Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear 1 of 2 - Appeal (James Lu) to PC Denial of Conditio r. (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 "� 8102 Ellis Avenue (400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard) - Approve Settlement Agreement between the City and Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., Orange ('kj, 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) l�� (12) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 12 Mayor Garofalo announced that this was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. of the Planning Commission's denial of the following: Applicant/Appellant: 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. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. The City Clerk announced following Communications, which she had received on the hearing. Eleven letters of opposition from Huntington Beach residents relative to the Public Hearing titled Appeal filed by Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit#99-31/Negative Declaration#99-11 —8102 Ellis Avenue, 400 feet e/o Beach Blvd—Single Room Occupancy (SRO). Letters submitted: Todd and Wendy Freitas, Barbara Sisson, Stephen Burris, Ami Racin, Henry Herbst, Brian and Simone Barsuglia, Khalid and Dalia Shams, Carol Nehis, Sue Wamke, George Tseko, and M.K. Watts. Fourteen letters received from Huntington Beach residents in opposition to City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. #99-31 —Single Room Occupancy (SRO) at 8102 Ellis Avenue, which are included in the Council packet. Letter from Christobel Berger in opposition to the proposed Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy (SRO). Petition listing approximately 86 signatures of Huntington Beach residents requesting City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. #99-31 —Single Room Occupancy (SRO) at 8102 Ellis Avenue. Petition submitted by Magda Saborio Saldano. (Complete petition available for public review at the Office of the City Clerk). A separate petition listing approximately 55 signatures of Huntington Beach residents requesting City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. #99-31 —Single Room Occupancy (SRO) at 8102 Ellis Avenue. Petition submitted by Magda Saborio Saldano. (Complete petition available for public review at the Office of the City Clerk). Petition listing approximately 6 signatures of Huntington Beach residents requesting City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No.#99-31 —Single Room Occupancy (SRO) at 8102 Ellis Avenue. Petition submitted by Magda Saborio Saldano. (Complete petition available for public review at the Office of the City Clerk). (13) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 13 Petition listing approximately 13 signatures of Huntington Beach residents requesting City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. #99-31 —Single Room Occupancy (SRO) at 8102 Ellis Avenue. Communication dated May 11, 2000 from Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. (Appellant) transmitting information regarding the proposed development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Affordable Housing on Ellis Avenue. Communication titled Facts for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy(SRO)Affordable Housing at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, California. Communication dated May 15, 2000 from the Planning Department transmitting alternative findings for denial of the CUP#99-31/ND#99-11. Communication titled Item D-1 —City Council Public Hearing—May 15, 2000—Alternative Findings for Denial— Negative Declaration No. 99- 11/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31. Slide show presentation submitted by the Planning Department to the City Clerk's Office on May 15, 2000. Slide show presentation is titled Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy., Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31; Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Request for Suspension of Public Hearing Per Robert's Rules of Order as advised by Assistant City Attorney Paul D'Alessandro, a motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Harman, second Green to suspend the public hearing. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Garofalo, Green NOES: Sullivan, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: None The foregoing public hearing on the appeal filed by Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 was suspended. The item is continued on page 14. ( ,Council) Continued Open to 6119100 - Public Hearing to Approve Zoning Text Amendb%ent No. 99-4 Park In-Lieu Fees for Residential Properties—Approve Introduction of Ordinanc . 3468—Council Committee & Staff Directed to Meet with Building Industries Associ n (BIA) (640.10) Mayor Garofalo announced th is was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beac oning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) addressing the method to calculate parkland in-i ees for residential development. Location: Citywide. i (14) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 14 vironmental Status: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California En.. mental Quality Act. Legal notice as ovided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. A motion was made by Mayor Tem Harman, second Green to (1) Open the hearing and continue the public hearing open to a 19, 2000; and (2)Appoint a Council Committee to hold no more than two meetings with staff an Building Industries Association (BIA); and (3) Appoint Mayor Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tern an, and Councilmember Bauer to said Council Committee. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Garofalo, Green NOES Sullivan, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: None The following item is continued from page 13 : (City Council) Public Hearing — Denial of Appeal Filed by Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 —8102 Ellis Avenue, 400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard, Single Room Occupancy (SRO)— Directed Staff to Prepare Findings for Denial at the June 5, 2000 Meeting (420.40) Planning Director Howard Zelefsky presented a report on the background of the project. He turned the presentation to Jane James, Associate Planner for the development. Associate Planner James announced that a six minute video of the Irvine Single Room Occupancy is available for viewing. Mayor Garofalo declared the public hearing open. Public Hearing Comments James Lu, appellant, gave a slide presentation on his proposed Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project, listing the reasons for doing the project as (1) health and safety issues, (2) beautification of the neighborhood, (3) to provide a good buffer between current residential and commercial zones, (4) to improve business, and (5) to assist city in providing affordable housing. Charles Tsang, Project Manager, stated he was not going to reiterate Mr. James Lu's comments, but shares first hand knowledge of the-development. Mr. Tsang stated that he has not developed single room occupancy housing in the past, but has visited managed projects and found them to have many amenities. Morris Bolter, the architect for the appellant, stated that Jane James, Associate Planner, has covered all that needs to be said. He informed Council of the intent of the project. Mr. Bolter stated that the project meets all criteria standards, and that security is of prime importance. He added that although the building is three stories high, the guidelines set in code insure that it is not an impossible project to accomplish, from a height and distance standpoint. Mr. Bolter stated that he would be glad to answer any technical questions. (15) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 15 Gianna Solari, Vice President of Solari Enterprises, informed Council that it is a family business located in the city of Orange that specializes in affordable housing. She stated that her business manages 1700 units, including the Sea Lights Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the city of Fullerton. Ms. Solari described the SRO's tenant selection criteria, such as background checks on credit history, eviction, previous landlord information, criminal record, and household composition and income. She stated that many efforts are made toward parking control, including issuing and managing parking spots, and that there is 24-hour management on the premises. Randy Allison, representative for the applicant, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. spoke regarding the SRO project and provided the background history on how it was put on hold during the recession. He commented on some of the complaints about the proposed project, including the square footage of the rooms as being too small. He stated that the applicant agrees to rent on a month-to month-basis. Mr. Allison spoke relative to some of the misconceptions about crime and drugs, and produced two job announcement flyers, one from the Huntington Beach Union High School District, and the other from the Police Department, which reflect the employee salaries which would be applicable to project income requirements. These flyers were presented to the City Clerk. Maureen Sheehan, spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Sheehan stated that she speaks on behalf of religious and civic leaders who gathered together to seek for a spiritual solution to meet the needs of the poor, the elderly, and children with kindness, compassion and justice. Robert Butler, owner of two fourplexes on Demion Lane, expressed the concern of his tenants and himself of the inherent problems of having the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project in the neighborhood. He stated that problems include the depreciation of property values, the . detrimental effects to children playing in the streets, and greater proliferation of the grafitti already found on the dilapidated child care center in the area. Mr. Butler stated that the SRO in the city of Irvine is doing well because it is located in an industrial area of the city. Randy Kolal, spoke in opposition to the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project as inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood of low and medium density housing. He stated that there are two bars as well as a liquor store in the area, and that what he views as an existing alcohol problem will be exacerbated by the project. Mr. Kolal related that there are also existing problems with grafitti and broken bottles and trash strewn about the property. Liz Phibbs informed Council that she lived in a single room occupancy for about a year, during which time she and her spouse were able to save for a home. She stated that she is a nurse, and not a prostitute nor a drug addict. Ms. Phibbs further stated that she would consider SRO efficiency living again in the future. Joan Selfridge, retired social worker for seniors, stated that she had made a bad property investment in the past and is currently a renter. Ms. Selfridge stated that as she is in need of a roommate, she would not be opposed to living in single room occupancy housing. She informed Council that there is a four-year waiting list for senior housing, and expressed the need for an SRO. Ms. Selfridge informed Council that the Oak View area and Demion Lane are both known to be on the police blotters. Pat Goodman stated that she lives within a mile of the proposed project, and spoke in support of single room occupancy for the homeless. Ms. Goodman informed Council that low-income housing covers a great range, and that the proposed SRO is only a part of the solution to save affordable housing in Huntington Beach. She stated that the city's Waterfront Hilton and (16) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 16 Wal-Mart will bring in jobs, and that there is a need to address housing needs for the low income workers they will hire. Ms. Goodman pointed to the policy on the human dignity plaque on the Council Chamber wall made by the Council, and stated that it refers to economic diversity as well. Diana Wong spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Wong informed Council that living in single room occupancy housing enables her to be a more productive citizen. Don Nanis informed Council that he had lived in single room occupancy housing for a few months. Speaking in favor of the project, Mr. Nanis stated that he never witnessed any evidence of prostitution or other criminal elements at the SRO where he stayed; that someone who is homeless would be more inclined to commit crimes. John Pitman spoke in favor of the project, and expressed his hope that it becomes a reality. Mr. Pitman informed Council that he works in a clubhouse for the disabled and he realizes how difficult it is for them to find housing. Steve Secord, informed Council that as a person of low income, he is in favor of the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project as providing greater opportunity for people such as himself and his friends. Bob Biddle, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, stated he supports single room occupancy in concept, if it is an intelligently planned one with adequate space and parking. Mr. Biddle stated that this is not what is before Council. He informed Council that the SRO in the city of Irvine is also not adequate; that there is no convenient grocery shopping nearby. Mr. Biddle stated that the city should work with the applicant to change the zoning to commercial and get a better return for its efforts. Marjorie Niland spoke in support of the project. She stated that she lived in Huntington Beach for 35 years and had lost her home due to circumstances beyond her control. She informed Council that she was a professor who developed an incurable neurological disease and was diagnosed with a disability. Ms. Niland stated that she then had to live in a motel with five children because of the lack of affordable housing, and never witnessed prostitution nor drag dealing as taking place there. Mark Singer informed Council that as a resident of 18 years, he is opposed to the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. Mr. Singer stated that there is a need for an SRO but that the particular project is ill planned, ill-conceived, and aesthetically displeasing. He related that the project is going to impact traffic, and that the cumulative effect, with the Wal-Mart going into the neighborhood, had not been studied. Mr. Singer pointed out that there are more living units than parking spaces; that there is a need for more than one car per unit. Barbara Boskovich informed Council that at the Planning Commission level, she had gathered 363 signatures in opposition to the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. She stated that she is presenting a petition with additional signatures. The petition, together with one letter from the Seto Family, was presented to the City Clerk. Ms. Boskovich stated that the project is not in a proper location; that county guidelines require that an SRO not be built adjacent to bars or liquor stores. She stated that business is not flourishing in the area. Ms. Boskovich informed Council that she is opposed to the three-story SRO building as persons can look down into the two-story duplexes. She inquired as to when the city conducted the last traffic study. 03/14/00 TUE 13:32 FAX 714 736 6297 FINANCE 0001 Ms.Jane James C/o City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Dear Ms.James, I am opposed to the Ellis Project, a proposed 107-unit low income apartment complex. I had lived in Hawthorne for over twenty years and was surrounded by low income housing. The reason that I chose to purchase a condo in Huntington Beach was to get away from the low income housing climate. If you have ever been in such an area you will notice that the majority of the property owners, as well as renters, do not show the same respect for their neighborhoods as the residents of Huntington Beach do. Also, it is a fact that the crime rate is higher in low income housing areas. Why are we trying to bring crime to Huntington Beach and depreciate our land values?l I feel that it would not be in the best interest of Huntington Beach to build such a complex. Sincerely, 4;'*J Paulette Dewire 17202 Corbin Lane,#102 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 FROM TANEILON FAX NO. : 760 3450520 Mar. 14 2000 01:52PM P1 ( i - Mr. Fred Speaker Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner Sent by FAX to his office from Thomas A. Neilon,0%%mer of 18532 Demion,H. B. Dear Fred: I will not be able to attend the plarming commission meeting tonight in Huntington Beach,but I did want to express my opinion regarding the development of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31/Negative Declaration No. 99-11. The project consists of efficiency apartment units for very low and low income individuals. Location: 9102 Ellis Ave,Huntington Beach. It is my understanding the commision is considering a development that requires a major concession in parking requirements and the construction of 107 units with aprx 53 parking stalls. I have owned a 4 unit apartment building nearby for some time. I pay attention to my investment and visit the property at)cast quarterly. I have stable tenants and inadequate parking. My units have garages for 5 cars and off street parking for 2 more,as dots each 4 unit building on the street. If the council and commission thinks this is sufficient,just take a ride to Demion St about this time of night. I don't know where all the cars come from,but the parking is already at a premium. The original developers had to follow a code set by the City in order to build,and I strongly believe the proposed Motel/Hotel should have to do the same without any variance. Low income and very low income residents need housing and I agree,but I think the commissioners and the council members are playing under different rules. If this kind of proposed development were to be built next door to their biggest investment of their life and threatens to lower the value by its simple nature,they would be singing a different tune. Low income people have cars also,but most of the can, are older and in disrepair and the owners cannot afford to get them fixed,therefore,adding to the already crowded parking problem. I urge you and your feDow commissioners to disapprove this venture and return to the thought process for more open space within the city limits. Kindly have these remarks entered into the minutes of tonights meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Thomas A.Neilon 41420 Woodhaven Dr West Palm Desert,Ca.92211 PIL(760)345-0520 FAX MJ ty of Huntington BeachPlanning Depar An , STAFF �P$ RTkr WK TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Associate Plannergy DATE: March 14, 2000 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 i - 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 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 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: Staff Report—3/14/00 3 (OOsr22) 4 Par/ring,Ratco �s � Number of Spaces�Required � Number ofSpacesPr�ovded 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 :�Total�Parking�Required 56�Spaces 81 Parking SpacesuProvided� '��} � -,� Plus 1 van Loading°Space %� � acid 1 Tenant:Loadu �S ace 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 of Management 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 (OOsr22) 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 staff s 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 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). Staff Report—3/14/00 6 (OOsr22) i 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. Staff Report—3/14/00 7 (OOsr22) 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: 2. Site Plan, Ficer Plans and Elevations-dated FebfuaFy 15,1999-aadGIfi Agr-ial Map 2000 -4. Revised Narrative and ArpplieafA's Response te Geneems dated Fekuar-y 3, 2000 6. s 7. Planning GewnnpAssieft staff mpei4 da4ed Febnffffy 8, 2090 8. , SH:JM:kjl Staff Report—3/14/00 8 (00sr22) R s _ f.olE ROOM ►A11 M-L PROMWY ELBAwXA L43ror KACH BLVD.1•AISIG0 ^^✓✓ IA eEnrA1 u y �;'!k• ^ amomen CR RI 00 F E Q �000 rROAOMOrmop"Imp. Y•.... IAr•LLr.>�._ . w REaoOItrL UI•IE ' 7 tlf SRO 1/•rE•1 LNIIACEA!URO •m n •� � 1.. p ' AVEIUIO!6R0.IMrSOL•Slf AR AR/A• ••A111Wi LLJ i :ii: l3 CL S ME '•�1 RT O _ _ C USTRUCTIM WO7T•EIAINOIAl •rrrr- Mnt•l t aaaa v61r•vRvrelrrryrR•.�.p ti �u�r ui �'. "+ rm1r. pFsmrrweAnrr r,le orR•r1 r••ir6wri:�i� . ►AANlLL 0 r•/AGES PO LWT• 53CAI17. r• mm mrf7A•r(!W• 7CAA T I10R • w q.epul• Of I.P.EiAODI AER•EREO1/If10m• CAA L1• w rr "e0.elrgll. TOTAL•AROTG REOU/¢D• 4CMf r Irr TOTAL/APPOW rROVOEO• CARS(III 1.G•E) • fr+• n N j•1 B• �mLL'•r,m•r a • Iq u/I r I l ' r �>D•LL' ••n ., t�,� ... -1�r4 (DYIYeAmI•prl•p4NHTi aI•flpsl C I Kr/ : 9 f 6 �LLI I.M • (-'— — 1 AV611tlfc�f. 1� I ''.SRO:•'.:' A•s'Ou.tslrs!•e to LL. 'S•�L���. �1•d 1lre.Ye ra U' ''1—l. lK�' HDMtkLT•Is IO/IfENTiAI. � t I I -a•1 .�lllp*; Y I � 1 F/\ err... ..•-rr�•wr►s , � I � I '^la J wffti I �N616MEOFIHO Fe61ceN7I�l. ee`�I�pn'ENT�' i:.o^'^�...j�'"••••*r"++• �:t<'��4�'• m' O N'q•• Trr•••s�••fsw. _ 1 '.wrria+r� 4; .A 1 R.t r•• ~ ro• rs• su/r.•AApr+r N' e rr � '•r/i wry, s•/v. OTT µ w J-• M M r . "r a• r •lr' •s' i�•' ! N LY. .r i G . Z • • A. ,A A. M n ce �• ri+ W' ^.a + I} 1 F'- d \ ? •M rr0 aI "/w.s., afChlf♦ / w'Fs/mrr A•rr. - � rialw• O ,Y a A• t tl Ir L1' M nH •.:t-:'!: . a s n IT, qW ro rl q A t, `y1IL In A! II//V- ♦ S)M tPP.I.•V i 7AIYI}oel.'r , Tm.tA/pY"M/ fM•µ1Ta, I .e•\a r'O'r III-10• 1/:IrgCr•w or+Av./•e/�f Ar/. 1fwv /r0.7 4..D". -r•1/ I •T 4 MR TdY: JI I vw. n.w.rl�Y.Zr / e .'lei. ,.'�..�v.wrOe.....5 anw!aw+••p►. ` vlf. n.0 1~ rN•ri"/ M/ •4 s••p1I �® II few •'MrM .�.Ira'+•rAlp) fe�/e'M lo�r.r•�•"Y..!s N M a.+r..rM -•4 wr'n.y J •T, i .'��� / p F• Af pvs•r r�l!m�•I4A•tN•e'e•tlr F AO Ar A—/ N—N All AO Ap AD re rl lu! fO r I I•1•I/.f fO I R FEBy✓1Ll4lo2 000 A I MIM IAI NINIRIAI AI I.- pow LNb ?MQ-wx r •:•• . m mr4w 71Ew"nowt" ICerAll. vLz*J p*1•*IA/to—.gl•rrr t l ••,,t��,''CC� . 1 ! a aa�.'��/ + �NE✓RiKTrMG FAIL ELAO.-J� -R/R flnNt.Ywr.; J..'A'�F�� •rr.rrllYllfx � - t•lowvl'. ��: k I �r - a ♦ter w.�. ♦ // I � � `��/ I .r/.C,�O' I IL11 Jr' ILJr`_' fttn AYf tNWAY/[ Arm♦ rarnu I •� ,l i i i I I cm. T 0 --- f1 BF hCH VIEW SRO INN / sar ............a ATTACHMENT NO 2 . 2.a/J7/AY' ,JNE PLAN — � •• .y .: ___ _ _. — - - ; .�- -i .-Te jet:'r.A.C'q. "'�✓v t"�[�'t i --- —e-a— :—s--:r;-c--- -- I 1 � Q' W1 , I I Sys _' �mv 31 • j 1 jam , xra ?p> .:. 1 :R> {I •ti> !e Fire it> •Y a !ia a i e 2t9 s lit' 14 1 1 �# 3 li uws � f ATTACHMENT NO.'2 . 3 0 Typical Upper Floors9 o=E Ea Off Al 2nd and 3rd (A l r •. vat,::.w .. . ... ... `••��� Y '° AwA N IMP cww. 17 INm16 May L., uji OR ..m.w.w. ELLIS Kn 1 ! t--(��--� I •,f-y�� AVENUE SRO .r�aRIM r i 1a atr _ ock CA ' .• "f iW IMr siol Roaocmpwcy 1't� -i•eR•�w M�OMR pmw 0"PI Rew '11f1 MM/I�aO T I w►r wm wuv. i ., rn� AL-y +O'«o"o F)AR BLCV ION- 90VfH �1 TYPICAL /RP+T WAU.B66HENi y.• ypr� 1 I bMIVM AW/LGI is+r aawaMo•' O '�� �kr �•.- fir I I..''d' k—T--TI > A''�r�J W �, _ n.we iRruuva� � 1 ia+-.ram.- • -- ��' I � j ��,,�� WLA/R1Y.�R0� E/.Bi nwryis :. _ �r w•.. {-�/r^ws� Raa.v«...«n.� �mr wwa•eerw. seR�u-Tf. TI'i� ,.• r�roo boker � architect T 4 4 rss aQwr eM�a I I ��KM�1�«.i I 11r �ywv.�'ha ! R1M M'raV M4«+R3�'w 11wwR I I�NMe[w'NaMr Y�w�P . �• Wriqr ELeVA i u• FE0I42000 A3 4 �U14UOIWE) 1 ;na t 7'Y I '�t 'b� ..— .�r«. �6II � a ,,���+'�'�`.f_�,s,t"y1��. •^� t r . '.t ' 1. `Y'"''�'t7° '�` �1' .�� 5 .I+L..Z /"���'r''�'L•y7' :1�dt t + 1, • + I imp"' t' >Ci,+r� i w»'Y'�?�•G� �"- .f nt- 1 �4r i 9_ #1"P _ F u } �'P"?t�iWwtt�B.r'7c�f�"dl r+ru Y,., j� ,n.°: *a�&: r'>1,� +t; �►,,, Y�1 jP_'' �dr� a I +--+;:b �1 1�1.::1.-. h.d_L.+LJ.L��) n-••` .I..VTIJ 1 ill P A ijU 91 OEM. s\ �,. ,7Q I c�58.-- . . I: ,gip' • MP»"--,��+`e�� w tr* •a�4' _ I MI Trio f,(i, ffx 4t ♦ ��ff""'''+u:r• I 1 c m„ � N1`'' }yS7�°+°yhF` '' w I�_ n'i- i�r . ¢aY � rt II Urif I P SL 00 7 4 ij i .r-.� � its-.s..,sa.........�... �• _ _ _ Mffx:�. L cup It ark too V n `'yy l•�\� .�/ � M ,l�`r:vC��h.{.(j::.� _ i I:�IiS�i1 _•�j��is',;. :�,:=.6:I1 i �-£ � -: �� Amw�est�En�ron_rnentalYyGr�ou: {_ _:Inc._ �.� � ¢ s r.: '1 X- Y. 5 t{ 'i�s' yx 1 -may �j�:: ,�_ e_, _ _ ..� ..:�t; '+•,�•-���_ C �. > ��ss, � N�. :�7755 Center'Avenae,#I100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647,��;�� �z t.;. (7I4)M372-,2277,FAX (71. 372-2211 February 3, 2000 Chair and Members Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street F Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Explanation and Response to Concerns Regarding to the Development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facility at 8102 Ellis Ave.,Huntington Beach —Application for CUP No. 99-31 /Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. (Amwest) appreciates it very much for your concerns, suggestions and supports regarding to the development of a first-class Single Room Occupancy(SRO) facility at 8102 Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach. However,we feel that some of issues presented in the public hearing conducted on January 25, 2000 by some of property owners or tenants were based on misunderstanding and may be biased and misleading. We'd like to take this opportunity to provide explanations to these issues of concerns. In order to further improve the subject project,we'd like to also provide recommendations for some issues of concern for your review and.approval. M. PARKING AND DRIVEWAY ISSUES Concerns Questions regarding to the parking/driveway issue included: • Insufficient spaces (0.5 space/unit requirement) provided; Tenants park their cars in the Town and Country Center; • Driveway width; and • Loading/Unloading problems in the driveway. Response Number of parking space for the existing design are 21%beyond the City Code requirements(i.e., 68 spaces provided, 56 spaces required). We believe that the current 0.5 parking space/unit requirement provided in the City Code are sufficient for the SRO projects. The County Wide SRO Housing Task Force of Orange County(comprised a group of building, land use and administrative professionals from 16 cities, including Huntington Beach, and the County) studied and developed a guideline of parking requirements for SRO in Orange County. Page 11 of the guidelines provides the SRO �TT�,Gi- �':EN T NO. .I. I 1 c � Am west EvironmentalGrou '7755 Center Avenue;-'#1100,Hunt,nglon Beach,7CA 92647 fi� TEL:(714)372 2277 FAX.,(714)372 ZZIl parking requiremti ents, as summarized below(A reproduced copy of the original report is shown in Attachment E): • No parking is typically required for SRO's located in high-density areas (such as downtowns, or areas are in proximity to retail services and/or public transportation lines); • 0.25 space/unit are required for medium-density areas(such as the City of Phoenix,which required only 0.2 space/unit); 0 0.5 space/unit are required for low-density areas; and • 0.25 to 0.5 space/unit are required for areas outside of the downtown. (San Diego's SRO parking ratios are 0.25 to 0.5 space/unit.) Currently we conducted several separate surveys of both Irvine Inn and Fullerton City Lights (The two only SRO facilities in Orange County). For Irvine Inn, a survey on their parking space utilization rate in the afternoon(around 1:20 pm) on 1/21/2000 (a typical weekday) found that only about one tl&.ird of their parking space were used. In order to avoid any biased data, another survey was conducted in the afternoon(around 4 pm) of the Super Bowl Sunday on 1/30/2000,on a day which most of tenants stay home for the football game or weekend rest,and found that among the 187 parking spaces, only 93 spaces were occupied. That means, more than half of the parking spaces were empty! It should be pointed out that the Irvine Inn is located in a relative remote area which require higher private vehicle usage. But even with this situation,the survey results show that less than half of their parking spaces are used. Pictures of the above two separate surveys are provided in Attachment A. Two separate surveys were also made_for the Fullerton City Lights, one on 1/20/2000 (around 2:30 pm) and the other on 1/30/2000(around 3 pm). The Fullerton City Lights facility has 137 units and 62 parking spaces. As of present, only 51 spaces were applied by and assigned to tenants. The survey results also showed that actual usage of the parking spaces were less than 1/3 of the total existing parking spaces on a typical weekday, and less than on Super Bowl Sunday(Note: These utilization rates are equivalent to about 0.15 to 0.23 space/unit.). This survey showed that the parking space utilization rates for the Fullerton facility, which is located in a downtown commercial area, was much less than that of the Irvine facility, which is located in a more remote area. This survey results are consistent with the parking requirements provided in the Orange County Guideline as mentioned above. Pictures of the survey are provided in Attachment B. One of the main opposing issues raised by the two representatives of the adjacent property(Town and Country Center)owner was that they feel that the future SRO tenants may park their cars in the commercial property. Based on the above survey results we know that this situation is unlikely to happen in the future. Especially, many of the tenants may drive out for work during day time, which is the business hours for the subject commercial facility. The SRO site will have plenty of spaces available in the day time (we expect about 2/3 will be empty during day time). It may be the other way ATTACHMEN T No.�. ?;� 2 > _ _ _ 7. it ` _ _ _ _ , n i Amwest Environmental k rou Inc: �.{ -. 7755 Center:Avenue,#I100,Hantington$each,.CA 92647�',x `'Y�,i��; •�� around, the commercial customers' or tenants' cars may occupy this project's parking spaces in stead of occupying the commercial parking spaces by SRO tenants. Regarding to the driveway width, this project provides 28 ft. wideness, which meets the code requirement and is sufficient for the intended purpose. Loadinglunloading issue mentioned in the public hearing involves two areas—one is to provide loading/unloading space for the SRO tenants, the other is the loading/unloading problem of the west side commercial properties. We are allocating a space for the tenant loading/unloading or drop-off/pick-up at the front of the building. The next door commercial tenants are not supposed to use our driveway for loading/unloading! When the reciprocal driveway easement agreement is finalized and the illegal parking lots behind the westerly commercial property is revised,the commercial operators can use their parking spaces for loading/unloading. The driveway is not designed for the next door to loading/unloading! It will be the responsibility of the on site security personnel and SRO management to keep the driveway area clear to allow a consistent traffic flow for all property usage. Suggestion/Solution Based on the above facts, we believe that the existing 68 parking spaces provided by the subject SRO project shall be enough. However, since the subject site has plenty of open land space available,we agree to increase the parking space from existing 68 spaces to 83 spaces (i.e., 0.77 space/unit),which is more than the ratio used in the Fullerton design. With this new arrangement we are sure that the parking spaces will be much - more than the actual needs! (Note: In the future if it is found that such space increase is not necessary, we suggest that extra spaces can be converted back for other better usage such as landscaping, recreation or other purposes which are more beneficial for the project.). Another revision is that a parking space near the front entrance door will be provided for loading/unloading or drop-off/Pick-up purpose. (II). DENSITY ISSUE Concerns The density of the subject SRO may be too high. Response This issue involve two distinct areas—one is building density(in terms of total building floor area to total land area), another is population density(in terms of total occupants to total building floor area or land area). It is not our intention to discuss the planning code or other governmental SRO density requirements here. We want to emphasize that this project follow the existing building density requirements of the general City building _ATTACHM ENT NO. 4� 3 y1T 72'"^'T'ay rJ"^-j•T;C s.-.,.- Y M�_ d_` ( f-T_�•..t Amwest EwironmentatwlGjrou_Y , Inc r -- „i d '-n s.-1 r� ''Sv.}� ....>+ 1:� M�r+�ytic xi'JR s>':�+42',�` �_��.T}✓glJ"`� �,y+.'+]� ;�.�f .� � �i� code. This project did not request for or obtain any density bonus such as other SRO projects! The building density of this SRO project is based on 50%total building area to land area, which is the general building code requirement. No building density bonus was given to this "affordable housing" facility. When comparing to other two SRO projects in the Orange County, this project has extremely low building density(Please note that the Fullerton building almost built to the lot line!). We don't believe that there will be a building density problem for this SRO facility. In terms of population density, it also meets all the federal(HUD), county(the guideline mentioned previously), and the City requirements. The City code for the population density requirements were based on many professional studies and existing practices. Our design did not deviate from the code and should not cause any problems. In fact,the population density of this project will be much lower than that of the Fullerton project and most other HUD SRO projects in terms both floor area or land area, due to the fact that this SRO facility has larger size units. Please note that the Fullerton facility, and other facilities under HUD requirements, allow two occupants per unit for larger unit sizes. This arrangement allows people such as single parents with young child obtaining their housing which are usually hard for them to find. We did not see any problems for the Fullerton facility or other SRO facilities under HUD guidelines . Suggest;un/Solution : Although we do not see any density problem with this SRO design, in order to satisfy some neighbors' concern,we agree to limit the two occupancy requirement to 50% of the total units. (III). MANAGEMENT ISSUE Concerns The following statements were mentioned: • The applicant has no experience in developing or managing a SRO; • The City cannot mandate that the operators will employ the services of an experienced SRO management company; • Need a more comprehensive Management Plan. Responses Although the applicant has no experience in developing or managing a"SRO Project" due to the fact that this type of facilities is relatively new. However,most principals of Amwest have developed and managed many similar projects in the past. For example, we had developed and/or managed retirement hotels, such as Grand Terrace Retirement ATT.AOHMEVI NO. • �' 4 y {' AmwestEnvironnefntalGroJL u Inc F, ., tr° .�.. � �^"7755 Center:Avenue,#1100,Huntington Basely CA 92647� 7r,�" �,��,��ti;�="- ;3hu,s. -.<....�.. Hotel. We have,also developed and managed several dozen suite hotels in Southern California, which are very similar to the subject design. We have also developed residential and commercial facilities, such as single family homes, condo facilities, apartments, and shopping malls. Amwest has also constructed commercial and industrial buildings (Note: Amwest owned General Building and Engineering Contractor Licenses —A,B and HAZ Licenses and had an inhouse construction team). Both Dr. James Lu (the Project Director) and Mr. Charlie Tsang (the Project Manager) have over 15 years development and construction experience and both own General A and B Licenses. They have extensive development and construction background and experience. To mention that the development team has no experience at all in the subject area is incorrect! However,the applicant is planning to use an experienced SRO management company to operate the SRO facility when the project can be approved. We have negotiated with both Solari Enterprises,Inc. (managing the Fullerton SRO) and McCormack Baron Management Services,Inc.(managing the Irvine SRO)regarding the Management of the subject SRO. The"Management Agreement" is under negotiation now and may be finalized soon. Although the City cannot mandate which company to use, it is to the best interest of the applicant to use the most qualified and most suitable management company. This is because that the subject project is 100% privately funded without any governmental aid so far. This project will cost approximately$6 million to complete. If we don't want the project to be successful, we will loose $6 million. Any businessman can understand the importance of a successful investment. If someone saying that the applicant may let the project go down to the drain, he either has too much imagination or doesn't know the facts and what type of investment and efforts involved. There are several of major investors and hundreds of relatively small investors behind Amwest. We cannot afford the failure of the subject project. Also,the project has to report to the City routinely about rental income of each individual in order to meet the very low and low income mixtures imposed by the City. Through the requirements of the City approved Management Plan, and the routine operation reporting review by the City,the City could affect the management practices based on the"detrimental" issue which affects the issuance of the CUP. Also,banks which we negotiated so far required certain cashflow set-aside for successful operations. Certainly, the bank giving the takeout loan will not let the project fail neither. Suggestion/Solution We are negotiating with several experienced "SRO" management companies now in order to finalize an agreement. We expect that this agreement can be finalized very soon. At this moment we favor the proposal from the Solari Enterprises,Inc. due to its extensive experience and fast and sufficient local corporate support capability.-But, finalization may require the approval of the CUP. Without an approved CUP the "Management Agreement"cannot be finalized due to the absence of a"real"project. ATTACHMENT NO. 4. S 5 S.0 ___ -- � J • � rid-_. _. A. 4 _ AmwetEnvir�onmentalGrouInc yh- y p 7 7 '*a-7-c +xi�G t;�1'fi�'rw �.���i J $7755-Centec�A roue;#1100,Huntington BeachyGA 92647"•����t�*��� ���: 372 7 EL�7,14) ,FAX--(714)37 2211 a �:• ;;_:, We also agree that a more comprehensive Management Plan is needed. Amwest will have the draft Management Plan revised as the CUP conditions requested. Amwest is currently working with the Solari Enterprises,Inc. updating the Management Plan. In order to allow the City has the opportunity to detect any potential problems or violations early, we suggest that the yearly reporting requirements can be revised. We suggest that during the first year, a quarterly or semi-yearly reporting requirements can be used, subiect to City's approval. If the City detects no potential operation problems after one year of operation the yearly reporting requirement can be resumed. (M. CRIME ISSUE Concerns : • This SRO facility will attract low income people which includes drug addicts, and people with criminal records and questionable reputations; • Threaten the safety of our children; • Escalate the crime rate in our area; • Drive away existing business; • Lower the property values; and • Destroy peace of mind. Response The"crime issue" is probably the main issue which caused the opposition from some of the surrounding property owners and tenants. We had explained this issue in the 1/18/2000"community meeting"and conducted surveys and evaluations after the community meeting. We also circulated a letter to all surrounding general public about the absence of the crime problems in or around SRO facilities based on results of our surveys. However, an opposition movement was still organized by several landlords of the fourplex and the southern/western commercial property owner utilizing inaccurate information about the "crime issue"as the basis for their opposition. A flyer(refer to Attachment C)was still circulated in the surrounding neighborhood area without mentioning the source(name and phone numbers}—which,we feel, is irresponsible. First,opposing individuals emphasized that"this type of setup has been shown to attract low income people which includes drug addicts and people with criminal records and questionable reputations". Based on this assumption,they concluded that their children's safety will be threatened, crime rates in this area will be escalated, property value will be lowered, and peace of mind will be destroyed. The crime problems as mentioned above are actually not there based on actual statistic data of the existing SRO facilities. The Irvine Inn manager stated that there was no single crime and complaint reported relating to their SRO facility since the facility was opened about three years ago. The same conclusion was reported by the Fullerton City TTACf;MEN T NO. -1. le 6 Am vest Enw ronment iEurou ,Inc S�A� Lights by Mr. Bruce Solari, EVP of Solari Enterprises,Inc. Reasons for the absence of crimes associated with SRO's are suggested as follows: • Types of tenant in the SRO facilities are almost retired people and low income people with steady fulltime jobs; • The SRO renting procedure involves a detailed crime background and credit checking/screening process; • The SRO facilities provide a very tight security(with 24-hour security personnel on duty) and 24-hour TV monitoring throughout the entire surrounding public areas;and • All the doors and access areas have electronic security locks and non-tenants visiting the facilities require reporting to the management personnel. Based on the statistic data,types of tenant mixture in the Irvine Inn are: 45%of tenants are retired or disabled people with SSI, SSA and SSDI; • 54.5%of tenants are nurses,teachers, clerks, students,waiters and waitress, single mothers, and new graduates who just got into the job markets trying to save money for their new homes; • 0.5%(or just one person) is on HUD Section 8 program The tenant mixture for the Fullerton City Lights are similar to that of the Irvine Inn, with the following distribution: • 25%tenants are on SSI and SSA(i.e.,retired people); • 20%tenants are on SSDI(i.e., disability people); • 52%tenants are mixtures of clerks,nurses, waitress, busboy,teachers, students and single mothers. 0 3% (or 4 tenants) are on HUD Section 8 program The above tenant mixtures clearly indicate that the SRO facilities are not places attracting people with drugs and criminal records, as claimed by the opposing individuals. They are either senior citizens, or low or very low income hard working people providing basic services to our community! Therefore, to equate the very low and low income people with drug addicts or other crimes and based on this assumption to against this proiect is biased and without foundation. Some people even mentioned that"this location is too nice for the poor people". This just like saying that poor people should live in a bad area. This view is greatly wrong, and is a way of"discrimination",which should not happen in the 21"century, and certainly, should not happen in Huntington Beach! Please note that this SRO facility will accept people with yearly income in the range of $16,730 to $38,250. People with this income range usually retired or are hard working people with steady jobs. It is clear that people with this income range shall not be equated to criminals. When they live in this facility they will have a lot of extra money -ATTACI-i� r- N0. 4.7 7 .Y Amwest��E�nironmental}Grou C-, �- ''� ;`�_v.."i �_f __,.31'3. S"L:,`-'2�'++�e2���r.�a'�;�.z3 3'r•-_->� �r'':, -�}4` � :=-r t:n3-...« Y p� F ��r y� �,�,�,7755 Center Avenue;#I100,Hunfington Beach,CA 92647 4�t;, �"� _,���3;: saved from rent and can be used for other activities, such as eating, shopping and recreation in the general areas(because, usually they don't own cars, so they willsave more money to shop in the near-by stores.). Since operation of a SRO property is greatly controlled and managed. The new building will be in much better conditions than the surrounding rundown commercial buildings and near-by fourplex which virtually no routine maintenance at all. We feel that this property would increase the value for the surrounding areas. In fact, we are more worry about the surrounding buildings which might affect our property value! Suggestion/Solution As discussed above the crime problems, mentioned by the opposing individuals,will not happen in or surrounding this SRO facility. There will be no detrimental effects to the general welfare of people working and living next to this SRO facility. The surrounding property value shall be beneficially affected by this newly developed facility. This SRO facility should bring in more business for the surrounding stores and restaurants. We suggest that planning commissioners conduct own verification of the facts regarding the crime issue, and not be misguided by biased and baseless statements. M. ECONOMIC ISSUE Concerns Although profit/loss of investment shall not be a concern to the general public, there is a misconception and conflict statement mentioned in the public hearing—one saying that the project might not have enough income to maintain its operation, another mentioned that the rental income will be too ridiculously high, implying too much profit can be obtained. Response In order to understand this issue we should know that in a rental market the rental range is govern by the supply and demand and stabilized at a feasible and reasonable level, unless the market prices are controlled by government. In the_past three years we received many offers from developers planning to develop the site into an SRO facility. Most developers hold their development and concluded that in order to make reasonable profit the minimum units needed at the subject location will be 200 units. This property only can obtain 106 units,which in terms of profit potential would be marginal if full occupancy is reached. This analysis will become clear from the data provided below. Due to this fact, Amwest propably is the only developer can develop the site without government assistance. HUD has listed the fair market value rental rate for a studio apartment in Orange County at$645.00,which included a utility allowance. In reality, no tenant will apply the subject SRO unit if rent is exceeding $645.00. SRO provides all furnishing ATTA0H-ALENT N0. _-1�• S 8 AmwestY Eniron ..mental Grou Ce61�m nter Avenge,#1100;Hunt�ngtoneach,CA 92647 ' "� ;�'" ?r; �*r.-r s.,,d r,,,,- cro'+F *i+ Cd.vS•a -4 .,y _ �(714)372 2277,FAX (714)372 and with 24-hour full management services,the operation costs of SRO facilities are much higher than that of regular studio apartments. Amwest had conducted extensive economic analysis for the subject project. In order to simplify the analysis results we provide the following table for explanation. Based on the four rental categories required by the City,the following examples can be generated for comparisons: Option Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 No. of Units vs. 24 units @$418/mon 24 units @$418/mon 24 units @$418/mon Rental Rates 23 units @$530/mon 23 units @$550/mon 23 units @$597/mon 30 units @$550/mon 30 units @$580/mon 30 units @$645/mon 29 units @$580/mon 29 units @$600/mon 29 units @$645/mon Gross Income Gross— Gross— Gross— (assuming 95% $633,178/year $655,295/year $704,700/year occupancy) and Average-- Average— Average— $497/mon/unit $515/mon/unit $554/mon/unit Average Rental Rate Estimated $235,000 $250,000 $255,000 Operation Costs/Year(35- 40%)* Management $50,000 $52,000 $55,000 Fee/Year Interest Payment $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Total $685,000 $702,000 $710,000 Expenses/Year * Based on data from Irvine Inn and Fullerton City Lights. As can be seen from the above table, in order to achieve the breakeven(near Option#3) situation, rents shall be charged at the highest levels allowed by the City for the 47 very low income units, and charged at the highest rates at which the market is allowed for the 59 low income units. It is our opinion and request that the City shall increase the number of the low income units and reduce the number of the very low income units. Our previous economic analysis assumed 20% of units were designed for very low income units. Amwest did not know the rental limits(4 categories listed) from the City until several days before the public hearing. Suggestion/solution We request that any or all of the following can be arranged: • City reduces the very low income units to 21 total units(20%), if possible; • City waves all the permitting fees; ATTACHWENT NO. ---A-. 1 r" Amwest-�Eriwironmental Grou. .� �minc 7n, 55 Centel Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beacb, ts .. Riwaas'Fyrr..] .71' y..E'-.i 211 • City gives grants such as the grants given to the other SRO developers;and • City gives density bonus (such as increase the number of units which other affordable housing projects obtained). Amwest will develop the site no matter the above conditions are granted by the City or not. As we mentioned previously, Amwest is probably the only company can do this without the governmental aids, due to the fact that Amwest already own the land. If profits cannot be realized in the first year, Amwest is expecting profits can be realized several years down the road when the rental levels are increased in the future. Amwest is willing to develop the site is because the subject type of development is very secured with very high demend. The Irvine Inn(with 192 units)has about 1,500 applicants on the waiting list now. The demand in Huntington Beach is very high now due to no SRO facility is avaailable in the City. Amwest had already studied different types of allowable developments at the subject site, including office building, retirement hotel, shopping mall, specialty stores, vocational school, and syndication of all adjacent lots for larger shopping facility. All of them studied were either economically ur feasible or with high risks. If Amwest cannot develop the subject project,this piece of land probably will be vacant for a long period of time! CONCLUSIONS We hope that based on the information, explanation, and suggestions/solutions provided above it is clear that the subject project will not cause types of ad,%,";rse impacts as mentioned by the general public. In fact,this project can achieve`the following advantages for the City and the surrounding areas: • Assists Huntington Beach City in providing affordable housing; • Meets governmental(HUD, State, etc.) goal for providing SROs,which are in great need in Huntington Beach; • Amwest will contribute its land and development costs for the subject project (approximately $1,850,000 front-end expenditures); • Improves the property(Note:The current property causes numerous public nuisances, including graffiti,homeless people breaking in and causing fire and health hazards, a public eyesore due to debris, old building, and dead vegetation, etc. refer to Attachment D); • Provides a good buffer between the current residential and commercial properties (Note: The subject property is about 300 feet away from Beach Blvd in between the residential and commercial lots); and • Improves business for the surrounding commercial stores. Amwest would like to remind you that this project is designed to follow all City code requirements, in some cases, we even exceed those requirements. No density bonus was granted by the City for this project,which is very unusual when comparing to other similar affordable housing projects. Amwest is willing to contribute own resources for the good of the community. We appreciate it very much that many City employees ATTACHMENT NO. 4-AD 10 AnwestEnvironmental�Grou nc ' '�,�•,,- , � r-E..t -- .�-. '''..; .,',r. ....:fi,x--t-`.�,.a t �: - L-.--e a. r 1� i S„fir a-t-.� (714)_372 2277 F 71 recognize the vane of this project and take a positive attitude to assist us. Even the local news media has taken an interest and support in this project by conducting several interviews. We sincerely feel that this project will provide a meaningful and ethical assistance to a sector of population that is too often ignored. It is not often that we are given a chance to make a difference in someone else's life. We sincerely hope that, after you realized what this project means to the community, you take positive action and support this project. Sincerely, ol�OFESS/pN C. 9�F� ' No. 28533 P. es C. Lu, Ph.D.,P.E. �* resident st CIVI� Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. OF CA CC: Planning Department Orange County Register Attachments: A. Survey of Parking Space Utilization Rate in Irvine Inn B. Survey of Parking Space Utilization Rate in Fullerton City Lights C. Flyer Circulated in the Neighborhood with Inaccurate Information D. Current property Status E. Orange County SRO Housing Development Guide ATTACHMENT NO. AA. 11 AMW 9,.- Environmental yGro�up; Inc.y ? rY w "` - y �� �4�,"` , ���.�,�7755 Center Avenge,#1100;Huntingdon Beacly_CA 92647,�.�'��„' Y Y� � �x ti Attachment A. Survey of Parking Space Utilization Rate in Irvine Inn 1. Survey conducted on 1/21/2000 2. Survey conducted on 1/30/2000 ATTACH ENT NO* 12 OT�.[�'yt� McK.�Yf'• [ 5,f1 ' ��I�`(CjCti T y w..�f 1' , i a;. yK all NO A ' l-Ire ,y `Kr I` fill s• 7 ��T i, i 8 `in� x,, fi �l tA'sa7 �^��a a4r � i ir',•.•• �{7t it' 4i / r'e�kY�. 1- t Ica v a'i9.�liV�r � � : • s>; 1� �_...:!�^ £•. .. �S yi;� 4, �, ql�,k�`} .r1�i,!'T-+ _ Jam__ -_.-_ M'F•+. �t /t.11tC �Yii t, t a It_ •� � # ,I cr ,,q�lrvx�!'� rws � 1 r--�,,,..- '".�------ t,iyu�uk. t C I' t a ..nt''�a.t'- t fit`+,'fir" ,.'•y.1 I t' -4- V�S�a,�•Y%}f.` � �Ik!�F t�. 4 t�+ .t: f -,i t i,]tFy r r {4 s 'NN r AA.. rt 1'+5E1•. }L�w,y. .��.Ywk. ; 3 . I ter► I ► / 112M• I <I M-P�'iynl- NS All ! t ` k ��ll �1r� ._�l_ � '1 Pk y '. 1-t. n .'v� :I� ,NIT f I i C'�.''i• .. AMWEST ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. 7755 CENTER AVE. #1100; HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA.92647 (714 ) 372-2277 IRVINE INN-SRO PROJECT 192 UNITS f-30-00 SUPERBOWL SUNDAY PARKING STATUS (OVER 50S VACANT SPI 'YL•N fit /. �r 0 0 4 Oelp ow :• BINM za �• ��"�?'y`.ne�' ��rt�1W�'4r�-•Z�i+..r =.1a r'fi••. .M .s`...•i; �'V.'A I..t.. � •4 ''• i+ "t�`.��I,�il�.'�fii�•�1 r ti�� ._,^x "�4IFy^-�'�1,��yr' I• f�. _'__ 1''��—�� ."`o`'� - t.� '� } '��J1`'�.+st..3�,r �t r. ram• .i'W t - �... �:� �i,.q^,+`, „'�ti���y-,`.L��.y'"�`it"'ak��" Y� ��`,- '�; �. � y s�t'•�'�i"��r,,` +�.rwt `t� t I n. Prti Zf x �Y 4 �s 332 1 - §"S� }�jY�fM•tf•. ,�e_�li ^,tvV�.. ' � Y �C wn'ht•.Pw �t „��I 2''<�� �Y s"''., , �':.'lki3�~"ke. a1��t`� r 1 ..wi`tt,�,,.� _�.r•_.g ,tom t ,�..�yrt y� _ 7-. ti�1.. e lx tomt' s_�#?•.r,,ter�„�#� y���}y�.�} .'i<`., .a.'•,�4 ,,.�,,,, q�-.m .27^^�IT' t.. "'�_--- ~�N Y K �`[' '�� �Y? �`��rk�fy� "��7^`t•Y �' ���?-...b,�'1•` �� 't it`•^G. 7 .. t w'�,nr! 'ti h'�k. ✓:: �rs.•1 d1�`.r,.`. � G� � t� � $}��i �• ��xri1. F ` u ,�.��t ��?t, }�'•��,,,.� t�� ,�• 'tea ipr' "�zvx �'.;��oa� �a rid ;�. L+ �-•.. � 'ti• t r�"o`5 f,.Y]rid'r+•'�a���1 t�9 �;.,t,�';'t�yayjx+s� � c��� ^`. } ,. t � r°•�,r < 4 7 Y 3 tf*'€^�}�1� y�� t Tti a C r;„Z r. ,.1 .t r.+_/�A�1 h rn�Z"''}'�+'iunn?}�� j'`Sai�' n�f7-!� :.a• a . r t.,, f t •.� �+� 7 i- J � �`in3y+ Z,y�'�i.5."t�'r I rc ,.G•a ; x;'1 t��t��r�14�' r 'r,'�'�+�Sr'��_JJ ��w � '��'y�ith. � � ' z.uv . • ''�',;.� - - f,'.�4r3+s:'i"`� '�. -S7 v.`'�e�r,�`r r't'.tFfi 7 x ri t'.. vy ; - • L �{ �✓7 1 t'%..-r..r J � , kLm ,x ty' a r�' `"^rT +'1-' , r}•',fir I , .ter�::� -- ... Win•, —r•__ — r_!.—•— - ��__. t l •,I rs I ••r f r - ' ♦ r r- Amvvest EnironmentaluGrou ' Inc Attachment B. Survey of Parking Space Utilization Rate in Fullerton City Lights _ATTACHMENT NO. L 1 AP AD • • • ' as f� lc . MIRK "'la�'�'r� PH�;7"�i�'A,x�7J�•, .5 Yi�{e14:�r .ukL£:i�C't«`C4ar61 'D£ t-. frJ.4�Rf' ,t.' 1nr'iti� '� "tk..i._�,.fa i I DO • I-Asue : u ��^r ::^''F°'�N. � +PCs �:• 1}S'A �\�______ _-..I(L _-91 HF1•• I;I,:ICu!'I :iL 71 � nti' ���I';mi;I �41f:9:1 y fl 3 kvmq •� r, �jI+4g23�. � � •n F6l�r {s. j �.. y L ti� �' � .fit .� � �, �• 1 4 %t:.r 3 � -VIE ; I/ ? AmwestEnironmental �y rou a i FInc � -.s'�� 'Fx.f.._t,y - -..t v_l(:..-_S:�en. r .'`Y.s�,Y - .�.i: ¢.c...z.:.-i.• ri;.0 ,• _tY. t..��"'_ty-i;.�.�,C�� �^—�i'�x i'..,,; xs"' .�'�_ .` ._..\�_...�__.5....,_...,..,_. •l �:� _�v�;`��T.s�.�n6T�3-.:.� Sa.e�:`::a�.rt.r%tis. 'R Attachment C. Flyer Circulated in the Neighborhood with Inaccurate Information ATTACHMENT NO. �?� � ,gTrgc�YI�I�AIT G (. C jJj,4 KS ) C,R C.ULA-ri A Ct- TH use ' Ft%(VL TWAT .ate FU%.t. PLAN TO ATTEND THE a M%$ t t l�M'I•t�►-1'�ON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TIME: January 25, 2000 (Tuesday) 7:00 p.m. - PLACE: Civic Center - Council Chambers 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach e, Most of you, if not all, received h four page flyer inviting you to attend a neighborhood discussion meeting regarding the development of a single room facility in the vacant lot at 8102 Ellis (between Demion Lane and Beach Blvd). The structure shown on the.plans as Beach View Villa is actually a motel charging by the week. The structure will have 106 rooms with "efficiency kitchens" (garbage disposal and microwave) and a common kitchen if people wish to cook. This type of setup has been shown to attract low- income people which includes drug addicts and people with criminal records and questionable reputations. The proposed owner/builder has listed the advantages as; H minting the health and safety hazattls to the surrounding areas. Beautify the existing rundown property and increase the property value of the surrounding artas.Provide a goad bq%r between the current rendenital and commercialproperties.Improve business for the surrounding commercial stores. Axsist the City in providing affonlable housing. Meet governmental(HUD, State, etc.) goals for providing SRO IS,which are greatly needed in Orange County. The open field poses no health threats. Any buildings such as condos or apartments would beautify the existing vacant lot, provide a good buffer between the current residences and commercial properties and improve business for the surrounding commercial stores. It need not be an SRO Facility. It is not up to the families whose homes and apartments surround this property, some who have lived here for many years, to be concerned about providing SRO'S (which his flyer states are greatly needed in Orange County) which could: *Threaten the safety of our children *Escalate the crime rate in our area *Lower the property values *Destroy peace of mind + I'4 0.4 ra .r'yo of 7.4 F F /n/ 1104.*lile.. You only have one question to ask yourself. Would it be easier to go to the meeting Tuesday, January 25th, or pack up everything I own and move? Because once it'.,5..,up..,- it's..there„��,r.�Qq. lo ATTACHMr-_NT NO. 4•21 Tod Wd90:0T 000Z bZ 'Uef 68b£6080T£ 'ON SNOHd S3SIN&aINS ONdSl : WOW i Amwest Environmental Grou = {Inc. _':L 51•T•-�4 7i�c '`' -_ .. y_ .''T -tir, yy.`•-i� M �7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Humington Beach,CA 92647 h TEU(714)372 2277, Attachment D. Current Property Status ATTAC"HIMENT NO. t Sr iYi Y1`;°t Gr f iyrc J ' � ��t 1 I t� j +�«x _ r_ �• \�.�,E+ �,t�` F-k+f fit,• 71 i t+��,�i�},�.la-��'Yiv����-��•�`r1L-�.��••{{v��,�,�i�� ����\Fx\.•\�l� K�}�'C'��j� ""' 3Fl. +\.,�,\�'?\ '�• , a •l,,,,,1 \ ,«� fYl`}.�.ti�cY\i;�aa�� �.�L � Y A �i,� •• sl.,••,��-.�}'^J\�:\` ? � Yv tzi ,�i}ergy'?�1'1��,,� Yry W,. � rt,�``� 2 k4 { i a `�rt�\t t, '�,�.•.' S'.� r\ \\ \\,` ••'1, , " ' r\+ \',\'v 4 \xt— i7 \�r�•tire 1�`�nI\.' ;'�•}Y"'ra"\ \ h \ �\ \ \ \ \ YV A it F, Nl�� 4 ;rb°� -•G�.�..-�-....�. :: y, ems•' - .�ti '•- - .1 mw rt N 'C- #'f'x' :� �t a +`•siC � '�g ear � . tier. j w+ h s w! ••m a +++,r'i ��'.`p scF .s.• r ,i t'" �:.ri°%�5�'r,���y; k3 y �� 7 .r /a �! t• r,l.,' aye� iIl�''�r7���1 � r+Y^�'1�+ � ' �;_ {,�,i,y lfl"• ', , _ r . .::C'n d.li�vv ! ,5��`�'l A f�7�ri.y" i I WIN w" ell VA lo w ( �'ti � ,41).Y �. _ � rr.�4� `���1�,lI.`�4���1! 1 !��'" •� •�"� C•,`-y fe 'r•' " ( f.- +�.� '�a r S rM 1yAA{y�ll1� III \`'�E+ { • t+�:� ' ' +Jnv +�`iS•1 1' 't f ,'1� • _ "„i � � '��' `�'` •! •i� ") -' � tit '. s'f'{ �t"�`ti�iw. S`4171;5gl�'��-t'+"^'2 YhT'�' � •.�' ��'�� �r fy f� tL�'it'}� tit •, 11 • Y I%.�S �vl.�.�y f c�c� „� Amweronment .t r al Fln. Rykj, I t:: ire s 77M Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,MCA 92641 yam ' � TEL�(714)_ 72 2 ,�FAX(714)3'�2 2211 ;�;,; Attachment E. Orange County SRO Housing Development Guide ATTACHMENT NO. • 2S •� . 1 .. I. ^,.r: _ sa . . . . f �.-*..m.:.:'.....�.:..,l..%,.. ^M1 ti OR°AN.GE COUNTY .St 1 t- i .—.' w. . 4 _ .l \ ,+y _%: .. '.rl-.�'' .. l - i,. ,. .. . :r s;' :l ' .., ® _ ' l . F" - 'r - ti .� i . S: - 9' /O. ,. : - . '." - �' et a U: ,; �i• - -,i: .( J�:: :'i' . . , Y+ �- ,' _ .ice - •. 41.•�� �' i.-, <a.;. ,� _ � .�il� i•1`' J: ^ter 1 r �\•'Y' .. I. rrl t' . fF: -9'_ r - ..r.l. .- ..••-. , /. J�. _ :r:. - .'r.' %.. - ' .■ram.. {v "a Ir t. . . rri _ - - -i. _ _ ':. :i. :J� - r 1. +'. ^i�' }- .• . .f. .fir , .'.1 =ram 1.I �= - m—, l; r _ - �. _ .. - rr1 'r-._ r :( .,1...�:'� •• - - ■ram �. r - _ �'I,- .. i�i r ,1:• .0 1 r . 1. - - .. =—. r -., l.r .I 1 _r ,..,..\... .•.,Tir a \ •ram 'r- ! - •1 - •�_il . a — r( -r i r rr, �i••- �r J(�: _ •ram ,.. - \ _ - -rr, ` 1 �•• �� -r ti., :. �� 1 Ir ( •' - — r r �r :J. -1 - — 1 i ` a� 1 'W li.. _ / — ( f * =. _.1� ..— - �'f S' •:i,r.. '.: t 1 «1 r - - :i' .. . Y `.` -.`�'_ . `. ,- •er': . i ._r•.. - F.. - .. _ 1 .- - - ;u• - .••/ r _ _ ` ` Ct�vT' f� : City of Anaheim o . City of La-Pa a, City of Brea , City of..Laguna Beaq City of Costa Mesa i *"' 'AUNTY,O t�RAN Cityof. New oit �eac City of Cypress i City_of San Clement; City of Dana Point City •of:Santa Ana,, Lea ue of California Cities; City of Fullerton g. - City ... Tustin:: • • ' Orange.County .Division .. ' .. _..,..:r ti.�.�;�• City of Garden Grove Orange County'. City of-Westmtq$ter, City of Huntington.Beach Transit.Disthct. County<of Oiangg ;c << City of La Habra I Building Industry << ' Assoc is t ipn.of.Orange County Building:Industry �;. Association Coalition - • j for the.Homeless . Orange Empire Chapter,. ; '-.r ICBO = s . Tcisk Force Co-Chcrirmctn - :.. Roger. R. Stanton ,; ■ Daniel H.'Young :.;,; .r SUPERVISOR ■ FIRST-DISTRICT MAYOR `y•w COUNTY OF ORANGE .. CITY OF SANTA ANA > Members William Ehrle Christopher Norby. Eva Miner- COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER :` MAYOR ^` CITY OF ANAHEIM_ CITY OF FULLERTON CITY dF'LA PALMA' Walter Donovan «Ik Scott.Diehl :JoyN'eiigebauer'' t `� COUNCILMEMBER :COUNCILMEMBER '.: COUNCILMEMBER..; CITY OF GARDEN GROVE 5C�'3 CITY OF SAN:CLEMENTE. Cin.OF.VilESTMINSTER --`­��T Grace Winchell Anita Huse'th:': Sandia-.Gents s ; sr.•. �. COI.NCICOUNCILMEMBER _' COUNCILMEM.BER: •`.'.�:',:.:_. -,-.:=.�: .'�`'•.,'` CQUNCILMEMBER-:=,x-:`_` ... �;;•,.Yr {,M CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF WESTMINSTER CITY OF GasrA MESA �� - - '- .-'. : •:''r.::-,:J'' ter. Richard Polis. Judy'Curreri `' : ': �`.Dgnatd Strauss.' wc� MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR ,� ti• i CITY OF LA PALMA CITY OF-DANA.POINT .CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH , Douglas B str tm.Silva Patrtcta IvlcGuirj�';� g Y Y.: J COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER.: �:'.,, • CITY OF LA HABRA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH' CITY_ OF'SANTA ANC T I i - ' I-. ���w`.-_• t ff' r�, r }��.Jl'�,(tra tic-_ I :lie 1980's°iias a decade.of dynamic'-growth.and change for Orange Courity:'The citizens of.ou>'Count} have greatly beiiefitedfrom 'this progress;and as we enter the:1990's:we.look forward to:coneiriued progress As:elect'd.ar d p.itblic offic als,.we.are:charged wiCh gi►iding this progress,,and`.to seek new and.innovative".iiieans:of mee. ing Clie changing-needsbf the community. This investigation of Single Room'Occupancy'(SRO.)•housing is-an example_of this-Piublic.-charge. New tech- niques in con$tructton;"tiianagemertr and operations have Yevived thts:affo dable housing product which 11as been absent.,from the County's houstrig stock for years This Guide has been developed by building,.land use and adminis- trative professionals to.assist each Qrange.County cttyli7l the evaldat>on'of SRO.housing.proposals:The Guide ptovides":recommendations,on various"topics.such as:larid;use;building and fire codes, operatians and.f>nancing:for SRO housing:The-goal=was to:develbp a gt [da rn.such�a way as.:to to locality. ' the'flexibility rr.needs to evalulate the type of SRO housing product which will,bend'info the comm�- nity,while,meeting a critical housing need: Our-thahks to our fellow Task Force rriert rs who dedicated their time arrdeffoct f : n" ing ch15'Guide.to'fruition. - ger R:Stanton ~Daniel H.:Young :SUrERVI1,0R1 FIRST:DsTRIC7'. MAYOR CCIUN-- QF ORANGE :CITY oF.SAN'rA ANA ►TTACHMENT NO" -i : Alice Angus.. : Sandra McClymonds City of Costa Mesa I I: ... County of Orange Craig Bluell ±3 Floyd McLellan City of Newport Beach: County-of-Orange _Special thanks and -:, -: recognition to x` George Britton Linda Miller .. k Judy LenthaI . + , County of Orange J. f OCTD BIA-Coalition. L. George Buell for the Linda Morad ` ` Cityof Fullerton Homeless: City.of Fullerton' .. �. :Bertha Chavoya Eric Nicoll City of Anaheim - - City of Anaheim Chuck Daleo Steve Ratkay City of Fullerton City.of Westminster. Greg Deveraux Christine Reed City of Garden Grove. O..'C. BIA Gloria Edwards `Mike.Ruane,° Cityof Brea. :County of Orange =;;+ Rich Efker , Lauren Sacco County of Orange 1 . City of Fountain.Valley Lynne Fishel -.Leslie Scott :F County of Orange i Janet Hester Ci ty of F ullerton` O.0 League of Cities Ken Frank Carl Sheppard City of Laguna Beach I Bob.I-�onish City.of Santa Ana City of,Santa Ana - Kathleen Freed Pat`Spencer First District Supervisor's- I Ed Knight City of Huntington Beach Office -City of_Daria Point j 'Erica Taylor Holly-Hamlin Stegheri Kohler,: City of Santa Ana City of Cypress. City of Huntingtoq Beach i. Susan Tebo .. Bart Hansen Claie-LaGuar&i City_of Tustin T; O.C. BIA. �: County:ofOrange 1 Pat Whitaker a Bob.Helton. j. Mike Lennon City.of Santa Ana .: City of Santa Ana . O.C•:BIA.. Larry_D: Yengliri , Scott Hess -Mike Linares Cicy'Af Santa Ana. City of Huntington Beach.. City of Santa-Ana _ 'rT Ct ENT NO. . it '. , - - - . C. - -- .. .. ........ . !-. .% 1. .I } < . ,.. :THE.NEjD.FOR•:A , NEW AFFORDABLE `-' BUILDING•AND` HbUSING,'PROI u T.. 5 } :� -r I 4 , FIRE:CODES - •1.9 Impacts of the 5' :Authority• 19 Ho>istng Crisis. ' '; .Definitions 19" The New 6 5` SRO'Coricept Development _ + ; SCanCIaIdS 2Q Orange-county SR0 6 . . Task"Force, - Unit Requirements 20 _. . Pucptis�of..the SRO 7 r` r Project Requirements : 21_ . Housing .:. ; M n s _. ,i T . . Development Guide .' Fire Codes 22 D.efinitiori.'of ai­SRO, 'y 8 '" + =;, _, -_I` `<FINAN ING:-` 23 Meeting'Affdrdable $ 4 1 . Pros-- *- ;Developers 23 I . Housing Requiretnents` , ' . J �- 1'rospecape Lenders 25 :• LAND LISE r` `Public.Financial I A AND•DESIGN 9 +' Participation 26. I . Zoning_I)es►gnation "9 Options in.l tect.Public.:,., } _ ?articipatiori• 27: `" . GeneraLP'laii' l 0; _ ;; :_ '�_ T ' rect.Pub`lic . .Cgris dera:Ppris`:' I ::; :,�::. tion Z8.'ar c a I. C. •F: i:' ,:.. ;` 4: is : .Site,. e e... ri= ,. 0 11•' :t: "a i r r`iti" 2 l d�ral".-' o' s, 8"c e r , t �- i ,1'. , . c':P t ,ark'iii �''.: _. . 1�a utremerlts ,s G x _"• �' . l�. ��- .'� '.r. , +State Progtams. 29 r' 4y}r•-,jiYi�'' \i!.:/.Li�•4r'L., M r�4 sre f_! w r `r. } L c 1 Pro rams 29 AcchiteCtural ,1 , < ` .,, Q a g. Guidelines s '; f M:t .•' _ y ; <• ', a'j Publie Financa . ' ' and LJ. .. I?esigi� ; , , g . tik4 t r r r t > > _}r .' y ` Te�liniques 30 i_Exteribr' t 4 A.� --z 1 ' v 4r S :i t r .c s� >�_l4 .r .I Common Area:' 'f _ MANAGEI.. , `'' '`' -Publtc Ir vestmeiit. - t' -AND': 1CURI`IY: 15 ', 'Constrain`ts :'30 Development?'_ 12 �,'.. "Mariageifienr<I'lan� *•'' t .Standards .,;.�';~ \ _ . s ,`'^ ,;:Y Staffing. . `�:, 15 '� SUlvllvfARY 31 :+. .• ,; = ,� < OPERATIONS _ 13 - Equalnd"Fair c ::_" ' ' %`, Operatoris,Expen0es 13 Housirr .. + ' 16 ` _; " :CONCLUSION 32. 1 A -r t S '••- SV \__ �.. I. _ ,j J''K" 7f xrYt •, t.( 4 -JnYelif a,.I�eCUrlty,+f - 4 1��'.y" -y+ ,_+ _ f" . ` ' i r ` + CHECK -LISPS- 33 37 )-y` :yy �.. ,� Seeuri f`; Iardwere ' •". 8 , ;;� ,: M1 . i, i ' .' Uelii�leecGttCx ;, 8 } 'AP EN. A 38 40• ' Sartiple-Project I- " 1• ' t 1 l r - ' try �� lr• - `Cw- -� F,\.< , tt r ! .. L 4.•l.- r -J♦\ Y( - �^• S [ - . c -t., a- r - I- I 'y _ Design City 0f S`dtltat�pa Gcaphtcs s'ryttoI. r - Pranhn .Co' sJf UEan'e=GSA/:R':r �rap�ricg r a r - ✓ .'"`'. + P .'; <�..' t..c + `4� r •9 { R tt 4.1. . Y .. 1`V V ra'. . . I 1 Single: _ - 'Ro m-' Oc u a c - H�Ousing? • - . . - t.. ,'Single•RoomyOccupanc,Y:��- . .. '' - : - Housing(SRO):is:a.cluster:. - - - Ot'guest units'.wit In a,resl : deritial kiotel providing :' sleeQt�g:gr ltdIng facilities iri .r which sariitacg.faci�ities`.tnay..=:' ;- be provided".witliiii the unit`, and cooking fad hies°may-: be's ha. M. red`within the liote�.; e 7`'1 P - w•rr�-iENeTz�. - � hg , - - : . : - AG7". T1ie EL Re. Semi=Inde erideit'A-drtments'ii Seatle`Wasfin: on: y. p p: ® ®. i . Die to a combiriation. { studio apartment;to $1,300 of factilrs,.'tr6Iy affordable .:. :. :. g- �. per.month for a five bedroom t- 110ustng opporttinities.for I a unit, excluding deposits and eery low=income-persoris are..: •.tnonthly.utilities. practically nonexiscerit in Orange Count Some:of i g y. '�. . �; Impacts of a. , the contributing factors7. ��y :. • . 4 r .,� ,�{�= .i . IONS inn .Cr1S 1S T include tlie.followinga�j3= p� b '' �`,- The lack'.of hotisin afford- * i A •�Y _ gr Y ■ Tllere has been substantial fig,{ � `',� 4=°?`{z'` � 'ram' :able:for low income house- reductions of goveiiuYteitt r .,t r <a` � holds:creates severe negative r I' .; _. funding available:for. t impacts in the:conununity. s low-income housing'develop t merit: For exaiimlt., the 1988 I ■ Overcrowding of the . Department of-Hous'irig and ' existing housing stock=has elopment (HUD): becori�e common in many. Urban Dev budget totaled$1`,.pion "� � areas of the,County.. versus-the 1981 but lget total jobs will exist, predominately; ' of$32 billiori:.At Lhe'state " ini the:service tndListry sector. ■ onielessness has.continued level, Housing arid Cr'm-U.'. (26%"of jobs in-Orange: to increase in the county. ' Wiry Development's"(.HCD) County). :A significant` Fstiinates place this papLila= 1990-91. budget cur.:$9. mil r " portion of these. obs:will be ; : tion.at approximately 8,000 { Mi lion fro m.tlie 1989-90 lev at•low wa`e•scale;further ex ' pers6ris in Orange County. acerbating the:need for.• A second si ificant.- actor. .... affordab.le.a ous r `: !"`.. �-Motels and Hotels are oiler- . g l is population growth:trends.; sting as poorly run SROs. Orange:County's population :■ While demandforffard - Siriee these buildings were.. tripled 6etween`1960:and .-:: able housing is protected to;:; .: neither built nor"designed for. 198.4, and is expected .to grow: increase,.the supply is not this type of use, the results --are�bli hted.conditions and from the`1984:1eve1 of : expected.to keep'pace Tle._`. g ;. verse mpacts o2.1 million to 2.8 mb home ae pricefor the { 2010 Orange County, as rep:ted I • surr..ounding community. February 1990 in the. Los ■ In the employment sector, i Angeles Times, was estimated J.. /Housing unbalance over-.1 million.jobs existed iri. �:: •at$249;999 In the rental I contributes to the Orange Count in 1984: .B market, averse [ents:f6r deterioration of the.air f y Y g 2010, just cinder 2.'million: : units in the;Courity range . ;quality due .to increased } traffic congestion. from:$5.00.per:month,fora g ; T ACHi iENT NO. A. 32-- The New Poor"), and the homeless. combined their efforts and, The latter group I with the guidance of County SRO ConcQ Jt I. is served either directly-via `II Supervisor Roger Stanton Single Room Occu '`nc .is a public;- rivate.kion.rofit:.: I and Santa.Ana Mayor Daniel g p� y P ,P :. Y not a new concept'in hods- I partnership,pr by-fineing up. Young, the County Wide in-. For decades this type of. I limited shelter.be'ds_as indi- I SRO Task Force was formed. _ housing provided affordable `. . viduals seeking long-term` .. shelter to low-income indi affordable housing leave The County Wide SRO viduals and wage earners shelters.. . Task Forces is.comprised of settling in areas of , locally.elected officials, plus economic boom. As the The validity of the SR' :: I key building industry and characteristics of these areas concept has been demon community organization.rep .. ' changed, so did the tenancy i strated by.the successful resentatives. Given the lack in these hotels. In time, development of SROs:.. I of low income housing op- these hotels became typified nationwide. -h' Southern portunities in the'county, the as transient hotels serving 1 California; Los Angelesand �. -SRO Task Force has set forth. :'._. the down-and-out, or cater= I San Diego proyide:_several i the following goals: ing to illicit:activities. �. examples; while communities Today, however, innovations !._ across the nation;=includirig ■. To promote a better under- in huildino,"land use, opera- :Atlanta, Berkeley':Phoen: standing-of SROs and their r � . tions and management have Sacramento.; San Jose, potential role in Orange rekindled interest in the Seattle and Portland have County. development of SROs. The developed their.own:SRO iir. new SRO concept maintains program models: . To oversee the develop- �: ... that new technology and . I ., ment"of a uniform guide for innovation can make this. Orange COU11tj7T the development of SRO type of housing more cost- ' projects for the use of city �. effective to build,.operate, SRO.:TaSk o.rce . .i staffs in Orange County. Iri mid-..1989'-C1ie.Cit. maintain and secure than y. :Count . Coordinatih Com-: .. I ` .■ previous SRO products. Y - g To promote the develop- i mittee of the Orange County ment of SROs throughout the ' With respect to i . Division of the:league of county through a fair share Cities formed the Homeless i affordability, average rents I: approach. projected for Orange County. _ I Subcommittee:. The. mission . i ' :.of;the subcommittee.was:to 1 SROs will be below those for. Formed from within the 1 studio apartments. investigate program options County.Wide Task Force is aimed at addressing Orange ° . the SRO Working Group; a l SROs can provide afford- :Gounty's homeless:issues::.:. staff-level group of public- able housing fora diverse One program outlined_for and private-sector.represen- a. population, including the research was SRO housing: tatives charged with develop- i elderly, mentally and physi- : ConcurrenK to tlie'Courity : ing the.SRCS HousingDevel- cally disabled, public assis- investigation, the CiCy of opment Guide. .This Guide : tance recipients, low-wage Santa Aria had'initiated a is.the end product of the SRO: service workers (often.re- similar.investigation into'-the Working Group's and the ferred to as the "working merits of SROs.-.Charged-with County Wide SRO Task. i similar missions, Orange- Forte's efforts. �. r County and Santa-Ana staff - ---------- _ ATTACHf�l ANTS. . 6 (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)] (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 n No. 99-31/Negative 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. of the 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 Z), 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 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 1141536-5271 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 Planning Commission Recommended Actions: Motions to: 1. Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-11 with findings set forth in (Attachment No.1); and r. 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 OR [Approval PC action & denied (1) & (2) with findings for denial to be presented at 615100 meeting] [6-1 (Dettloff No)] a� D-2. (City Council) Public Hearinq—Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 Park In-Lieu Fees for Residential Properties—Approve Introduction of Ordinance No.3468 (640.10) ublic hearing to consider the following: ��,.�� pplicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(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 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 Item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. (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 554957.1(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(U133149 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] Flag Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance- Maureen Rivers- H.B. Fourth of July Executive Board Invocation - Councilmember Dave Sullivan `? CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LV2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 7, 2000 Dr. James Lu Mr. Charles Tsang Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 100 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Dear Dr. Lu and Mr. Tsang: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, May 15, 2000 took action on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-22 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy Residential Project) and upheld the Planning Commission decision of denial. The findings for denial were approved at the Monday, June 5, 2000, City Council meeting and are enclosed. The May 15, 2000, minutes of the denial of the appeal and the Action Agenda of June 5, 2000, are enclosed. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 7, 2000 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMQr City Clerk Enclosure: Findings for Denial .May 15, 2000, City Council Minutes June 5, 2000, City Council Action Agenda Government Code 1094.6 Cc: City Administrator City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Principle Planner Jane James, Associate Planner I (Telephone:714-536-5227) I 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, 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. 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)—6/5/00 1 A. Land Use Element Objective LU9.2: 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. (00sr22denyfind)—6/5/00 2 (11) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 11 ity Council) Direct Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)to Expedite the Crossing of arner Avenue—for the Sewer Project on Goldenwest Street—Ken Thompson, Inc. (Co ractor) ( . ) The City ouncil considered a communication from the Public Works Director informing Council that the O ge County Sanitation District(OCSD) is constructing a 36-inch diameter sewer approximate 20 feet deep in the center of Goldenwest Street. Public Works staff and OCSD staff and their ntractor, Ken Thompson, Inc. met to explore ways to expedite their project. Discussion focu d on the upcoming crossing of Warner Avenue and the extensive construction of a manhole in th center of the intersection. Earlier in the meeting, a City Clerk announced that a Late Communication had been received on this item dated May 1 2000 from the Director of Public Works transmitting a correction to this agenda Item, revising a recommended action. Communication titled Correction to May 15, 2000 City Council A nda. Public Works Director Beardsley troduced Mr. John Lender, OCSD Construction Manager who presented background information d informed Council that the contractor is willing to work 24 hours a day to complete the project. Discussion ensued regarding the best po ible hours for the closure of the intersection due to the impact to traffic flow. Mayor Pro Tern Harman expressed many conc ns, including the relative speed at which the project is currently proceeding. He also stated th most of the crews are tunneled underground, and therefore the majority of the work' sub-surfaced. Mayor Pro Tem Harman also mentioned the need for extensive signage and th inherent problem of traffic congestion. A motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to concur ' h staff recommendation that the Orange County Sanitation Department's contractor, Ken Th pson, Incorporated, expedite the crossing of Warner Avenue in one continuous pass during we days starting May 22, 2000. The contractor is to work only in the evening from 8:00 P.M. to 6 A. . during this closure for however many days are needed. This would result in Warner Ave ue being closed to both left turns and through traffic at Goldenwest Street, while right turns wou be permitted onto Goldenwest Street at all times. The motion carried by the following ro all vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES Harman ABSENT: None Due to the lateness of the hour, a motion was made by Green, second Mayor Gar alo to adjourn at approximately 11:00 P.M. The motion carried unanimously with all prese (City Council) Public Hearing —Denial of Appeal Filed by Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31/Negative Declaration No. 99-11 —8102 Ellis Avenue, 400 Feet e/o Beach Boulevard, Single Room Occupancy (SRO)— Directed Staff to Prepare Findings for Denial for Presentation at the June 5, 2000 Meeting (420.40) (17) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 17 Angela Fan informed Council that she works for a medical group one block from the project site, and has co-workers—nurses and pharmacy clerks -who commute because they cannot afford to live in Huntington Beach. Ms. Fan stated that she collected signatures of those in support of the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project and has submitted them to Council. She informed Council that she is an owner of a four-plex and has never encountered a low income person who is involved with drugs and other crimes. Ms. Fan stated that it is a misconception to equate the two, and urged Council to approve the proposal. Jack Wenzel spoke in opposition to the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. He informed Council that he does not live in the city, but does own property near the proposed site. Mr. Wenzel expressed his fears relative to crime, stating that it is a poorly planned project. Fred Bruning informed Council that he is not opposed to low income housing, but that the proposed project is not in a good venue. Mr. Bruning spoke relative to specific adverse impact that the proposal could have on health and safety.- He stated that single room occupancy guidelines provide certain standards, such as avoiding residential neighborhoods and those with bars and liquor stores nearby. He expressed his concern regarding the three-story SRO building, where tenants can look into the windows of the residents living in the two-story duplexes. Mr. Bruning also stated that parking is a problem, and named other cities in which he views that prostitution and drug problems exist. He inquired if a property owner who cannot avoid code violations on his vacant lot, can be a good prospect as a developer. Chauncey Alexander informed Council that he is an original member of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, which Mayor Pro Tern Harman founded. Mr. Alexander asserted his disagreement with the speaker, Mr. Biddle. He.stated that the city is below the requirement for low-cost housing, but that he recognizes the fear of crime surrounding such a project. Mr. Alexander expressed his belief that engaging in an improved project would be good for the community, and stated his shock at those Planning Commission members who voted against the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. Mr. Alexander spoke about the fear, bias and discrimination that constitute opposition. He related that City Councilmembers led the movement toward human dignity, and urged them now to support the project. Sally Alexander stated her concurrence with the last speaker, Chauncey Alexander. She spoke in favor of opening Huntington Beach to diversity in a dignified way. Robert Cronk informed Council of his futile attempts to meet with the applicants representative, Randy Allison, in an effort to discuss the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. Mr. Cronk expressed his opinion that neither developer nor his representative care what the community thinks. Mr. Cronk described what he perceives as a "266 square foot box" with only a microwave for cooking facilities. He also referred to the high rental charge that is being proposed. Ann Palmer informed Council that she is registering her opposition to the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. Ms. Palmer spoke relative to what she perceives as the inappropriateness of the project; that the facility is unsuitable, if not unsavory for seniors. She spoke relative to improving the condition of mobile home parks as an option. Ms. Palmer stated how the type of single room occupancy in question exacerbates problems found in high density housing and cramped living quarters. She stated that if the SRO is to be built at all, it should be according to guidelines. Ms. Palmer informed Council that she was also opposed to the Wal-Mart project. (18) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 18 Marlene Mcllroy, resident of Huntington Beach, urged Council not to vote for approval of the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project. She expressed her concerns about her safety and feelings of vulnerability. Ms. McIIRoy stated the project will have a negative impact on property values, and remarked at the ease at which she was able to gather signatures, and presented a petition in opposition to the SRO to the City Clerk. Kirk Kirkland informed Council that he had served on the Planning Commission during which time single room occupancy guidelines were being investigated. He related that the city of San Diego has about seven or eight SROs that he stated were exemplary for people "living on the fringe." He described a desperate need for housing for qualified, low-income workers such as entry level police, teachers, and nurses. Marlene Watkins stated that she is registering her opposition on behalf of the residents of Demion Lane who live near the proposed site for the single room occupancy project. She informed Council that she is also low-income, but that Ellis Avenue would not be a good location for an SRO. Ley Malilay stated her opposition to a single room occupancy housing at the site of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue. Ms. Malilay qualified that she is not against low-income housing, but is speaking due to concerns about safety. She informed Council that she has also heard similar complaints from people living at nearby Forelle Drive. Jeff Lebow presented information on a study conducted in 1991 relative to per capita income from which he quoted figures. Mr. Lebow commended staff and spoke in support of the project. Bill Bernard complimented staff and spoke regarding the Orange County Housing Authority. He spoke relative to what he stated as HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) and its concept as starting at the lowest side of rainbow of humanity with the homeless, with the self-sufficient at the extreme opposite end. Mr. Bernard stated that the single room occupancy was somewhere in between. He encouraged everyone to view the six-minute video on the SRO, and spoke in favor of the SRO project in the Ellis Avenue area. Connie Boardman stated her opposition to the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project; that the living quarters are little more than sleeping rooms and therefore inadequate as housing. Ms. Boardman also spoke regarding the development's impact on traffic; stating that when traffic is bad on Talbert Avenue, traffic will be diverted to Ellis Avenue, adding congestion there. Ms. Boardman referred to the 83 parking spaces available for 107 units, and that she is unclear as to where visitors are expected to park. Glenn Selvin spoke in opposition to developing the single room occupancy project on Ellis Avenue, equating it with"The Condom Revolution" store on Beach Boulevard and other businesses that he stated he finds objectionable. Mr. Selvin presented what he perceives as an obvious solution: build the SRO in Seacliff Village where there are no liquor stores or bars. Lou Baker presented what he perceives as an option available on behalf of the development of low income housing that he stated had not yet been addressed. Mr. Baker informed Council that Councilmember Green responded to his call to set up an appointment and explore the possibility of constructing single room occupancy housing on the site of the Pacifica Hospital building. Mr. Baker presented a petition opposing the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy (SRO) to the City Clerk. (19) May 15, 2000 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 19 Frederick P. Kent informed Council that he owns the four-plex building on Demion Lane and that he moved into one of its units. Mr. Kent spoke in opposition to the proposed construction of the Ellis Avenue single room occupancy project that would be adjacent to his property. He stated that this particular area is not suitable for the city to plan an SRO project and real estate principles bear this out. He asserted that in putting unlike properties together, one will increase while the other will decrease in value. Mr. Kent further stated that he finds it unfortunate that those properties declining would be the properties on Demion Lane. He presented the option of building more churches and similar types of housing on the site. Mike O'Grady spoke in favor of the project due to what he perceives as inadequate affordable housing in the city. Brian Barsuglia stated his opposition to the project as not being appropriate due to traffic considerations. He spoke relative to the applicant's appeal as coercive because he stated the applicant threatened discrimination if the project does not move forward. Jim Martin stated his opposition to the single room occupancy project on Ellis Avenue for three reasons: Location, location, and location. Mr. Martin expressed his concerns relative to staffs guidelines for SROs, the three bars located near the project site, and traffic problems. Mr. Martin informed Council that there are two real estate professionals on the Planning Commission who understand that location is primary. He stated that there is a need for low- income housing, and concurs that Seacliff is a good location for the project. There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding his favorable impression of the single room occupancy project he visited in the city of Irvine. He informed Council that he discussed criteria relative to SROs with its Vice President, Tony Salazar including adequate cooking facilities and parking accommodations, an appropriate location, and the requisite number of occupants per unit. Councilmember Bauer stated that Mr. Salazar advises against allowing more than one occupant to a room. Councilmember Bauer stated that he is not going to be supporting a motion to approve the project. Councilmember Dettloff stated that she echoes Councilmember Bauer's concerns and posed questions regarding which guidelines would be followed and how staff will plan management of the project. Associate Planner James responded that in 1991, the city adopted the Orange County guidelines that had been formulated by a task force and that the applicant is going to be required to complete a compliance report. Associate Planner James stated that if the applicant's appeal is denied, State law requires that Council make a finding based on one out of six criteria, such as a specific adverse impact on public health and safety. Councilmember Dettloff informed Council that she will be voting in favor of the staff recommendation for several reasons; one, that there is a desperate need for affordable housing, and two, the project meets and exceeds development standards for SROs. She further stated that the city has an ordinance in place, and that the city will plan to conduct a review every six months to give protections. (20) May 15, 2000 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 20 Councilmember Green presented, as a compromise, an SRO for seniors only, which he stated will cut down on the potential crime factor. He stated he was of the understanding that the city would start with this segment of the population. Councilmember Green informed Council that he is not interested in approving an SRO with cubicles of 200 square feet per unit; that for two people it would constitute living in a cell. He stated that he is going to vote against the project. Councilmember Julien stated that there is a need for low income housing, but expressed her concern that 89 parking spaces is not adequate for the 107-unit project; especially since 50% of the units will be double occupancy. She echoed Councilmember Sullivan's concern that subtracting kitchen and bath from the square footage leaves very little living space. Councilmember Julien informed Council that she is going to oppose a motion to approve. Mayor Garofalo inquired about the configuration of the parking lot, to which Associate Planner James responded that parking spaces for the SRO are going to encroach upon the parking lot on the north side of the adjacent Town and Country Shopping Center. Mayor Garofalo requested that if Councilmember Bauer would make a motion to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, that he would second the motion. A motion was made by Bauer, second Mayor Garofalo to 1. Approve Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31; and 2. Direct staff to present findings for denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 at the June 5, 2000 meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Bauer NOES Dettloff ABSENT: None nsent Calendar— Items Removed for Separate Discussion Establishi Reward Money for Murder Case— Resolution No. 2000-48 (Bridgette Ballas) Consent Calendar enda Items Added for Approval A motion was made by Sulliva , econd Green to add for approval the agenda items on ordinances and Mayor Garofalo's an ouncilmember Sullivan's collaborative item to the Consent Calendar. The motion carried b following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, G Dettloff, Bauer NOES None (Bauer— No on H-Item) ABSENT: None (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Minutes -Approved and adopte a minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency regular meetings of April 17, 2000 and adj ed regular meetings of April 24, 2000 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. (11) June 5, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 11 E-19. (City Council) Approve Cooperative Financing Agreement (Standard Agreement) Between the City and the State of California Department of Boating &Waterways— Corps of Engineers H. B. Blufftop Park Storm Damage Reduction Study for FY 2000/01 (600.20)—Approve and authorize the City Administrator and City Clerk to execute the Cooperative Agreement, the State of California Standard Agreement, between the State of California Department of Boating and Waterways and the City of Huntington Beach granting the City $75,000 in State funding for the local match required for the Corps of Engineers Huntington Beach Blufftop Park Storm Damage Reduction Study for FY 2000/01. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: None [Approved 6-0-1 (Bauer absent)] E-20. (City Council) Approve Three-Year Promotional Contract with Chevrolet, "The Official Marine Safety Vehicle of Surf City, Huntington Beach" to Obtain 15 Vehicles— Approve City's Indemnification Obligations (600.10) 1. Approve the Promotional Agreement with the Chevrolet Motor Division and authorize the Mayor and City Cleric to execute same; and 2. Approve Section 5 of the agreement which includes city's indemnification obligations to GMC. Submitted by the Community Services Director. Funding Source: Not applicable; agreement saves the General Fund approximately $440,000 each year in vehicle acquisition costs (total $1,320,000 in savings). [Approved 6-0-1 (Bauer absent)] E-21. Public Hearing Opened and Closed May 15, 2000—Accept Findings for Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 and Negative Declaration No. 99-11 (Ellis Avenue Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Project—Applicant, James Lu -Amwest Corp. (420.40) Accept Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-.11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Attachment No. 1). Submitted by the Planning Director. Findings for Denial are available in the City Clerk's Office. [Approved 5 — 1 — 1 (Dettloff NO, Bauer Absent)] E-22. (City Council) Approve Contract Agreement with Bottomline Technologies, Inc. for Acquisition of Check and Form Printing Software and Hardware—Phase I of the J. D. Edwards Business System (600.10) 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Bottomline Technologies (DE), Inc. for Check and Form Printing Services, for an amount not to exceed $130,000, to purchase check and form printing software and hardware, subject to receipt of a signed contract, including required insurance and upon approval as to form by the City Attorney as to non-substantive changes and in substantially the same form as approved to implement the J. D. Edwards Business System, and 2. Approve City's responsibilities for any claims, liabilities, or damages from (1) infringement or alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, or other intellectual property or proprietary right as a result of Bottomline's compliance with City's designs, specifications, or instructions; (2) City's breach of any of its obligations in the contract; and (3) City's misuse of the products, all as set forth in Paragraph 8.f of the contract. Submitted by the Fire Chief. Funding Source: On 10-18-99, the City Council appropriated $4,555,101 for Phase I of the J. D. Edwards Business System. Sufficient funds remain in the Capital Software Account to purchase the required $130,000 software and hardware and no additional funding is required. [Approved 6-0-1 (Bauer absent)] w l r - § 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Part 3 _ Ti Note 378 - manded for new trial de novo. Prescod v. mined commissioner had no jurisdiction - = e} California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. and did not determine merits. Western Air it: (1976) 127 Ca1.Rptr. 540, 57 C.A.3d 29. Lines Inc. v. Sobieski (1961) 12 Cal.Rptr. o 719,191 C.A2d 399. - of Trial court's judgment denying writ of - _— mandate to compel director of agriculture Fact that letter discharging senior typ- -_ to set aside his decision revoking petition- ist clerk in office of county clerk stated er's license as aircraft pilot in business of that she was guilty of misconduct in re- - _ st f pest control was reversed and case re- moving public records from the files and __ n` manded to trial court with directions to mutilating and secreting them on various remand case to director for purpose of dates, whereas in hearing before county Pi reconsidering the penalty previously im- civil service commission evidence was in- tl posed, where it was found that some of troduced only as to what took place on = the charges against petitioner were not one of the dates, did not require the dis- P( supported by evidence. Wingfield v. trict court of appeal on appeal from judg.. o, Director of Agriculture (1972) 105 Cal. ment awarding senior typist clerk writ of j Rptr.619,29 C.A.3d 209. mandate, after reversing the judgment of = the superior court, to remand the matter Proceeding for review of denial by com to missioner of corporations of permit to the commission for reconsideration, where there was a similarity of facts sur- n change voting rights of shareholders would be remanded to superior court for rounding removal of the documents on all fl determination whether there was substan- ' of the dates. Pratt v. Los Angeles Coun- ty Civil Service Commission (1952) 238 tial evidence to support commissioners = "= T.• P 2d 3,108 C.A findings, where court improperly deter- 2d 114. 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and party defined; or- dinance or resolution P (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than F school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of a the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer.or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if i the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. f (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day - q following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, - the decision is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision I for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- ant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this ' section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 90 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency !� may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or !. otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- ! script of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any DroDosed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted Part 3 Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 ►d no jurisdiction exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or :rite, western Air its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any 1961) 12 Cal.Rptr. other papers in the case. arging senior typ- (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in ounty clerk stated - misconduct in re- subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes fi- '.rom the files and nal as provided in subdivision (b), the time within which a petition them on various ing before county pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later evidence was in- than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either iat took place on )t require the ais- -- personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- appeal from judg- = ord, if he has one. ypist clerk writ of g the judgment of'errand the matter (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- - r reconsideration, istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- arity of facts aur- = missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application documents on all U .os Angeles Coun- -- for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- iasion (1952) 238 ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the _=*' local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within ieies; petition; which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. ty defined; or- = As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ' ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person cy, other than _: whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a 'ction 54951 of - permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for Titer or agent - a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. s code only if = (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the ection is filed governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable. If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the 1 the 90th day - provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision If there is no in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. plicable provi- = (Added by Stats.1976,c.276,p.581,§ 1.) )f this section, Forms such provision 3es of this sec- - See West's California Code Forms,Civil Procedure. :h reconsidera- Library References sought pursu- - ur OSeS Of this Administrative Law and Procedure C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and p e-722. Procedure § 193. Notes of Decisions ae prepared by r agent which = In general I that public employment relations board Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 had exclusive jurisdiction to determine )ner within 90 _ whether the unfair practice charges were e local agency justified; and, in view of teachers' failure to exbaust their administrative remedies ranscribing or t 1. In general under the Rodda Act, trial court erred in School board's unilateral freezing of granting.writ of mandate to compel super- Jude the tran- >! teachers' salaries after beginning of new intendent of district and others to raise id orders, any school year, while contract negotiations salaries of certain teachers. Amador Val- n, all admitted were pending, arguably was an unfair ley Secondary Educators Ass'n v. Newlin practice in violation of the Rodda Act so (1979) 151 Cal.Rptr. 724, 88 C.A.3d 254. 675 k i i § 1094.6 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Part 3 is 2.. Exhaustion of administrative remedies failed to provide a grievance procedure Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative and notwithstanding that plaintiff had not remedies applies to class actions which sued the United States. Hayward v. raise constitutional issues; such exhaus- Henderson (1979) 151 Cal.Rptr. 505, 88 lion of administrative remedies was there- C.A.3d 64. fore required even though judicial attack Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative on sign ordinance took form of class ac- remedies is not an inflexible rule and will tion suit by chamber of commerce as rep- not be asserted where it disserves the resentative of all members who were or public interest, where irreparable injury might be adversely affected by sign regu- would otherwise occur, or where adminis- lations. Mountain View Chamber of Com- trative remedies would be futile or inade- merce v. City of Mountain View (1978) quate. Hull v. Cason (1978) 151 Cal. 153 Cal.Rptr.441,77 C.A.3d 82. Rptr.438,88 C.A.3d 768. Trial court was without jurisdiction to where issue is not one of valuation or j litigate request for injunctive relief by of misclassification and facts are undis- plaintiff, a former police officer, under puted, an exception to the exhaustion rule federal funded program, who had been exists on issue of whether property is { dismissed near the end of his one-year Y tax-exempt. Oates v. County of Sacra- probationary period, where plaintiff had mento (1978) 143 Cal.Rptr. 337, 78 C.A. not exhausted his federal administrative 3d 745. remedies, notwithstanding that city had - § 1095. Judgment for applicant; damages; peremptory writ; officer of public entity as respondent If judgment be given for the applicant, he may recover the dam- ages which he has sustained, as found by the jury, or as may be de- _ termined by the court or referee, upon a reference to.be ordered, to- gether - gether with costs; and for such damages and costs an execution may _ issue; and a peremptory mandate must also be awarded without de- - Y u lay; provided, however, that in all-cases where the respondent is an = •- officer of a public entity, all damages and costs, or either, which may be recovered or awarded, shall be recovered and awarded against the public entity represented by such officer and not against such officer . so appearing in said proceeding, and the same shall be a proper claim against the public entity for which such officer shall have appeared, j and shall be paid as other claims against the public entity are paid; z but in all such cases, the court shall first determine that the officer - - appeared and made defense in such proceeding in good faith. For the - `- purpose of this section, "public entity" includes the State, a county, '-- city, district or other public agency or public corporation. For the purpose of this section, "officer" includes officer, agent or employee. _ (Enacted 1872. Amended by Stats.1913, c. 206, p. 359, § 1; Stats.1963, c. = - 1681, p. 3285, § 3.) _ Law Review Commission Comment r= The 1963 amendment makes this section apply to all public en- tities and to agents and employees as well as officers. �I 676 �1!1. '. F West S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA ' CODES CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Sections. 1.021 to 1131 t Volume t 4_ x III ; *s k .,< ,Cumulative Pocket Part .�y.� y+�f 1i�b-tpcd �• I x � .q.. i Includes lawsthrough the 1999 portion of the 1999-2000 Regular and First Extraordinary Sessions 2-7 41 'r�iTSV T�. t 1� _f3��i•. _ 4f�'7�r• I, ��pity n,t., � ��' ~rtyi,• �� �..`.iJ.t ` t:•i ~- G r 7 5f 'gam, yry t .ry A. f T 3 YY d6 tv�.anw c i L t i . 13�'U h1 �t+'d �r,•XrH JjT ! t - "+ § 1094.5 CODE.OF. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE OF CIVII;4. _ Note 377. .may Rent Control Bd.(App.2 Dist 1991)279 Cal.Rptr. 636, Precondition of Code of Civil Procedure section accord- (d) If the petitioner li 228 CalApp.3d 1s18,review denied: Ing courts in administrative mandamus proceedings dis- date the decision epets bner fi cretion to remand case for reconsideration if court finds 378. Remand Section 1094.5 may be f that there is relevant evidence, i.e.;that evidence could Remand to trial court was not required in administra- not have been produced in administrative proceeding in the record-is either per tive mandamus proceeding brought by property owner exercise of reasonable diligence,was satisfied as to report one: whose conditional use permit for operation of tennis ranch. in question by fact that report was issued two and one-half (e) As used in this 6. had been revoked by county; although trial improperly months after administrative agency's challenged decisions, applied substantial evidence standard of review rather absent showing that mandamus petitioners were involved suspending;demoting,o than using its independent judgment, its finding that in report's,preparation and completion. Fort Mojave permit,license,or other owner had made no claim or offered any proof that it had . Indian Tribe v. Department of Health Services (App. 2 denying an application 8 ever used property with primary goal of operating tennis Dist 1995)45 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 38 Cal App.4th 1674, re- (fj In making_a final ranch indicated it would also have denied mandamus hearing denied,review denied. petition using independent judgment standard of review. Where there are errors in admission of evidence before PAY that the time with Malibu Mountains Recreation,Inc.v.County of Los Ange- administrative agency, it is proper to remand.to agency As used in this irubdl% lea(App.2 Dist 1998)79 Cal.Rptr.2d 25,67 CalApp.4th for reconsideration; after'reviewing court determines dismissed; a person whc 369,review denied. what evidence is admissible,agency should be given op-. 1Yta1 court's remand of administrative mandamus ro- portunity to exercise discretion based on that evidence 8p11aa moentobenP�&t 0 F P alone. Newman v. State Personnel Bd. (App. 9 Dist. _N.- ceeding challenging Department of Health Services' 1992) 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, 10 CalApp.4th 41, modified. (g) Thin section shall (DHS)approval of environmental impact report(EIR)and Remand for reconsideration was inappropriate after the subject matter, license for constriction and operation of low-level radioac- J ,aril' Court of Appeal concluded that highway patrol failed in five waste(LLRW)disposal facility,instating that geolo-. medical termination case to prove employee's inability to statute of limitations,is gists'report,issued after DHS'decisions,be examined by perform work of her position or any other available posi- (Amended by State.1.9E DHS"in a pre-approval setting,"exceeded coart's proper tion; highway patrol was not entitled to second opportuni- $ 5; Stats.1995,,c.898(f discretion .under code section authorizing remand on ty to'eatablish case. Newman v. State Personnel Bd. ,:-- ground of relevant evidence which,in exercise of reason- (App.3 Dist 1992)12 Cal.Rptr.2d 601,10 CalApp.4th 41, able diligence,could not have been produced at adminia- modified. trative hearing; report was restatement and elaboration 1983 Amendment"Sub-, of opinions,which geologists had previously discussed in 379. Mootneis,review review pursuant to Sectim memorandum conaidered by DHS,requiring renewed con- Issue of state agency's status as real party In Interest ministrative decision'made, sideration bore earmarks of revolving rehearing, report when unsuccessful claimant sues Commission"'on State "revoking,or denying an s. did not warrant supplemental EIR or recirculation of Mandates was important legal question in need of clarifi- or other entitlement;"for"r original EIR under California Environmental Quality Act cation and, thus,would be-considered on appeal even If lion for a permit-or a liter (CEQA),and DHS had already considered and responded denial of petition for writ of mandate to challenge Com definition of"party in sub -_ to report, even though licensing decision had already mission's decision had rendered moot issue*of intervention conflicting provision'is a:sa occurred. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of of agency-in particular mandamus proceeding. Redevel• vides a shorter statute of Health Services(App.2 Dist 1995)45 Cal.Rptr.2d 822,38 opment Agency v.Commission on State Mandate&(App.4 shorter statute of limitation CalAppAth 1574,rehearing denied,review denied. Dist 1996)51 Cal.Rptr.2d 100,43 C&l.AppAth 1188. second sentence of subd.(g 1991 Legislation'. 9 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and: The 1991 amendment;"a party defined; ordinance or resolution fence,inserted"or for wtiu supporting.the decWons", (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency,other than school district,as the term local.agency: for made inaertEd the is defined in Section 54951 of the Government'Code,or of any commission,board,officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to �,• such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. "=. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the.90th day followingthe date n which Admin Per se for the pro o hi the decision 24 Pac.LJ.461(1993). - _ becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or New cancellation.rules n written findings supporting the decision,in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule,for ffey P.Widman(1982)22 S the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not. - announced at the close of the hearing,the date,time,and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which 'such reconsideration can be sought;' pI,R Library - provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written Citizen's action against s decision or written findings,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by Protection Agency to first-class mail,postage.prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party, cretionary duty under seeking the writ Subdivision(a)of Section 1013 does n g deposit in. Po ot apply to extend the time,followPollution Control Act! the mail of the decision or findings,within which a petition shall be filed. _ § 1365(a)(2).67 ALR F _ (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commission, LeSm JuriaPrudences.:= board,officer,or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days Cal Jur 3d Adm L'§§3-- after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual Hous 3 46;Zoa 4 18S - - costs for transcnbing'or otherwise preparing the.record. Such record shall include the transcript of the' - Treati&es and Practice Ail proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision,all admitted exhibits,0 rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, Witkin,Procedure(4th er board,officer,or agent,all written evidence,and any other papers in the case. arty procedure(4th e -i Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks.* *.:*. - Additions e 184 T CPaL PROCEDURE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1094.6 ` + n - if Civil Procedure section accord- (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision(c)within 10 days after the o mandamus proceedings di, forreconsideration if court finds:. date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision(b),the time within which a petition pursuant to for vidence,i.6.,that evidence could Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which in administrative proceeding in the record-is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record,if he has ligence,was satisfied as to report one: sport was issued two and one half ive agencys challenged decisions (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, ,. .idamus petitioners were involved suspending,demoting,or dismissing an officer or employee,revoking,* * *denying an application for a and completion. Fort Mojave permit, license, or other entitlement,imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or nent of Health Services (App.2 denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. 2d 822, 38 CalApp.4th 1574, re- enied. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision(e),the local agency shall provide notice to the s in admission of evidence before Amy that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. r proper to remand toagency As used in this subdivision,"party"means.an officer or employee who has been suspended,demoted or 4 - iblreviewing.court determines agency should be given op ermine. dismissed; a person whose permit,license,or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended,or whose (bl scretion based on that evidence application fora permit,license,or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for to Personnel Bd.'(App. 3 Dist,. a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. )1, 10 CalApp.4th 41, modified. eration was inappropriate after (9) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to led that highway patrol failed in the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a.shorter to prove employee's inability to statute of limitations,in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. dtion or any other available post. (Amended by Stats. 1983,c.818, § 3; Stats.1991, c. 1090(A.B.1484),`§ 6; Stats.1993, c. 926 (A.B.2205), not entitled to second opportuni. § 5; Stats.1995,c.898(S.B.814),§ 1.) Jewman V. State Personnel Bd. d.Rptr.2d 601,10 CalAppAth 41, Historical and Statutory Notes 1983 Amendment. Substituted "a decision subject to cumstances when a decision is not announced; inserted 3 status as real party In interest review pursuant to Section 1094.5"for"adjudicatory ad- the fifth sentence relating to final decisions;.and made writ us a Commission aslon on State munstrative decision made,after hearing"and substituted nonsubstantive changes throughout.' "revolting,or denying an application for a permit,license 1993 Legislation legal question in need of clarifi. or other entitlement"for"revoldng or denying an applies- be.considered on appeal even if tion for a permit or a license,"in subd.(e); rewrote the The 1993 amendment,in the first sentence of subd.(c), it of mandate to challenge Coin definition of"party"in subd.(f); and added",unless the substituted "190 days" for "90 days"; and in subd. (g), ndered moot Issue of intervention conflicting provision is a state or federal law which pro- deleted "shall be applicable to a local agency only if the nandamu.proceeding. Redevel- vides a shorter statute of limitations,in which case the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution ission on State Mandates( 1 100,48 Ca]App 4th 1188.APP,q shorter statute of limitations shall apply"at the end of the malting this section applicable. If such ordinance or second sentence of subd.(g). resolution is adopted,the provisions of this section". 1991 Legislation 1995 Legislation time; record; decision and The 1991 amendment,in subd.(b),.in the second sen-. The 1995 amendment,in subd.(e),inserted"imposing a tence,inserted"or for written decision or written findings civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost," supporting.the decisions", and substituted "announced" following"other entitlement,"; and made a nonsubstantive rict,as-the term local agency for"made"; inserted the third sentence relating to cir- change. oard,officer or agent thereof, ' writ of mandate pursuant to Law Review and Journal Commentaries `te date on which the decision Admin per se for the practitioner. Charles A.Pacheco, Review of selected 1993 California legislation. 25 Pac. or for a written decision or 24 Pac.LJ.461(1993). L.J.454(1994). New cancellation.rules under the Williamson Act. Jef- statute,charter;or rule,for trey P.Widman(1982)22 Santa Clara L.Rev.689. aced. If the decision is not f .ncement of the decision shall decision is final for purposes Library References :onsideration can be sought; Witldn,procedure(4th ed)Writs§§ 300,301,304,306, the decision is final for the ALR Ltbrery 308. 'e is.a provision for a written Citizen's action against administrator of Environmental The Rutter Group,Landlord-Tenant(Friedman,Gams Upon the date it is mailed by Protection Agency to compel performance of nondis- p. =ate of mailing,to the party cretionary duty under § 505(a)(2)of,Federal Water &Hagarty)H 5:133,5:133.5,5:133.15. the time,following deposit in. Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972(33 USCA Miller & Starr, Cal Real Estate 2d §§ 18:70, 20:110, § 1365(a)(2).57 ALR Fed 851. 20:124. al agency or its conunission, galJurisprudencesForms Le . le petitioner within 190 days B-W Cal Civil Practice:Procedure§ 31:20. Y Cal Jur 3d Adm L§§ 319,320,321;Pollut§ 341;Pub from the petitioner its actual Houa§ 46;Zon§ 185. B-W Cal Civil Practice: Real Property Litigation include the transcript of the § 14:55. - v a hearing officer, the final Treatises and Practice Aida Additional References 1 agency or its commission, Witldn Procedure(4th ed)Admin Proc§ 110. Meeting statutory deadlines: Contractual and financial Witldn,Procedure(4th ed)PWT§30. injury litigation. CEB Action Guide, Summer 1992 asterisks Additions or changes Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks* * * 185 I , yr %Ily1L rl%%J .I ijunr. k.ULr. Vi .s `.. WESTLAW Electronic Research for disability which extent See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide following days where the Preface. City of Anah, t n' ;. C; S�v Lc` CalApp.3d o :WrNotes of Decisions compel te ofs Pel sass. t re Burden of proof 8 appropriate remedy or because issue was beyond scope.of regarding Conditionsl use permits 7 grievance resolution and since employee failed to exhaust were not au Finality .6 administrative remedies, consideration of that claim by tines,for orc one-year eta Notice 5 the supreme court in an action for a writ of mandate was San Die C Standard of review 9 barred. Tiernan v.Trustees of California State Universi- 4 Dist g199 Timeliness of petition 4 ty and Colleges(1982) 188 Cal.Rptr. 115,33 Cal.3d 211, Even if c Transcript 3 655 P.2d 317. discharge cc Developer which did not take permitted appeal to the 906 iimiif city's building department after revocation of its building mandate to 1. In general permit failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Hazon- tion-period Action by owners of residential rental property, chal- Iny Development, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (App. 2 before. petit lenging application of rent control program as a taking of, Dist 1982).179 Cal.Rptr.860,128 CalApp.3d 1. notified emp property and brought within 30 days of delivery of admin- Service Con istrative record of rent appeals board's challenged action, 3. Transcript n 190 here t: was not barred b statute of limitations because the On review of city employee's termination,court proper- Where tit Y ly refused to consider transcript of administrative hearing. receiving no federal census data relied,on to show that program was. not serving its stated purpose was almost three years old prepared by employee's friend, where court relied on city was leg record of administrative proceedings created by city civil city refused when they fast became available. 5 Valparaiso Ass551,56 service commission in accordance with statutory mandate. mandate,fil e cites v.City of(App. 1 Dist 1997)65 Cal.Rptr.2d 551,56 :Watts v.Civil Service Bd.(Kennelly)(App.1 Dist 1997) Far ed wet• CalApp.4th 378,rehearing denied,review denied. Farmer 69 Ga1.Rptr.2d 349,59 CalApp.4th.939.., Cal.R tr.9, - - Where county employees' retirement system did not =' P Conclusion that indigent was not entitled to free copy of R of adopt 90�1ay limitations period authorized by C.C.P. 'transcript of administrative hearing did not-foreclose him. decision-of $ 1094.6,general statutes of limitation for commencement from obtaining independent judicial.review of denial of of civil actions, C.C.P. $$ 338,343,governed and,there ground tha, industrial disability benefits since,in lieu of a transcript of time dedsio fore, former member's petition.for writ of mandate in the proceedings, he could Y which he requested reinstatement for Purposes of aeekin P ex provide a summary of the. time was nt Puher d evidence and exhibits presented...City of Sacramento v. Qd*++in+atrat disability retirement was timely filed where it was filed Superior Court In and.For Sacramento County(App. 3 was filed v within 85 days of retirement board's decision,even though Dist 1980)170 Gal Rptr.76,113 CalApp.3d 716. Liberty v. system's bylaws provided for 60-day statute of limitations. 1980)170.0 Hittle v. Santa Barbara.County Employees Retirement 4. Timeliness of petition 5. Notice Assn(1985)216 Cal.Rptr.733,39 Cal.3d 374,703 P.2d 73. Neither.lathes nor other equitable concerns barred Alleged action of city council,acting as.city redevelop- former employee's allegedly untimely petition for judicial Statute re ment agency, in sale of agency real property to airport review of metropolitan transportation authority's decision agencies partnership at less than its original apprised value and to terminate him,where petition was flied only a few days send terms his failure to follow agency rules and procedures in entering late, and the authority did not than r m a8 Y P g y argue that lapse of few �for emp into agreement with partnership concerning property did additional days between applicable date and actual filing terminatior. not fit classification under this section placing 90-day date prejudiced it in any way. Herman v.Los Angeles was seat t limitation on judicial review of any decision of local agency County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (App. 2 County M. other than school district,any commission,board,officer, . Dist.1999)84 Cal.Rptr2d 144,71 CalAppAth 819,review Dist 1999) or agent thereof, subdivision of which section defined denied. denied.. "decision" as meaning adjudicatory administrative deci- Writ of petition for administrative mandamus in inverse Ninety-c sion with regard to suspension or dismissal of officer or condemnation action based on regulatory taking accom administsa employee,revocation or denial of application for permit or pushed by discretionary action of administrative;agency is tolled ur license,or denial of application for retirement benefits or must be filed within sixty days after agency decision or statute of allowance. Nolan v. Redevelopment Agency of City of action becomes final. Patrick Media Group,Inc.v.Cali- Springs,L Burbank.(App.2 Dist 1981) 172 Cal.Rptr. 797, 117 Cal. forma Coastal Com. (App. 2 Dist. 1992) 11 Cal.Rptr2d App.3d 494. 824,9 CalAppAth 592, § 1094.7. 2. Exhaustion of administrative remedies Ninety-day limitations period for seeking judicial review Hull v.Cason(App.1 Dist 1978)151 Cal.Rptr.438,88 of city council's decision denying fire fighters application Cal-App.3d 768,[main volume]vacated 165 Cal.Rptr.639, for disability retirement began to run on date of notice, The rep 612 P.2d 473,.transferred to 171.Cal.Rptr. 14, 114 Cal. rather than date of decision; decision was not final until1501), $ 5 App.3d 344. required notice was given. Cummings v.City of Vernon alone, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce v.City of Moun- (App.2 Dist 1989)263 Cal.Rptr.97,214 Cal.App.3d 919, tain View(App.1 Dist.1978)[main volume]143 Cal.Rptr. review denied. § 1094.8. 441,77 CalApp.3d 82. Petition for writ of mandate is a special proceeding and -• Temporary academic employee's claim that her First terminates by judgment when the writ issues; issuing (a) Nc Amendment rights were violated by conditioning of offer court retains jurisdiction to make any orders necessary issuance, of good recommendation on her agreement to resign and proper for enforcement of the writ California Teach- protecte, _____.-•` rather than contest her nonreappointment fell within rule ers Assn v.Governing Bd.of Simi Valley Unified School with sub requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies where Dist.(App.2 Dist:1984)207 CaLRptr.659,161 Cal App.3d (b)Fc employee had not demonstrated that grievance procedure 393. available to her was inadequate to resolve her claim either Former police chiefs petition for judicial review filed 93 (1) because grievance committee lacked power to fashion days from city's decision that former chief was not eligible (2) Tt Additions or.changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks 186 M. :T.� - � _ u-•..c .tom—_..�,—_•--r-�.+-- ..-•L'� - Ing -IL PROCEDURE = CODE OF WIt PROCEDURE § 1094.8 for disability retirement was filed too late, since $ 1013 Cal.Rptr.327,230 Cal.App.3d 335,rehearing denied,re- which extends period for responding to service by five view denied. _ - days where service is by mail did not apply. Tielach v. Party aggrieved by administrative decision of local City of Anaheim(App.4 Dist.19M)206 Ca1.Rptr.740,160 agency need not wait until receiving notice of applicable Ca]App.3d 676: statute of limitations to seek judicial review; agency's Writs of mandate filed by county and its assessor to decision is final, and thus reviewable, as soon as local compel assesament.appeals board to set aside its decision agency has issued its decision in final form. El Dorado ,sue was beyond scope of regarding reduction of taxable values of certain properties Palm Springs, Ltd. v. Rent.Review Com.-(App. 4 Dist. iployee failed to exhaust were not subject to this section,rather,statute of limits- 1991) 281 Cal.Rptr. 327, 230 Cal.App.8d 835, rehearing ration of that claim b tions,for ordinary civil actions applied; therefore,even if denied,review denied. y one-year statute applied, county filed within time limit. Party aggrieved by local agency's decision does not �r a writ of mandate was San Diego County v.Assessment Appeals Bd.No.2(App. have "open-ended" period of time within which to seek ;alifornia State Universi- 4 Dist. 1983) 195 Cal.Rptr. 895, 148 Ca1.App.3d 648. judicial review should agency fail to give party notice of ,ptr. 115,33 Cai.3d 211, Even if county civil service commission's decision to applicable statute of limitations; though failure to give discharge county employee predated county's adoption of notice tolls 90-day statute of limitations in such case, permitted appeal to the 90•day limitations period for bringing petitions for writ of doctrine of laches would still apply to timeliness of party's revocation of its building mandate to review commission's decisions, 90-day limits- effort to secure judicial review. El Dorado Palm Springs, -ative remedies. Hazon- tion period applied where county had adopted limitation Ltd.v. Rent Review Corn. (App. 4 Diet. 1991) 281.Cal. f Santa Monica (App. 2 before petition for writ of mandate was due and had Rptr. 327,230 Cal.App.8d 835, rehearing denied, review CalApp.3d 1, notified employee of the 90-day limitation. Foster v.Civil denied. Service Com'n of Los Angeles County(App.2 Dist.19N) 6. Finality 190 Cal.Rptr.893,142 CalApp.3d 444. Fallure to obtain judicial review of discretionary admin- !rmination,court proper- Where city employee timely requested hearing after -istretive action by petition or writ of administrative man- )f administrative hearing receiving notice of proposed disciplinary action and hear- date renders administrative action immune from collateral where court relied on ing was legally required,limitations was tolled until date attack. Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. California Coastal ngs created by city civil city refused to grant hearing and thus petition for writ of Corn.(App.2 Dist.1992)11 Cal.Rptr.2d 824,9 Cal.AppAth with statutory mandate. mandate,filed 29 days after denial of hearing,was com- 592. elly)(App.1 Dist. 1997) menced well within statutory 90-day period of limitations. 7 Conditional use permits 1939. Farmer v. City of Inglewood (App. 2 Dist, 1982) 185 ,t entitled to free co of Cal.Rptr.9,134 Cal.App.3d.130. Statute establishing 120-day time limit for serving legis- py i did not foreclose him Filing of a petition for writ of mandate with respect to a lative body in actions challenging conditional use permits, decision of the coastal commission was not untimely on rather than 90-day statute of limitations for filing petition val.review of denial of ground that petition was not filed within 60 days from for writ of mandate,established time for service of peti- .e lieu of a transcript a time decision became final where an equitable extension of _.tion for writ of mandate challenging conditional use per- ide a summary of the tune was necessary because of a delay in preparation of per- It,although local ordinance made proceedings challeng- City of Sacramento v. administrative records after a timely request for extension Ing conditional use permits subject to the statute of _ amento County(App. 3 was filed within 30 days of date report was delivered. .. limitations, to the extent that statute applied;both ordi- ;alApp.3d 715. Liberty v. California Coastal Commission (App. 4.Dist. nance and statute of limitations were silent about time 1980)170 Cal.Rptr.247,113 CalApp.3d 491. within which petition was required to be served: Gonza- lez v:County of Tulare(App.5 Dist.1998)76 Ca1.Rptr2d dtable concerns barred 6. Notice - ':707,65 Cal.App.4th 777. nely petition for judicial Statute governing judicial review of decisions of local B. Burden of proof :lion authority's decision agencies required metropolitan transportation authority to To satisfy his or her burden of production at adminis- (' vas filed only a few days send termination notice to the affected employee,rather �•. than to his attorney,and therefore 90 day statutory peri• motive mandamus hearing,employee need only produce a argue that lapse of few complete record of the administrative hearing,which rec- le date and actual filing od for employee to file petition for judicial review of his ord will,in any event,be prepared by the agency. Fuku- Herman v. Los Angeles termination was not triggered when termination notice da v City of Angels(1999)85 Cal.Rptr2d 696,20 CalAth lion Authority (App. 2 was sent to his attorney only. Herman v. Los Angeles 805 977 P2d 693. Cal App.4th 819,review County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (App. 2 Dist.1999)84 Cal.Rptr2d 144,71 Cal.AppAth 819,review 9. Standard of review ve mandamus in inverse denied. Even when the trial court is required to review an Ninety-day statute of limitations for filing petition for administrative decision under the independent judgment :gulatory taking accom- administrative mandamus to review local agency decision standard of review, the standard of review on appeal of f administrative agency is tolled until such time as agency gives parties notice that the trial court's determination is the substantial evidence ter agency's decision or statute of limitations is applicable. El Dorado Palm test. Fukuda v.City of Angels(1999)85 Cal.Rptr2d 696, :dia Group,Inc.v.Cali- Springs,Ltd.v.Rent Review Corn.(App.4 Dist.1991)281 20 CalAth 805,977 P2d 693. t. 1992) 11 Ca1.Rptr2d r seeking judicial review § 1094.7. Repealed by Stats.1999,c.446(A.B.1013),$ 2,eff.Sept.21,1999 fu•e fighter's application Historical and Statutory Notes z I run on date of notice,Won was not final until The repealed section,.added by Stats.1998,a 91 (S.B. � rings v.City of Vernon 1501). 4 5, related to review of minor disciplinary deci- 97,214 CalApp.3d 919, &ions' +special proceeding and $ 1094.8. Permit proceedings affecting expressive conduct; expedited judicial review he writ issues; issuing (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, an action or proceeding to review the e any orders necessary issuance, revocation, suspension, or denial of.a permit or other entitlement for expressive conduct writ. California Teach. protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution shall be conducted in accordance u Valley Unified School with subdivision(d). - ptr.659,161 CalApp.3d (b)For purposes of this section,the following definitions shall apply:-- r judicial review filed 93 (1) The terms"permit"and"entitlement"are used interchangeably. 'er chief was not eligible (2) The term"permit applicant"means both an applicant for a.permit and a permitholder. * * * iks Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks 187 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - )VR I-�\ONINb MEETING DATE: June 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-34 Council/Agency Meeting Held: �o S-oo Deferred/Continued to: pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Cle 's Signature Council Meeting Date: June 5, 20a Department ID Number: PL00-34 -Z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION , ..2'.-, N SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 024-J ram. C PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning IJ4_4 zl�" 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)." 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: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Denial — Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 PL00-34 -3- 05/31/00 1:22 PM i _a '� �� a � �� �- � � � �, �G �.,' r <, ,�._ -,. .m-,_--,.. -- .. 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, 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. 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)—6/5/00 1 A. Land Use Element Objective 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. (00sMdenyfind)—6/5/00 2 1 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved Denied W le s Signature Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION r SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratoL_;�;j/s PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning r ty SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 (ELLIS AVENUE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) IFStatement 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 I p 9 Y p shopping center to the west. Staff is recommending approval (Recommended Action - B) because the project: �I ❑ Provides 47 units for very low income individuals and 59 units for low income individuals, ❑ Meets or exceeds requirements for setbacks, parking, landscaping, floor area ratio, building height, and ❑ 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 11 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 Fundinq 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 �I 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 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." Y PL00-27 -2- 5/4/00 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 Alternative 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 is provided with separate lockable storage areas. PL00-27 -3- 5/4/00 12:13 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- 5/4/00 12:13 PM 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 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 PL00-27 -5- 5/4/00 12:13 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, but is only one story and will not impact privacy of adjacent residents. PL00-27 -6- 5/4/00 12:13 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- 5/4/00 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 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- 5/4/00 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): Niue County Very Z3 Very L`ow 30...................L................... ......... O.......................... ........... .......W ...... ..... ........................ ....%.........:.........:.......=...............................­ ............. ........................... ........ ............................-.............. ................................................. ................. . ....................................... ...............9 Low halal Nleiran Low.Urnts Units Units, Urnts Srze Incomme Income Income Income ;between between between between �66 0 35"I° of 36-50°l°'of 51 65%of 80%4# County County County County ... Medan Medan Median Median (Category A)` {Categ©ry B) Category G} {Cafegory L?J .. ..., 1 $47,800 $16,730 $23,900 $31 070 $33,450 2 $54,650 $19,127 $27,325 $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. PL00-27 -9- 5/4/00 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: ... . tlnrf 'yp and income Levels �Person 2 Person t vus+e .old HOuse Old ": Max M, : i t.... Maximum'Rand*... . .. 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 (Category B 30 Low Units $748.00 $860.00 Income between 51-65% of County Median Cate o 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. PL00-27 -10- 5/4/00 12:13 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 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- 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. 99-11 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- 5/4/00 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. PL00-27 -13- 5/4/00 12:13 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. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Denial - Negative Declaration/ Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 (Planning Commission Recommendation sommoss 2. Findings and Suggested Conditions of Approval — Negative ..................................... Declaration No. 99-11/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 ................................................. Staff Recommendation 3. Appeal Letter Received 3/22/00 from Amwest Environmental : Group, Inc. 4. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated 1/25/00 and 3/14/00 without attachments d66. Site plan, floor plan, elevations dated February 15, 2000 and GIS Aerial Ma Project Narratives dated Februa 3, 2000 Final Management Plan dated March 6, 2000 Negative Declaration No. 99-11 PL00-27 -14- 5/4/00 12:13 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-27 DescriptionCity Clerk's Page Number No. 9. Letters and Petitions in Support of Request (Note: only 1s' page of Petitions provided-complete record on file in the ............................... PlanningDepartment) ............ 10. Letters and Petitions in Opposition of Request (Note: only 1 S' page of Petitions provided-complete record on file in the Planning Department) 11. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 25, 2000 12. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 14, 2000 ' ..._..... 13. Government Code Section 65589.5 '%»�»». PL00-27 -15- 5/4/00 12:13 PM � � - R -�� � �, f �' � • Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OFACTION March 17, 2000 Dr. James Lu Mr. Charles Tsang Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 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) PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. James Lu, Mr. Charles Tsang, Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., 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. LOCATION: 8102 Ellis Avenue(South of Ellis, approximately 400 feet east of Beach) DATE OF _ ACTION: March 14, 2000 Your application was acted upon by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on March 14, 2000, and your request was Denied with Findings. Attached to this letter are the Findings for Denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal; it shall also be accompanied by a filing fee. The appeal fee is $500.00 for a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his/her own property. The appeal fee is $1,496.00 for all other appeals. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is March 24. 2000. (oocL314-1) . J I FINDINGS FOR DENIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/ f FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project may have an impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood through adverse effects of traffic and noise and that the project is an incompatible land use in the proposed location. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERAHT NO. 99-31: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the 3 8,3 90 square foot Single Room Occupancy(SRO) complex will 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 may be detrimental to surrounding commercial and residential properties because the 106 unit development is too intense, there are not enough controls to enforce conditions of approval, and the proposed location is inappropriate. 2. The conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the SRO is too intense and will not be harmonious with the existing Town& Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. Insufficient parking is provided on-site for the potential residents and the proposed building is not an adequate buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent residential fourplexes. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent 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 Obiective LU9.2: 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. (OOCL314-3) If there are any further qi bns, please contact Jane James, A.sso Planner at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, i Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Planning Commission by: Herb Fauland Senior Planner xc: Property Owner Attachment: Findings for Denial '1 (OOCL314-2) li r ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31/ 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, will have a significant effect on the environment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - 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 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. (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.1 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 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,will provide for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy L U 1 S.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 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. (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.2 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 : 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated December 15, 1999 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) (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.3 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. 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. (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.4 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) (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.5 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"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. (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.6 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) (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.7 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 2=3Ver�y l Low 30 Low`Units 29 Low;Units 1io[d MeiiaanIJmts "x- Units' Income�between Income between Sate Income between .t Income between VN 51 65% of : 66 80%of �: a 0 35% of 36 50°l0 of County Median County Median $3 CountyMedjan County�Median (Categ C) (Category (CategorA) (Category B) 0 11 $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. 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) (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.8 Utilizing the above formula, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: 3 unit Type and Income Levels 1 PM oh Household,' 2Zfp son Household _ _ w v maximum Rent* Y r �Maxamum Rent* x 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) (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.9 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) (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.10 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) (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.11 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) (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No. 2.12 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 on at least 50% of the total rental units (53 units)regardless of floor area size. The remaining 50% of the total rental units (53 units)may be occupied by two persons if the floor area is greater than 220 square feet. 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. (OOsr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.13 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 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 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, 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. (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.14 S 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. 13. 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. (00sr22cond)—5115100 Attachment No.2.15 ¥ . � . � e»_�«� . w«������?�± �2 ��» .m z � > .:« . ��y��>«�, :. .. . . ���ƒ :/��z «< � 2 �« ��+ �� m�z ����-:�^ � ^ �} � . © _% �/A � +� ® ° ©� f. �� a - _� ^��\% 2y \ \���\\ - � �/ \ - °��Y � ® =� ^ \�` © � .� �\ d �« . > 2:m��\ \ , �� ° � \ � �� � . . mc� � ; ���} / \ ����/ �`«« �> � �: � ° �§ _ ® �\�\ ����\\ , ����:. > , - - - - �>.a�w. .�w «. �«.� .. ��. �:.����yg � , � �>y ws�r���. . �a� » . . « <����»��° «<��m©°�:�� < � _ � � i Amwest Environmental Grou c 7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 TEL: (714)372-2277;FAX:.(714)372-2211 { -#:;'(r . ! ".:``;, C H March 22, 2000 ___.__.... Huntington Beach City Council C/o City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Appeal to the City Council Regarding the Denial by the Planning Commission for the Development of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facility at 8102 Ellis Ave., Huntington Beach —Application for CUP No. 99-31 /Negative Declaration No. 99-11. Applicant—Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: Amwest Environmental Group,Inc. (Amwest) would like to appeal to the City Council for the subject denial. Amwest strongly believes that the subject application was unfairly and improperly denied by the Huntington Beach City Planning Commission on March 14, 2000. The proposed SRO facility was developed according to, and in most areas exceeding, the City Code requirements. Through Public Hearings and lengthy discussions by the Planning Commissioners, no evidence of detrimental effects to the general welfare of people working and living next to this SRO facility was found. Specifically, the applicant had provided data, evidence, and real examples of similar cases to show that the subject project will not cause any parking, traffic, noise, density, management, and "crime"problems of concerns (Note: Details of the explanation and response to concerns regarding to the subject SRO development was submitted to the Planning Commissioners on February 3, 2000, and more information was further presented on March 14, 2000 in the second Public Hearing). The applicant and the City planning staff all feel that the subject facility meets all City's planning requirements and is compatible with the surrounding land uses and probably is one of the best facilities which would be suitable for the subject site. The"real reason"which we have obtained from the Planning Commissioners for the denial is "this location is not suitable for an SRO facility". However, no explanation of the location unsuitability was given. Just saying that "this location is not suitable" is not a valid reason for denial at all! We received the above"location unsuitability" from the Commissioner Fred Speaker in the first Planning Commission Meeting. We requested him to give us explanation"why this location is not suitable for an SRO" after the meeting over a telephone conversation. He did not provide any explanation! Later, in the second Planning Commission Meeting, three other Commissioners (Commissioners Biddle, Shomaker, and Mandic) also mentioned the same"location unsuitability" for denial. And again without any further explanation. We know that the traffic, noise, parking and density issues were not the real 1 Amwest Environmental Group.:�Ine,� _7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 TEL: (714)372-2277;FAX: (714)372-2211 reason for the denial, because, majority of Commissioners didn't feel that way either.J Please note that the subject development probably will have the least impacts comparing to other commercial facilities which can be developed at the site. If the above issues are the real issues, then,the site can't be developed at all! Please also note that there was a retirement hotel developed and approved before at the site in 1987 with over 180 units and didn't have the same density or other issues. This design is similar to previous design, but, with much less units! As shown in the data provided to the Commissioners before, about half of potential tenants leave in SRO facilities are senior and disable people. Amwest from several occasions found that the real reason of the "location unsuitability" . is that "the location is too nice for the poor people". One Commissioner even told Dr. Lu (the owner's representative) and Mr. Tsang (the Project Manager) that one of the Commissioners was joking that even he is unable to live close to the ocean how can the low income people can. Of course, some neighbors equate the very low and low income people with drug addicts or other crimes and based on this assumption to against this project. This view was proved to be biased and without foundation. In fact, we and management companies of both the Irvine Inn and the Fullerton City Light (the two SRO facilities in the Orange County which followed the SRO guidelines) have proved that no "crime"were happen in or surrounding their SRO facilities. We feel that the above mentioned "location unsuitability" view is greatly wrong, and is a way of "discrimination", which should not happen in the 2 1"century, and certainly, should not happen in Huntington Beach! Here, we'd like to provide more facts to show that the "location unsuitability" as mentioned by some Commissioners is not a valid reason for denial: (1) Complied With or Exceeds All Relevant City Codes The subject site meets all the City Code requirements in any aspects of concerns, including the location/zoning concern. In order to satisfy some neighbors' and Commissioners' concerns, the project was designed far exceed the requirements. If the subject site location is not suitable for the SRO location, it shall be excluded in the code or in any City planning guidelines, and not be rejected after hundreds of thousand dollars were spent by the applicant for the development and over two years of design, meetings and revisions between the applicant and the City. (2) No Valid Detrimental Effects Can Be Found No valid detrimental effects to the general welfare of the people working and living next to this type of SRO design were found in the City's own studies as reflected in the Staff Reports and neighbors' proof in the Public Hearings. The Commission did not give valid proof that California State law's mandatory findings of detrimental effects for a conditional use permit denial have met. Merely mentioned that "this location is not suitable for an SRO facility" is not a valid reason! 2 Amwest Environmental Group, Ines 7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 TEL: (714)372-2277;FAX: (714)372-2211 (3) Compatible With Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is surrounded by commercial facilities on the west and residential buildings on the north, east and south(Note: All the surrounding residential zones are R2 or R3 high density zones). Since the SRO facilities are residential facilities but operated like commercial facilities, the subject project can provide a very good buffer between the existing residential and commercial properties (refer to Attachment A). This situation shows that the subject property is compatible with the surrounding land uses. And, in fact,this project probably will be the best type of facility in terms of compatibility, because it is compatible with both sides of properties. Other types of commercial or residential facilities probably only "compatible"with one side of the properties. In the Irvine Inn and Fullerton City Light SRO facilities, about 45%of tenants are retired or disabled people. Therefore,these SRO facilities also serve as affordable housing for seniors. If we check the surrounding land uses, it can be found that there are at least four large senior facilities nearby the subject site (one block west, or about 300 feet west of Beach Blvd.). The subject SRO project is only one block away from the above mentioned facilities and also about 300 feet away from(east oo Beach Blvd. (refer to Attachment A) These four facilities are: Name of Senior Facility No. of Units Height Wycliffe Gardens 185 units 14 stories Huntington Terrace North 78 units 3 stories Huntington Terrace 160 units 2 stories Five Points Senior 166 units 4 stories Apartments Based on the above situation, it can be seen that the subject project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. (4) Meets Governmental Goals The Federal and State governments, and Huntington Beach City all have affordable housing goals for very low and low income people. State law requires Huntington Beach City to provide for its share of this requirement. Based on this goal, housing units anticipated to be constructed by June 30, 1999 are as follows (please refer to the data provided by the Huntington Beach City Planning Department): Income Housing Housing Total Net Need (Remaining Category Projects Projects Anticipated to RHNA Units to be Approved — Pending be Constructed Less Total Not yet Approval Constructed Anticipated to be Constructed by 6/30/99 Constructed Very 23 0 23 929 Low Low 0 1 0 1 0 1,212 3 Amwest Environmental Group, :Inc. 7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 _ t TEL: 714 372-2277;FAX: 714 372-2211 Moderate 75 130 79 1,161 Upper 478 1,653 800 425 Total 576 1,783 902 3,727 Based on these requirements, Huntington Beach City has housing unit shortage of • Very Low and Low Income Housing Units: 2,141 units; and • Moderate and Upper Housing Units: 1,586 units. It can be seen that currently Huntington Beach City has more demand for very low and low income housing units than the regular housing.units (2,141 units vs. 1,586 units). Huntington Beach falls far short of meeting its affordable housing goal. Developers usually don't want to develop affordable housing due to low profit potential. Therefore, governmental aids and/or density bonus are provided for such developments. Amwest is developing the subject facility with it own funds (about $1.85 million front- end development costs and $4.0 million construction, permitting, and interest and operation reserve costs are needed). Amwest didn't receive any blessing and assistance from the City Commissioners; on the contrary, received a lot of hard time during our development process in which more stringent requirements on our project than most of other affordable housing projects were received. This mentality might cause the project to change from being marginal feasible to unprofitable! We feel very bad for this treatment. We are helping the City, but it seems that the Planning Commissioners are denying good things for the City! Please note that over ten developers had contacted Amwest regarding the use of the subject site for affordable housing (mainly SRO facilities) development in the past about five years. All of these developers decided to give up on the subject site after checking with the City requirements. They told Amwest that if they could obtain 200 units from the City,they would go forward for the development. Amwest had tried 208 units (Note: The site area is enough for 208 units if no 50% of total building area to site area are required.), but rejected by the City. Amwest had to accept 106 units, which we know that no other SRO facilities have such a stringent requirements. Based on the current design, less than 19%of the land area will be covered by the building! Even the surrounding regular housing buildings don't have this type of extremely low building/land area coverage! Amwest is able to develop the 106-unit SRO facility because Amwest already owns the land(worth about $1.5 million). Amwest is probably the only party who could develop the site into an SRO facility without the governmental assistance. Amwest is willing to contribute own resources for the good of the City; we urge that the City Council does the same thing. Our City falls far short of meeting the housing goal. The City Council should use its power possible to assist the City in achieving its goal. By the way, since our City requires so many low and very low housing units, if the Commissioners feel that this SRO project should be moved to other location in Huntington Beach, why not to let this one be built at the subject location and encourage 4 Amwest Environmental Grou Iric h .; _ 7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 TEL:(714)372-2277;FAX:(714)372-2211 =` others to develop more units in other locations. The subject 106 units represent less than 5%of the current affordable housing needs. (5) Solving Public Nuisances and Avoiding Potential Crimes in Surrounding Areas The property contains an old building (approximately 6,000 sq. ft.) and many wild vegetation. Due to its unsuitability for commercial uses, the old building has been closed for the past twelve years. The property attracts many homeless people now and in the past. These people have been causing numerous public nuisances, including graffiti, cooking and sleeping, littering, and damage/removal of pluming, electrical, dry wall from the building. There is no water and gas on site. Occurrence of fire and health hazards - and damaging to the subject property and its surrounding areas are very real. Due to its current states, no insurance company would insure this property. The property owner, and may be the City also, are subject to serious potential liabilities, if this site can not be developed soon. Since leasing the property out as retails or offices is impossible now,the only other possible use now is storage. However, vandalism had prevented this option also. In order to solve the above problems, Amwest has tried many mitigation methods in the past, such as rent two guard dogs for six months to secure the place, board all doors and windows and locked gates to prevent access, requested police department for routine patrol, etc. None of the above methods could solve the fire and health hazards, graffiti, and vandalism problems. Amwest had complained to the City police department and request for help for so many times, without results. On the other hand, the City is forcing us to solve these problems. We need City to approve our development project, so enough funds can be obtained from construction loan for the revitalization of the site. Our study shows that the SRO project is the most desirable project to develop at the site (to be explained latter in this letter). (6) Hardship in Other Development Options Amwest and its associates have been trying to develop the site since we acquired the property about 13 years ago. Due to the unique situation of the site, i.e., located behind an unpopular and running down shopping mall and adjacent to residential areas, it is very. difficult to develop the property into an attractive, profitable commercial facility(Note: The site is zoned as CG). Other types of residential development were either not allowed by the City or not profitable to develop, such as, an apartment building development was initiated in 1985, and following that, a retirement hotel was developed in 1987. All of these development activities were failed and causing financial difficulties(lost of six figures development costs)to the developers. In order to develop the site Amwest has made more comprehensive studies in 1994. Options such as office building, shopping mall, specialty stores, and even upgrading to a vocational school,were studied, and found not feasible. Within the past five years Amwest was approached by over ten developers for SRO facilities as well as approached by more than four brokers for syndication of two adjacent 5 Amwest Environmental Group, Inc- 7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 TEL:(714)372-2277;FAX: (714)372-2211 commercial lots for a larger commercial facility. As explained previously, those SRO offers were failed due to unable to obtained density bonus to increase to beyond 200 units. Syndication of three lots had been continuing in the past 10 years without success. Even as recent as about one month ago, Mr. Henry Leason of All Services tried to syndicate the three lots with the mayor's assistance, failed again! (Please note that Mr. Leason has been trying the subject syndication for at least two years without success!) Amwest is probably the only one could develop the site into an SRO facility without the governmental aids. The following reasons further strengthen Amwest's decision on the SRO development: • SRO facility is one of the most favorable development in terms of land use, location, zoning, impacts of traffic and parking, and financial concerns; • The existing conditions, without a new development, may attract homeless people and "crimes"to the site, which pose great liabilities to Amwest; • There is a high demand of SRO facilities in the southern California . The risk of investment will be low because of the high demand of SRO facility; • Development of SRO facilities meets governmental housing goal and would receive governmental supports(our original thought!); and • Improve business for the surrounding commercial stores(due to the fact that singles usually do not drive, so money saved from the low rent can be spent in the nearby stores) and reduce impacts(traffic, crimes, etc.)to the residential neighbors, so the project would receive supports from the general public. • The subject first-class, new and beautiful design, if built, could serve as an example for the revitalization of the surrounding area which many running down buildings are there. Through the above discussions, Amwest would like to let you know that, if the site can not be approved as an SRO facility, the site probably will be empty land again for a long time! (7) State Laws Regarding Denial of Affordable Housing Laws of the State of California provide limited reasons for denying an affordable housing project. It is our opinion that the Commissioners' reasons for denial do not satisfy the Standards as outlined by State Law. This may further jeopardize the City of Huntington Beach legally with respect to its housing program (8) Other Issues of Concerns Amwest had explained in very details regarding other issues, such as parking, traffic, density, management, and"crime" problems in both Planning Commission meetings, and our written response to the Commissioners. We believe that all the issues of concerns were resolved. Here we'd like to just emphasize the traffic issue. The traffic issue was studied by the City professionals and concluded that the traffic would be less than significant impacts or no impacts by this SRO development. My personal evaluation 6 Amwest Environmental Grou' p, Inc., 7755 Center Avenue,#1100,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 TEL: (714)372-2277;FAX: (714)372-2211 discovered that the site was a nursery school before without any traffic problem. At that time the school owner told me that about 120 students were enrolled in the school. They had more students before, and due to enrollment reduction they could not make profit, so they wanted to sell the property to us. Consider that, 120 students might result in 240 maximum trips within a short time morning or afternoon period. If comparing this traffic flow to the subject facility which might have 83 maximum cars(We expect that less than 50 cars will be owned by tenants.) resulting in 83 maximum trips, assuming that all tenants leave the building within the same short time period. If 240 trips didn't cause any traffic problem, we don't expect 83 trips will have problems either! Just based on this simple fact we know that traffic will not be a problem at all! We sincerely feel that this project will provide a meaningful and ethical assistance to a sector of population that is too often ignored. It is not often that we are given a chance to make a difference in someone else's life. We sincerely hope that, after you realized what this project means to the community, you take positive action and support this project. Sinc es C. Lu, President Amwest Environmental Group, Inc. CC: Planning Department Attachment: A. Nearby Land Uses 7 Amwest Environmental Group, Inc.; 7755,Center Avenge,#1100,Huntingtc!q Beach;CA?*47 EL'(714),372-2277;FAX: ATTACHMENT A. NEARBY LAND USES 8 NEARBY LAND USES Legend: Residential Zone Senior Facility • (#1=Wycliffe Gardens; #2=Huntington Terrace North; ElCommercial Zone #3=Huntington Terrace; #4=Five Points Senior Apartments) TALRER7 't MI-CD = 1 WA = C4 , CF E MI-CD` MI-A CF R C2 . i f M I J MI L�au�ecc o. ata.ra C4 ® �� SIT MI MI — -— MI-u1 C 2 c2 C4= 1 M2-0 = MH Y - It 1 C4 Mom- M2-CI AVE aARraln Yr 1' '•'�' yi/! " t , (���";'( - - � /ter / .00 40 ' `/. 'ram ✓��r ���'.e♦ )! .' •�� '/ 1 ;r� f r yf , p�py� � �� Y.A a e"§ *r e r' .5, �tyya•>�, .yY'rdjrr#.�' ) ' �/• r//, i •,i�'Y r ..r Y. .:.•.wf. i' .s *'`C, t,° ." °S��,•»'t`gt,Y<� -' r r/ ./.. I�v �' ny'�i�YF':.r'� _ � ,1�' p ,J .:• + yy� �� r 3' ri" I®.�/ ��'.• �k +fj:3 /MWIML- ram • \ I- -.r � z ,'JLF> ntfP o. t���r, l _ - III � •oul" •�" ri � 11 .'ram. _ '- �• .i„ LT.1Y1�� �,�r�Y r.� L Y �, r .Lr•. �Iaan 1� • al �I� I'. . wY • V�I[Sr� Wyc,11ff6 GdM ne • " •} :r-P..:' a navar.'mn \! _i �' I L, :r']� 1('• ��`. .. r� _�+ .fsY .,��ir: � .ter I I'1 � • • s �, MAP, µ. s• a rf xts ,a• ,fi .�' „}r "„,"" •rS I.f .°'x'n .•..w. ty 31.; '^iL R- - '� l • Iwo • • • • A _ a MWO LOA ON- ON r'`, �f. �• {F� �Jy7 but® � � , r----- _� 1 � it 1(•ii � � ... !. iD • �� i J �J r rt rF r�: � �-0+„ �� '' r�lr"c'.%.� k}4��r!��J• z��, NO Sl ¢4S�v rS"t^ �f .�` ��'t -k'd "• '�` �� r2 ��+�'���Pc��`���•1, r.Rz ii i S � ��\k J�P�.���4 7� a� h'C. � 'E F�;y^.� �.. � C�,y,�T,`�. .+ %� !�•, . 'li� F�� Y'r ..'R•1'• h"' �. F l al �i-yi�Y ` � :TAP. A. •5 �k�' '!C L-r�e{7' �i. Y yl \ :j'—_" nit7y''+"-4 j.l Ji,�,T •`v'. t' ':.t•�3w 1 T i . RRRR ■ .r. 7® I .. 7_ �r , t1 1 a��JJ�2• '�`,&!� ..n�l,!!S�r� � , 1 f'�Jti ' ;,, 1 r") ! 'z���\'``���!�j �� �� #7 J a S����`�1�,�y�-�s�•f�r +{i r 1�i '.D- f �3 Pit r. ti��}rJr�-+ 4+ '^,�.f-..�'.v �'�a'�'��.,ji•.sl. •-+ �•J TFXRAC� '1 :S • r ( (( 1 'i d r ��,.-��t• � L ,. 51r" �', qlj t r+t - F, � _ .�,, L 7� �'i �,`I.".!„ ,Its•.. l 1� � }`► { - :%S;%};:.:i;:::id:::i:;:;�::i:;i:; _ - _ ..; ntut t n:.$ ach::Flann�n >De FF S RE NU N71NGfON BEACH: :::..> ';:'t'::':::::::'::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: 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. 53 .ATTACHIMGN1 NO- 1 - I :21i ol PROJECT SITE RI ; i rya RI R f— — ••R R LZ M ok II C 2 RI e w n �amzon • RI RI RI t RI •R2 RI .Manmio .R3 ' Ra R3 RI Q R3 e R3 m C4 ` R2 RI FN °A Ra io 04 m RI < RI RI i ' R2 $ R2 RI t1 R2 . Rs ' RI 3 y ,•� I na ..� cy :1 C 2 . C2 I C4 OP ' i� I R3 R / !m I R3 ��,, • RZ R2JH �} R3 M OP � l i R3 j aR' ' R3 R3 Rz• R3 saw ZR33 C4 R3 R3 a .. wRsrurtw R2 R2 R VICINITY MAP ND 99-11/CUP 99-31 THE CITYOFAUNTINGTONBEACH-ATTACHMEEVI N0• Q ' RECOIVEMENDATION: 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 REOUEST: 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 -ATTAC�kiVi ENT NO. 8 -3 Staff Report— 1/25/00 2 (00sr05) 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 CG­F2-d (General CG(General Commercial) Town& Country Subject Property: Commercial-Max 0.5 Retail Shopping Center FAR-design overlay) I PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 i 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. ATTACENT NO. - HME Staff Report— 1/25/00 3 (00sr05) 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 Leine 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 Leine. 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 Leine 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. -ATTACHMENT IN0- Staff Report— 1/25/00 4 (OOsr05) Community MeetinF On January 18, 2000, the applicant held a community meeting at the New Orleans's Cafd 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 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. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 . Staff Report— 1/25/00 5 (00sr05) 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. Hgysing 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: •:: ..; �Y •. p:}i. .}'?v:j?}ti:?:j}};ht:�v':jil}'ijii:}?vii:}}:i':}ii?$%}}:.•:?:/'t -. '`�►" /'� �+i i? \:.`vi.\\..:r..: �'.Tr.:\... .::�.4::.: ��y'�{yy{{. }.ys ..:}.. ...k..:.....{.r... �.�*L:: 'V• i3�..' y`':u:?a...}:•}:•:?::?-}:•:t}:-.:-:i:•.: :�Y� '"�.i;F;...�s;{�;1��;.;:..w:::?:r .%:h.:::...v.::h:::.::::}:•.v:, � ..�... ..�... ?i>`%iv'i{>Ji:}'ri},::ii?}}::::::?:rv: v 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. ast P.L. Min. 10 ft. 47 ft. (F) Rear South P.L. Min. 10 ft. 180 ft., 6 in. G Budding Height Max. 50 ft. 38 ft. Staff Report— 1/25/00 6 (OOsr05) i i (1� 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.I 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/Utility 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 -AT. Staff Report— 1/25/00 7 (OOsr05) :............................. ::::: 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 x 2=2 Min. 0.5 sp/personnel x 2 Total Required = 68 parking spaces 56 232.08.C. Landscaping Imp. 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. AC%IME- y i' NO. 8 . 1 Staff Report— 1/25/00 8 (OOsr05) 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. Iit1l` d�i� i �� dam• ID 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. ATTAC IMENT NO. 6. 11 Staff Report—1/25/00 10 (00sr05) 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: 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 1�Surp!us Spaces:::::.:::::::::.::.::::::::::::.: tx.;S ,.::ces>::.:>:��$;:�'':. . ... :.: .asrcd�d....:::; 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 Iocked.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. A TACT iEly f v.4v 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, stars 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 (OOsr05) Maximum Income Levels•are shown in the chart below (Note: for ease of discustion, each income level has been designated as Category A, B, C, or D): ....... ...-......... ........ ...................... W. -W .0 ................. .1. heft" W.""", T! ............................ A... .......... ;V"W. ...... .......AAA ......... ... .. d1A .. ........ A.4 Y ............. ......... .. ....... ........ ............ fe .... .... ... ......... ........ . .. . .... ............. ... ..... .......... $47,800 $16,730 $23,900 $31,070 *$33,450 2 $54,650 $19,127 $27,325 $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-up to 35%of CounN 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) 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. AGA" 4- Staff Report— 1/25/00 13 (00sr05) Utilizing the above formµla, maximum rental rates have been determined as follows: 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 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. AUXan Staff Report—1/25/00 14 (OOsr05) 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: 4,- Negataua- Do-a-1-mr-atienio. 99-11 (laeludes Effvkewnental GheekAst,-Genvnext Letter-fieffl Environmental Board, and Response to 6emments) SH:JM:kjl 149 AGh1,4ICly� Staff Report— 1/25/00 15 (00si05) Cx I Y OF HUNTING JN BEACH Inter Office Communication s Planning Department TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Tom Livengood,Planning Commissioner DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-31 Attachment No. 1.4 11. Archways located at north and south end of the vehicular driveway shall be located so that no conflict with ingress and egress to existing parallel parking stalls occurs. Note: Existing parking spaces do not meet code. Attachment No. 1.8 and 1.9 Revised Income Levels 24 very low units to 15 (0-351/o) 23 very low units to 32 (36-591/o) Note: Recommend due to proposed revisions to No. 8. Attachment No. L 11 11. Add: the block wall will be installed before construction begins. Note: Will provide a safety, visual, and sound barrier for adjacent residents. Attachment No. 1.13 8.e. No more than one(1)person shall be permitted to reside in any unit which is less than 338 (was 220) square feet. Delete: further more, occupancy...regardless of floor area size. Delete: the remaining 50%...is greater than 220 square feet. Add: two persons may occupy Rental units if the floor area is 338 square or greater. Note: This change would limit the number of units for two (2)persons to 15 and insure maximum space for two (2). Attachment No. L 13 8.g. Add. A pay phone will be provided on each floor. Note: provided at Irvine. Attachment No. 1.15 6. Change construction hours to: Monday through Friday 7:00 AM—6:00 PM and Saturday 8:00 AM —5:00 PM. Note: Construction is adjacent to residential units. TL:kjl GAKIM\VARD0C\00\KL0012.doc ­7 ........... rt t: Y Irg ISS'. 71 no 1 Fa *,J, ............. A. G61d'Nu­g'r'g'Te't._' inner.-,.-' California::3' Trolley Court '192:.unit SRO ..San Diego, San Dieg o,.CA .. .. wz� S1ogen Ph6tb,b M. a as &a ass 41- Definition of HoW DO SROs 3.:Redevel9pment: By law, redevelopment agencies are Single Room M et AffordableI required to replace huu ink= l: l 1 Occupancy '� H011Sing '': units removed from the comlllUnLty'S hUUSino SCOCk 1.34 HOUS1ng RequirenlentS7 resulting fium agency t: In ender to set a working : Many:Orange CoUnty.juris= activities. Redevelopment s framework for the SRO ; dictions are required by the> agencies, such as San Diego), - H�nlsin�, Development. �: federal and state government have not only used SRO Guide, a definition of single to address and provide .. housing to meet this replace room- occupancy housing is. housing for very lore, low, meat requirement, but also necessary. For the purpose of. and moderate incorne.house- CO meet the requirement-that y this Guide, a SRO is defined Bolds..'These requirements a percentage of all.housin, >j as to Single Room include meeting goats and units built within'a redevel- Occupancy (SRC ) housing is :6bjectives seuforth'is a opment project area are to be a cluster of guest units within community'S.Housing.Assis- affordable for very-low- a residential hotel rov.idin= I tance Plan:(HAP) Housing P b g income households. sleeping Or living'facilities in . 'Element'.and in.the Redevel- I .• a which sanitary.facilities may upment Agency's:housing. . be provided within the unit, requirements. SRO housing r and cooking facilities may be caii provide.a method on ~' shared within the hotel. attaining the-goals and - .:requirements set.forth in`.the Since the minimum studio . .ak)rementioried: .Outlin%:d `. i ' aparrinent si_e set by the below_is*the means.by which Uniform Building Code is these goals and.requirements i_ 220 net sgLiare feet, it is can be 1 by SR0 hoes rig:. ' presumed that SRO units will rypicall}• he smaller than , ! 1:.HAP Goals':.,.Provided t SrLldiu aparrments and will newly constructed or reha- j not contain a complete bil'itated SRO units are made'. F:- kirchen in each unit. available to.:low and/or.- ry low income: ersoris, and said - P ,r... . persons do riot:pay more than.: 30_percent of their:income. (-_ ❑ for such liousing, SRO units: : may be used.to.meet HAP. . �. t ;. three-year goals. t Z.. Housing Element: T11e Typical Room State Department of Housing 1. Marlin Gardens Inn Seattle;WA and Community.Develop, i tuent.has set the precedent that newly developed-SRO L. units.will:count toward.a' UJI ------- + m �I 0 : locality's HousingIr �• Element goals: 435 UACH ENT t�U . . .! andVse . .. 'I V. CMC i i ® ese 3. Allow SRO uses cinl with I. Key issues with.respect ) to SROs revolve around land . .. -a Conditional Use Permit use. Staff should fully: i i (CUP); in certain zones. i.. l I. The Plai�nin� ff of each analyze key land-use issues I i b sta such as zoning, General:Plan i .:.} L respective city «ill need to ; iiwdifications,:piablic transit ``:: � F determine which zones (e.(, I. . -.,. access proximityof retail is .;,; �x� :� �, N residential, Con1t11elclal, in- uses;densities.or hei ht. : �} x, IK. 3.°: r� �l, etc.) g stitutional .iildustri� restrictions,. ackin , and ,r .•? r�'��' r and districts (e.,, R l R2, setbacks. Design issues such etc:) will acco,,.iModate a v1�i r as facade treatments, land ; : SRO use subject to issuance scaping.and common-areas ! ofaCUP. also must be.addr'ssed in'the j development standards of.a. .. Staff also shI)uld outline SRO project I the.conditions under �;hich . t the CUP will be granted. r.. Conditions sho-,ild,be stare- l ZOning dardized or optional, as part ` mum arid maximum unit siz_e,. parking requirements;and-. of the project-review process: Desi nation The a royal'process for g_ l _ possibly,affordability of pp. Options. � Lmits.. If an:;SRO zone SROs with a CUP also should Several options exist for local. � designation is incorporated set forth the role of the i jurisdictions see'kin to* • - into'tlie cede; Plannin staff. zoning administrator and j g g provide for-SROs in their " must determine which puhlic hearing process _oning codes: General Plan designations. requirements: i . . �(e . idential commercial .g , r es . , l. Enact a zoning designaa institutional,,etc:) are com= 4'• A fourth zoning.option for tiom s�ecificail .for-SROs. -staff consideration is allow- > Y patihle.with;the SRO:zone.., This Single Room Occu=. ing SROs"by-right" in pancy zone section.of the I . ~ 2'. Create's ecialized-hous�ng certain zones. Staff should P determine,which zones would code can contain standards .' .:Zones or.overlay districts applicable to proposed SRO'. a which would include uses. permit"by-right" SRO use developments which would': sLich as seriior.housing arid.what development be approved "by right."` The , housing--tci'meet handicapped . .. : standards criteria would have- s SRO zone-standard should 1 stand:ards,and SROs :The to be met for a-project to address permitted floor area uali i. I' same.type. development q �' ratios/building height,-mini standaeds.outliried above in option (1). could beset forth ! Regardless of the land use for each distinct use allowed �: option selected, a public in the zone-or overlay i. . hearing may be required to district. ' i adopt pertinent code changes. - -- -- --- - ----- -- - -- — . '� �i 1111: iT I A x �,. 4.4 �� E. proposed SRO project, staff General Plan ; Density might establish a density Considerations ; City staff and developers ex- j standard based in part on the perienced in developing SRO f A Iocal jurisdiction prep�iring prevailing density of the =_ p I to facilitate SRO develop projects contend that con- district ventional approaches to district in which the project �. meat Should consider . f is to be-located. addressing SRO uses in two j determining permitted j 'densities are not applicable elements of the General Staff.also may consider �. to SROs. Local jurisdictions Plan: the Land Use Element analyzing a ro riate dense- I establishing a program and the HUUSIng Element. . j Y g pp p - providing for transfer of ties for SRO projects should development rights.Whether consider the'SRO's purpose. 1. The Lend-Use Element f SRO developers would be should he modified to of providing affordable. inclined to purchase develop- C.A. housing and.that density allow the typical densities ment rights or to acquire I ;_ plays a key role in,determin in order to.transfer I necessary for SROs. The 1 property ing.unit affordability. .: . reasonin, behind the SRO I development.rights to an exception is twofold: evaluating density, city staff SRO project is not known. ' SROs necessitate hi her :.should recognize the fact that . g SROs are not complete units �. densities to remain afford- The use of subsidies or .but rather bedrooms. able, and.the Land-Use i other incentives may offset i Furthermore, the.-Unique Element of the General Plan . I :the zieed for higher densities. needs to indicate under what. management and operation. General Plan designations requirements of SROs are j SRO use is permitted. A _ cost intensive thus iinpacting [ the cash flow of the project. 2. The Housing Element •(These requirements are..,. 1 discussed.in further detail in. . likewise should be reviewed _i to address SROs. The three t the Operations chapter:) topics to be incorporated in . � :• I. For example;:SRO project I '; the Housing Element are: i densities in San Diego - f maintaining the affordability t ` of SRO units, whether SRO initially appear startlingly � units will be applied toward high with 500 to.700 unitsoto. ( i the Regional Housing Needs j the acre and.corresponding Assessment goals, and i intensities well:in..excess of - . . Z.O.Floor Area Ratio (FAR),:` whether SRO units will be = used to meet "special needs". In Orange County,.where FARin:industrial areas may housing for elderly, Nandi- L A PEN $ Z O N E be set lower than 0.5, and capped, or homeless persons. i _ A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL local permitted multifamily Modification of the housing densities may be General Plan to specify . similarly.limited in intensity, densityof SRO uses-would local jurisdictions may eon inquire public hearings. seder applying new.density i standards for SROs. Staff- i..- may consider.utilizing mul- tiple factors;such as setbacks, height limitations,•'cotnmon outdoor space and parking I requirements, in regulating or. determining SRO project es TA."lMlo 1949 densities.Where reviewing a.' A'San Diego Residential Hotel � . - i i .3. Accessibility to public Site Parking transportation.i.s a major I factor:in the SRO`site selec Selection Requirements Preferred locations for SROs ` ' tion process :Guidelines that ` Parking requirements for are typically in or adiace'nt "to local jurisdict tons'may '• - existing SROs are typically urbanized areas and/or public choose.to adopt include :. :minimal because most resi- transportation nodes or locating SROs.within 1/4 dents do not own automo- corridors: Asa hotel, tom mile.of a bus stop;:.evaluatmg. biles. Based on a survey of mercial areas�rnay be most: whethersuch busservice'. Atlanta, Phoenix, Portland, suitable for SROs: Ivlanufac- provides a direct'link to-thee San Diego, and Seattle, the taring and residential areas:.: aypes of employment.districts following findings have been are generally considered : associated with.SRO resi- -made: . inappropriate.Eowever,spe= :dents;determining that.bus.. cificsites in such areas may :service runs'at-least every 30 1. No parking is typically re- be considered on a case-by- :minutes duffing peak periods quired for SROs located.in l case basis.. and'once per hour during high-density areas such as i off-peak; and determining - downtowns, and which are in The following factors adequacy::of service d6hng_all proximity to retail services should be evaluated in the' ..'hours on weekdays, week and/or public transportation site selection process: _:;`:ends;and:holdays:: ;.:'. . lines. .. . Adjacent uses.need to'be The' purpose"ofauch.guide 2. In medium-density areas, carefully considered'in the lines.is to insure that SRO the City of Atlanta requires site selection process: The _ residents,.rriost of:whom will. one space for every four I. impacts of developing SRO. ` rel :,on "ubtic-transit have ­. livingunits (0.25) plus one E P P g -:y... ..p ._.. .-:. .. .. � - projects adjacent to school or :easy access to:service that space per SRO employee. ! residential uses.should be. .' ;. . meets.their needs'..."The'. I: Phoenix generally requires i closely studied. Certain_. Orange County.Transit one space per five units (0.2). s adjacent uses, such.as adult. ,District:.(QCTD) Planning bookstores and movie thea De ariment-'shb6ld be.in- p - . 3. In low-density areas, ters, bars or liquor stores maywolved:in•poj:ect review;Ito Atlanta requires one space be inappropriate and may assist local'agericies•in evalu- per two units (0.5) and one i deter prospective SRO .ating site suitability with:re- space per SRO employee, and residents. . gard.to:busservice...QCTD.;. . Phoenix generally requires staff nor only.perform'devel one space per.five units (0.2). 2. SRO sites should be opment..plan reviews to. . .located close to services used determine potentially 4: In areas.outside of the `` by SRO residents, or within significant:impacts on bus : downtown, San Diego and i I easy access of public trans- ridership;:Iiut.will consider Phoenix staff negotiate a i port..Residents should find . r aodifying.bus service to.ae CUP with'.developers to grocery stores,.ret . services : :commodate projected'rideT- specify parking requirements. and ideally some entertain ship:needs:Resqurces of - In San Diego, parking ratios ment options such as movie J interest ayailable from -of 0.25-0.5 spaces per unit theaters and*restaurants OCTD include., "Considera have been imposed. within walking distance. lion of.Transit_iri Project " Services provided�by medical :':Development':'.:and `.:`Orange Alternatives to conven- clinics, continuing . pcation CourityActiviry.:Centers.and tional parking requirements institutions; and certain Employment Projections. that must be addressed in the IF government agencies should` project design process be accessible by public trans- - include.provision of secure portation: . bicycle racks and lockers. AT 'ACt-MENT N0. The parking alternatives architecturally interesting drought tolerant materials Outlined above may lend and varied in design—SRO's shoauld be used-Vegetation rhelllselves CO Modification do not have to be simple,.un- i wbilld make the area more if two people are allowed to attractive block buildings just ' attractive and cooler conl- o,ccupy one SRO.unit. Park- to keep.down costs. : .. pared'to.all concrete.. in;,, therefore, inay.provide i one basis for limiting the Signage pan- d identification Exterior coimmon,areas number of SRO units which should.be.Unobtrllsive and be should be highly visible, with nl ly be occupied by twO limited to hotel identifica I no hlind.curners or alleyways. pQrs.rns. tion only. Being a commer- They should be brightly lit at. �- cial structure, some type of night to insure� security Of in- identification-is necessary. livid als using the space. ArchiteCtl.lral However, it should be lim Guidelines and ited and shnilar to'compa- rablo residential projects. . Development Urban Design Standards It is ;trom,ly recununended A dulp-off/pick-up area is i that any SRO project coo di- recommended:. This area Setbacks; height, landscaping Wore with m.and compliment alsocould.be,usei_fi by vans'� . .. and other development the existing, architectural and/or service vehicle's for .standards should Comply with style and standards of the Sur- load.na/unloadiiig adjacent .: the zone district the SRO is ruu1111illg land uses and local to the facility. in. This would contribute to eununullity. If basic design the building blending in with or theme has become estab= the surroundin'development . lished in an area, this should. Exterior... . : - and being compatible with . Cohoin the design and reflected the neighborhood and rnmonAreas scale of the SRb prc,ject.•..ln community. Order for a SRO development. Exterior.common areas and/': tO fit into and become part of or open courtyards should.be . used throughout the project. . . the t:U111Inu11it)', the L� These areas double as lighi J appearance of the facility f must not set it aside from the and ventilation walls co meet . uniform buildingcode I` adjoining development. re�1uirements.'These areas - ' �. I TI...._. ......� �laintaming the architec- .:should be iiiade as:attractive — tural inte;rity of the - neighborhood, whether it isSM as.possihle. 1f the common•'; i . ........... : : areas.are-made available.for QfF'"�E""'o�, new construction or the . MCNOwwEOVLM use by the occupants, the �E...- renovation of existing strtic- IELE%lt$rN:•....... tares, could help the projecC area.should be designed to.; DESK-•--••-•••--. provide passive open space. assinlllare into the CUl11mu- A c6urtyard.with:tables`and'. nlry, assisting in its succesS.. I chairs, planters or small: There are Illall)- different garden spaces would make material, which can he used the area fiinctional`arlti useful 0 A . i for the residents. These.areas lcl,(wo , eral, bl ck) w i 4�® i in conjunction with the should also be low mainte- . nance and.provide the desi"n of[lie building, would nor add significant cost to occupants with usable ; outdoor'space. If the'. the project. There areI ... . commmon-areas are.rloE examples of SRO projects in j available for u$e:b the. Other cities which are y Typical Accomodations occupants, low maintenance,.. La Pensione 12 ---' --.— ATTAC i;ivI EN T O'. per l - SO Operations Expense As.public agencies :..i ments it is critical that the}' �. review development understand the financial oro*posals' for SRO . .. :� characteristics'ilnictue to SRC housing,they will no doubt ,K• Y= :� operations. lu do so within the framework of their previous housingk , . r, :,, `; 4'. When projects are heing experience. Most profes- ! �^1` :y '� �t` r f'x: reviewed, properly prepared signal administrative staffs �:,,._� >�hc#-�, : : ! proformas can he useful to :..�..,. , ��ithin Orange County � ' , ,` ';'} F :evaluate the value of de�•e1- > Y� "'° ` o ment•concesslons and jurisdictions have not had `j Y p prior experience with new ;. . . . ,. ;,`? . :-:. • ::i: subsidies. Such proforma� SRO.housing development:.,' :. can be-helpful in Understand- Althoubh the concept of ing the extent to which de single room' occupancy units i; i-.-. velopment.concessions and is in noway new-to- Orange,, ! subsidies might be needed to County,it is a prodLct which produce a financially viable has been almost totally, development. This informa- _ cycled out of.use in lieu of...'. value and performance of . tion also will enable decision other.types bf housing prod apartment projects These l ridkefs to maximize the acts. .: econ inic performance. -:cominimity benefit frolic a indicators include (but are j . -SRO and.minimize the devel- Affordable rental.housina, j . . .not:l-imited to): opment costs and impacts to constricted- in Orange :, i . be on by the communit} at County over the past 20 l, Operations e: e in large. ears has redominatel relation to.project gross y p y.. consisted of attached multi.- : mcoine; : i While apartments and family apartment units. - t SROs mmay he similar, the These a artments, althou h 2: Gioss income in relation I methods applied to deter- These' g �. i Ep varied in exterior elevations. to market - mine effective cash flow of 1 and ainen.ities, share some �:.. I an apartment ii� relation basic cc�mpo�ients within �. 3•: Net Operatirig.Iricome in... to the:sgL[are footage of their operating budgets. relation to market value l improved living area-can not f Investors; lenders and level + be directly applied to a SRO . opens have been able to. f -q Gross Scheduled;Income . The operating•b.ud,iets of I: develop economic perform in_relation to improved_area. SRO.projects, will not fit the ance models which have typical apartment industry j been used to compare the 1 As planning, building; perforinarice standards. community dev;elopinent ; ! .professionals`and.elected I . officials":review SRO develop : ATTACH1V�l=l�J lwU. ��i Neither will they exactly fit k a SRO project may.appear to the anticipated performance I be high based on a revenue standards of a typical hotel per square foot of develop- operation. Thus, it is essen- ment.measure: However, rial that proformas used to J this may be'dece'iving in light. - evaluate SRO development of the high'operations costs isolate those costs which are associated with quality'man Unique to the SRO thereby:.- agement and operations of a yielding a comparison to the ' SRO project.` Thus; in order I building industry's perform- ' to ensure the continued-level ance standards. Nonetheless, of service and the'operational j I SROs should be viewed as a I characteristics promised at separate type of housing the project approval stage it product, and reviewed in I :.. may be prudent to condition: ' relation to its own model of. I SRO.projects. economic performance (See Appendix A - Sample Project The bottom'line=for any Proforma). j newly developed residential.` project is that it provide.-the The.operations budget of a i. developer sufficient'retum. SRO will typically include i relative to risk. The develop expenses which may total up ment community-must to twice the operation costs of ..compare the'viability of the a comparably sized apartment investmentin relation to` project. Listed below are a few -.other investment of the components of a SRO opportunities... project which most often are j not included in the operations expense of an apartment ; I project: 1. Routine maid service �. 2. Full project paid utilities 3. Enhanced staff support i ■ Manager I . Assistant Manager i . Security Guard . Desk Clerk 4. Onsite, full time.janitor It is important that both the development industry and P Y . public agencies recognize that i the potential gross earnings of 1 } ATTAGHi'viti� ivy. A-41 ;`Manage r `� < . 0 Ilf y The requirement and. ; . Staffing - The follo��-ing enforcement-of co,mpre= _ staffing issues should be set x hensive.management*plans forth by local jurisdictions for SRO developers is critical. and addressed in each man- to the success of.SRO agement plan. projects.These plans should outline management,opera- I - ,. h .. ra. o ,,,? '--, ;. 1. SRO manager dosecurity.Policies and X � t - f �`n and ���.�.;; :.y A 24-hour live-in manager_ ' 811ould'be required versus all procedures: Each SRO developer should:be required on-site manager available 29 to submit, as a condition of.:. - _ I hours a day. The former has approval of the project-site �. proven to be the most plan, a proposed manage- effective.. ment planJor'review and approval by the local jurisdic- I. 2. Support staff members - tion.-At the very-least, the i management plan should The number of cleaning, ,. I :desk clerk, security, and address all or the points.set reviewed and approved-by maintenance personnel i forth in this Management the.jurisdiction:.The ,local which will be provided and Security chapter... jurisdlction.may wish to should be delineated. consider`an annual fee �. . Personnel is best based on The. plan should.be easily' assessment to the SRO the number of units, ameni- accessible to subsequent I project to coverahe adminis tees, services provided and owners, either through ' 1 ... .trative ex ense of.review..`. P. - project size.. Staffing level I recordation, or:as a part of'. Any proposed changes to the. I _ also should consider the the planning process, so that operational or physical number of hours per day the requirements imposed` nature of the project should needed for service. Consul- upon the•project are clear : be subject to review and eration should be given to prior to the time-of owner.- approval by-the.local...: ` . providing sufficient security ship transfer: jurisdiction. ' staff to handle emergencies. . 'The plan also'should be: ,3. Staff classification - Man- subject to"annual review.by :. CO.mpOnerits.Of.: agement policies should set local•jurisdictions"to insure. forth what:is to be re uired of that the-project ro ct is.in com li= the;IVlanagement - a P J- p each staff position. ance. 'Any changes made to • ...Plan the approved plan should be Staffing,.equal access.to; . . A management plan j housing,internal security and'. should identify the role of ' vehicle. security are key . components of.a SRO ojects management plan.:pr :.ATTACHI M ENT -��Z each staff menlller In einer- _1.. Tenant selection - What' _ 2. Tenantrights - Should eney situations involving policy will be mandated; if the local.jurisdicrLon fire, police, medical, {isaster, any, by the aocal government':, i facilitate or.rilandate the etc., and.set forth an ipterim. jurisdiction which assures fair -.establishment of a tenant plan for housing all residents W and equal access to' housing committee within each while units are under repair, as.ma'.0dated by fair housing project to handle SRO if necessary. A system for i laws? What policy; if any,' .: . �. . . grievances.and operational trainin17,raff in proiper . will be nzandated,wliich.as= -. . complaints by tenants? procedure; for requesting spires that residents referred. police and fire.service should by gouernciienC and:nonprofit =3. Residency rules - Ueline- be included in the manage- agencies will be accepted' '. {. ation of a procedure should ment plan. without.bias?..vhait.process,., "' be regUired .which assures . -if any, will-be.maaidated to that.each tenant receives Equal and Fair Housing L assure fair and.pr-oiler-evic- :copy.Of rules and.regulations Opportunity - Affordable i tion of problem residents, housing is a critical- issue for i. . and:whae-apPeal;_if any, will all jurisdictions in Orange be granted evlcted*'residents? COUnt •: The issue is partICLI- i _ 0 larly troublesome to those : . The.management plans residents who have suc11 lim- j shbuld.address-any.such ited income that they are ' policies'_adopt'd by the local unable to afford even the jurisdiction. V most modestly priced rental housing. Since.the demand for SRO housin,, has been -rear in each locality across the nation.which has facili- clted irs development, it is likely that the SRO hotel r 1 I I concept in Orange CountyM. will he met with equal =' Given the anticipated- hi,,h demand and current low supply of SRO units in r - I Or[Ill1e County, it is inCLim— i i i - brnt upon local jurisdictions. = to insure that the selection of SRO residents (and the service provided) is fair and- .• ...O in l'UlllphanCe with state and federal fair housing laws. To this end, local-jurisdictions t. may wish to consider,deline j . arion of the following issues their management.policies . . 1- in i and requiring each manage- ment plan to address these ! topics where appropriate. . I 16 _. .._... ........... regarding operation of, and - plan should specify rent . ! Internal Security -The residency in, the SRO.:Each levels, colrectioii.procedures j local jurisdiction's mana�,e- management.plan should arid.increase meclianistils: : '.ment olicies for SRO hotels p specify how these'items Will, ' should address security issues, be Handled. S: Seciirix. a merits - What ' y p.y . emphasising residents safety policy.and.procedure:will be i` _without unreasonably impos- 4. Rent rates What.policy,: established f�i setting, re- .I' ing on residents' activities. if any,should be imposed by `: : ceiving andxeturning secu-. i As is the case with any ether the local jurisdiction regard- = + rity deposits:. residential dwelling unit, thr ing establishment of'initial. i -..i perception that SRO li% rent levels;:collection of rent; ---- units are secure and safe will and increases'in rent. Re= be important to ettractinr gardless of whether the JocaI - i. I. and keeping quality residents. urisdiction'tnandates rental Man successful SRO projects 1 l R max::--; �. Y p l policies, each management `. ' _` w �� share common security features built into their a t, design and operations. . The El Rey Residential Facility Se'attle"NA `� ,,. The fpllowing.design A'R C.Architects features appear to have ; I11�� • . .:: ; �; insured a secure and safe � ' environment for resident,,: II1�1� i 1. Access for both inoress I� !. -and egress to the facility must i be.limited, preferably with a i. single-entry located adjacent i. to the manager's desk. The purpose is to insure that only appropriate individuals are granted access to the buildin,,, .:at all times. Z. Guests should be regUired � = to complete sign-in and sign- : out sheets at the front desk. { Each management plan 0- : should specify rules ac to t11c a�- :`; , o _ riumher of guests per resi- , ~�- �' • debt, the time that guests -y,z may arrive.and must depart .-(e.g.,no visitors past 10 p.m. or before 6:30 a.m.), and 7 procedure for overnight � guestsAUACNMEN :I IT rl - 3. Strategic placement of the Secui-ityHardware = New :.'Vehicle Security -The -front desk must be situated to SRO projects have included a management policies drafted a1110X • monitoring.of the front j wide variety of hardware to .. ! by local jurisdictions should lobby entrance, the street in insure optimal security for resi- : . ; require each SRO's manage- front of the project,:and j dents and facilities.`Listed : meat plan.to specify a video camera monitors. The below are someof-the types of vehicle security system. front desk Should he attended major security hardware corm f Each plan should note 24 hours a day. monly.used in existing SRO whether parking will be open projects. or subterranean, whether 4. Video cameras must he loncy-term secured parking r strategically placed in all 1,. Unit doors' Dead-bolt i. .: will be provided for residents, public areas including hall locks or key cards are utilized. and what parking facilities ways, elevator entrances, by many:newer SROs;rather ' will-be provided for guests. an)ununal bathing areas, than a key for individual.room. . .' Where secured parking is lobby area, garage area, lawn- i access. While more-expen provided for residents, access dry area, profit centers, and sive,'key cards offer the.advan= should be coded with the common areas. Monitoring ! tage of-preve'riiing previous l same code-as room key cards. �. I. by the front desk is critical'to I residents froin'gaining access ; . . -.Security cameras should be internal security. to the units after their.tenancy: provided in subterranean or has been terminated. .Add i otherwise secured parking tionally replacement card: are areas. less expensive..to supply"than are new keys. The management plan should indicate what com- :. .2. Communal baChing area. mot storage areas will be i doors - bead bolt locks;with . :.provided and where.large i security access!by management items such as bicycles will he A master key only.in.case of i stored and secured. einer etc are referred: :ro I_ g y� .p <. 44 vision of ari emergency call •- I button,or;pull cord.in.the_ I' communal bathing areas in case a tenant slips.or is injured:. �. in thebathing.area-may.be. - warranted. ! ;._ 3. Front entry doors.- The• , front'entry door sho6ld'allow, a:. for adequate,visual access into the lobby area by police from j their patrol cars: - �}:Windows'.-;Each room and all common areas should.have- -windows except foroperable . ' first floor.windows which may. . be fixed for secucity.purposes: " .r In turn, the SRO project` should.include heating:and.air, r;? I. . :.condition'irng systems to insure:..: p' adequate air ffow'and:tempera- w ! Cure"control. ..........._ _........ _..,._.. ..... : _. . .... _ -- --r ----- - -- -- he purpose of this 1 1.- 1988 State Building chapter is to,identify provi= I:: _�. .. • Code sions of ahe Building and Fire codes'" hich.may.be,;: ..:. `.�. 1988 State.Plumbing applicable to the construe Code tion, use and-design of single` room occupancy liousin �. :1.988 State Mechanical This discussion also.wil '• t ry' ' y=ti Code provide direction-for•tlie .,.^ .<. F •.;is=�,•� �_,,_::, tom:._,- 4 1988 State Electrical application of alternative methodsand•materi_als which ' `% "� `�� Code m e c red ce - .';.� ay. b. : onside as ex p<: tions grarited for the purpose I g 5. :1988 State Housin of SRO'housing: f Code -The State agency having Authorl•ty I : . authority.for .Zis use is the = The Heal'thand Safety Code'` State Building.code•but may: Department of Housing and :1. .. of.the State of California make local arriendment$by`r'...:;: Community Development provides<fQrthe adoption`of finding justificatio' n for (HCD). ;..I. .. the�latest:editi. of the ;. reasons of geography, topog :�. r h and climaColo There will be.cases in' this :,i Uniform Building-,Code ..,.. ...: >..'.aP. Y. .. gY.. .(UBQ, as promulgated by .These'�local amendments chapter where it.is recom- the International Conference;.: Must.be.approved.by.the.::_ .''' mended a locality request an _ `of Buildirig.Of-icials.(ICBO)', applicable State agency -interpretation from HCD on as the model for tLie State' ' the uniform application of a Biiildin Stanaards_Cocje: : F:. 'A local jiirisditioii.is.em=;; _suggested.alternative equiva- g_ The State Building Standards powered to enforce the dent. f"j. _Qom'mi ssion-further.arnends. provisions.of the-StateBu this`model code through`tlie -ing Code,"including the local = ' = State's adoption process and , . a mendments,:provided a .• �ef nations... specifies which State agency local building offidal.does The foHowing.definitions are has.the authority:for the not make a discretionary provided for reference. described use.: local i decision.which i5 in conflict;: .: Application of these defini- jurisdiction must adhere to with the State Law:( .tigns will become evident in the State's editiori`of the and-Safety). various areas of this chapter. For the purpose of this Gui de','the applicable::oodes: 'are:- _ SRO Unit - A SRO.11llit is a Maximum Occupancy - Develo ment • Vilest roolll within a resider- p Maximum occupancy should tial hotel providing sleeping Standards "" be Iii iced to two persons. It or living facilities for bne or The developinene standards i `is recommended that'this t\\o persons where CUlllplete ; olltliiied below are"provided level of occupancy only be . kitchen and/or bathroom as recommend`atidns, 1n all !- allowed in Units in excess of facilities may he shareLl• cases, the development. 120 square feet of net floor within ;l hotel. I. staizdard-utilized by each'. space.in the sleeping area locality mist be'in full : ! including built-in cabinets, Complete Bathroom -. Compliarice with state and sinks,and closets, but exclud- A complete bathroom is a lc]cal laws.. ing toilet compartments. room with a ininill"I11m of 30 ... SgUare feet containing all of Recommended Unit 'II Kitchen Facilities the following: a toilet,sink Requirements 1 A full.kitchen is not required and shoi\er or tub: A partial . i Unit'Size = i in every..SRO unit: Ho\\wer, bathroom is hissing at least. " - It_is recoiiimended that each: a kitchen sink serviced with olle of the above compo- SRO unit must-lave.at:least. hot and cold water with nrnrs. 1OO square feet-of net floor garbage disposal and counter space in the sleeping area in-: top is recommended in:every Complete Kitchen - i eluding built-in cabinets;•. " unit. The counter top should A comi.le:te kitchen contains sinks-,and closets,.but exclud be a.Minimum of 12 inci.es alll of the followinti: a sink,. -'ing toilet compartments, deep.by 24 inches wide. refrigerator and stove, range Bused on the number of top or ;even. A partial r kitchen is missing at least i CORRIDOR one of the above compo i DESK:: .TEL:. . Common Indoor Space - I �- I` Common indoor space means all usable interior conullon areas not used foi-circulation . or service facilities. Com sl It neon indoor space includes - , . lohhy, recreation room or ' t \m, BE FAN rca�{ing room. ; c REFS HEATER- `�`. . i .0- 1' 2' .3' 1 ,TYPICAL"BALTIC°ROOM LAY-OUT. ATTAC•tr4M E NT