X........................... .....0 ........................X..0_..6....X.....X....W. .,..X,]x..:....- ..:x.-....:..-. ­...... -......­:......:......:.......X.:.... ...... .................... ......................................,.....................................,.......'.............X................ ...........: ..............''....... .......'T. ............... .X..........".........................­...................,......_.......... ....X ......"...... ...".........X....a......................:.............................................."........................-........................ .........-....... ...-....... ......... ..-..... .........................".............................................................o......... .............................f........... ............................................................................ ....... ...................... .................... ............... ......."...............". .... . . en, WromX:b .ken....... .........ts .. . ......................... ... ..W.......... ... .. ``� :� : ........... .. ........ ............ ... ......... ................. . ............................ ....... . .:�:: ::. ................................. ...........O .. euXGMe . . . ....... 04 . . .... . ..... ...... .......................*...... .1 ................. ­ ...... . ................ .. ..... .. .................................................................... xx .... . ...... .. . ................... ...... ................X....... ............ .............. ........ .. ............ .... ........... .. . . ... . ... ... ....... . .. ........ ............... ... ......... 1 $47,800 $16,730 $23,900 1 $31,070 *$33,450 2 $54,650 $19,127 $27,325 1 $35,522 *$38,250 *HUD Income Standards for Orange County are adjusted for the Low Income category and do not exactly reflect 80 of County Median In addition to specifying the maximum income levels for all residents, staff is also specifying the maximum rental rates for all units. It is generally accepted that persons of very low and low income levels should spend no more than 30% of their income towards housing expenses. However, it would be very difficult for the SRO management to set different rental rates for each resident based on their exact income level. This approach would potentially result in different rents for all 106 units. In order to effectively manage the rental rates and allow the property owner to anticipate the amount of rent for each unit staff recommends the following approach. Staff recommends that rent for all residents earning a maximum of 35% of the County median be based on the 35% level and maximum of 30% of income towards housing expenses. Using this methodology, rent for a single person household would be determined by the following formula: Maximum Rent I Person Household Earning V to 35%of Counoy Median $47,800 (county median) x .35% (35% of county median) = $16,730 (maximum income) x 30% (maximum amount of income towards housing expenses) $5,019 (yearly housing expenses) divided by 12 (months/year) = $418.00 (Maximum rent if utilities paid by property owner); or minuiS2-800 (utility expense) $3 90.00 (Maximum rent per month when utilities paid by tenant) The disadvantage to this approach is that tenants earning between 0-35% of median income will pay more than 30% of their income towards rent. This disadvantage is offset, however, by the fact that the rent will still be less than what they could find elsewhere and the accommodations will consist of a quality project with numerous amenities. Staff Report- 1/25/00 13 (00sr05) Utilizing the above formula, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: :::>:::>«:» I :: ' : ;> r :arttx ::E els:>:::::<:>::>::>:;::::<:>::»::::::>::::>: ::: 'rx ::l<a, se # .. x rt.:..: ......::.....................::ram:.... .:...............::.:. ...............:::::::::::::::::::::::.::.........:::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.::.:.:::::::.::::::::: ::::.::::::.::::.;:.; :::::::::. .::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.::::::.:::::.:::..:...:::::::::::::::........................................::::::::::::::::................::......::......:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::..... ac rt1 :>::>::>::<::<:»»:<: 24 Very Low Units $390.00 $450.00 Income between 0-35% County Median (Cate o A 23 Very Low Units $569.00 $655.00 Income between 36-50% of County Median Cate o B 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median (Category C 29 Low Units $808.00 $928.00 Income between 66-80% of County Median (Category D 106 Total Units * $28.00 may be added to each maximum rent if all utilities are paid by the property owner As seen in the above chart, the maximum rent allowable for the low income units is quite high for a single room occupancy type project. To put the above rental rates in context, HUD has listed the fair market value rental rate for a studio apartment in Orange County at $645.00, which includes a utility allowance. This type of project will typically target individuals qualifying at the very low income levels because those who can afford the maximum rents allowed for low income will typically find a more standard one bedroom apartment. It should be clear that the City's goals are to provide the greatest number of housing units to very low income individuals. Therefore, the applicants may rent to more than the minimum number of very low income individuals in each category but may not exceed the number of units provided to low income persons. For example, the applicant may rent all 106 units to tenants under Category A(between 0- 35% of county median), or may rent the at least the required 24 Category A units and the remaining 82 units may be in Category B. At no time may the applicant exceed the unit numbers specified in any category without first satisfying the numbers required for the lower.income categories.. Affordable housing will be a permanent feature of the SRO project and will be guaranteed by an irrevocable covenant recorded on the property. The covenant will ensure that any future property owner is informed of the affordable housing restrictions. The project will be subject to an annual review by the City to ensure compliance with affordable housing requirements and a review of management and parking services. The SRO project manager will be responsible for filing the annual report and shall include the range of monthly rents, the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. i Staff Report— 1/25/00 14 (OOsr05) i SUMMARY: Staff has evaluated the project with regard to general planning/land use compatibility issues and determined that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals, are in compliance with applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) standards applicable to the property, and will be compatible with adjacent development. Based on the above analysis staff concludes that the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding uses due to the SRO's location and design and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. In addition the proposal will not have'any adverse environmental impacts. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit 99-31 for the following reasons: The proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and the proposed site design, project issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Existing mature trees which are proposed to be removed will be replaced in accordance with ZSO requirements. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which encourage the-development of a range of housing types, including Single Room Occupancies. The project will provide 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals. The affordable housing units will fulfill numerous social, community, and housing needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents. The subject development proposal will be in compliance with the CG(General Commercial) zoning district regulations inclusive of building setbacks, landscaping and off-street parking standards and City policies related to site planning. On site landscaping and parking improvements will comply with ZSO requirements. The project's scale will be compatible with existing development on site and properties in the immediate vicinity. Building mass offsets will be provided to articulate and segment the building elevations. The project will convey a quality visual image and character. ATTACHMENTS: 2. Site Pfm-� Floor Plans and Elevations ditted Deeember 16, i 999 SH:JM:kjl Staff Report— 1/25/00 15 (00sr05) i RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised) /Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy). COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Atto► a Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED_ RETURNED FORM RDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial GZs� City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: i Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use HCITV OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway,City Clerk Office of the City Clerk Liz Ehring, Deputy City Clerk 11 To: Ala, 4 T Date: Meeting Date: Agenda Item: f roposed City Council Agenda Items: The City Clerk's Office/City Administrator's Office must return your agenda item due to the following requirements that have not been met. When your Agenda Item is ready to resubmit,please return to: Elaine Kuhnke, Management Assistant, Administration 1. Signature(s)Needed A On RCA B On Agreement C Other 2. Attachments A Missing B Not identified C Other 3. Exhibits A Missing B Not identified C Other 4. Insurance Certificate(Proof Of Insurance) A Not attached B Not approved by City Attorney's Office C Signed form notifying City Clerk that department will be responsible for obtaining insurance certificate on this item.(See form attached) 5. Wording On Request For Council Action(RCA)Unclear A Recommended Action on RCA not complete B Clarification needed on RCA C Other 6. City Attorney Approval Required 7. Agreement Needs To Be Changed ( F A Page No. 8. Other G:agendafmisdreaform NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,November 6, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 (REVISED)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCYZ Applicant: Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. Request: To approve revised plans for development of a 107 unit single room occupancy/efficiency apartment project (106 rental units plus one manager's unit). The revised project consists of. 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units, 2)providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area, and 3) amending the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard) Project Planner: Jane James NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item would not have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after November 2, 2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714) 536-5227 GALEGALS\C0UNCIL\00\00cc 1106b.doc 2--7' Do 157 341 11 6 157 341 13 8 154 471 06 21 Jaffa Investments Ltd. Partnership Newman, Swanna O TR Dien,Nguyen Xuan C/o Newmak Merrill Co. 1915 Mariners Dr. 10185 Viveo Cir. 18801 Ventura Blvd. #300 Newport Beach,Ca..92660 Fountain Valley,Ca.92708 Tarzana, Ca. 91356 157 471 12 22 157 471 16 26 157 471 17 27 Smith,Le Shia TR 9582 Hamilton Ave, Yoshizawa,Hiroaki Lin, Ching-Ho Huntington Beach,Ca. 92646 PO Box 2212 3550 Manor Rd. Palos Verdes,Ca.90274 Bethlehem,PA 18020 157 501 06 32 157 501 10 36 157 501 13 39 Tinnessen,Paul V. TR Percin,Carol Zanetta,Donald R. TR . . 16601 Garfield Ave.#93 PO Box 348 25 Thunder Trail Paramount, Ca. 90723 Redondo Beach,Ca.90277 Irvine,Ca. 92614 157 502 10 52 Jenkins,Donald L. 11584 Marigold Cir. Fountain Valley,Ca. 92708 ,�- w,,� v vao------- (Cue doh 6L P40 � . ot � vaA- �� VU'"'7= 10- 1 SRO INTERESTED PARTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Mr.Mark Black Mr. Robert Butler Ms. Carol Black 743 S.Brea Blvd.,#15 911 West Bay Avenue Brea CA 92891 Balboa CA 92664 Hunt ngtCalo me Drive Huntington Beach CA 92649 Ms.Mary Lou Hughes Amwest Environmental Clayton Bonn & Glen Cuse Dr.James Lu 18642 Maplewood Drive 8566 Fallbrook Circle,#705-C 7755 Center Avenue,#1100 p Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Mr.Morris Bolter Richard&Margery King Ms. Pat Goodman 835 N. Claybourn Avenue 18616 Vallerta Drive 18531 Bentley Lane Burbank CA 91505 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Simone Palmer Mr.Rosa Diaz Don Zanette 18733 Applewood Circle 19451 Mauna Lane 25 Thunder Trail Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Irvine CA 92614 Tenant Tenant Tenant 8051 Ellis Avenue 8051 `/2 Ellis Avenue 8071 Ellis Avenue Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 8071 %2 Ellis Avenue 8091 Ellis Avenue 8101 Ellis Avenue Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 8121 Ellis Avenue 18441 Patterson Lane 18432 Patterson Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant(TEXACO GAS STATION) Occupant Sun Tanning Center 18502 Beach Blvd. 18801 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 300 18546 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tarzana CA 91356 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ellis Dry Cleaners New Orleans Caf6 David Levine-Dentist 18510-A Beach Blvd. 18552 Beach Blvd. 18516 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach Property Dr.Jepson Tenant 18530 Beach Blvd. 18518 Beach Blvd. 18641 Libra Circle,#1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SRO INTERESTED PARTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18641 Libra Circle,#2 18641 Libra Circle,#3 18641 Libra Circle,#4 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18642 Libra Circle,#1 18642 Libra Circle,#2 18642 Libra Circle,#3 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Coastal Credit Bureau T C's Cocktails 18642 Libra Circle,#4 18520 Beach Blvd. 18528 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Praise Christian Center Bailey's Dance Arthur J.Cabrera D.D.S. 18534-18536 Beach Blvd. 18538 Beach Blvd. 18542 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Belton Hearing Aid Center The Brennan Co. Tenant 18546 Beach Blvd. 18544 Beach Blvd. 18651 Libra Circle, #1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18651 Libra Circle,#2 18651 Libra Circle,#3 18651 Libra Circle,#4 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18652 Libra Circle,#1 18652 Libra Circle,#2 18652 Libra Circle,#3 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648> Tenant Tenant Tenant 18652 Libra Circle,#4 18661 Libra Circle, #1 18661 Libra Circle,#2 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18661 Libra Circle,#3 18661 Libra Circle,#4 18662 Libra Circle,#1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA, 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18662 Libra Circle,#2 18662 Libra Circle,#3 18662 Libra Circle,#4 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SRO INTERESTED PARTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18671 Libra Circle,#1 18671 Libra Circle,#2 18671 Libra Circle,#3 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18671 Libra Circle,#4 18672 Libra Circle,#1 18672 Libra Circle,#2 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18672 Libra Circle,#3 18672 Libra Circle,#4 8132 Ellis Avenue,#A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 8132 Ellis Avenue, #B 8132 Ellis Avenue, #C 8132 Ellis Avenue,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 8142 Ellis Avenue,#A 8142 Ellis Avenue,#B 8142 Ellis Avenue,#C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 8142 Ellis Avenue,#D 8142 Ellis Avenue,#E 18531 Demion Lane,#A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18531 Demion Lane,#B 18531 Demion Lane,#C 18531 Demion Lane,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18532 Demion Lane,#A 18532 Demion Lane,#B 18532 Demion Lane,#C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18532 Demion Lane,#D 18541 Demion Lane,#A 18541 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18541 Demion Lane,#C 18542 Demion Lane,#A 18542 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SRO INTERESTED PARTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18542 Demion Lane,#C 18542 Demion Lane,#D 18551 Demion Lane,#A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18551 Demion Lane,#B 18551 Demion Lane,#C 18551 Demion Lane,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18541 Demion Lane,#D 18652 Libra Circle,#4 18552 Demion Lane,#A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18552 Demion Lane,#B 18552 Demion Lane,#C 18552 Demion Lane, #D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18571 Demion Lane,#A 18571 Demion Lane, #B 18571 Demion Lane, #C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18571 Demion Lane,#D 18572 Demion Lane,#A 18572 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18572 Demion Lane,#C 18572 Demion Lane,#D 18581 Demion Lane,#A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18581 Demion Lane,#B 18581 Demion Lane,#C 18581 Demion Lane,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18582 Demion Lane,#A 18582 Demion Lane,#B 18582 Demion Lane,#C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18582 Demion Lane,#D 18601'Demion Lane,#A 18601 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SRO INTERESTED PARTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18601 Demion Lane,#C 18601 Demion Lane,#D 18602 Demion Lane, #A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18602 Demion Lane,#B 18602 Demion Lane,#C 18602 Demion Lane,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18611 Demion Lane,#A 18611 Demion Lane,#B 18611 Demion Lane,#C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18611 Demion Lane,#D 18612 Demion Lane,#A 18612 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18612 Demion Lane,#C 18612 Demion Lane,#D 18621 Demion Lane,#A Huntington Beach CA .92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18621 Demion Lane,#B 18621 Demion Lane,#C 18621 Demion Lane,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18622 Demion Lane,#A 18622 Demion Lane,#B 18622 Demion.Lane,#C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18622 Demion Lane,#D 18631 Demion Lane,#A 18631 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18631 Demion Lane,#C 18631 Demion Lane,#D 18632 Demion Lane,#A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18632 Demion Lane,#B 18632 Demion Lane,#C 18632 Demion Lane,#D Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SRO INTERESTED PARTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18641 Demion Lane,#A 18641 Demion Lane,#B 18641 Demion Lane,#C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Tenant 18641 Demion Lane,#D 18642 Demion Lane,#A 18642 Demion Lane,#B Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tenant Tenant Gianni Solari 18642 Demion Lane,#C 18642 Demion Lane, #D C/O Solari Enterprises,Inc. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1544 W. Yale Avenue Orange CA 92867 Maureen Sheehan Robert Butler Randy K. .20512 Tobermory 911 W. Bay Avenue 18507 Pueblo Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 Newport Beach CA 92661 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Liz Phibbs Diana Wong Don Hanis 15642 Sunburst 224 E. Commonwealth 224 E. Commonwealth Huntington Beach CA 92647 Fullerton CA 92832 Fullerton CA 92832 Steve Secord Majorie Niland Mark Singer 6311 Princeville 16117 Springdale,#325 8382 Bluff Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92646 i Barbara Boskovich Angela Fan Jack Wenzel 18341 Springtime Lane 2000 Pacific Coast Hwy. 13132 Buckingham Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster CA 92683 Fred Bruning Chauncey Alexander Robert Cronk 2601 Airport Drive Sally Alexander 18312 Hartlund Torrance CA 90274 8072 Driftwood Drive Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Ann Palmer Marlene McIlroy Kirk Kirkland 4512 Heil Avenue 19832 Pueblo Cirlce 21782 Oceanview Lane Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Margene Watkins Ley Malilay Jeff Lebow 18531 Demion Lane 619 19`h Street 18291 Pammy Lane Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SRO INTERESTE5 kkTIES—UPDATED 10/20/00 Bill Bernard Glenn Selvin Lou Baker 16222 Monterey Lane 8432 Bass Circle 18746 Racquet Lane Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Frederick P.Kent Lynne Fishel 18642 Demion#A 9 Executive Circle Tenant Huntington Beach CA 92646 Irvine CA 92614 Hunt Ellis Avenue Huntington Beach CA 92648 0wrj�7-(s 3.2-1X -- `- I S T SUSAN W. CASE, INC. oWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE - vi i uienneyre Street, Suite 7, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE(949)494-6105 - FAX(949)494-7418 8102 ELLIS .AVE FILE#599650 - - - .. .. .. HUNTINGTON BEACH: CA 157 471 J2 157 502 13 55 300 ' LIIN6 Doris Mescher MAY 21 1999 2006 Nautilus Ln Newport Beach CA 92660 157 341 06 1 15734107. 2) 3 7 341 3 P A Poon &San Vince Lann Vi Lanni 18462 Beach Blvd 1166 Cannon Rd 1166 non Huntington Beach CA 92648 Riverside CA 92506 Riverside 92 6 157 341 09 4 157 341 10 5 157 341 11 6 Cy Gladys Buelah Parker Swanna Newman 606 N Brambles Way 2982 Marx Rd 7381 Walnut Ave Orange CA 92869 Rice WA 99167 Buena Park CA 90620 157 341 12 71 is, IL? 157 341 13 8 157 343 14 9 Joseph Apple Nguiyen Xuan &Lynn Dien .Charles Shepherd :8071 Ellis Ave 18409 Patterson Ln 18441 Goodwin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington.Beach CA 92646 15734316 10 • 157 343 16 11 - 157 343 17 12 Eva K Braunstein Kyle Kurata CHURCH HUNTINGTON BEA 25252 Sagecrest Cir 8.161 Ellis Ave 8121 Ellis Ave Newhall CA 91381 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 157 34318 .13 157 34319 14- 57 343 ^ 15 John&Daniel Craney Earl Parker Jo h App 8101 Ellis Ave 2335 Wards Creek Rd 8071 s Ave Huntington Beach CA 92646 Rogue River OR 97537 Huntingto Beach C 9264S �807 �spA�ve 1 — -16 - 157 343 22. 17 157 343 23 18 -- Gustavo&Blanca Gallardo Celestino& Patricia Perez 8092 La Palma Dr 8102 La Palma Dr Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach.CA 92646 157 47104 19 157 471 05 20 157 47106 -- 21 Marta Keller KELLER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Jgtw 9911 Anthony PI 18502 Beach Blvd 16161 Ventura Blvd Beverly Hills CA 90210 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Encino CA 914 36 157 471 12 22 15747113 23 157 471 14 24 Le Shia Smith Hue Khanh Thi Nguyen Zlatko Zadro 9822 Villa Pacific Dr 11391 Bluebell Ave 16742 Wanderer Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92649 157 471 15 25 157 471 16 26 157 471 17 27 Philip Lee&Ruth Eileen Gross Zaher Khalaf Ching-Hotin 9562 Zetland Dr 18212 Newmoon Ln 2500 Mahantongo St Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pottsville PA 17901 157 471 18 28 15747131 29 157 471 32 30 Terry&John Engel Plaza Beachstone Amwest Environmental .G-, 18672 Libra Cir 9454 Wilshire Blvd" 10701 Los Alamitos Blvc Huntington Beach CA 92646 Beverly Hills CA90212 Los Alamitos CA 90720 157 50105 31 157 501 06 32 157 501 07 33 Richard Richonne TINNESEN PAUL;UDTAPRIL 10 199 Thomas A Neilon 1744 Paloma Dr 8172 Ellis Ave 41420 Woodhaven Dr W Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Palm Desert CA - 92211 157 501 08 34 157 501 09 35 157 501 10 36 Gerald Long Edward &Maria Martella LI-Saw Chen 3536 sunglow Dr. 19415 Ironwood Ln 1 Franklin Town Blvd Redding CA 96001 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Philadelphia PA 19103 157 501 11 371 38 1 7 501 38 157 501 13 39 Katsuji Kawai Kat •i Kawai Enno Kirleis 9687 La Granada Ave 9687 L ranada 10474 Egret Ave Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain V ley CA.92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708 .157 501 14 40 _ 157 501 16 -41 - 157 501 16 42 Charl&s & Barbara Edgerton Linda Desoto • Frederick Kent III 17372.,Burdie Ln. 203 15th St 180 Pineview Orange`CA 92869 Manhattan Beach CA 90266 Irvine CA 92620 157 502 01 43 157 502 02 44 157 502 03 45 Chdstobel Berger Richard N Richonne Joseph Sawaya 2601 E Ocean Blvd#802. 1744 Paloma .Dr PO Box 99 Long Beach CA 90803 Newport Beach CA 92660 San Luis Rey-CA.92068 157 502 04 46 - 157 502 05 47 157 502 06-- `_7. 48 . Gerald Smith Donald Kuo Joseph Sawaya 8315 Manifesto Cir 12337 Palm Si PO Box 99 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Cerritos CA 90703 San Luis Rey CA 92068 157 502 07 49 157 502 08-- 50 157 502 09 51 Johannes Van Hark Yu-Wen Chang Prafull J Surti 20322 Lighthouse Ln 30136 Avenida De Calma, 8853 Mockingbird Cir Huntington Beach CA 92646 Rancho Palos Verdes CA90275 Fountain Valley C 9270 157 50210 52 157 50211 53 S4- 4517502 54 Donald Jenkins Richard Lorenz Ri Lorenz 18621 Demlon Ln#A 19182 Hamden Ln 19182 Ha en Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington B CA 92646 CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: Gc k \"Q- ��.tvwtit' 1� RR-31 (1 use-�►� DEPARTMENT: ftmM ma MEETING DATE: I I - to • a0 CONTACT: PHONE: x 5Sl N/A YES 1\1Q Is the notice attached? ' ( ) Qg ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) dQ ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there.an En%ironmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a maD attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are.the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the foUowing:- I. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications �1 21 M • Is RL 0 € s MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Planning Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3/Local C oastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan) City Attorney Adoption of Resolution certifying Special Assessments Planning Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Rev)/Negative declaration No. 99-11 (Ellis Ave. Single Room Occupancy) TODAY'S DATE October 20, 2000 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: . APPROVED BY: Ray Silver ` 10/20/00 8:12 AM NOTICE-OFF PUBLIC.HEARING. �-ASEFORE'THE CITY`C'OUNCIL OF • THE CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION `NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 6, 2600, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,•Hunt- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ington Beach, the,City Council will hold-a,public hearing"on_the,following items: S S• CONDITIONAL .USE PERMIT NO.: 99-31 County of Orange ) (REVISEDI/EG'ATIVE DECLARATTION NO. 99-11 .(ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM ;OC- I am a Citizen of the United States and a Dr. James)Lu, A west Environmental', Inc.`Re- resident of the County aforesaid; I am quest: To approve re= cased plans for-develop- over the age of eighteen years and not a merit of,a 107 unit single room.-- occupancy/e i-- party to or interested in the below (106 rental 'apartment project ' (106 rental units plus '. one manager's .unit). entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of The revised project con- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a slats of: 1) limiting cupancy to-one_tenant in 91 units and two tenants- newspa er of general circulation, printed in 15 units; 2) providing additional parkin and pu lished in the City of Huntington spaces within the=`ex- cess landscaping.area, Beach, County of Orange State of and 3) ay _ -0r vitions � fordabdity- prowsrons and maximum"`o rental California, and that attached Notice is a rates for very low-=and_ ,low income AndividuiliF true and complete copy as was printed rLocation: 8102 EIIisAve r ue (south s!diAWrEllis and published in the Huntington Beach ►approximately'r,400`feet ,east of Beach{rBoule- and. Fountain Valley issues of said ;ward) .Pms',itc.Ianne iJane�=James';+'i" -. �0;. newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: GIVEN, •IS==HEREBjY .GIVEN-•that=�an'."initial environmental, assess= ;menvfor the above-item -was': processed and October 26 , 2000 completed ::in :ac= cordance witW.the-Cali- sfornia- Environmental- Quality Act. Itr.was'_de rtermined that the above .item would not:have'any "significant=environmen=- tal effect and,!-.therefore, arnegative declaration is — warranted This chellen efthe.Ci Coun- environmental assess g - I declare, under penalty of perjury, that merit is on file at the_City al"s act!on�.!n.court you r of Huntington- Beach may;bejlrmrted to raising the foregoing is true and correct. Planning Department only" those issues:you or 2000`Main Street, and is someone else raised at available for public.in- the public:-hearing-de- spection and.;,comment scribed in this notice;_or by contacting the,;Plan- in_- written cor= rang Department or by respondence delivered EXeCULed on October 26 2000 telepfioning (714) to the City at,or,prior to, at Costa Mesa, California. 536 5271'. the public hearing. If ON FILE:A copy of.the there :are-,any: further proposed:request is on questions please-call.the file in-the C!ty Clerk's Of- Planning -Divisioni at ficd,_2000.Main Street 536 5271 _and refer to Huntington:Beach; Cali the;above-:items. Direct fomia 92648 for--inspeo- .your written communica- tion-by the-p�yblic_Acopy lions.to ahe.:,Cityt Clerk. of the-staff'report will be ConnleyBrockway, available- to interested f Ctty Clerk pert!es'at City HMI;or the -City ' Main City.Libra (7111 H_untington Beach Talbert Avenue after 2000 Main Street, November 2, 2000. 2nd Floor, Signature ALL INTERESTED Huntington ornia 92e648 PERSONS are invited to (714) 536-5227 attend said hearing and express opinions or + Published Huntington submit evidence for or Beach-Fountain Valley against the application .Independent October as outlined above. If you 126, 2000 104.103 Connie Brockway, City Clerk Sao ... City of Huntington Beach /r��`� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 r �, •,,� ;, -��. . ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , max. S .H CA 927 10/27/00 IJ/ 34I uo P A Poon &Son paTINGTp 18462.Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92648 L T 1. .r .v % L')L icV L 4- L SAL 111Of'ICE- PUBL7iOT KNOWN ` RING Isa::.. .r:•„HW.� o :a,:,� aj, ��a' 'i9Ut�P.;,S;; 11114 11 tie 1s11611I all It il1ll1,6111lll.l,11fl1„L1„II11111I4II .�. Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 City of Huntington Beach fy Office of the City Clerk T P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 S A CA 927 IQV27/00 .157501 14 40 Charl&s & Barbara Edgerton ING 17372...Burdie Ln. Orange CA 92869 EDGE37Z? 928691002 1999 04 10/30/00 cz, -XP FORWARD TIME 1: RTN TO SEND EDGERTON 2546 E PALMYRA AVE ORANGE CA 92869-4643 C�UNTYRETURN TO SENDER NTI LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARK SSW's IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItoIIIIIsIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll11 .................. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk. P.O. Box 190 I't"i'26 J0 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H M E7'F.F(:-'j rum., t A cc, 527 10 27100 ernion Lane, #A n each CA 92648 ING C:1 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 p MEYER' .Jgpant -A CA 927 113/27/00 Demion Lane,#A Beach CA 92648 ING A-, NTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 326016 fill[ Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 #1 1'T1)i'1( Huntington Beach, CA 92648 vx. CA 927, 10/2:7/fir) ant emion Lane,#D t each CA 92648 ING UNTv LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING -50 Connie Brockway, City Clerk ti Ci City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P. m ETV Ten S .9 DA 327 IQv27/0fj 186 ane, #A livoe 92648 1216 s ^ _ o� 0 NTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 111 11 If If 11 1111111111111111 111 11 1111111111 111 11111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk I U,tv City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H Te 18 Lane,#A H CA 92648 Vt ING (40 F�OU'lives N I LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach o PV Office of the City Clerk`' =? � :•; P.O. Box 190 ..DCuU Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C ra H MET( 44A.2 Dia 1�?ry Xx -A CA 927 10/27/Utz 22 �� �� Ile ' � Q NTINGI ^/ '9�0 O� �MCO"'014f � � �F t it no'•� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk o,,T,,r6j City of Huntington Beach a-s PCfi-:J%inl:.Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H MEIER14��27%1-3 t Tenant * S.H CA 927 10/27/170 8142 Ellis Avenue,#E Huntington Beach CA 92648 INGTp�,�F •1 j'=".("" .� �':'�ui:'a:cs"dg,� � A'' mom,•: :..r.: .._:A;rc0"anr.,uat�•.�'%,s-. � RETURN r NTy cP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ' 9VjW%1? I,l,l„II,,,,,I,II .; Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0-'0001\1 s)S.Office of the City ClerkP.O. Box 190Huntington Beach, CA 92648M METER,422 2. ,i ? 224 alt -eTU�,� ate .H CA. 9Z7 '10/27/00 E �, FO fi� F 1 92 32 YVARDIN INGTpMCI, y � X PIliEn Ca Z `��puNrY cp`` LEGAL NOTI PU �RING y . '. .. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach \'VT ON S "' '"� Office of the City Clerk `' �� P.O. Box 190 02616 cv, f t I s. i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 n C A N METER t1?�'".2;.0 R S.fi CA %-7 10/27/0) r 1 157 471 18 28 - 4II NGTpy� Terry 81 John Engd a OWN 18672 Libra Cir 1! y +�mrrnn Beach CA 92646 ,I V ENGE67R 926461027 1999 06 11/02/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND O Q ENGEL 'TERRY C -- Z 9175 POINSETTIA AVE ,..,..,..- E FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92706-2.=40 (' `� OCTI 10 NI TA CC„ITCO ?' NTI ca LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 9264 -So6qk® c,%1MP Hill+„i,1,ll++,I++II„I+II,,1."111d..II„+1,1„11.....Jill Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk `, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CA H MET'(:R: .d-,..a ' $.A CA Ere? 10/27/00 Coastal Credit Bureau 18520 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 OWN ��NT I NGTpy r� 9scc , \EoQ RETURN t It LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING I I T I $—SIA0 a 4%%3`11P il,l,fill,1,ll,,,l„ll ,,,,,lIII Connie Brockway, City Clerk GTor� us.w:!;:a+ i, City of Huntington Beach ". ��� Office of the City Clerk ,� ! a �:' � R.x l E 0 D P.O. Box 190 ` _, Ilf, 2; 0 n I f F+i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H METER a2 ; : 7 A r.:A 927 lrj✓27✓rjrj Pi a stone 29 „k 946 eIvd' p�1TINGTO e. +tD.i d Je 9 Q � J4 rk i LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING .,_•��;�,�;;ia��s�p 11,1,;�;i;l;Ili„1;lif„i,ii�;;�,;111,1„11:;;1,1,�11;;�l;1;f1 , Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ;; ��G?pN 6, ��.s.KI!iIM-F Office of the City Clerk •� rt+ s !+ P.O. Box 190 UU26' U ' ,r F �` Huntington Beach; CA 92648 �sI C A H METER!422;,,'};0 ?'; 157 501 15. . . 41 z. C:A �2? its✓27✓M O v Unda Desoto, 203 15th St Manhattan Beach CA 90266 INGTp�, DE50203 9Oab63044 1599 09 10/31/00 FORWARD TIME_ E=.XP RTN TO SEND 9 y. DESOTO 'LINDA JANE 425 GOULD AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-2141 `� e+rr�ions rr1,. .r.FNT1FLZ. �puNTY ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ,;fill,I;ill,,I,II,,,,,;ili;l;;li;Ill;i;;li fill ill;j 'FROM it NBPM, INC., FAX NO. 714 964 1435 Nov. 06 2000 04:15PM P2 U fir BEACH, CA MC. logo }��td —6 �-1 4: 12 NEWPORT BEACH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,!NC 18630 Beach Blvd. Suite 206 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 963-4874 November 6, 2000 The City Council of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington beach, Ca . 92648 RE: Conditional Use, Permit #99-31 Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Ellis Avenue SRO Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: We are the owners of the Town & Country Shopping Center at the corner oz Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue, directly adjacent to the site of the proposed project under consideration this evening. On January 25, 2000, we appeared in opposition to the proposed development through our attorney Mr. Kenneth Wayman and by submitting written opposition to this application. We hereby resubmit our previous oral and written testimony in opposition to the application and are attaching a copy of our letter for your convenience, incorporating it herein by this reference. Nothing in the merits of the proposed development have changed since you and the City Council denied the application. We respectfully request that you again deny the application and preserve the public safety, land use integrity and property values of our community. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,_._.._. Kurt Effler, Property Manager for the Keller Limited Partnership (, Comm U�� FROM i NBPM, INC. FAX NO. : 714 964 1435 Nov. 06 2000 04:15PM P3 .. .�, •.. ALL' 4vv 1A -3.1-L 1441JiVVGV4 le.m Jan 25 01 04: 02p Nwtr•1Fit LLC 310 ??1-445n P.; Meeting January 25, 2_000 Ellis Avenue SRO CUP # 99-31 Neg. Dec. 99-11 Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach From Marto Keller and the Keller Limited Partnership Our family has owned the Town & Country Shopping Center at Beech & Ellis for 25 years and take pride in our property. Our center is RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the SRO. We are desirable property owners and have a great deal at stake in the use of this lot. The concerns we are voicing this evening include those we have heard from some of our -tenants, and so we ask you to consider our opposition as the voice of many rather then just one. As owners of the next-door shopping center we are especially concerned about the potential impacts if tenants start parking their cars in our parking splices. It certainly would be a temptation to leave a car next door in an lampty parking space in our Town & Country Center and zip into the front entrance of the project, rather than hassle to find a perking space in the back of the project and go all the way around the front. This will specifically adversely impact our property value, increase our maintenance costs, burden our tenants with additional inconvenience, and further diminish the desirability of our center. But we also appear before you this evening because of our deeply felt concerns that development of 106 units dedicated solely to very- .\ FROM NBPM, INC. FAX NO. : 714 964 1435 Nov. 06 2000 04:16PM P4 VVMVV Jan 25 01 04: 03c Nutr•iFit LLC 310 271-4450 law and low income tencnts WILL NOT WORD, and to urge your Honorable Commission to exercise its discretion, and deny the application. The Corrmision should find that California state law's mandatory findings for a conditional use permit have not met. State law mandates that no CUP be granted if it is detrimental to the general welfare of people working and living next to this place; or if is detrimental to the value of property and improvements; if it is not compatible with surrounding uses. These are.3 of the 4 mandatory findings. Detriment can not be avoided if -the project goes forward as proposed. No matter how well intentioned, the applicant has NO EXPERIENCE in developing or managing a SRO, and the City cannot mandate that the operators will employ the services of an experienced SRO management company. The key to success in this development is the strength and viability of its UN-GOING management, upkeep and security of the property. What if the tenants who choose to live here are the type of poor people who have given up hope? Instead of goirg to work, PAYING THE RENT and moving on tv better places, they become depressed, tale their meager funds and frequent the local bars and liquor store? That's detrimental to the general welfare and property values. What if the tenants do not tell the truth about their source of income when they move in? They meet the income requirements from legal sources; but supplement this with illicit income? This promotes criminal activity which is detrimental to the general welfare and property values. What can this applicant point.to that demonstrates this will not happen? There is simply no substitute for experience-IM Even though the appiicant may sincerely consider using an experienced SRO "FROM NBPM, INC. FAX NO. : 714 964 1435 Nov. 06 2000 04:16PM P5 Jar 25 01 04; 03p NUtr•iPit l.l.0 a U119 3iC Z71 -445a p, . operator, the city can not regulate this. Detriment will surely follow. The parade of VVHAT IFs continue. We believe this Commission may note that without an adequate income stream, project operators will cut corners to make ends meet. Project amenities, seurity and property maintenance will begin to fall because there gust isn't enough money to keep it going- A downward cycle will begin and there is nc quick fix to stop it. Operators will either be faced with large legal bills to do mass evictions of tenants which is time consuming and expensive, or simply try to seli off the development and cuttheir losses. Obviously, this will detrimentally affect the populace and neighborhood. The potential detriment to the people's general welfare and the value of neighboring property can not be avoided with a SRO of this size. 17 15 A HUGE MANAGEMENT REsPONSIaILM! 106 units that are solely dedicated to very low and low income housing are just too many to build into one project. 0peratorS cannot guarantee that each of these units will have 2 or fewer people living in rhem. They cannot guarantee that tenants will maintain their units. Can they knock on every door to get into each apartment and differentiate between tenants cr guests? NO. thou not reasonable. We believe if the project as proposed is inherently unreasonable and the Commission cannot make the necessary CUP findings, Also, we fear the financial constraints are too tight and this proposal is nvt reasonable. Operators can not use market rate units to offset operating losses that could occur if tenants don't pay the rent. As a commercial venture immediately next door, we are concerned the potential residents or this development will not have discretionary income to support the existing neighborhood or attact new businesses, In fact, tenants with these restricted income levels could drive away FROM': NBPM, INC. FAX NO. : 714 964 1435 Nov. 06 2000 04:17PM P6 umi Jan 26 01 C4: 03p NutriFit LCC 310 271 --•4a50 p. ! existing business. In this situation, there obviously would be detriment. Finally, this ver`f detriment renders the project inconsistent with the City's general plan General Commercial designation. This site has been planned to support commercial development, not impede it. For all of the above reasons, we urge this Commission to deny this application this evening. Thank you. 'FROM'S NBPM, INC. FAX NO. 714 964 1435 Nov. 06 2000 04:15PM P1 WINC NI'eWPORT BEACH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.INC 18630 Beach Blvd. Suits 206 Huntington Beady, CA 912648 (71 4) 363-4874 November 6, 2000 TO The City Council of Huntington Beach A Planning Cnmmic$inn FROM: Kurt Effler - Newport Beach P REGARDING: Conditional Use Permit #.99-31/Negati,eJZeclarainn_ rL Ellis Avenue SRO MESSAGE; Attached copy of letter from Marta Keller Limited Partnership is self-explanatory. Please respond accordingly. Thank You. Cif Y CLEP%K Members of the Huntington Beach City Council C i i Y OF City Clerk Fr i=! ! ;'f� Q ` BEACH, CA City of Huntington Beach 2000 NOV _b P 2: 0 2000 Main Street 2nd floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 City Clerk, Will you please see that the enclosed letter is distributed to the members of the City council before the meeting tonight,November 6, 2000. My attorney also Requests that the letter be read aloud when the Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy issue is brought before the council. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, (f J , Christobel I Berger, owner 8142 Ellis Ave. Enclosed 15 copies of letter. "t k Ur Y OF �iUKTt r._z!0F] 0UAIf"#.CA November 1, 2000 1600 b A 0: 0 3 Ralph Bauer, city council members, et.al Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92628 Dear Ralph and city council members: This is our letter protesting the building of the SRO on Ellis near Beach Blvd. We live nearby at the La Cuesta Tennis Club. As we've stated before, this intersection cannot tolerate 100 or so more cars driving in and out of 1 driveway. If your"neg dev" states that there will be no impact here,then whoever did your study has never had to drive 5 or 6 times a day through that intersection as we do. At the usual high-traffic times, it can take 3 signal cycles to get across Beach. Even at low traffic times, it's not unusual to wait 2 cycles. With construction of the Wal-Mart on Talbert, more people will be using Ellis to enter Fountain Valley and beyond. With Talbert and Ellis severely impacted by heavy traffic, getting to our home will only be easily achieved through Fountain Valley. Ellis is too narrow a street to be a safe intersection. It lacks a left turn lane into the liquor store behind the Jack-in-the-Box, although people frequently do this from the left lane. There is also a steady stream of cars turning into the gas station on the corner from either northbound or southbound lanes, also congesting Ellis. What really frightens me about the SRO location is that the cars emerging from the driveway will make a left turn onto Ellis, driving across the southbound lanes. This turn is very hazardous. I have had several near-misses there myself, (cars from the dry cleaners). Even if you prohibit left turns, people will still make them illegally. No one on the city council will have to live with this decision; only those of us who have established our homes there. We should have a major part in this decision. Please consider how much our neighborhood has already been impacted and again, vote this poorly designed"rabbit-warren" down. There is no other high- density housing in this neighborhood. If it is human dignity you are looking for in a facility for low-income people, this design is not it. Sticking people into dorm-like rooms and having only a "common kitchen" is hardly decent housing for adults. Cooking is vital to people with little money for eating in restaurants or fast-food. Low-income people need D � "normalcy:"apartments and houses, not dorms or"cells." As for as we can see, this project is designed to make money for the owner, (i.e. government money), and that is all. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, IV7 Mark an Marlene Singer ,. 8382 Bluff Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 [ 1.L.-- CENT7�S a. �';,7 : 16i_ACli, CA OAKproperties, LLC. jUQU NOV _ j November 6,2000 Members of the Huntington Beach City Council City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2°d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Conditional Use Permit No.99-31 (Revised)/Negative Declaration No.99-11 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy) Members of the City Council: I represent Mrs. Christobel Berger,owner of one of the adjacent four-plex properties abutting the above-referenced project. This letter is written in strong opposition to the City Council's reconsideration of this most ill considered project. This project has been before the City Council and Planning Commission many times before,and has been appropriately turned down each time. Apparently the applicant,threatening litigation,has forced yet another rehearing of this project. The facts have not changed, and the City of Huntington Beach has ample grounds to deny this flawed project yet again. In fact,the legal liability facing the city should it reverse its course now would be far greater than standing up to the bullying tactics of a profit-seeking developer. The proposed project would create significant health and safety issues in the neighborhood. The density of the project as resubmitted is too great, and the use is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood,which has never had a three-story project. The design of the project violates the privacy of residents,with the upper story residents having direct visual access into neighboring bedrooms and garages. The very guidelines established for SRO units demand that these projects take such matters into consideration,and failure to do so will subject the city and its staff to serious liability. One of the constant themes found in SRO projects is the absolute need to limit occupancy to one resident per unit. Any deviation from this rule would be totally unacceptable. Should the applicant claim that this would render the project financially difficult,I would argue that that means the site is not suitable for his project, or that he simply wants too much for his land value. The city should not open itself up to serious liability and litigation by dropping safety and welfare standards to simply line the pockets of a developer who has shown an arrogant disdain for the wishes of the bona fide residents and leaders of the Huntington Beach community. LTE- (DMM�ANICXT(o(J D 'J 2601 Airport Drive, Suite 240 • Torrance, CA 90505 310.257.9377 • Fax 310.257.9379 Email: CenterOak@aol.com City of Huntington Beach: CUP 99-31 Page 2 Should you see fit to favorably consider this terribly inappropriate use, at least you must apply the standards that the experts in the SRO field have set forth and absolutely prohibit any occupancy of over one person per room! Every manager of SROs questioned by your own staff and by the residents who put their fmdings into testimony before you has reiterated this simple requirement, yet the applicant persistently ignores this mandate. As an additional fall-back provision,the proposed project should be limited to two stories,which would be the maximum height required to fit into the neighborhood and to avoid the negative health and safety consequences implicit in allowing residential units to peer directly into their neighbor's bedrooms and garages. The transient nature of the occupants and the likelihood of crime would seem to make such precautions simply obvious. Again, should the applicant decry such a limitation as being financially burdensome,the answer should be to build something else, rather than ruin a neighborhood to line his pockets. Members of the City Council,I strongly urge you to do what is right, and not to cave in to threats of litigation when you have made your positions so clearly known to this applicant in the past. You have every right to limit the size,height,occupancy and architecture of this project as you see fit,and no obligation to agree to the applicant's pro forma assertions of economic affordability. Please do what is right and deny the application outright,or at least limit the size and occupancy of this project to fit the neighborhood,not to fit the applicants exaggerated financial needs. Should your actions not be so guided,we will pursue all legal remedies available. Yours truly, Fred W.Bruning Attorney at Law FWB: cs CC:Mrs. Christobel Berger NOV. -06' 00 (NION.) 10 05 RALSTON FOODS TEL:949 955 2488 P. 002 C, . I ULL XR CITY OF UH 01N 8 E A C H, CA Hans A. Vanherk 11/06/2000 10:23 AM ZOOO NOV —b A To: Honerable Mayor and City Council Members cc,, Subject; ELLIS SRO I am sorry to hear that you are again considering building the SRO on the Ellis and Beach property. As you previously rejected the proposal on the basis that this project was not compatible and was detrimental to the general welfare and to the property values in the neighborhood. You found this project to be to dense and would affect noise and traffic and would have a visual Impact on the neighborhood, The revised proposal as submitted has not addressed these issues , we therefore request that you postpone and study the above issues with your eye on correcting them. SOME SUGGESTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: Suggestion #1 - You lower the building height from three stories to two stories.( or You lower building height by building ist floor below ground lev6l.) Suggestion #2 - You increase the height of the fencing 4-6 ft. Suggestion #3 - You require that windows on the East side of the property have opaque glass. Suggestion #4 - You delay your decision to study the traffic flow on Ellis. . You rebuilt Ellis to accomadate the traffic flow. - You provide the proper signage and restripe Ellis, that would require right hand turns into and out of that property. Suggestions #15- You tighten up the requirement on the management company , to be sure that background checks are done through KEL police department. Sincerely, Hans Van Herk (714) 969-7867 .!IOU.'-061 00 (MON) 10 05 RALSTON FOODS TEL:949 955 2488 P. 001 Ralston Foods 2192 Martin Street, Suite 150,Irvine, CA 92612 FAX Date: Number of pages including cover sheet: To: �� � _ From: Photo: (949) 955.2288 FAX,( jX2 FAX: _ (949) 955-2488 CC /V,�1 9� Y r CITY Of CA Z000 E t y -h P 4- 2 0 ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revised) i Negative Declaration No. 99-11 j SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) 1 106 units plus 1 managers unit 1 85 units at 260 sq. ft. 1 15 units at 338 sq. ft. 1 6 handicapped units at 268 sq. ft. i Common recreational area i 24-hour on-site manager i One locked and monitored entrance/exit 1 47 units for very low income (< 50% County median) 1 59 units for low income (50-80% County median) z 1 r , i i i i BACKGROUND Planning Commission denies project on March 14, 2000 City Council denies appeal on May 15, 2000 Applicant files litigation on July 13, 2000 Applicant revises proposal in October i 3 i i NEW PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 6, 2000 j Council to Consider Revised Proposal i One occupant max - 91 units i Two occupant max - 15 units i Adds 14 parking stalls - total 95 spaces i Same affordability as originally proposed Council to Consider Settlement Agreement i Litigation dismissed if project approved i Litigate original project if revised request rejected 4 t 2 r , STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Decrease in occupancy/unit Increase in parking - 95 spaces Compatibility with adjacent uses i Buffer between commercial and residential i Adequate parking (39 space surplus) 1 47 foot setback and alley on east side i Quality architectural design i 24-hour management i High level security; professional management i Stringent qualifications, application, and deposit i Minimum monthly leases 5 STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION (Cont'd) Affordable Housing: 1 49 units very low income (< 50% county j median) 1 59 units of low income (50% - 80% of county median) i Maximum of 30% of income towards housing expenses i Permanent affordability by irrevocable covenant i Annual compliance report 6 3 SUMMARY Recommend Approval of Revised Project and Settlement Agreement: i No adverse environmental impacts i General Plan goals and objectives for affordable housing i Complies with zoning; parking, landscaping, setbacks, height, floor area ratios i Compatible with adjacent uses i One centralized entrance/exit; restricted access i 24-hour manager i Annual compliance review i State law findings for denial do not apply AGREEMENT TO SETTLE AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNCILMEMBERS GAROFALO, HARMAN, SULLIVAN, BAUER, GREEN AND JULIEN AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION i 8 4 AGREEMENT TO SETTLE Gov't Code Section 65589.5 prohibits local government from disapproving very low, low, or moderate income housing project unless: i City already meets its regional share of low income housing [The City does not] i Project would have specific, adverse impact upon an existing public health or safety standard [Example project located on landfill or earthquake fault] i Project denial required by state or federal law [There is no such law] 9 AGREEMENT TO SETTLE (cont'd) i Project neighborhood has a high number of low income households [It does not] i Project is on agricultural or resource preservation land [It is not] i. Project is inconsistent with the City Zoning Code or General Plan [It is not] 10 5 ti AGREEMENT TO SETTLE (cont'd) State Law further places the burden on the City to prove to a court that the project denial meets one of these grounds. If it does not, the court shall issue an order compelling the City to approve the project within 60 days. The court then retains jurisdiction to ensure that its order is carried out. 11 AGREEMENT TO SETTLE (cont'd) Because the City Attorney believes it is more likely than not that a court would order the City to approve the original project, we are proposing a Settlement .Agreement that includes a revised project which mitigates some of the objections to the original project. 12 6 AGREEMENT TO SETTLE (cont'd) The agreement provides that the lawsuit will be dismissed if the revised project is approved. At the same time, the defendants would be prohibited from bringing any counter suit against Amwest for having brought the suit. 13 AGREEMENT TO SETTLE (cont'd) If the revised project is denied, then the City will litigate the original project. Finally, the agreement sets the development fees for the project at the level they were at when the City denied the original project in May. 14 v End of Presentation 15 8 (Please forward to the Council Members for the November 6, 2000 Public Hearing.) Angela Fan 2000 Pacific Coast Highway, #116 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 November 1, 2000 T Huntington Beach City Council C/o City Clerk ^` City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - ` Huntington Beach CA 92648 - -n RE: Opinion Regarding the Development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRQ� ' Facility at 8102 Ellis Ave.,Huntington Beach c Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: .I have learned that the subject project will be put on the November 6, 2000 Public Hearing Agenda again. I'm a Huntington Beach resident for over twenty years. I also work in Huntington Beach only about two blocks away from the SRO site. I'd to express my opinion about the project. I feel that the SRO project is a great idea for our City. I have discussed with many of my colleagues and they also support the project. One of the main reasons is we need this type of housing badly in our City. My company has many employees they cannot afford the high rent in the City.. They have to commute very far to the work..This facility would be very desirable for_them. I also heard that there will be a large resort development near the Hilton Hotel. I was told that this project will be HUD assisted and required many relatively low income employees. Where are we going to find suitable housing for them? If we have the SRO developed, we not only can solve the affordable housing problem for the City, the traffic problem will be improved also. The Council members talked a lot about the traffic issue. In my view,the SRO would help solving the traffic problems in the Beach Blvd., because, as we know singles or low income people live in SRO's are usually don't drive. We know that any of this type of development will be opposed by its neighbors due to NIMBY syndrome. However, the City Council should not be affected by the NIMBY at all. We should stand up for the right thing. Res a aectful7ly, ln Ange Huntington Beach Resident Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ��G�v' U.S. Office of the City Clerk ~ `�` �% , „. P.O. Box 190 '' '_ f" 126,3 n -�' f: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jt�"C A H ME7L-R?. 2:-T. 1 XX S.fl CA 922-7 10f27/00 157 471 32 3U Amwest Environmental Gr 10701. Los Alamitos Blvd INGTDyB Los Alamitos CA 90720 10I,,�o 10 LEGAL �.,-��c .1C.� �,G;T'• �:, ll�i�,�,i,{,i{�,�f��ii�,l!„llii I,I„il„i�IL,,,,,lil,l��11�,�1�1„(1,�,{�i„i Connie Brockway, City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach f�� ��'�aN U.S. Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 GC( r /1 , 2E'J(1 T' Huntington Beach, CA92648 I C A H METE�:cArp it9 t .A CA `Q2_? 10/27/00 Tenant 18671 Libra Circle,#1 ING y Huntington Beach CA 92648 a0� ���rof�rFu BF9 ,l COPF--:._ .... _Wiz= .. -_...,_-�-:=_-�----- ----— •- , �..T r 1• , is LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING .. : i '3 G %13 C , '^'.�....,. ttltlll 11111111191 llttl ltlttllllllttt l(Iltt11lilt/lttllllltltt �. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach (_y;;t'l \`DVS o� �, ;,.s.K 'IAG1. ,;9 Office of the City Clerk L l� �' �' :r L P.O. Box190 �•�� f,�.i 'E�,J �, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 V • xz S.H CA 92-7 1O/27/00 Tenant 18641 Libra Circle,#2 Huntington Beach CA 92648 INGTp�,��9 �- -- - - - '" : =_ !^� __ .z�:-,r-:�•-:,;:--_ .max �pUNTy �a , ...,.;.. LEGAL NOTICE ', 0B'U! ,4ARiNG Connie Brockway, City Clerk / -aIV U.S. !ar•►: .., City of Huntington Beach 6 Office of the City Clerk `I t P.O. Box 190 �i, OC12E'LG « Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' c'Q K METE ,::�.; a7111 Tenant .H rfi 927 10/2?i0B j 18641 Libra Circle,#3 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I{ 1NGTpyF l \O_`wi,W110I��fO FA� —. .���.�._ �. ..t"J_..,;::.. "......., ..`:�-.C. ., :'.Y.:S.�CiSlS1�Si^.`T�.�'L•1Rcl1T".�';i......... .. i . �v ff���nH•� �4 ij r;� �,r.hi 1}1-`..,'/ ..y,,. '.1 TO SENDER At,.0T:1dE -PUBLIC , EARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach / J ! _ v ocr'0011� _ U.S.POSIA(A /t" �j 1 Office of the City Clerk I.< s 4 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "U. H METER;4422.-.1 ^, •xx. 5 .A cA 5G7 ifs/2:7/00 t V f' J`i•/ 1 V V Nguiyen Xuan &Lynn Dien 18409 Patterson Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 INc 4��t�Zroy� 'Col . _� .....: a ...�,--,`_... r.r.-.::•r3,.gvrasy�.::.,r✓:ra:;•sc,. 'f.{ LEGAL 4'OTICE- PUBLIC HEARING ( ( y 0 - _ I1,1,,,,t,l,i{,„l,,ll„t,,,,111 1,t„lilt 1,11,„1„11111.11f,11111111,,,1,1„1 _._... __,.: .,,.... .r 3� �►a tea ` - Connie Brockway, City Clerk U , ;n e P10157 City of Huntington Beach S'� , Office of the City Clerk P.O. BOX 190 c f 4. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tenant 18641 Libra Circle,#4x 3:� f.;H27 �U�27fC.1r1. Huntington Beach CA 92648 INGTp,�,�� � - s Ul ,c 'Y.*:_.'t^'.:^�."' �= _ 4R N TO >i_11t0y_`R' �UUNTY a 4G -NQrtl��,- PUBLIC H RING �, ..= ..=r f � II { I I {I I 'll I II{ i 1 ii i fi 1ii i iI i i lI i i i,�::.•- - .._=:��. i Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach - ° \ ! i'•1 � �� "� �' U.S,Sri:.t1,• Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ,� y-. ; L> :i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �:� c A ���nor��s�u:;:..:-:•: �a Tenant 18641 Libra Circle,#I Huntington Beach CA 92648 INGTpy�F `, 1 S E1,n i v��,.V. ,YA-J' •.�'.,.,W AL NUT ICE - PUBLIC HEARING �.. �rF��•._� �•�'.,.�•_ It,l,,,,l,l,lt,,,l„It„1,,,,1I1 I!i„li„I,1i,,,,,,i1Ll„I1„J,l„il,,,l,l„) ifR �y 4 1 Connie B,,,,, a City Of Huntin Y. City Clerk Office of the gton Beach CitY Clerk Huntington Be oX 190 ach, Cq 9 2648 ' �20 lrG� 1j i lr'J� SD E��NTINST� o �p` �;; o�a ._ • Libra Cir e �•' I+ r; f'`' ,•�a �� \.�.w.,, � �,�}�' 0 Won Beach >CA 92648 p o o 1_ TY Ca���� LEGAL NOTICE_ p ---.. UgLIC HEARING • c,UMp (4) November 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 4 The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will regularly convene in joint session for the purpose of considering the following City Council-Redevelopment Agency Agenda Items. The Huntington Beach Parking Authority, Civic Improvement Corporation, and the Huntington' Beach Public Financing Authority are also agencies on which Council serves as members. On each Agenda these Agencies may have items scheduled. i 7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber Reconvene City Council/Redevelopment Agen'cy Meeting i The City Attorney Shall Determine If Any Actions Taken By The City Council or Redevelopment j Agency In Closed Session Shall Require A Reporting On Those Actions As Required By Law (Government Code §54957.1(a) (3) (B)). (City Council) City Attorney's Report of Action Taken by the City Council in Closed Session on October 16, 2000 (Pursuant to Government Code §54957.1(a) (3) (B))—Instructed City Attorney not to Request PUC (Public Utilities Commission)for Reconsideration of So Cal Water Company's Application to Provide Water and Waste Water System Services to Hearthside Home's Bolsa Chica Mesa Proiect (120.80) The City Attorney will announce that Council voted on a closed session item: On Monday, October 16, 2000, the City Council convened in closed session to discuss the Matter of the Application of Southern California Water Company(U133M for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 1001 to extend its West Orange County System to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community,Application 98-11-003; and Related Waste Water System Application. City Council voted to instruct the City Attorney not to request the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) to reconsider its decision authorizing Southern California Water to provide water and waste service to -- Hearthside's Bolsa Chica Mesa project. The Council voted as follows-Ayes: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer. Noes: Sullivan and Harman. (1) City Attorney announced above Report of Action Taken (2) City Attorney announced Action approving Amwest Settlement Agreement - Amwest v. City submitted on 11-06-00 (4-2-1 Bauer, Sullivan No; Harman absent) (3) City Attorney announced Report of Action taken out of Closed Session: On Monday, 11120100 the City Council convened in Closed Session to consider whether to initiate litigation against the California Coastal Commission . over a suspension letter issued by the Commission regarding the City's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 97-15. (1)Approved the Settlement Agreement(2)Authorized the Mayor Pro Tem/Chairman Pro Tern to execute the Settlement Agreement and Deed Restriction on behalf of the City/Agency(3)Authorized the recordation of the Deed Restriction as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (5-0-2 Harman, Garofalo absent) Roll Call Julien, Sullivan,.Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer _ [Present- Harman absent] Flag Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance- Maureen Rivers- H.B. Fourth of July Executive Board - Invocation - Councilmember Dave Sullivan v (12) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 12 D-3. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Revise d)/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 Filed by Dr. James Lu for a 107 Unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Affordable Housing Development at D8102 Ellis Avenue (400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard) - Approve Settlement Agreement between the City and Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., Orange )jOCounty Superior Court Case No. 00 CC 08364 (420.40) Public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. Request: To approve revised plans for development of a 107 unit single room occupancy/efficiency apartment project (106 rental units plus one manager's unit). The revised project consists of: 1) limiting occupancy to one tenant in 91 units and two tenants in 15 units, 2) providing additional parking spaces within the excess landscaping area, and 3) amending the affordability provisions and maximum rental rates for very low and low income individuals. Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 400 feet e/o Beach Boulevard). Environmental Status: An initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item would not have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted. This environmental . assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714).536-5271. u� ** Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from Angela Fan dated November 1, 2000 titled Opinion Regarding the Development of a Single Room Occupancy(SRO) Facility at 8102 Ellis Ave., Huntington Beach. The letter transmits support of the proposed Single Room Occupancy (SRO) project. ** Communication received in the City Clerk's Office on November 2, 2000 from Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. to City Council and the Planning Department dated October 30, 2000 and titled Facts for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Affordable Housing at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach. (This communication is identified in the agenda packet as ATTACHMENT NO. 3.) On File: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, .Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report is available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after November 2, 2000. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 714/536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff Report 2. City Council Discussion 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Following Public Input, Close Public Hearing (Continued on the Next Page) (13) November 6, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 13 Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with Findings for Approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and- 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 R with Findings and Suggested Conditions of Approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and 3. Approve Settlement and Release Agreement between Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) and authorize execution with non-substantial changes by the Mayor and City Clerk. [City Clerk announced Late Communications] [Approved I and 2;.and 3 as amended for 40% seniors age 55 & up. Approved 5-1-1 (Sullivan-No; Harman-Absent)] �- [Motion to put on agenda as an emergency item the subject of staff studying revised affordable housing ordinance. Approved 5-1-1 (Green - No; Harman - Absent)] 4 [Motion to direct Planning Commission to begin study to improve current SRO ordinance: one person per room, increase parking and increase room size. Approved 5-1-1 . (Green- No; Harman - Absent)] . i (8) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS ( ' Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms located near the Speaker's Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing -Appeal Filed by Dr. James Lu,Amwest Environmental, Inc. of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31INegative Declaration No. 99.11 - 8102 Ellis Avenue 400 Feet elo Beach Boulevard, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) (420.40) �} Public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. (b-g-00 of tj a Planning Commission's denial of the following: Applicant: Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. Request: To permit the development of a 107 unit single room occupancy project. The project consists of efficiency apartment units for very low and low income individuals. " Location: 8102 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard). Environmental Status: An initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.. =.� it was determined that the above item would not have any significant environmental � . effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted.- This environmental - assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714)536-5271. On Fite: A copy of the staff report is available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone.else raised at the public hearing described In this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 7141536-5271 and refer to the above Rem. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. 1. Staff Report 2. City Council Discussion 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Following Public Input, Close Public Hearing Planning Commission Recommended Actions: Motions to: 1. Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings set forth in (Attachment No.1); and i;C) 2. Deny Conditional Use Permit No.99-31 with findings set forth in (Attachment No.1) i (9) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 [Approval PC action & denied (1) & (2) with findings for denial to be presented at 615100 meeting] 16-1 (Dettloff No)) a; 2. AppFeve Conditional Use PeFmit Isle. 99 34 With fiRdiRSS and suggested GORditieR D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing—Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 Park Odinance Lieu Fees for Residential Properties—Approve introduction of Ordinance .3468 (640.10) blic hearing to consider the following: plicant: City of Huntington Beach quest: To amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision (ZSO)addressing the'method to calculate parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. Location: Citywide. Environmental Status: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California I Environmental Quality Act. . The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the ZTA with modifications (Recommended Action—A) in order to address issues raised by several developers and consultants. They recommend a two-phase approach: (1) the ZTA be approved establishing a method for fees based upon 50% of the average value per acre of citywide parkland;and (2) direct staff to complete a comprehensive study identifying costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Staff is recommending approval of the ZTA as directed by the City Council on November 1, 1999 which requires a site specific appraisal to be submitted to determine 'the exact park In-lieu fee (Recommended Action—.B). On File: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California for inspection by the public.. A copy of the staff report'is available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action In court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 714/536-5271 and refer to the above Rem. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.