HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional Use Permit 79-5 - CASA DEL SOL APARTMENT FUND, L 407
1NTHE
Superior Court
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
t. In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAM CITY CLERK
_,..1_ROOF O 'F LIBLIG�TION
Pub I is Bearing 79-5
.'state of California ► �� �. f - x
County of Orange
i
Rita J. Richter
That I am and at all times herein ment.ioncd win a citizen of
the United States,over the are of twent)-one years,and that I
am not it party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter, y
that I am the principal clerk of the.printer of th-
' Huntington Bea%h Independent Review
a newwso,per of general circulation,published in the City of
Huntington Beach
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the s
direrninstioa
a f o enm of local news and intellit; general charac-
ter. and which newspaper at all timer herein mentioned had
and still has a tots fide subscription list of paying subscribers,
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub-
lished at regular intervah in t:•- said G.::nty of Orange far a
period esceedWs one year that the notice, of which the
anneud is a printed copy, has been published in the regular
and entire issue of said newspaper.and not in any supplement
�h-
then-af,an the following dates,to wit: �^'r
June ,
I certlfji for declare)under penalty of perjury that the forego.
inj is ttu P and cor.Yct.
n,tRd ... ...6arden, Grose..................
CLIP. 79w5 10-065-02
- _ _ - - - - - - - _ ' ; li1-01'Mfr-2+0 r _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _'.. _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _;
Jail 19, 1979 wl.ULM jKdo Ktrat>mmj WnuWth ,
t�tirK � ,�C3)►. 92646 � 21791 Ltt
ftedt, CA. 9.2646
_ t �
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1181 . tip. :• , Micttrr►1 +o�Lunc4r�
jurw ammy aikazi
9811,;OtoM�canritt G1r. 1 *72 21791 Sumawind tma �
Race..7►. 92646 t 111rki d 9M6 i bea h^ 92(046
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- .� i(9=063--n- - _ _ _ -__ - .. _.. __ -
X.14=066-13 , 14�0"i�r-
zr. J1t t JtiM Pbepaimm Albw't Cr
4901 , t r. ; 21791 O�a�rt Dr. i 21782 Zip
FMi"1'titfgl>r� 8 to Ch. 92646 1 a 1':tt, m 92646 i t�..t1, CAI. 926"
t t
_ 1 �
119-Oi6-2i _ __ _ .. _ _ _ __ . _ _ - --: 149..VGS79 - ' ` _ _ ._ .. __ _ � __ _
maift lids i1w rtit •1 VicrtX Siw � 9 d�oeeatcrs>,t Dr.
9791 Dr. 1 996I C111elN or. 1 tt� ' ban , G►. 926�i6 �
fNn Wit, Ok. 926" � Hts�t t Awerc#t, i?►. 92646 , �� ;
I _ _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - -
144.066-15 . 149-066-25 �
r4Kxm Nrtrttnw David 9wom art Al 1 9912 tarl.l
1792 Opt C]r.. � 9051 5?�c�rrirk»e>yo t�. � 9912 Oasa►r+craot Ur..
' tan Duch, CA. 92646
t1untingtm Mach, CA. 92646 = jamt rgun B�ctt, M. 92646 1 n'9
1
5-21
]19--066--15 - - - - - - - - , -149-066-27ftbart
-i
jamos Ft€lI A Rf Pood r
•)R02 t'7ce =vwt Dr. 9831 St=rec 3w Dr. ; 9922 Ocaenrrrwt tat.
twjrtt.izgboe1 pArsrfi, CA. 92646 tFuntitxjtn rmrdt, CA. 92546
1 "Wtingtan BwActt, Ch. 92646
' 1
149-066�-D7 _ 149-066-28 � ) ,ll'2��1 - - - - - - - - - - -
t
R & S'QmffuVctIm CW. ► iomr-Po I.e! i Bober t wkrn. x
s3A3 Wilshire Blvd. 1700 9811 S arebtown Dr. 9981 ooawx=est Dr.
fwvwly RjUxf, Ok. 90211 1 ansch, Ok. 92646 1 tmti 0l1r�d1, Cif. 926"
t '
, 1
,1_ _ _ 1
149--0"-lQ- - - - - _ _ - - U��DW ikikjijjkiiiiii� - - _ " �. -r1�;�- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t �ill,ia�a St►f�yc�c _
9R22 't
9A 9971 LXwwv mt Dr.
2Z OiDiwMrx'�It IX. 1
Itrtingtm Thad , C'A. 92646 Bieic ht Ch. 926"
i 1
1
)49-066-19
aNVILa TutTwf96x fi+c� i�d�
1942 c'torai�ra>'r Ur. , 9932 Oceia 101imp�t. Oc. 1
i*,x �.i,tigtm ftwh, M. 92646 { 8tach, CR. S21W '
t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ` - - - - - --
, 1
, 1
, 1
t 1
t �
! ,
! 1
! 1
.. � .. _ i - - - - - _ - .. _ - _ - - ... _ - _ w _ --- _ _I- - - - - _ _ - - - - -
yet Olt
*M Lit' � G�I►t! a�t . li �L+E x ! � '►L i �x.R�i?�
ar4- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
!! '6 '1rJ Nma M4ftT d9lt6 "1D NPM 4zdpi r !t!ML6 '0 '
WPM d�pW Vl9TZ ► � 'M tSt►
avld .' I "� ' , anti
TL-E6T-6►T ; SrT-tL"[iit ; liJ-���6f�
W.
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - -
tsllLi no '4 O vzkbvl i SM6 410 '43M L►G06 '� ' �1111i16
K42M WTATTK Obi gtpn AWPW WV 10"I
aL- 6t•,69T ►Y-IC'E•-i►I SI-ZiT-6iT
I 9OLZ6 *YD 'AVM% u��r
'tam o6ra;a LOCTL ! -4=4 -8 W-t CLIL AWMD +um ',;Q
am1we 'SAC ; surrrnn AzM 0DRW4rM.ArrwM
6't�£6t-6►i , CT-IC"£�6�T ; ►I-IIT7o
_ - -- - - - - -- - - - - . _ - 1 _ _ .• - -+r - _ - _ _ . _ _ _. .. - .j _ - - - - - -
"!►M low 04m" �at>�I � 9►PL6 010 'lam vrx�Jl,r�i C1L06 evo OVA!FM
BT-£6T-6►I wt•-ILf-i►T I . EQ II-6ti
. . . - - - - - - .. - - - - T
1 '
r MC6 '1D OWN m4e"I'la t r MC6 'YJ 'W=WJ
-_ --- _- - - _ _ _ r-- - - - _-- _ _
Mrs `1D OqW" uoumlvjWi 1r4#oMI i 91 6 10
(*T L"ECIiD ' tl.6i
sum t=r� ! .wl► C I T
ct-gat-att � ot�t�-�►t xa-�ctt,-s►t:,
. _ -- - ---- - - - - - - -- - - - _..._�- _ - T - - -•- - - -- _ - - - - - - -L
! 9Llt6 "oi gum !
[i '1Q 'q�7 uc :uiy ! Tim
NUAIWA
WPM P"
�� �r-T��c►t r1
_ _ - - - - - - - _ _ r - - _ - _-_ - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - -
whom ! '1Q 't�1�1� . !
I" 4SAM. tots' Nrr■ 6 .6t '`T :t !! r;'
. I ago•ONKC.
6°�i-T"L'E- 0T . + �4:-ZCt-�ti ; '(I,!'i�C.1
Y - i_ . .. r .. . _ _ .r _ _. _ _. - _. _ _ .► w _ .r _ _ ._ ar _ _ _ r r _ _ _ _ ._w _ - - _ .- - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _.• - - - - - - - 1
C21P :79--5 Y'- t�p�t' of 'YYIrr�lp�e tan I
"` l►pic l _19, ' 979 '� 20 S. � g Oftsot
[� .: , 160 Ax# Im G. 90052 i
Attarlr Imt Staff Amsisfiant r
:149-202-04
`A?an :1tt+irub
r '
. 97.32,, - or +
..Hunt r ier� tmc~h, C?k. .1264,; E
.- - _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _-- _ -4_ _ _ - _ _ _ -- - - - - -_-- --_ __ - .
14 9-202-05
�142 Lac'. � r
IAjintlrgtQ n Huns. I CA. 92646 '
- • -- - _ - - - _ - - - - _ -- _ _►- - . . .. _ _ __ __ _ _ r _ _ _ _ . - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - ------
U9-2pxOS .,
Ofixiljm� cw +
.956I Hozfia CYncl.e � '
I
fiat ih4ton Deach, C h. 92646 +
- - - - - - - - - - - - _ ._ - - -- --- _
:1t9--201-M.
Ado1",.11sri*x+sn
h711 leartrr"* [river ; s
JKmtIMt6r% heimcb, CA. 92646 + '
11,561.:Archiw Circle
� r
lA�r�t.#n can. Beach, CM. 92646 +
! 9=201-17
21552 Alrelwc Circle +
lurtt�krg�cf 8�+�cfi, 0R. 92646
_ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ .. _ .. _ _ _ _ _ ., .. .. _ - - - _ -• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -�
1� taMNb1 � �
1562 7itir. Circle
l�ilrit3t taon'Ae ch. CA. 9X46 , +
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
21592` M�dw C.irrlo r
r . C h. 92646 r
�'..V• �M..+; ._ _. .. . r .. _ �. .. _ _ _ i— — — — - — — — - — — — — — ► r ♦' w — — — — _t.. ... _ .. r ... _ _ _ r r .. _ - r _ — - a •,+
�r9�"�71"d4 ,
• , ,
ritur laii. Reach r
RECXJEST FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION
Si 'bmitte� by James W. Palin Department _ Development Services
Date Prepared Jure 8 , , 1979 Backup Material Attached Yst ❑ No
Subiect APPEAL OTC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79--5 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10656
CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX TO CONDOMINIUMS .
C=':y Administrator's Comments
Approve as recommended
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
S-ATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmiteed for consideration is an appeal to the Planning Commission' s
denial of Conditional Use Permit NO. 79-5 and Tentative Tract 10656 ,
a request to convert an existing 448-unit apartment complex to condo-
miniums in order to allow individual sale of each dwelling unit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The. Planning Commission and the Planning staff recommend that the City
Council uphold the Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No.
79-5 and Tentative Tract L3656.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant/Appellant: Casa del Sol Apartment Fund, Ltd. ;
c/o Edward H. Petersen, Attorney
800 South Beach Boulevard, Suite fi
La Habra, California 90631
Loeation: West side of Brookhurst Street approximately
660 feet south of Hamilton Avenue.
Request: To permit a 34--lot: subdivision of land for
the purpose of converting 448 existing apart-
ments to condominium ownership units.
; planning Commission Action on May 15 , 1979 :
ON- MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY BAZIL TENTATIVE TRACT 10656 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-5 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ,
BY THE FOLLOWING. VOTE:
TT 10656/C.U. 79-�5
. ; June C,1979
page 2
'FINDINGS :FOR 'DENIAL:
1. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans insofar as common and private open space are below
that required by ordinance, parking is below that required by
ordinance and no alternative parking layout presented by the appli•-
cant is acceptable, building hulk exceeds that permitted by ardin--
ance , the setbacks of some parking structures do not comply with
ordinance requirements.
2: The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans insofar as
drive entrances into the project do not comply with Article 936.
3. The site is not physically suited for the type of development, due
to the lack of required parking and common and private open space.
4 . The granting of a special permit in order to approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 79-5 will not promote a better living environment.
5 . The granting of a special permit will not provide better land
planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types
of architecture, landscaping, site layout, and design.
6. The granting of a special permit is not consistent with the objec-
tives of the Planned Unit Develop:,tent Standards in achieving a
development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surround-
ing environment.
7. The proposed condominium conversion is not in accordance. with some
sections of the Housing Eleraet:t of the General Plan of the City of
Huntington Beach .
AYES: Higgins, Russe.l.l , Stern, Finley, Cohan, Bazil, Paone
NOL%2: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Tone
i
DISCUSSION:
Conditional Use Permit No. 79-5 in conjunction with Tentative Tract
10656 is a request for the conversion of a 448-unit apartment complex
to be Converted to condominiums for the purpose of selling individual
ownership of each unit. This apartment complex, which was built in
1969/1970, consists of 336 one-bedroom units and 112 two--bedroom units.
Amenities included in this project are two swinuoing pools, a recreation
building, . large central greenbelt area with fish pond and .fountain,
laundry rooms and storage facilities in each of the individual buildings, ,{
After ,review 'of this project, the staff identified the following its-suds
:of concern:
ient approximately 30 percent in the
1. The 'xinting pro j ect is def i,.: pp , Y
required parking for a . planned residential development.
t
. •1 +.rM.-wM1.. w-MrFirrw•iM:i'. ..... r+w rrw.•r •.AwArrlliiN.......Nw.nr..r.w Vn.-.'a.:.:..••w...., r, _.r.... .. ... •.• n...r.... ^(. ,r.• ....... ♦. r1
Appeal: TT l0656/C U. . 79-5
.'June 8 , 1979
Page 3
2. There is approximately a 40 percent deficiency in the common 'open
Space requirement.
3. One-third of the existing units do not have private open space
that compl?.es with the Planned Residential Development ordinance.
4 . Both of the existing entranceways are substandard in relationship
to the Planned Residential Development ordinance, which requires
48-foot entrances for a minimum of 100 feet into the project.
5. The existing building bulk exceeds that permitted by the Planned
Residential ordinance.
6 . The existing carports are not set back the required five (5) feet
f►:om the travel lanes .
7. The subject project presently has carports existing at zero interior
propei.-ty line, which is not permitted under Article 936 .
Since the City of Huntington Beach does not presently have an ordinance
that would allow for the conversion of existing apartments to condo-
miniums , any conversion must comply with the provisions set forth in
Article 936 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The subject project
has a number of significant deficiencies which would preclude the can-
version of these apartments to condominiums . Therefore, the applicant
at the time of filing requested that the Planning Commission consider
and ..grant a special permit which mould allow for the reduction of those
portions of the ordinance code that the existing apartment could not
comply with. Other than the possible redesign of the parking facilities,
it is very difficult and costly to make major alterations to this pro-
ject in order to bring it into compliance with the present ordinance.
Therefore, the staff concurs that the above-mentioned deficiencies are
of ' significant concern , and the criteria used for the granting of special
permits are. not met. Based on this information, the staff recommended
that s m he Comission deny said conditional use permit and tentative tract.
ln' response to these concerns the applicant submitted additional infor-
ma*ion which included buyers ' assistance information, alternative action
regarding the deficiencies of the proposed project, and a brief back-
ground of ,the procedures and timing of this project. This a3ditional
' information has been attached for your review. Also included for the
Council' s review is the result of a questionnaire that was conducted by
+:he Tenants ' Association r;f the Casa del Sol.
till. .. .r... ..y-.ir.'y:♦. ,.. .r.... ".;.:•,.T;1... .._.... .. ....0
result 'of -this' application and the hearings held. by she Planning
'Comriisei.an rerardi. .g the conversion of this. pa oject and+ other projects
1genera1 the Comviss o'n, by unanimous vote, directed; the staff 'to
stem ,the ,preparation- of an :ardinemce 'that would allow for the
� ,`. co0trolle ' ,:conversion•• rrf existing of artment complexes that will. be abl�
f. ;to -meet 'spectai'_ criteria.
' J
i
r
City 64 BUnfin" gtonBe' aicia
P.O. Sox Ift CALWO MIA 88M
" 10
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
June 20, 1979
Cana del Sol Apartment Fund, Ltd.
c/o Edward 11. ,Pettrson, Attorney
B00 S. Beach Boulevard, Suite H
La Habra, CA 90631
Gentlemen:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular
zeecing held Mnday, Jwe 18, 1979, denied the appeal which you j
had filed to the Planning CoaMnission's denial of Tentative Tract a
No. 10656 and Conditional Use Permit No. 79-5. j
This is a final. dacision. You are hereby notified that pursuant
to Frovisions of S. 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the
State of California you have ninety days from dune 18, 1979 to apply
to the courts for judicial review.
we have attached a copy of S. 1094.6 of said code for your infor•-
xation. Should ,you have any questi.or►s on this matter please call
the Office of the City At�erney.
I
Sincerely,
j
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clork
Alai:.b
ranc.
1 r•' f' f �'� www�ww�r..r
IL
a:
s APPEAL '1'O PIrAMt+tllir CXIMMISSION IELMx11L
TE i 'ATIVE TRAM
1065 t70NDITIONAL UGH PERMIT #79-5 ��.
:NDTIC VIM that''. public lie r1, gill be -held.b' - the
City:"Council of thee' City ar .livatin�2an Ochs in tht Council
ChaMbss df the Civic Cf6f, �ntiag�on gRac at chi hou'I:' of
. 7=•30 Poll.., ,fir as soon, thereafter as possible, on ,�..
day of .�.,.June.....,...�..... 1979 fdr the purpose of
+ion idori.ng an appeal of the Planning coumission's decision on PAy IS 1979, to
' disapprove Conditional Use Perrd t No. .74-5 and Tentative Tract #10656. 4anditioi�al
Gat. Permit No. 79-5 in c nnjunetion with Tentative Tract No. 10656 is a request
to convert an existing 448 unit apartwnt complex into condominiums. Ihe.
subject.`project (Cass'; del Sol) is situated on 18.2 u-cres of land located on the
1"st side of Proakhurst Street approximately 600 feet south of Hamilton Av+enw.. �
3
A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office.
ail: intsxe•t..d. pe rrrqbs .asW inrit" to attend •aid MarIng and
._.,':�.':': •''.,OP.:.•' _,.. or
�aiatfvie r said. a . �
. I
Tpct!►�er fo�notion tiip -be . abtoiand frM the' Office of tba •City
CI rc
•;,,,,. 'CITY '0T ' iiR.lNT1N'i7J V H
. by: Alicia He WOOLY crrth
city Glerti ���
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM_efdjj Q54
TO: CITY `CLER[t'.S OFFICE DATE:
FROM= .�''��
PLEASE SCHEDUM A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
'JAY O1 'rl UNC 197
1.
AP's are attached v
AP's .will follow
No AP'a
' Initialed by:
Planning Commission
Planning Department
. Petition
Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x) Y" ,
YES I4 N-3
. . 3
Refer to ---� � j� Planning Department - Extension #
for- additional information.
*' i£ -sPpeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal. �
: A
1
Y.AP'A L",14 . Tin
i t iK 1 i0ai F,;b�.4i;ti,
SF ••r _...._ �j
' 'Ing
PU1511.0
• UbAl:NOTICE i in c6njurCU6 With
INOTIL'Lt DP'PURR -said C�$itionel tlaa P�
IWAAING mit.'A 1 6i dacri on
on:ills'C"bIw Olrl m Ua �
Pelt '!'! ►.'t Di t» s
tbM W. al'.7Mid bw
wiq be b by ot► l; 1qr , in
,.'#'C ty•P 0001. Cound a 664 Bu
i,t�weM of. tb�:: t�t• I 1�or the iiTk UMUt,
' .,btu, va�cl�,•C4►ti- °Y.tmtr
��,t�nta'i��r tie got.• �Ham,.
r•can,i&rl WOW MI
Un Permit No. 794, M : Mre tbv�tUM ekl
r xmquest to CVwMt a. hodAng AR6,9W464 their
':a.%&Uq.44S unit apotC� �p{nloN;for be
:m a r,t b u i i d i rs to a t>'i4 T
planned residential UpeermitNo.79-5.
de•.eloprunt.The subied Further information
prof-ct (Cep Lei Q is may be obtained from the
situated on 1&2 acres of City.. Wper to
Lind located on the wo' t mtnL r
side of Etrookhurst Street 't'e4ipt� 1ya: (714)
approsimitely 600 feet 536:52. 1:
wuth or Hawilton Ave- DATED 'ibis 18th day
ow 71w Plat ni Coo• of'A rd,1M.
ab" wi13 off•., C T;Y PLANNING
r - t�rr�.T�w� r,Tt�• -
r 1 ,,�1 c I f , •,1,
y y• z}'YT � f, � 1.
A 31
44"
41
ems, IF
f
f .
•S�•,+,r',,t.,� \.,;5:�ij(l,f,y .yt��}.y^J{'1�.�1tiF`.{,{.. u• :l' 4: {. _ _. _ __ _.____ ` '
.p���`'727}j.+i!;J(`� ,i +7"F�� r '��it + S. f r' 1 r+ i, 1 rr ,s• %,`� c i. t \' ' �;,
t�j.a,•'.•.►i' . \ "'^'•l It f 1 y tl /t� 'l :�* f •{ r A
�,ST,.���' Yy Cr� \rJ Yt � ,�1 's A � •.� �� ryr_ n t, _ . t4r '�.
:,y.}' �'✓d :$ :j• .1. , t ': '�.1` • • ':[' ` ' u } „ r/y}� [ �\rr r�J7tl •3�.Y�r {t1 ?!
Y?yam., ; rr r) t) f A ��S 1- �41r •t 5 r •' 'T r `•II�nY •II tVII �h •'1M�ident l
r•.
_ t CSIrC GF� PUBLIC, liEAFCIRG .�
y,iit,�, '""<S•S.+ _\ \ , J ! , r 'i ` "•F ' S r„ t .i4 i ,,'�. •,'.,t..,�1,;_ rz .
nt.;nr ' ' APPE
Ai: O PLA�iNTtiG Ci)M"lISSIflN. �EtIAI..f
f��`�r\}'t�,v•!+'t.,:J') -) vi r 'y. , .,,rl,.. .r .. $. •. ,, 1 �tr`.I.''.
OF
� ; ,�;��, •�; ti. . . 1i ''• r� •3: S���PrRMIT�'�79
TEN.iA �V� . TSgCT' n lOb�56 , Cb, -TIOML�-U ,.
* �..,,,,
: V i t t y CASH DEL JtIL ;}
d•'�. .ti7 GF. r • j X3
G Citj+ C60c:1 .a
tit+i71 `iS HEREBY GIVEN hit ar'public haring: �,ili' be r��ii _ }
each in the Cbt�ncil Chamoer of t.le C#vir. .,F,ntcr Nun rn5tt..�
�F ale C'ifiy of i�untington
rat. �`-„ :._,c = •, t , c ' .r'• '.-,. '+•• r
ur . f 7�3t� `F or as Gaon thereafter asassioie, on �►;r,�,. �..1`.;
ho
r# : ,the 'I8th""day of 1lunea :1979, fry 1he purpose of :or;sider`irg are a'op�ht n�. �.hn 0n
{Cenimiscioh's deids"ion"Gin
iaf .1G, 1979.,' to �i�..,-orove. `!;nhdir 6na'1 U P. '%-er�nit
Y� Tentative Ira t 00656. Conditional Use Pe��mit No•. 70. � sr� �.o�iju!tct;o�: It
i ttr .Yuri tati ve T rant 'Na. 1 v556 s it request to convert: •at �,:xt s,:s �g .a�8 unit aprbnnf
;boa; '!ex'_.into concic�nl�t,uRs. the sub`e' t- project (Casa dnl So. 3 is :• �s.aiecl
�+ 'atre:, of:`lard ioeai.��i on `the. west sine of Brookhurs : Str%Pdt app:'.�ximately 5`3;�
,
'feet Sou t•h of Hams l ton Avenue. ;
t • , r •.�
r* = 1ec�al . d�sc.r ation As 'on file in the Planning Oepa �nt Office.
�1f r41? ntere'sted• persons- are invited to attend said hearing and express their tipinions
.
' nor .ot" ai ag ;rst ,aid appeal ' Further .information may be abta ned from the pffice of
'�' y - - :,-. • i�"• � �- 71.4) 536-5226 �z
tho City ;,'erk: Zt)<1 Main Weiet, Huntington Beach, Cal ornia (
j, _•, ;; :":.;r,,'. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .
) By: :Alici4 ?i.`'-Wen�rth
City:Clerk . .
i
'+iwlli 2I7x1. x�crk: 21"a i tzoo a C-11IM16
S"- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
-32
MrA1d Nb wt
is �a Dr. sz tr*ata cim"
l ar ram, C36 ram,
Y - -_ - _ - - --- - _ _ _ .-_ - _ .. __
>IMM*W WAS Y.ammil. l9Jw"c
K���� t0lM1�t� r1_ 32�ii , •d�rwt3 , t�l. 9�4# i E�, Qi. l2ii�i
_ .-i- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -. - _ ___ _ _ _ -
2•a9"'19 .2`5 +� •I'3r-36
yd rj Map= ' LcwNali �ci
2101 YL.11� , Z��I23 ft=rA-A CLVULO 97�a X*r.-0- .l �
Ftiswtirnr i,v, PWAdl, L•A 9 e ttuoa wgt: ftfth, O1.. 9*46 ...
- - - - - -- - - - - - -
'45-191-35 ; I46:�••LS1 A
?lf !. ire i►1 tx► 21702 ftmz..Nlx tiras ' Msa ZAmifAu Dr.
iµs► �c .- � Cal. ��ed6 ; Ixmt wtm L%wh, Cl. ?X46
149-191-27 149-1 3.1M 14lS-193--i5 t�
21671 ft"antrn Mr.:!" i 22692 ftvntp 96al Lmd*an Dr o
Nux*jz gtmi sty Ok. 9264C f s�IG'�,cy .�D 'r C��, Cam. ��K r _ ' Buotingtcn_Be=b,- r 92Qf,
1496-133-26 t 1 9r ' t y t !�
YAM Paces V
'•1;6�39 wr•-,*e Clrc p, 121682 E srr. cirri i P.O. w'-c 5712
f �.czx rdn► rc:h, C14. 92 6 ; bimturban mar" Ch. 92546
M-J*Anql= Dxzb, CA. 42W
144--'j 93--A
ti i d P.�tA
RR*�'..,,iplh ai'a'"aCb' �ftvad $fliClrl
21691 !t inta CYrU- e, 121672 fts3p Clmmle 9712 CL�xtmc�lt ►�'.
Ok. 92644 � :rch, C91.- SM6 So*- t bm ftechs CA. DA"
`•I;9•-193-�, '1�9»�3w� ; .149-�:-q3 :�
I Lum Dimon
1 9M • Loci� �
Ab4kinOM fwech, CP.. S"` , t , Ch• 3 y1 , A►h�rl:iaglo�a i� Cil. 9 �9'i
f
1
F-
r • f q y
a I • rr
Ttwo
IV
lea
11 1 •• Yw 1
1 1 �
w ♦ r i� -w•
• 1 ' 1 /
• 1 ' 1 . f
• f R" f
3,. r' �1 i+a,�. F.T-t 1 •�'" „fit `.t;r• .:... ,�'SC �.fir. .I 1L,'Vr� 77,
v - fh '. ti� r i � . .• . �..�' - � '}'*,•,Tli .�'`.!,•`• r�r; e0. 1■, }- mow• , -}. t
y,t,,y. •�,+ t ..+ , 7' �',•.'kl�'+' .'Y�+! M}rl�") •ff+YJ'' 'yr/r!}M; �+1► -
rE40
» �`
..r' y -. A• ^F -■ ��, ah. !A ,. tr ySti �� `+x/.--l�F Yri�L '.R
46
lip
`s.r• " + - +: � y 1'- ',f,t:-'*'. 'Y ,`. y ' 4., t •1 wti'L•: � '► ";; r.7•--• 1 i.� �', `. �.� '� - - . -44 ' t
h =M_1
,4 W�•:M+y r ,L h•" f ^.;•t rW�[f� ...\\\\t •qS: r�i.• 1 r�t r..4 r., r t I
• _ h wti w, J'y �rIJ• 7-ll
"S"yf1 . d 'S.; . ��:•". y�.•Y■ .•! }h6�-}JyV�
.,ti '••+ y .i, <r lsa•- r 4•� r .1 M'r `SAf'f •, ��Rli' + '• _ •' �.Mt-
' t ,#- , {M +^.'N� •Y ,• .+,T�•.•..Si T h[ I•14• �4� - •'�i♦ r•}`�. .+r. �`Y 1 '1r: '�17' ` "!v% y� .,y� 'LDS
.M r r' a !'� 4 ;Y' r «` `�� R7t "�ll� ;r�,� Z �'ti r 'f . 4r. �i• ! x »4P i
JO
n • ?y r- � . �Y t� ,.,� ., p •� r:t I' �ir y-'�• r r ti,.:• ,fir �+�v _} ' i y. ,l �'•' •'YM -:
M 1 as y,. o Jrr .• ,:*• ':�•f. . r n " > ' h, r # Ir' ,
r� Y • _ i
79-5
4 un d 8 1979:t
:Page .:
•iinlarii+k+w.......aea.nrw....ct....„M•rr.:...4.w..,.w,+n,,........,,,,.. if`"S.Y
....•. ..♦•.u(••♦ .......r.r.....v..wir...1.r...wl.w .wn..liY.4^t..•....w•..T._ l.S.iAt1 J.`1..:♦Sw li' iA•It•..` • •.... .. .:r....... J....K♦....
` ' '''ENVTRONHENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to Section 15101 (k) of the California Environmental Quality.
'Act guidelines, the conversion of existing apartments to condominiums
is'•a Class l 'categorical exemption. Therefore, no environmental docu-
mentation is required on this project.
"FUNDING
Not applicable. �. ,,,. •�'�°"' '
•" 'w'w'ww.+: jog"....r�•.or.r..
.•--.+.�.4r»:nwr -rs.;c�•�'n's*�w-�•r,t�?F!'."ltrrr .,,. •....,..••.+vr�.'...►r •..,r+•- •.
•..:Tt7.1:;yttr r:.-.. A^'+1 r«.L ..!i.•+,•... ,...rw+..'••x...a..r..,. ......,+..sn:7-...o2/�vt .+G+::.�:'-C.,•::..411..;..,.Ji.w.r .....wr.a..w+v.a...+'Jw�4i.3•yfi �f�;
.i'e+�.'+w..wrwi�n.rr..•.w'..:a..+,....`.....w...e>z'krt a•a:Si.+sYio4i.SuC.:.t' •::4:x '.T
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Reverse Planning Commission ' s action and approve Conditional Use
�. Permit No. 7.9-5 and Tentative Tract 10656 . If the City Council chooses
this alternative course of action, the Planning staff •is recommending
that Council continue this matter for a two-week period in order to
j allow the staff adequate time to prepare findings and conditions of
approval .
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1, Area '14a
P
2 . Pl.ann ng. Commission staff report dated May 1, 1979
3. Questionnaire from Tenants ' Association dated May 7, 1979
4'. Letter from applicant dated May 10, 1979
5« Letter of app.ea1 dated May 25 , 1979
6 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 1 , 1979 and May 15, 1979.
`RespectA:ul.ly submitted,
ames W. Palin
Acting Planning Director
JWP:SMH:df
.t
°Yti:1
' .Y✓-iTe't+•...r.. ...N,j•S:f::•:.I.'.r;s _Sx•::..;t'f.13.►..♦•..;,t+'.,,,•.... ^v h. c-•..4 .r .. ..rf..... ..-........-...._....... ... . ♦.. . .. r ..., <. ... !'.r 1 :. �•1
�.fit i •.'j/�l� .. ,. ,
+ r
1
AfrS
14
u.w+r.au7fiNt,>"ii►S>,Ir
..
:Pei 11�.�
La
.. _..�••.�.• � 1,•..�11 �...t �LE 1A
r-t.r...Y.T_«. r1"Y- .T"•i , _l J 1 ! + !
t"J , Z� C. �•,_i_S ��.` 1 : -�_ F _..: t..�!t�Tit 1 • w .rwr. 1
+ . h
�l.l.l..1 t r _ a ; ► !�TJ1`i:�i; fl
�. 1 - S •.1.., .... � i'•[1w�1��:rTwr,w .: i i!� V
-EL •! i i ,s' 'w JS
f� ir»
LIJ
. :t .•,'+ : _) � � I � � ���'`.•�._ � -� Li•- i { 5 ,. t Wit',". � , . }_,�i '•`• _,� _j�• ,• {-,
77
HI I
-17-7m,
t } 2
�t �� _��: : � jt -rah y��•.. •—14�,
Yw.�•M.IY.NI•IwY»�MIIr.�rMV
4{ ntirtgthn c i planning'doditrrM en't,,t f.f
epo
TOs Planning 'Commission
Development Services";FROM: � •
DATE: May 1, 1979
' TENTATIVE T ? I'I' r ,
! 1,11� _ NU, .10f»G/(UNI)1: 1 TU!•IAL USE' i'l-.i?:•'.I'I' t:U. 79--5
.11PPLTt:ANT: Casa Del Sol Apartment i)r'1`i'! ACCI:P`1'CD.
Fund , Ltd .
--- �._
c/o IsdwIrrl If . Votorson , Atty . February 28, 1979
SOO S. Beach It IVd , Su i t;e It �, .
rtAND IOUY Pk0CESSING
tea Habra, t"ali.fvr;ri.a 90631. I)11TL;: 11pri1_17, 1979
LUCrI'I'TOtti: c• QSt side of Brookhurst. St. (AppIi.c, requested e..
npproxiplatel}, 060 feet south tension to t•1c-ty 1 , 1.979 .
Of Hamilton Avenue 'I,UtJI;: I13
O permit: a 34•-lot subdiv.isiotl
Of laud for t.hc purpose of cola- rI;CIt:It11L PLi1tr•
. . L'I15 High h
vcrtintj 448 `Yistinq id 1Y tial
tv condurniriun ot nc
a
r-slZ.i I) unit::.
ACREAGI.: 18. 2 a c•
l. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
The ' taff is recommending that the Planning Commission denv
' Conditional . Use Permit 79-5 and Tentative Tract 10656 based on 'the
::�. .r• ' . number of ,deficiencies of the existing project in relationship with
the planned Residential Development Ordinance. An alternative
course :of action would be to request that the "appliclnt concur 'with
a continuation of uaid application until the Planning Commission
#` = has time. to review and possibly develop trade--off criteria which '
would allow for conversion of such projects within the City.
2 0 GENERAL INFURMATI'N:
Conditi.onal Use . Permit No. 79-5 in conjunction with Tentative Tract
,
No. 10656 '.'is a request for the conversion of a 448--unit apartrriont
,.:. :.
building to be converted to . condominiums for the purpose of selling
t ridiyid' ownership of each unit. " The proposed project is located
bn' . the 'W'0st : si'dp of Drookhurst Street approximately 660 feet south
of,:Hamilton• Avenue. This apartment complex; which was built in
`�,'� 1959/1970, consists of •.336 one--bedroom units and I12 two-bedreiom
14ay .. 1 .1Q79
Page
�2
�r units ' Amenities lnclud i t 'r •n e n this p-of _ct are _ swimming pools,
a recreation building , large central greenbelt area with fish- ponds
'and fountains , laundry rooms and storage facilities in each of the
buildings.
3 0 SUM14ARY OF ISSUES:
After review .of this project, the staff has identified the follow-
ing issues of concern :
14 The existing project is deficient approximately 30 percen : in
.: the required parking for a planned residential. development.
2. There is approximately a 40 percent deficiency in the commor.
open space requirement.
3 . . One-third of the existing units do not have private open .space
that complies with the Planned Residential Development ordinance.
.. P
4 . Both of the existing entranceways are substandard in relation
to the Planned Residential. Ordinance , which requires 48-foot
entrances for a minimum of 100 feet into the project.
5. The existing building hulk" exceeds that permitted by the Planned
Residential Ordinance.
6 . The existing carports are not set back the required five (5)
feet from the travel lanes .
7. The subject project presently has carports existing at zero '
interior property line, which is not permitted.
4 .0 SNVIRON�` ENTAL STATUS:
' Pursuant to Section 15101 (k) of the California Environmental Quality
Act- the conversion of existing apartments to condominiums is a
Class I categorical exemption . Therefore , no environmental documenta-
tion i.s required on this project.
5. 0. SURROUNDING LIANn. USE, ZONING , A14D GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The subject site is located on the west: side of Brookhurst Street
approximately 660 feet south of Ham;.lton avenue and is presently
zoned • R3, medium high density residential.. The subject: site is pre--
sehtly developed with a 448-rani+_ apartment complex and is desigtiated
on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as high density residential.
The :properL-y located to the north of the sul1ject site is also zoned
I2;, desig:nateO on the general plan as High density residential, .ard. '
is- developed with an apartment complex. The properties located to the :<
south and the west of the subject site are zoned RI, low density
residential , ldeslgrated on the general plan as low density residential.,
and developed with single- -family residential units. Located across
Brookhb rst to the east of the zubject 'site talc 'property is presently
zoned �t3, dQsignaLed on the genc�a:. l p13» as hic7h density residentialf-
+,: •,and .currently vacant of development.
r ,`.
1' t•
f .. 79
T �5
My 1979
x'age: ' .
�STATISTl CAL ,ANALYSI:i ;
,11 6•:.1 'hint giber' ;of Units :its : 448
6 2 Araa --o£' Project: 18. 2 Acres y;
;5 9 3 24441 Units per Cross Acre
ti
6. 4' ,Building T�r�e: One-Bedroom -• 336 units - approximately 750 and
760 square feet
Two-Bedroom - 112 units - approximately 1100 square
feet
Bedrooms per Gross Acre •• 30 . 76
o.5' . Site 'Coverage. (Allowable - 50 percent) 32 percent
5 •Corinion open Space: (Required - 268 , 000 square feet) '
Provided -- 162, 000 square feet
6 :7 Parking : (Required - 95� spaces; Pi• )vided -- 733 spaces
7. 0 SUBDIVISION COM ITTEE:
The Subdivision Committee reviewed this project on March 29 , 1979.
In 'attendance at :that meeting were representatives of the Fire
Department, the Department of Public Works, plann:&ng Department, and
'the'-Planning Commission was represented by Commissioner Bazil.
The, Fire Department indicated that all of the existing travel lanes
which'- presently have a minimura of 24 feet would meet their require-
:;1: : : ments, foremergency, access. However, they indicated that their
records in,dicated that several water mains within the existing pro-
i : ject .were . located : beneath the existing structures and'.that problem
'• would have to be resolveu .f 01le project were converted to condominiums.
Also pointed out by the Fire Department was the need for fire hydrants
onsite.
{ ' 'he Depa:ztment of Public. Storks indicated that no parkit;g °would -be
• 1 .... .. .1..,".
allowed �nn Brookhurst Street, which presently .exists. The Department
of Public Works did not identify any other major, prcblems' with the ..
existing •project. :
i The .:Plannincg 'bepartment identified a number of : problems eith. tYie pro-.
t �f ' Ject''in relatictl to the cdnversioh to condominiums . . :These . problems
inclii ed�' deficiency. fn parking, 3eficiency in open spare ,both private
and .;cormon rind the exceedin of the ermined buildih bulk. The
r g permitted 9 .
`Plerininq- Department representative it)formed the"Subdivision .Committee
tha'c the: apphicant ,had•.applied for.'specsial ; permits with .rega'rd to`*
ahes� .deficiencies.
` TT r06.56/C*1J.P. 79�-5
May .�.► 1979
Pa. P ge .4
The ' ppl.ieant displayed an alternative site plan that would modify
the existing parking layout and would provide parking to meet the
requirements of the code. lie indicated that this proposal would
eliminate some of the existino landscaping that is located adjacent
to. the existing drives and parking areas . lie request.c.d that the
Subdivision Committee make a recommendation on its preference to
either maintain the existing parking level and retaiie 'the existing
landscaping or eliminate some of the landscaping to provide additional
parking spaces . Commissiorer Basil stated that he would prefer to
see the reduced number of parking with the additional landscaping;
however, it would be a decision of the full Conunission as to which
plari would be preferable. The applicant stated that he would present
the alternative to the Commission at the public hearing for its
decision.
8. 0 ANALYSIS :
The ,proposed project has a, number of deficiencies in relationship to
Ar-icle 936 (Planned Resi6,:?nt:_.al Development) of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code. Th-,se deficiencies were identified under
Summary of Issues , Section 3. 0, of this staff report . The applicant
.` . has requested that the Planning Commission grant special permits in
order to deviate from the pazt.Lcular requirements .
The first major deficiency with the proposed project is in the number
of parking spaces . This complex presently has 733 spaces - 504 covered
spaces and 229 open spaces. Under Article 936 this project is
requi;,: d 9�? spaces , of which 448 must he covered while the remaining
504 can be oven. This would provide 1 . 5 spaces for each of the one-
bedroom units and 2 spaces for ea^h of the two-bedroom units, with an
additional one-half space per unit for guest parking . The applicant
has developed two alternatives to the existing parking plan that would
either provide full parking requirements or additional spaces at
approximately 50 percent of the deficiency.
Common open space is also a major deficier1r.
-y with the subject project' s
relationship to Article 936 , This ordinancL requires a ratio .of 600
square feet of open space per unit , which would require 268, 800 square
feet of open space. The existing project presently has approximately
162 , 000 square feet of open space , which is approximately 40 pF_rcent {
below the minimum requirement. Also deficient is the private: op%n
space. The code requires that a one-bedroom unit:, be provided %-,.Lth
200 square feet of private patio; area and the two--bedr4:,m units be a
" provided with 250 square . feet of patio area. These patios must . have
a minimum dimension of 10 feet. Second and third story units c"n be
provided with a balcony at a ratio of 60 5quare felt for a one-Laedroom
unit with -a minimum dimension of 6 feet, and 120 square feet for -0e
t.wo-bedroom 'units with a minimum dimension of 6 feet. The existing '
v tios for. the ground-flour unit-es will meet t} a minimum requirements;
howeverl those balconies located on the second floor only 1:a-,e an
area 'of aopro.ximately 58 squ-ire feet with a minimum dimension of 4
feet. We balconies located on the third floor all have a ;iiinimum
a;mension 'of 6 feet and met':. ;.t:.� minimum s�i�aarc� footage requirement.
All .�f i.hc. balcw �A.- s on the second and third floors are located over
�.i�e y��ouf�d-floor patios .
. TT ]._656,11C:.Iiq*p. 79-5
Mati' 'i, 1979
Page 5
Article 936 requires tlih;.it nro more than a -uni.ts side-by-side bQ
located in any one buif.diny and that any .-wo-story building have
at least one-third of the building not located over one-story,
and that three-story buildings have not less than the building over .
two-story. Th(.. r;uhject project. is predomi.,antll three-story
buildings with approximately 48 units per building and no two-story
element within, that stru.:ture. Two of the bui.ldinvs onsite are
two-story and have 32 units t:'i tlh no one--story element attached in
it.
Other def..i.ciencies in the project included a lac): of the required
5-foot setback of the c-ai-ports from the travel lanes , the main
en trances do not provide L•h•- two ( 2) 12--foot travel lanes in either
direction penetrating into the project for a minimum of 100 feet,
and the location of var ports bli i 1 t: at zero setback along the westerly
property line.
Because at the present tirxj the City does not have an ordnance to
allow for the convera:.on of exist:i.nq apartments into condominiums ,
this project must meet i %o saute A-equireTtcent~s as a new development.
Therefore: , other than 0c posoible rede_; i Lin of the parking facilities,
it is very difficult and c nsLly to i-r.,kc ;Major alterations to this
project in odder to briz,.l it into cot,for.mance with the present ordin-
ance. The staff concurs that th..: above - ment;ioneci deficiencies are
of significant concern and th,-� c. iteria used for grunting of special
permits are not met; the rc:I`nr��, the st�af:f ' s r.eccii nendation is to
deny said conditional u_:e and tuntati.ve tract.
If the P1e nni.ng Commission feels that the conversion of existing
apartments to condominiums will provide for a much-needed housing
stock in the City and will add to the social ameni.tier, of the City,
then the alternative course of action would be for the Planning Coin- j
mission to request from the applicant a continuance of time on the `
proposed project until the Planning Commission can develop criteria
by which complexes such as this one can be convartod to condominium
units. if the applicant is not wi?ling to concur with a continuance
'of the project , the Commission should tl-ny the project without
prejudice in order to allow the applicant. the ability to refile the
conditional use permit and tentative tract within less than a one-
year period oL t+ime . ti
9. 0 RECOW-1ENDATION:
Based on the above inforr.tation the staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission deny Tentative Tract No. 10656 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 79-5 .,ith the following findings :
FINDINGS :
1. The existing development does no:: conform to the provisions �
contained it Artier.- 935 of the Huntington Leach Ordinance
Code insofar as : a) the existing parking its approximately 30 j
percent. below lthtt required parking; b) the existing common y
open space is approximately 40 percent below the requirements;
c) approximately on-s-tliird of the dwelling units do not have
rO6S6%G:TU.P. .79--5
=May It 2.979
Page• 6
private open space that complies with the ordinance; d) the
existing . building bulk exceeds chat permitted by ordinance;
e) the two main entrances do not comply with the rerluiremeiits .
set forth in Article 936 ; f) the existing project has carports
at a zero setback along the east property line which is nod
„ permitted under the PRD Ordinance.
2 . The request for special permits is not consistent with the ob-
jectives of the planned unit development standards in achieving
a development adapted to the terrain and compatibl with the
surrounding environment.
` 10.0 SUPPORTING .INFORMATION:
1 . Tentative 'Tract No. 10656 , dated February 26 , 1.979
2 . Site Plan dated January 29 , 1979
3. Minutes. of the Subdivision Committee, March 29, 1979
4 . Area Map
RB d f
Si
, n
• t
HUNTIZIGTON BEACH SUBDIVISION C.:OR4171't"Is '
Gloom U-7, Civic: *Center t:
' 2000 thin .Street
Huntinclton leach, Califovniii
;.
Ill URS DAY,_ :�IINRCH.- `3,_ 1979 fi : 30
COMMIS fC% El' PR SENI'll: BaziI
STAFF PRESENT : Palin, Bellavia, Ott_ , Crosby , itenrfa, Worthy
TENTATIVE :'RAC7-`P 10656
Anr-jic:ant Ed Peterson
Chuck Clayton (o,vner. and (jencral partner) , William Mahoney (repre--
sentinq owner) , if:.d :'eter on ( representiIag owner) , and Fra11K
Richardson (V170 present: to represent the applicant .
Mr. Bel .lavia ,tatted that this wcis the first project for review
for the conti'ersion of gar, existing apartment co.-uplex into a
concicminiti.m project . The proponents showed sl.ideti of the emist-ng
project with emphasis on the following:
Casa de Sol - 449 units existing
Large greenbelt through middle of U% project.
.Ample open areas bet oen bui.ldin-Is
Majority or the, bui.Jdings are throe story, sort;-;, two story
structures
One and t:wc bedroom units
Landscaping throughout interior wal}:;,rays
Each unit has its own balcony or patio
. ' Covered carports
Exi stincl drive around peri meter of the 1;ro j ec:t.
Ample guest parking (90 degree and parallel )
Greenery throughout parking area
Open spare hetween areas down the center of the project
Ponds with fountains
': . .
Large recreation area; i. i:. , two s��imrnincl ponls , dec}: 4hai rs,
barbecue area , . lounrJe chairs , �ainq ponr_, tables , volleyball court
Recreatir_-a room containing television , pool tables , qym-exercise ;� ?
: room, sauna., etc. l
Mr. Bellavia stated that the applicant had iilod a conditional Use
' permit: in conjunction with Tent,
Tract: 10fi5G and has �71so
requested a special permit to relieve requi re-nionts Co ; existitz(I
buidlifig :bulk',which exceeds ei.ghtt unit; per building . He further
:aated that the :13roject; w-as shrirt in open Space requirements ,
trherefore, a., special pii;�rmitt War requited for- this deficiency.
F'oIJ. owing are -,di.mersir)ns fox' private open spice areas per: unit
lcc . as. or -patios) .
"�' - yV
minutes : fJ. H. SUbW..ijon C'ommi. trt,ee
Thr.rsllay, April 29 , 1979
Pace Tutu
two story units have a gross floor area of 53 square feet of
private open space area
second, floor has 86 square feat
third story
first floor has 53 square feet-
second floor has 53 :square feel:
third floor has 86 square feet
Mr. Peterson stated that the ground floors have open space area
beyond concrete patio which is enclosed by a small fence . It:
was noted that the two-bedroom units had a balcony for each bedroom
1-tnd thut the total. square: footage for both balconies is 155 square
feet. The three-;story tun) t•c have 56 sclu,:rre feet on second story and
6D square feet on second stary i ., required, therefore, ca shortage
cf 4t square feet exist:; or► these units . Mr. Pet•erso, further
said that the third and Nr:st_ floor- u,`tit5 in the three-story
structures meet code requirements .
Mr. Jim Pali.n St:It-ed ti,at would hav,a to be r.lace on
the cormtor, open spec e arc!as . I,r. Bellavita noted that the proposal
is ?0-?5 p1_-rcent deficient in ovcr.ai.l oven space .
It: was note:l that parki.r_(..r tar, cieticient.. The applicant ' s
representatives noted i•.hut_ parkinq could be Uroijollt to code
rr:quirern ,—.s , ho::ev�_?r, sc�►r:e oPe�n :;;mc e, would be lost . The appli-
c_;ant presented two ciiff'c�r�::nt. n1:3ns cic�pi.ct�inca t.he'. open space,
deficiency with :t:rrple p7rkinq and the other plan depicted temple
I_-trki.ng with a .loss :i.r open c.p:•jce . Mr. Bel lavia stated that the
Plarrninq Department has not ► ecc:ived ctalC'uinted J7l%.ins as yet and
would read to review +•tiese, p.lar.s to calculate patio areas and
balconies as well as parking and open space: . �
Mel. Ott . representing the Fire nepartrtont. , st'at•.eci that the proposal
must have three fire: hydrant::; on-site. He further.- noted that the
existinc_. water- mci; n construction is currently l.oc.rted underneath
the parking st• =cture , anti sho►tici be r-elor_�:t:ed under drives . Mr.
Ott analyzed „e; buildings t-herrrsc:Il.ves , undler current standaras , to
be spr. inklered based on distance from dri .�e arnd square footage
from third floor.. He noted the need for a 150 foot around �
r floor. pearimetor ,access ur-• ve and the existing „ horseshoe drive" 1
would require somz► radius rorr•a-c.t i on.
Mr. . Clayton , the gene:Z,, r?:irt.ncr and o nur of the (.::ise del Sol 1
apartments, statrad that ;~when thur project was constructed in 1.970 ,
I
it Was built to co•ie r.oclui.rerr►ent:s , f•Jr. . :';i_i: informed Mr . Clayton
that Fire Safety Code has changed in '.hat period of: time . Mr-. ;
Ott reiterated t;:.at a hydrant must exist within 150 A.
feet. of each �
structure and that currently the hydrant: is removed in excess
of 500 - 600 feet: from the str•ttctures ,at: soinne psi nt. �
. i
i
.�
I r.utes : 11. 13. Sub i.; ion Comm, ! t,tee
Thursday : April 29 979
Pa ja Three
( ' Mr. Bruce Crosby . representing the Department of Public Works ,
stated that the Traffic Engineer ccarmiented that narking would
have to be prohibited along Brookhur.st Street . Current ingress
and egress off. of Brookhurst onto the project was discussed.
It was noted that the Project, currently was lim- Led to adults
only. Mr. Peterson stated that the rar.ojer_t is not oriented
towards children and that the covenants and agrcaim?nt would
reflect same.
Mr. Mahoney nate:d that the parking spaces. --e-re located approxi-
inately 20 feet within the living units .
Cominti.ssioner. Baz i l realized ;.he rieocl of aif_foi:dable housinn. and
also realized the sshort:Qge oC rentals . He ghat a con-
of a. .,•1 •7 .'7 r �, T. 1
version of 4h.i.s si .,e o.. a . t.►nent: units ,:iu:,t lac. looked at
Fa
carcfu.11y as not to creat:: any rental short:rlc_re . Mr . Peterson
honed that some existing ton ant:_, :would raul-c:hase the unit th/_ %
Were livir,cg in, thereby not put:tin(j too many people out of their
homes,
Sound ,attenuation was Mr. Mahoney sLated rh=at three
dif. Brent companies., have soi:nd and found at t. nuri ,:ion
to be itcleuclrate to meet: 'Pi. t.l e 2:)' r�:�qu i.r c::;c::at:> . Ho added t hat-
e proof of tee-LiIi'_1 woulci b,.:. provided fief" th;.' Plann.ing Coi;Uiilsslonl s
review .
M.r. 1t�:11c3V'_�� SUI.;qE`_:;.-Cci i h(2 Pl�inn ; nO t oui- th(_. facilities
to get a first:-hand .Look at the.• 1_ ropo�al .
Par.Jriq tliiS again discussed . It: was eiotcdf that •,)52 parking spaces
were required tc br .i.ng the prca_jec:t i.p toc:c�cie , how vel: , 733 parking
Sp�3CC s Clrri"gilt.l y exist. I t. was no i.od, that the project
contained a large, n':iiibc':r of or'e-'bedrooii: 11n.i t:Z . Coifimis:s.ioner B azi l
could not maYc a recommendation tea the argt.l icant: whether it would
be bei:ter to be deficient in parki nci or ()nirri space, he stated this
must be discussed by tho enticcs Corruiii ssion .
The security sys;to�,, rarc�r>nsed a;as discus:;c:d. Mr. Norm Worthy,
Recreation acrid Parks l?epartin;_,nt , mr ade the applicant 'I'aare or possible
park fees because of bringing ;iddi. t.ior.•_li people int:ca the City if
the conversion we, e approved . Fees are based on $ G , 000 pr_r acre.
The units are currently renting for one bcdroor:i units $310--; 315
and two bedroori:s - $ 395 - $405 . The pro j oc,teo sei li riot price bascd
can market studi.c:s will rancre in the vicinity af ;70 , 000 _. $80, 000
depending on unit.
Storage Space is available foi- t:hosc— aishing to irakO flat' Of tht?ttl.
P.i o jetted Planning Commis.-ion mecting Gate_, were discussed .
TO: YLA11NING COMMISSION
FROM: "CASA DEL SQL RE."ITERS ASSOCIATION AGAINST CONVERSION".
DATE: 7tk: N-AY 19750
1. This is a pet:.tion signed by tenants at "Casa Del Sol"
regarding our proposed rent increase as of 1st May 1979.
2. Because of the time element we have utilized this petition
and inserted a Telephone and Personal. Contact survey.
3. It is true that about 30� of the original petition
regarding "Rent Increcse" had been signed before any
of its knev about the proposed Conversion.
Q. This survey was done to give you the Planning Commission
some idea about how we the renters here at Casa Del Sol
feel about the; proposed conversion.
This survey was also done because Casa Del Sol Owners ,
Attorney indicated at the Piannisi6 Cotruniss;ions3 May 1st
1V79 meeting, that thoze :igntint; the "Rent Increase
Petition" were not aware of what they were signing.
6. This is an honest survey with telep:ione numbers indicated
where available.
I
'j. We are also aware that you are dealing with the proposes
conversion to Condominiums and not our Rent Increase.
. � '1'.NT1NC3T0N ac/'Clq
PLANNING DEFT.
14AY r► J 1919
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Such, CA 9,2648
OESTIONS ASKED:
1. . . . . How Long have you lived at Casa Del. So17
Would you buy a condominium at Casa Del Sol
is they were converted.
3. . . . . Reasons Why or Why Not?
i
1
.1
'.9
i
' 11
S
i
't
i
REC:1.Y OF SURVEY:
gUEST.IuN flow long; have ,you lived at Cana Del Sol?
LESSTHAN Ot;E YEAR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
1. Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . .:6
i
2 YEARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3 Yh:Any. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 Y EARS 10
4
w . • • • • • . • • • . 6
6 Y EA.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7 YEARS
dY-Ea:tS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 TEA 1 S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
-
253 TOTAL I'U"B.''.'R StJR{VEYEU.
5
_._._�. r..�.•.�a•r»rrrrr�rrWti�Y�rY1lyL+'.
RECAP OF SURVEY:
(ZUES`i'ION : WOULD YOU BUY A CONDOMINUll AT "CASA liE , SOL"
IF IT WEWE CUNVEHTED?
SAID "NO". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
SAID "YES"• • • . . . . . . . . . . 17
253 TOTAL SURVEYED.
REASONS WHY 17 SAID "YES".
1 Bedroom if 30 thousand. . . . . . . , * , 2
1 Bedroom it 4:1 thousuna. . • a . . • • • . 5
1 Bedroom if' 70 ttiouuand. • • • • • • . • • 4
1 Bedroom if 60 thouuund. • • • • • • . . • c
1 Bedroom if 60 thuusana. . . . . . . . . . 1
I am an oilman. . . . . . . . . .
If the price whs right. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
17 SAID "YES .
� s
1
k,
T
t
4
r
y
1
RECAP Oi SURM:
QUESTION : Reasons by not:
REASuh.S WfiY �3b aaid "NO" Tfi-�Y �OULI) NUT BUY A CONlYJI�AINIUI4.
NOT SUITABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Ckli 'T AFFORD IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
NOT AUK,4ATF. . . . . . . 26
NOT INTER.EbTSI) If,, COil D.,M!Ii IUb' • . • r . • • • 20
BUILDIfi G 11, P00a CvN L1`t'ivh. . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TUONTOIS�Y1.r �.. *.} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . 12
BAD
THEY WILL b:: TOO EX! tASIYI . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
RIDICULOUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . 2
��D��ON�°T `KNOW AKUT CONWMINIUMS. . . . . . . . . 11
UNLESS I MDROO:, �AS ;t.) ThuUSAN D $. . . . 1 �
UM,6SS 1 Bt:jiiO UM WAS, 30 TiA'UuSAN D 9
UNLESS 1 BEDROOM WAS 40 Tli0b:3Al-L a• . . . 13
UNLESS 1 bEDR,)0h1 WAS aL n`l UUSAND So . . . 6
236 OTAL SAID "NO".
CASA DEL SOL ",PARTME'NT FUDID , LTD .
Yjay 10 , 1979
Mr. Savoy I.I. Bellavia C.".0
Planning and Environmental t tj
Resources Department PLANNING DEPT.
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street r t�i�Y 11 19r'
Huntington Beach, California 92646
Box 194
Dear Mr . Bellavia : Fluntin;;t ..ti i?L3C1r► CA 9264P
Re : CUP No . 79-5
Tract No . 10656
Casa del. Sol
The following is a summary of IDur comments and information whirr
was discussed or requestt�d by the Planning Staff or the Planning
Commission . we feel that this inforrn&ition, submitted in writing ,
will be helpful to the Staff and to the Commission in preparation
for the continued hearings on May 15 , 1.979 .
1 . Procedures and Timis
Our first contact with the City was in July of 1979 when we
contacted the then Director , Mr . Edward D. fie advised us �
of the path by which we could pursue, a condominium conversion in r
Huntington Beach, Later in the year , after some preliminary studies
had been made and plans obtained , we me'L. with Mr. Palin. To deter--
mine ho:•1 the project matched up with :article 936 , we agreed :.o do
a preliminary plan check , and paid for: the extra time of the City
employee to do this work . The preliminary Flan check determined
some deficiencies under Article 93G . Ile were advised by the Staff
of the procedures to follow , namely , fi.'e a tentative map , an
application for a Conditional Use Pi-xmi.t, and a request Wider Section
9367 for a Special Permit regardinq the dc-ficiencies . The Planning
Staff, Mr. Pal.in , Mr. Del.lavia , '.fr. Martinez and others Ir,-rve been a
pleasure to work with and have been very helpful as they directed
us in the City process and procedures.
Now, however, at this late elate , alter having int•rsted much time and
a large amount of money , following the approved procedures , the
City Att:orney ' s office advises that another proce-lure should be
followed. They admit that✓ the present process is not improper nor
illegal. , but that another procedure- is preferable .
We submit that her:ri.ny relied on the existing procedures for several
,-nonths , takina the: process, step.) by step , that it would now be
I
Mr . Savoy M. Bal.lavia
May 10 , .1.979
Paae Two
extremely u.:j us t to change the pr.oc:etlures as rei;u i red- .for this
project. if a ne•�a contversi:ln ordinance is planned, those now
inquiring of the process could be sr advised and not be led to
follow a process to their detriment and loss .
i
Ile therefore ask that this pro iect , which is :so far into the
process , be allowed to proceed under the existing procedures .
This procedure does give the City the control needed and , in Alact,
will be a good i t%de to help fashion a new conversion ordinance .
Proposal
Ile propose , r'ieref :.'C that project be approved using
the present procedures to give control and conditions desired
by the City.
2 . Deficiencies U ider. Article 936
It has been acknov.,ledc;ed that Cass: del. Sol is one of the nicest:
apartment complexes in th( City . if ever there ti:e:e a situation
suitable for conversion , this should 1,c it . Of' the deficiencies
addressed b; the Staff , c11Riost all are corr',ctab: e . in
insta:ICes it would not t)'J wise no , des-i r" bl,--,' I o Itlake the ccr-
rectlons Xerel.y to meet the present ordinance rCtlllll't?iIi'Ilt:i at:
the expr.nse of the esthetics of the project , or rather nice features .
The Special Permit would be a correct procedure to control this .
A. Parking
We have provided three parking plans for consideration.
1 . The exist. '•ci parkin(; , eont:aininc; :
504 covered , 229 open , 733 tc,tal parking spaces .
The parking is quitc, adequate for tilt? complex and would h
probably be adequate for the conversion as the lar(*le number of one
bedroom apartments would often need only one car parking , whi*, put---
che.sed by single people or older couples .
2 . A elan -providirlq for. the full nul .bor- of. p arlinc; paces,
required b ti7 y e o; :.z.nance containing :
504 covered , 456 open, 960 total parki�ay _ipacc•s .
This plan would re-alicin the driver on the puritmeter ,
rei�la::ing some parallel parking �:it1a }ac'r�,c:::dictrl;:z- parkin.-
a, It door,
eliminate landscaping anti trees on the perimr .Acr.
5
1
i
mr. Savoy M. Sellavia
May 10 , :.9;9
Page Three.
3 . A modified Mari which contains :
504 covered , 343 open , 846 total parking spaces .
This plan re-aligns some of the drives , adds some
perpendicular parking , but retains Large trees and a great deal
of the lands.-aping which gives the beauty to the perimeter of
the project . This plan would also provide for the four lane
entry ways as required by the: ordinance .
P:oposal.
We propose that the modified parr.ing plan b` approved which would
give more than enough parking and would not detract: from the existing
beauty and design of the project . 'Phis can be approved by a Special
Permit.
B. Conuion Open Space
i
The project is deficient in common open space as required
by Article 936 . It is ironic that if the project had slightly less
open space , bringing the ratio to 25 units per acre (ratoer than
existing 24 . ? it would cor*ic: much closer to the requirements .
the ) l
3
In any event , a visit to the project quickly shows that one of the
fine qualities of the design of the complex is its open feelint, and
abundance of open , leisure and recreation areas . Additional open
areas to merely meet the Codu could be__p.rovided such as openir.cl the
tops of: the carport areas , etc . , G` create more problems
in o".her areas . (See the dicusssion belo�•r t n the proposal to tdd
tennis courts , etc. over parking structure- - pago- 5.
Proposal
We -propose that the existing com. on open ,pace be approved by
SL-ecial Permit.
C. Private ORen Space
!
The balconies of the second floor units in the three story
buildings only , are Short of the required space. All other balconies:
and patios meet or exceed the reuui.rements . The situation can be
corrected by extending the width of said second floor=balconies, .
7'hi5-T-Et,Lver , would alter the t: sthetsic:, , e_c.tiat:ions ; and d(.algIt of
the buildings , mcrely to meet the ordinance. As a practical matter
such balconies are used and are sufficient- .
Proposal
f
We propose that the c:{fisting privato open space be approved by
Mr. Savoy Ii. Bellavia
May 10 , 1979
Page Four
Special Permit.
L' . Four Lane Entry
A four lane entry for the requirea . : stance tiro_ uld be
provided in the modifi-M parkins; plan as de5L ;-:.bed on page 3 .
E. Building Hulk
The requirement of number of units and a ratio of 3 , 2 and
1 story buildings cannot be met.
Proposal.
We propose that the existinct building bald: be approved by
Special Permit.
F. Carport Set Back
This deficiency pertains only to the carports at. the very
rear of the project . There is space between the traffic laties and
they arkinq areas but it ma • not. technically ji,,oetr the Ordinance
' p i .t
requirements .
Proposal
Ile propose that the carport .yet backs be approved by Special
Permit .
i
C. Carport on Rear Lot Line
This deficiency pertains only to too parkinq, at the very
rear of the project along the rear lot line. . Trio Staff has i" ter--
preted the ordinance which allows "garages" on zero lot lines as �
to include "carports" . This dof.iciL;•,ry cyan be corrected by
enclosing those rear carports . '1'hzsi,�oiild nat big ciesiraUle pis
enclosed garages encourage clttt;tcr�• , :tor n`^Est d hazards . The exis--
ting pa_king structures with their ease oi. maintcnance and upkeep
allows for an exceptionally clean and attfact:.ive parking area .
Pro�osa 1
We propose that: the existing carper. is on the rear lot be approved y
Gaither by interpre .ing the term "garage" to : ncl.udr "carports" or by
allowing with the Special "crrlit..
Summary J
In almost all cases the defic leri.Aes can he ;tte.t , but suggest �
f
Mr. Savoy 1M. Bellavia
:�irAy 10 , 1979
Page Five
that good planning practice would involve using the Special
Permit process to alloy: acceptance of. the deficiencies and the
modifications as proposed , to continue with an attract _ve , well
Icept project .
3 . Information Requested by Commission Members.
A. Plan for S% Dorin Payment for Tenants
The owner will provide the opportunity for existing tenants
to purchase the units with as little as 500 dot•?n , by carrying bark
secondary financinct £cx- substantial period . This plan would be
subject to governmental regulation and approval by the source of
primary financing . Such secondary financing would contain no pre-
payment penalties , allowing i, n be cleared off earlier if desired.
` B. Lease-Option
i
As an alternate plan to reduce the down payment to tenant, ,
the owner will provide a plan o,: lease-option , which woi-, i.d allow
a tenant to lease with an increased rental for a period (12-18
months) with the option to have a substantive por+pion of the rental
payments applied toward the down payment . This plan would give
i } _ P f Y p
the tenants a chance to build a full down payment while living in
the unit.
C. Parki.ng Structures-Recreation
i
It has been requested that we look into the possibility of
changing the parkinr3 structures to provide such roof-tots recreation
as tennis courts , otc: . Our investigations into this determines
thi- not to be practical , due to the d:isign of the living units
which are in close proximity to the parking areas . A different
Larking structure , with recreation on top , would cut off light and
visibility to the units behind such structures . Also the lights ,
accoustics , noise of playing at-•' spectators , would be disturbing
to adjoining living units , pres.:ntring more neyati.ve results for
more tenants , than the: rosit.i.ve benefits for a few tenants and the
increased costs would increase the price of the unit , defeating tha
intent to provide "affordable housing" . Therefore , due to these
problems and a major changing of the appearance of the complex, it
appears not feasible to consider major changes of the pa-.king
structures to accomodate such recreation facilities .
D: Assistance in Relocation
The owner will prov-ide a service to tenants who desire
' not to purchase the: units , to relocate therm in ether areas of the
t
Mr . Savoy M. Be l lavia
play 10 , 1979
Page Six
complex, not then for sale , or to o'.:her rental units in the area.
Som--one on the premises will be in touch with other projects in
area to keep advised of vacancies in the area which are available .
E . Moving Expense
The owner is willing to reimburse receipted moving
expenses , not to exceed on_: month ' s rent, for those tenants who do
not purchase units , and agree to remain in their unit until it is
sold as a condominium.
F . Handicapped and Senior. C i ti:ens
For handicapped and S011i.0I" Cit= LZOTIS whn CIO not purchase ,
in addition to the moviny expense roimbursoment , the o..;ner is
willing to reiriburse receipted pac;;in,.r expense , not. to exceed one
month ' s rent , for these %.rho agree to re:_-,iin in their unit until it
is sold as a con3ominiurn.
G. Di icoun4 for. Tenants
For tenants desiring to pur. ch� :�u their unit:3 , the owner
will provide a preference in pur:chta.;i ncl the-ir own unit, a preference
in purchasing other unit:, not selected by the tenant , and a price
lower than that available Lo nor.-tenants . `flit, discDurit would be
equal to half of the sales e:ommisssi.on that would usually be given
to sell the unit. Other discounts or al.-.owarces would be available
for tenants who would riot like to nave their unit refurbished prior
to the sale . This; discount or allowance: %•could be in relation to the
refurbishing costs . '
H . Price of Units
At a Subdivision Conuni.ttec i-hotting , %•.hen as%eel to estimate
the proposed price of the. units , we indicated that the actual price
would be related to the market price at the time of sale . The units
obvious1v would not sell unless trey are comparable in price to the
other housing offered at that time . A study will be conducted to
determine the proper price of the units . At the Subdivision Com-
mittee , when pressed for ,a price range , c.,e indicated that $70 , 000 to
$80 , 000 would be our estimate . These figures hay.-� been quoted %-.idcly,
without reference to ou17 coiranents on the market price . A more de-
tailed study of the situation at this time leads us to conclu0c
that the marketmay be cicser to the $60 , 000 . OG to $70 , 000. 00 r.-arute.
The larger two bedroom would be at the top of the rancid, with the
bulk of the units , being one bedroom, falling in the iower ranges .
Mr . Savoy 'M. Bellavia
May 10 , 1979
Page Seven
I . Maa.tgage Payments vs . Rent
The following are based on 111- interest for 30 years on
the First Trust Deed .
$60 , 000 . 00 Down Down Monthly '�a ment
209,, $121000 . 00 '�;469 . 00
1.0% $ 6 , 000 . 00 f,514 . 00
5% 3 , 000 . 00 $542 . 00
$70 , 000 . 00 20jl *14 , 000 . 00 $533 . 00
1M, $ 7 , 000 . 00 S596. 00
5, $ 3 , 500 . 00 $630. 00
Note that in com arino rent With mortgage payments the dollars are
not the same . 'tent payments are gune ! Mort(rtage payments not only
build up equity , and Inortcjage payments are fixed for the life of
the mortgage , but the i.nterest payments , which' are higher at the
front end of the mortgage , and real property taxes , are tax deductible.
Therefore , the effective mortuage, payment is considerably less , de--
pending on the oviners ' tax bracket . In addition , the benefits of
appreciation in value are available to an owner.
If. Tenant SurVG.f
At such an early date when units a.e not actually available
and prices not yet actually fixed , and given the transient nature
of the tenants , any kind of a survey on tenants ' intent to purchase
would not be valid. This is especially true of: the survey merely
asking the owner of a ono bedroom unit "are, you willing to pay
$700000 . 00 to $80 , 000 . 00 for this unit?" The answer is likely to
be "no" , without the full program proposed .
I . Vacancy factors
The "vacancy factor" often quoted is not a true factor in
itself . In apartments , the high rate of turnover means that more
apartments are available for use; than a "vacancy factor" alone would
indicate . In Casa del Sol , our experience shows that since January 1 ,
1979 , 141 , or 31% of the apartments have changed tenants . Since
January 1978 , or 17 months , 298 , or 2/3 of the apartments have
changed tenants .
4 . Conclusion
We, therefore , request that the proposed conversion project
Mr. . Savoy IM. Bellavia
May 10 , 1979
Page Eight
be considered under the existing procedures , and that our pro-
posals regarding the deficiencies be approved . With the additional
benefits offered to the tenants , this project- will provide moderate
priced dousing for a se(Tment of the population that cannot now
otherwise afford to purchase i.n the city . The large number of one
bedroom units will enable the single , divorced , widowed , recently
married and older couples to take advantage of ownership where
they presently cannot .. t•7i th the option to apply rents to build a
down payment , oprortunities will be opened for many to enjoy home
ownership th:;' otherwise will never be able to.
We , therefore , request this project be approved as proposed.
CikSA DEL SOL APART TENT FUND LTD.
R� L•--i�r...,.-r j ill C���J•..��J��c.,�.--._.
Ed; �rci fi. Petersen , Attorn.:y
EHP/s
I'
I
i
;1
i
. 1
11
I
.1
1
1
y
1
Cm."t DEL SQL APARTMENT FUND, fD.
c/o EDWARD H. PETERSEN
AT'roRNEY AT LAW
800 South Peach Boulevard, Suite H
La Habra, California 906.11
(213) 697.5693 .. ��"'-
May 21, 1979
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O . Box 190
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Re : C.U. P. 79-5
Tentative Tract No. 10656
Casa del Sod. Apartments
Gentlemen :
On May 15 , 1979 , our applications for. Conditional Use
Permit No . 79-5 and Tentative Tract No. 10656 were denied
by the Planning Commission. This letter is our requ.ryst to
f' appeal these applications to the City Council.
I
Enclosed is our check in the amount of $150 as the
required fee. Please file these appeals , set the mutters for
hearing , and advise us of the hearing date.
Very Truly Yours ,
i
CASH DEL SOL APARTMENT FUND, LTD.
Edward ll. Petord n
Attorney
I
CA DEL SOL APARTMENT FUND,
c/o EDWARD H. PETERSEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Boo South f3each Boulevard, Suite H
La Habra, California 9n631
(2131 697 5683
Mai, 25 , 1979
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Past Office Box 190
Huntington Beach , California 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: C.U. P. 79-5
Tentative Tract No. 10656
Casa del A Apartmerts
This letter is supplemental to our letter of May 21, 1979 reques-
ting an ap;:eal to the City Council on the above applications .
The following sets forth the action and the grounds on which we
appeal .
A. The action which we appeal is the denial of the
above applications by the Planning Commission on May 15 , 1979 .
B. The grounds of our appeal are as follows :
1. Since the action applied for is basically
only a change in the form of ownership of the property from one
owner to rian;'r owners , the Pl.annir:g Commission has no right tc
deny such applications .
2 . The real reason yiven by the Planning Commission
for their denial as stated in the public hearings doe ► not show ;
iit their findings , namely , that they desire to have a condominium
conversion ordinance before approving any conversions in the City.
This is not a proper basis to deny their application.
3. The applicant has followed the existing procedures
to process the application for several months and it is therefore,
linjust to change the procedures at this date after the applicant
has spent much time and money in reliance upon the existing pro-
cedures and the direction of the staff in processing the application.
4 . The findings for denial set forth by the Planning
Commission are in many respects incorrect.
City Clerk
May 25 , 1979
Page Tiao
Therefore , applicant requests this appeal and will submit to t;!e
City Council, prior to the hearing of the appeal., a Full statement
of its grounds , its contentions and will detail the errors of the
Planning Commission and the errors in its findings.
Very truly yours ,
CASA DEL SCL APARTMENT FUND, LTD.
By f: __..
Edward H. Petia- an
Attorney
EHP/s
1 ,
1
• t
.. o
r
CASA DEL SOL APARTMENT FUND , LTD .
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , California 9?648
` Gentlemen :
Ile : C. U.P . No. 79-5
Tract No. 10656
Casa del Sol
The subject property of these appeals is an attractive and well
maintained 448 unit apartment complex kno?•in as Casa del Sol ,
located at 21661 Brookhurst.
i
The Conditional Use Permit and the Tentative Tract Map, together
with request for Special Permit, were filed for the purpose of
conveLting the apartment complex into a statutory condominum
project. The applications were denied by the Planning Commis--
. sion primarily on the basis that they preferred to wait until a
conversion ordinance was enacted by the City, although other
findings and reasons were also given for the denials.
We request that the Cite Council overrule these denials , and
grant the applications so that the conversion into condominiums
may proceed. We attach a copy of our letter of May 10, 1979
to the Planning Department which gives some background , our
proposal regarding the project, and discusses the deficiencies
cited by the Planning Commission , i
We offer the followingreasons why these applications should be
Y p
granted: J
1. Since most new housing in the City costs in
excess of $100, 000 , this project will provide moderate or
affordable housing for many people. Our estimation o� the price
of the units at this time is $66 ,000 to $70 ,000 .
2. These units would provide housing for a
segment of the community nc.t presently provided for in the City-
those " who only need single bedroom units , eg. single, divorced ,
widowed , newlyweds and retired people who cannot afford larger
multiple bedroom units or houses. There are no new small units
offered for sale in the City.
City Council
June 11 , 1979
Page Two
3 . The conversion would provide more stability
to the community as there is substantially less turnover among
owners than tenants . In this complex, for example , 31% of the
apartments have changed tenants since January 1, 1979 . Owners
move on an average of once every five to seven years.
4 . Condominiums would provide more revenue to
the City through taxes .
5 ., With the proposal offered to the tenants to
purchase , the present tenants can easily get into home ownership
with a low down payment or they may apply rents to build up a
down payment. Then their housing costs will be fixed , whereas
rental payments will increase and exceed the mortgage payment.
5 . The City really has no basis to regulate
a conversion of apartments into condominiums , any more than the
City hGs the right to regulate a sale of the project from its
present owner to a group of five or 10 individuals who may hold
as tenants in common , joint tenants , or partners . Involved here
is merely a change in the form of ownership of the property from
the present owner to many owners . To deny a conversion is a
restraint of alienation and denies the owner his right to sell
his property.
7 . As the applicant has followed the existing
procedure to process this conversion, namely , tract map , C .U .P . ,
and Special Permit, and has spent a great deal of time and
money in the process , and having relied on this process , it is
unjust , at this late date , to change the process (to a new
proposed conversion ordinance) . The applicant has relied on
the existing procedure and the direction of the staff to its
detriment and damage by following this process . If a new ord -
nance is sought , new applicants can be so advised , and not led
through the existing procedures to their detriment. A conversion
ordinance has been discussed for a long time in the City and it
may be a long time before one is adopted. To postpone these
applications for such an indefinite period is unjust and a
restriction on allowing an owner to deal with his property.
8 . The City could , through its existing process ,
and agreement with the applicant, arrive at the same results as
they might through a conversion ordir-nce. In fact, the process
will give the City experience that will assist in drafting a better
ordinance, reducing the need for later amendments to it,
9 . The findings for denial by the Planning Commis-
sign are in error as follows :
r
City Council
June ll, 1979
Page Three
Finding No. 1
There is presently no condomium conversion
element of the general and specific plan so there may not be
a finding that it is inconsistent with the general and specific
plan. The applicant' s proposals are consistent with the existing
ordinance in that sufficient common and private open space can be
provided and sufficient parking has been proposed and can be
provided.
Finding No. 2
Plans have been submitted which do comply with
the dr.i.ve entrances per Article 936.
Finding No . 3
Plans have b%en submitted which provide for required
parking and private and common open space.
Findirg No . a
The project offers an excellent living etiviron--
ment which will be available to owners if the conversion is
allowed.
Finding No . 5
The project does provide maximum itse of aesthetically
pleasing types of architecture, landscapes , site layout and design
which would be available to owners if the conversion is allowed.
Finding No . 6 c
The project is especially well adapted to the
terrain and is very compatible with the surrounding environment.
S
Finding No. 7
There is no present conversion element of the General
Plan, so there can be no finding that it is not in accordance
with the General Plan.
We , therefore , ask that you approve the pending applications
permitting the proposed conversion which will provide for moderate
and affordable housing for a segment of the community that will
r
City Council
,June 11 , 1979
Page Four j
' I
not otherwise have the opportunity to own their own home and
benefit from all the advantages of ownership.
Sincerely,
CASA DEL SOL APARTMENT FUND, LTD.
By
Edward H . Petersen
Attorney
EHP/s
Attachment
i
i
I
' e
i
y
Minutes , H.D . Pl*ng Cc.-=is::ion � f
May 10 1979
Page 6
FIN GS FOR DENIAL: �•
I . The pr sod use is not compatible with e surrounding busi-
00
nesses an he adjacent residential perties .
2 . The propr�sed use es not: app to serve any useful purpose
in terms of the resa nts the immediate area.
3. Noise from the prop d us ould adversely affect adjacent
business establi • tents.
AYES: iiig s , Russell , Stern, Finle Cohen, Paone
NOES: e
ABSENT: None
ABS 7: Bazil
TEN TA► WE TRACT NO. 106 56/CONDITIONAL USE PEWMIT NO. 79-5
Applicant : Casa Del Sol Apartment Fund, Ltd.
To permit a 34--lot- subdivision of land for the purpose of convert-
ing 448 existing apartments to condominium ownership units located
on the west side of Brookhurst Street approximately 660 feet south
of Hamilton Avenue.
Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicants have submitted an
acoustical report, which shows the project meeting and in some
cases exceeding the minimum requirements of Title 25 of the Uniform. �
Building Code . This report measured units side by side, front to
back, and top tc., bottom for noise transferance.
Chairman Finley noted for the record that foul of the Commission
members (Stern. , Paone , Cohen, and Finley) visited and inspected the
project on April. 21, 1979 at 9 : 00 a .m.
The public hearing was opened. tars. Finlay requested that all speakers
address only the planning issue: involved with the condominiWa con-
version, not rental problems .
Ed Petersen , representing the applicants , addressed the Commission
to describe the project and present- slides and pictures of the
project. lie indicated the conversion would provide homes for a
group of people not presently able to buy as well as fulfilling a
market: need for one-bedroom units. Pricks are projected to be
between $70 , 000 and $90 , 000 and association fee, as $60 . 00 per
month. Conversion in his opinion would provide advantages of own-
ership rights, tax deductions, and maintenance--free facilities .
Mr. Petersen addressed the following specific areas :
Time Frame : Renters will have at least several months lead time ,
as the IM4 requires a minimum 120-day notice of conversion, and �
present renters have 60 days for exercise of their preferential
right to purchase their units .
-6- 5-1-79 -- P.C .
Minutes , 11 B I'1 ing Commission
rTay 1, 1979
Page 7
Treatment of Existing Tenants : The company expects to exceed the
statutory requirements in this area , planning to give their ten-
ants the right to purchase units other than the one in which they
are living, to give a discount price before the units go on the
open market, and to offer a relocation assistance plan to non--buying
tenants .
Deficiencies in Plan:
Parking: The existing parking totals 733 spaces open and covered;
owever, he said this can be brought up to the code-required
950 spaces. by the removal of some landscaping, Air. Petersen is
of the opinion that the parking deficiency can be corrected.
Open Space : It is the developer ' s feeling that the common open
space is adequate to meet the needs of the project; however, the
code can be complied with by putting green areas over parking
structures, if necessary . - Private open space is short only as
regards the second-floor balconies , but also is correctible if re-
quired. He pointed out, however. , that adding to the balconies
will alter the exterior elevations of the structures .
I
Entranceways : This deficiency can be corrected by deletion of
some ot`�Fe parking up in front near the street (which, however,
could be relocated elsewhere) .
Building Could not be met and the project would need a
t3 . da.n Bulk : C n t
9 , P 7
speci�rmit for this failure to meet code .
Carport Setback.: This applies only to the rear of the units ,
and further measurements may show it is correctible .
interior Property Line Encroachment: The applicant noted that the �
wall of a garage would e permitted at this setback ; however, �
staff is interpreting "garage" not to mean "carport. " His prefer-
ence would be to leave the carports open for ease of maintenance,
but they can be converted to garages if necessary to meet code .
Petition f"r"oim Tenants : 1•1r. Petersen explained that the petition
s g ed by the tenants addressed a pending rent increase and the
%:omments contained therein should not be considered as part of the
conversion deliberation.
He closed his statements by saying th.-it there is a need for this
type of housing within the City and requesting approval of the
application.
Questioning of the applicant followed.: Chairman Finley questioned
the close proximity of the carport roofs to some of the units ,
saying it seemed unsuitable to use as open space. Commissioner
. Paone suyngsted the possibility of constructing new structures and
placing tennis courts on the rcofs ; Air. Petersen agreed that this
approach might be feasible but would require careful location.
-7- 5-1-79 - P.C.
i
Minutes , H.B. Pla ' ng Commis_ :on
May 1, 1979
Page 8
Mr. Paone also suggested that the applicants consider a special
financing package for existing tenants , possibly to include a low
down payment and paper carried back . Mr. Petersen indicated that
no financing has been considered at this time.
Commissioner Stern pointed out that the applicant had not mentioned
that the staff report identifies a code violation involving water
mains located under some of the existing structures , and the appli-
cant said that these would be relocated as necessary. j
Michael Kirschbaum, legal counsel for the tenant' s association of
Casa del Sol , addressed the Commission in opposition to the con-
version . lie stated that no information has been presented in
regard to the people living in the complex (i .e. , age brackets ,
income status, relocation , Etc . ) and discussed the vacancy factor
in Huntington Beach and the present almost total. lack of new con-
struction of apartment units in the city . tic alleged that there
is no ordinance to permit conversion of apartments to ownership
units and that approval of this request would be tantamount to
discrimination based on the law, depriving the residents of equal
protection under the law and the right to choose where they wish
to live.
Bill Kaelin stated that the rental units serve an existing need in
the community and nee.: tenants are not being told of possible t00%
conversion before signing leases . fie also discussed the existing
state of repair of the units and questioned the reliabilit, of
the acoustical report.
Nell Joslyn spoke in opposition to the conversion .
Peter 7imilak stated that renters have been induced to come to
Huntington Beach to live by the encouragement of business and
industrial uses by the City, and urged the: Commission to weigh the
benefits to be obtained by the developers against the burdens
which will result to the tenants , not only of this complex but to
all tenants in the City through the precedent which would be set
by approval of the conversion request . Commissioner Russell r
asked that any static Lies Mr. . Similak might. have. substantiating
his assertion that people locating busine -ses here would rent
rather than buy be submitted to the Commission for its considera-
tion . Y
Bruce Greer contended that the complex: is not properly desigried
for condominiums , that there are no storage facilities on the site,
and that the association fee will no cloubt be higher that the $60
per month figure quoted by the applicant. 'g
John Thomas addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed
conversion. ;
Ed WLlson , a new renter in the complex , likewise opposed the
reqt:est .
-8- 5-1-79 - p .C.
Minuces , H.D . Pig- ing Commission
MaY 1 , 1979 1
Page 9
John O' Connor asserted that the presentation by the applicant' s
representative lacked credibility in certain areas, such as a
reference to other agencies and the fact that people were told
that conversion was a reality when in fact just the application
had been filed. He also cited pending litigation between the
Coastal Connission and the Attorney General ' s office in regard
tc• the application of the Subdivision flop Act to condominium eon-
verS..ons and stock cooperatives . He concluded by saying that
approval of this request with its existing gross code deficiencies
would crea- e an unfortunate precedent in the City and open the
possibility for many other applicants requesting the same treat-
ment.
Don Karlin addressed the Commission in favor of the concept of
conversion , stating that this is the only way lie and other young
people in his position will be able to purchase housing in the
City of Huntington Beach.
Applicant Ed Petersen again addressed the Commission in brief
rebuttal to some of the points raised by Ahe speakers .
The public hearing was closed .
The Commission discussed with legal counsel the code mechanisms
which are available to implement the requested action; Counsel
James Georges concluded that the planned residential development
ordinance seems to apply only to new construction and should
probably not he used as a vehicle for condominium conversion
projects . Commissioner Higgins, noting that the Coastal Act seems
to consider conversion to a sock cooperative a "development, "
expressed the opinion that if one type o:: conversion is a develop-
ment so should a conversion of any type also be a development.
Mr. Georges was requested to submit written clarification
of this apparent inconsistency for the Cemiission ' s tday 8 study
session.
Extensive discussion followed regarding data on existing units ,
vacancy factors , and cone requirements . Tt was the consensus of
the Commission that ` continuance was needed , and the applicant ' s
representative, Mr. Petersen , concurred with that continuer ce .
Chairman Finley informed the audience that a study session on the ;t
subject of condominium conversions is scl.cduled for the evening
of May 8 , 1979 at 7 : 00 p.m. , at which time further public input
will be welcome. No additional public notice of the continued
consideration of the subject: application will be mailed.
The following information was requested for review:
For May 8 Study Session :
1. Examples of other: cities ' condominium conversion ordinances .
2 . Clarification of 7:ttor.ney ' s opinion on permissibility of
any condominium conversions n the City under Arti-lie. 936 . r
-9- .5-1-79 - P . C.
Minutear H.B . Planlelg Commission
May 1 , 1979
Page 10
3. Number of apartment units in the City and breakdown by units .
4 . on-line average rental of new rental units in the City.
5 . Availability within the City of other condominiums in terms
of price range.
6 . Vacancy factor in Huntington Beach and surrounding areas .
7 . Information from Attorney on legality of possible condition
mandating a financial assistance program by the developer for
existing renters only, to be submitted as a written opinion.
8 . Numbers of potentially convertible projects in the City and
how many of those are the larger project; .
9 . Attorney ' s input on the validity of the "equal protection
under the law" and "right tc, choose where to litre" comments made
at this meeting as they might apply to condominium conversion
projects .
10 . Fiscal effects of condominium conversions ;revenue/expendi--
tures) .
11 . Single--family turnover rate in the City .
For May 15 Regular Meeting :
Requested of ?,pelican_ :
1 . Firm information on the reducod price for existing renters
and proposed payment of movinci expenses for those who would
not b-uy in the converted project.
2 . A fin-:ncing program to assist existing Venters which the: appli-
cant would be will inca to endorse .
3. Information on relocation assistance .
4 . A plan to bring the Project up -co code on open space and park-
ing either as discussed or in some other acceptable manner .
Requested of Tenants Association :
1. List:inq of people who would be willing try buy their own or
another uriit; within Casa Del Sol if conversion is allowed.
ON MOTION BY PAOINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIOZIAL USE PEWIIT
NO. 79-5 AND TEN`►LPATIVE TRACT 10656 WERE CO NIP It:U-k.J TO THE REGULJkR
11EETING OF MAY 15 , 1979 , WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE t"&PLICANT
j BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Russull , Stern, Finley , Cohen , Bazil , Paone
NOES : iSone
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
i
James Georges brought: to the attention of the Commission that
an error in the approved minutes of April 17 , 1979 , should be t
corrected to indicate that a member may change hi:)i decision to
abstain on any motion prior to the result being announced or
-1U-
. t
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
UESDAY, MAY 15 , 1979 -- 7 : 00 PSI
CO SSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins , Russell, Stern , Finley , hen,
Basil , Paone
COMMISSIO S ABSENT: None
CONSENT CALENDA :
Savoy Bellavia poin _d out to the Commissi that a correction page
has been distributed r the %iay 1, 1�3?9 inutes to show that the
public hearing for TT 1 56 and Condit ' ,nal Use Permit No. 79-5 had
been continued; he also i ormed thX�cc
hat the Planning Department ' s
recommendation on Item A-4 , onfor with General flan I,o. 79-8
for vacation of. right--of-way P m Avenue , has changed to new re-
quire all future vacations of r 11 portions of this right-of-way
r to be brought to the Commissi individual conEideration .
a
ON MOTION BY IIIGGIIJS AND -COND BY CO "N THE CONSENT CALENDAR (CON- �
SISIIIIII THE OF HE MINUTES MAY It 1979 I� CONFORt•1ANCE WITH GENERAL
PLAN NOS . 79--6 , 79-7 , AND 79--8 ) WAS APPRO D BY THE'HE' FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins Russell , Stern, Finley , Co ten , Paone
NOES: None
ABSENT: Non
ABSTAIN : B 11
i
OPAI, C lUNICATIONS:
t
No . .
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS :
TENTATIVE TRACT 10656/CONDITIONAL USE PEPJ41I' 79-5 (Cont . from 5-1-79 )
Applicant: Casa Del Sol Apartment- Fund , Ltd .
To permit a 34--lot: subdivision of land for the purpose of convert-
ing 448 existing apartments to condominiums, located on the wo st
side of Brookhurst Street approximately 660 feet south of Hamilton
Avenue.
Savoy Bellavia presented information extracted f:r.orn the spe.c;ial
census results for Tract 38 , Area 4 , which includes Casa Del Sol ,
Minutes , ii . b . 1'lann.Lng �aai:�,11s:.,:c� ► --- ---- —
Max 15 , 1979
Page 2 is
the Huntington Vista apartments to t:he north and additional 21
apartments , totaling o95 units . This tract is considered to give
a good indication of the general .area. Median income for the area
is $16 , 431 per year per household, vs. $22, 187 for the City-wide
median; median rent paid is $304 ver month , slightly higher
than the City-wide average of $293 per month; and median age for
the area is the same as the City-wide average of 28 years .
Legal counsel Tames Georges addressed the Co. ,,t.ission to respond to
the requests for information directed to the Attorney ' s office as
follows : 1) The questions of -iq ual protection and the loss
of the right to choose: where to live have -. o validity under the law;
condominium conversions are not. unconstitutional and do not violate
the equal protection provisions of the l4th amendment. 2) Use of
Article 936 (Planned Residential Development) is permissible under
the law but a conversion ordinance would be preferable; 3) Finan-
cial assistance conditions and inclusionary zoning requirements
should not be conditions on a conditional use permit but could all
legally be included in a conversion ordinance; and 4 ) Mr . Georges
addressed the use of the Subdivision Map Act in condominium conver-
sions and reported that conversion is classified as a subdivision
by the; Map Act . He cited upcoming bills SB 823 , AA 813 , and
AS 323 which specifically deal ron:3ominiums , community apart-
ment, and stock cooperative conversions and which all throe more
i
definitively address the relationships of said projects to the clap
Act.
The continued public hearing was reopened .
Edward Petersen , representing the applicants , addressed the Commis-
sion to review the changes made in the proposal in art attempt to
more nearly comply w.nth code: provisions . Iie discussed parking ,
1
open space , and financial provisions and noted that further study
has, indicated that the cost of the units might be as low as $60 , 000
to $70 , 000 . lie also presented information delineating th, possible
future rant costs as opposed to ownership costs . Mr . Petersen 1
said that his firm has been involved in the existinq procedures for �
a lone time and to rh�lnciC theI>rUccss in tnic�s;. Team seems unjustified
and costly when existing procedures are available and have beer.
used in other cities without challenge . it was his feeling that
asking the present applicant to agree to a continuance was tanta-
mount to asking for a voluntary moratorium, and ho. requested the
Commission to approve the plan as proposed under the present City
planned residential development provisions .
In response to questioning from the Commission Mr. Petersen acknowl-
edged that he knows of no legally binding way by which the proponent
could be firmly held to the financial program and unit cost figures
as outlined .
Peter Similak addressed the: Commission in opposition to the pro-
posed conversion project .
Michael Ki.rschbaluTt addressed the Commission to state, that the plan
even as revised does not by any means meet code re qui.roments anct
-2- 5--15-79 - P . C .
.Minutes , I1 .I3. Plaienng Commission
May 15 1979
Page 3
t to urge the preparation of a conversion ordinance prior to any
approvals of this nature. lie discussed the precedent-setting effect
Which approval would have and the consequent reduction in rental
units which would result; the proposed financial package, which on
its face seems attractive bit which had not been given a detailed
presentation to the existing tenants of Casa Del Sol nor clearly
understood by them; and the financial ability of the renters to pur-
chase their units.
Neil Giles addressed the Commission to describe the method by which
the tenants survey had been taken and to assure them that it was as
complete and accurate as possible .
The public hearing was closed.
The Commission reviewed the revised plan and the financial assist-
ance proposals submitted by the applicant . Discussion included
conside ation of whether condominium conversion would tend to phase
out minority and elderly people from the City , whether it could
sufficiently diminish the rental stock to cause an imbalance of
housing types in the City , the prevailing and future economic situ-
ations which might affect both rant and housing costs , and the need
for a condominium conversion ordinance to give exact direction for
projects of this nature. Commissioner Russell said that approving
any project before enactment (if an ordinance would mean that the
City would be applying two setts of standards to this and future con-
versions , which might later be construed as a special privilece for
the subject applicant. The revised plan was found not to attain
acceptable compliance with exi.,ti.ng code requirements .
Commissioner Stern quoted the coals and policies of. the Housing
Element , suggesting than these: be included in the findings for denial .
He also set forth the following additional suggested findings :
1 . Twen;ty-five percent of the families in Huntington Beach aye
spending more that: the acceptable norms for shelter cast., and
conversions to condominiums would severely increase that per- '
centage , based on the surveys presented to the Commission .
e
2 . Housing costs are i.ncreasinq twice as fast as other costs and
will continue to rise.
3. No programs exist to encourage new apartment construction;
therefore, housing stock will be reduced . �
s
4 . The majority of new housing is being designed and c:onstructed
for those families above the median income level .
5. 'There is an immediate shortage in the City of approximately
5500 housing units for low-income families and approval of
this request would only serve to exacerbate this condition.
-3- 5-.15-79 - P .C .
..___._.�__.......tau.wrvY.rrrn•rawr..h.f•+lrw uv.r.rw.�.weraraeaa•r.wr.r.rerirffYnrswa s.+w�1 �
• / Minutes , H.B. 111a ng Contml:iS Lon
May 15 , 1979
Page 4
Mr. Stern read the staff ' s suggested findings into the record as
well.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY STERN AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO DENY TENTATIVE
TRACT 10656 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-5 WITH THE GOALS AND
POLICIES OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ABOVE-
LISTED ADDITIONAL FINDINGS , AND THE FINDINGS AS PRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AS REASONS FOR DENIAL.
Commission discussion ensued . Commissioner. Higgins pointed out
that the parking can be brought into compliance; however:, he finds
the provision of additional open space over the carports unaccept-
able. In addition Mr. Higgins indicated that he did not feel the
special permit was appropriate in this case . Commissioner Paone
said that the mention of the parking deficiency in the staff ' s
Finding No. 1 should be deleted because the project can comply with
parking requirements , albeit perhaps not, in as desirable form as
it presently exists . lie also noted that sufficient information is
not available on which to base the added conditions suggested by
the motion and these should be deleted , as well as the references
to the goals and policies of the Housing Element:. He noted that
his vote to deny would be based solely upon code deficiency and
special permit considerations .
A MOTION WAS RADE BY PAONE AND .SECONDED W1 HIGGINIS TO AMEND THE
MOTION FOR DENIAL A5 NOTED ABOVE . �►.
In the discussion which followed, Commissioner aazi.1 said that ,
rather triarn delete all reference to a parking cicfiei.ency, the find- �
ings could state that: the, project had not complied with code in
regard to parking requirements and none of the alternatives pro-
posed are acceptable .
Ot•I MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY STERN: THE TO THE ORIG--
INAL LOTION WAS A1,1ENDED TO READ: "PARKING IS BELOI-J THAT REQUIRED
BY ORDINANCE AND NO ALTERNATIVE PARKING LAYOUT PRESE.JTE:D BY THE
APPLICANT IS ACCEPTABLE. " MOTION CARRIED BY THE' FOGLOV.ING VOTE:
AYES: Russell , Stern , Finley , Cohen, Bazil
NOES : Biggins , Paone
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion on Cor►mUssioner Paone ' :, amendment followed . Commissioner
Finley agreed that the: Gencral Plan findings should be eliminated
because no facts are now available to deter,mine. just what the effects
of a conversion ordinance on the city ' :; hous.inq patterns would be . t
Mr. Paone again pointed out that the findings -:ire conc:lusionary
statements only with no facts to substantiate the numerical con-
clusions as given. The Commission again roviewed future rental
costs as apposed to ownership of unit costs . r�
-4- 5-1.5-79
Minutes, H .B . Planfoig Commission
May 15 , 1979
Page 5
THE .AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FOR DENIAL FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Paone , Higgins , Finley
NOES: Russell, Stern , Cohen, Bazil
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY BA7,IL THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO DENY
TENTATIVE TRACT 10656 AND COIDITIONAL USE PEIL%SIT NO . 79-5 WAS
AMENDED TO DELETE THE GOALS LAND POLICIES OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT,
THE SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, AND TO INCORPORATE THE WORDING
IN REGARD TO PARKING CONTAINED IN COMMISSIONER BAZIL' S AMENDMENT
TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. ALSO ADDED WILL BE A NEW FINDING N0. 7
TO STATE: "THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION IS NOT IN ACCORD-
ANCE: WITH SOME SECTIONS OF THE: 11OUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . " MOTION CARI?IED BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Russell , Stern , Finley, Cohen , Bazil
NOES : Paone
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Cohen again cautioned the Commission against basing
any computation of ownership advantage vs . renting costs on tax
and interest deductions ; }1e added also that many savings and loan
institutions are using the variable interest r. cite for mortgages ,
thereby further lessening the " fixed" nature of house payments .
THE ORIGINAL:, MOTION TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT 10056 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 79-51 AS AMENDED ABOVE , W%►S APPROVED WITH THE FOL-
LOWING FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1 . The proposed male is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans insofar as common and private open spaces are
below that required by ordinance ; parking is belour that required
by ordinance and no alternative parking layout presented by
the applicant is acceptable; building bulk exceeds that per-
mitted bN? ordinance ; and setbacks of some parking structures do
not comply with ordinance requirements .
2 . The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not �
consistent with applicable general. and specific plans insofar
as drive entrances into the project do not comply with Article 936 .
3 . The site is not physically suit,�d for the type of development ,
clue to the lack of required parking and private and common open
space .
4 . The granting of a special permit in order to approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 79-5 will not promote a better living environment.
-5- 5-15-79 - P .C.
I •
Minutes, H.B. Plan Commission
May 15, 1979
Page 6
5. The granting of a special permit will not provide better land
planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing
types of architecture, landscaping , site layout, and design.
6 . The granting of a special permit is not consistent with the
objectives of the planned unit development standards in achiev-
ing a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with
the surrounding environment.
7 . The proposed condominium conversion is not in accordance with
some sections of the Housing Element of the General Plan of
the City of Huntington Beach.
AYES: Biggins , Russell, Stern , Finley , Cohen, Bazi.l , Paone
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
In response to a request from Mr. Petersen that the applications
be denied without prejudice, Mr . Palin informed him that there is
no time restriction contained in the Map Act: which would preclude
him from refiling the petitions in less than one year. ; therefore,
denial without prejudice is not necessary.
Discussion took place between the Commission and staff members on
some method of including in the denial supplementary information
in regard to the concerns on inclusionary zoning requirements ,
vacancy factors , the financial. package proposed by the developer,
and other sociological concerns which have arisen in these hearings.
A motion was madcby Bazi.l and seconded by .Stern that a statement
be in:,;luded to the effect that on the advice of counsel it has been
determined that the Commission is unable to impose conditions be-
yond the requirements of the present planned residential ordinance
and it would be the desire of the Commission to impose restrictions
which can only be accomplished by the establishment of a condominium
conversion ordinance:.
Commissioner Paone objected to including such a statement with the
findings for denial , stating that such a conclusion hinges on the
legal q-..,o stion of whether or not conversions can be processed by
the conditional use permit vehicle_ (which he noted is being used by
other cities without apparent conflict) . Commissioner Finley agreed,
expressing deep concern about the effects on the community of con-- '
versions but concurring Chat such a statement should not be included
within the findings for denial . Mr. Stern withdrow his second .
Commissioner Bazil, considering the possibility that the application
might be appealed to the Council , said that perhaps the Department ' s
transmittal tc the Council on such appeal could include the above--
noted concerns .
ON MOTION BY 13y7.1I. AND SECOND BY STERN THE C01'•11-IISSION DCTEPRI-11NE;D
TO TRANSMIT TO r11E CITY COUNCIL A STATEZIENT OUTIA11ING T11E1R C014CERNS
AND INDICATING THAT T11E COMMISSION IS WORKING ON A CONDOMINIUM
-6- 5-15-79 - P .C .
'Minutes.. H .B. Plan Ong Commission
May 15 , 1979
Page 7
CONVERSION ORDINANCE WHICH SHOULD BE ADOPTED) AND IN EFFECT PRIOR
TO -APPROVAL OF ANY CONVERSIONS I'JI'IHIN THE CITY . MOTI0,N CARRIED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: FJiggins , Russell, Stern , Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone
hpES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
*MQNDITIONAL USE P1:MIT NO. 79-12
A licant: Kimberlyll.. Gordon
To pe it operation of a private ski school at 5142-1 Bolsa A nue.
The pub ' c hearing was opened.
Kim Gordon , ddre..sed the Commission to describe his prof .ct. A rep-
resentative th - 1,ind own(ir informed the Commission hat signing
on the use wit be -strzcted to an approximately fou square foot
sign by the loo i -)nformancr, with the remainder f the uses .
There bei:ig no one lsu ,sent to pea}: on the oposed project ,
the public hearing w cl.- 11 .
Commission discussion o sign2. advertisin• , and hours of opera-
tion followed .
ON MOTION BY BA7,IL AND SECO BY RU. (.'011L)ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. j
79-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE F ,LOWING i )TNGS AND CONDITIONS , BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
.'A
FIND114GS:
-- y
I
1. The subject industrial comp ax ha adequL to pax ;- to accommo-
date the proposed i1Fe .
2. The proposed ski school is generally c mpaLible with the sur-
rounding land uses .
CONDITIONS OJ:" APPROVAL-
1 . The site plan a floor plat received and dat April 4 , 1975 ,
shall be tM a roved layout .
2. Hours of op ation shall be limited to 1.0 : 00 a.m. trough 10 : 00
p.m. Tuesd ys through Sat.urdoys, with a special two eei: ski
ballet s sion to be offered in July or August .
3. The p nning Commission reserves the right to rescind th C ,
Cond .:ional Use Permit approval in tho event of any vio) a on
of .he terms of. this approval or violation of the apl�lic;abl
z irg laws; any such decision shall be preceded by notice t the
prlicant and a public hearing , and shall be based upon speci ' c
findings .
-7- 5-15-7'j -- P.C.