HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-18 Agenda PacketMEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, services are available to members
of our community who require special assistance to participate in public meetings. If you require special assistance,
48-hour prior notification will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for an assisted listening device (ALD) for the
hearing impaired, American Sign Language interpreters, a reader during the meeting and/or large print agendas. Please
contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 536-5227 for more information, or request assistance from the staff or
Sergeant-at-Arms at the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: To address the legislative body on items of interest not scheduled for public hearing, Request to
Speak forms will be made available at the meeting and are collected by the staff or Sergeant at Arms. Some legislative
bodies may provide different Request to Speak forms for public hearing items.
AUDIO/VIDEO ACCESS TO BROADCASTED MEETINGS: City Council and Planning Commission meetings are televised live
on HBTV-3 Channel 3, and can be viewed via live or archived website at https://huntingtonbeach.legistar.com.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Council Chambers
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Study Session - 4:00 PM / Closed Session - 5:00 PM
Housing Authority Special, and City Council/Public Financing Authority
Regular Meeting - 6:00 PM
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
LYN SEMETA, Mayor
JILL HARDY, Mayor Pro Tem
PATRICK BRENDEN, Councilmember
KIM CARR, Councilmember
BARBARA DELGLEIZE, Councilmember
ERIK PETERSON, Councilmember
MIKE POSEY, Councilmember
STAFF
OLIVER CHI, City Manager
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
ROBIN ESTANISLAU, City Clerk
ALISA BACKSTROM, City Treasurer
1
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute
Time Limit)
STUDY SESSION
20-14091.Year End Audit Results and Mid-Year Budget Update
20-14232.Rodgers Seniors’ Center Site Reuse Conceptual Diagram Review
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S)
20-14253.Mayor Semeta to Announce: Pursuant to Government Code §
54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet
with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and
Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City
Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following:
Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT); Management
Employees' Organization (MEO); and Police Officer's Association
(POA).
CLOSED SESSION
20-14184.Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, three (3).
20-14195.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
Page 1 of 7
2
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
regarding the following lawsuit: Kilhullen (Barbara) v. City of
Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2019-01091611.
20-14246.Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor
negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in
attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert
Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Huntington Beach
Municipal Teamsters (HBMT); Management Employees' Organization
(MEO); and Police Officer's Association (POA).
6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING, AND CALL TO ORDER
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
ROLL CALL
Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any
faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form
of invocation.
20-13797.Mike Michaud of Dance 4 Joy Ministries and member of the Greater
Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
20-13698.Mayor Semeta to call on Victoria Alberty to present the “Adoptable
Pet of the Month”
20-14129.Mayor Semeta to call on new Huntington Beach Fire Chief Scott
Haberle for an official pinning ceremony
20-143110.Mayor Semeta to call on Kenneth Inouye, President of the Orange
Page 2 of 7
3
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
County Human Relations Committee, who will present its Annual
Report
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
20-142611.Ascon Landfill Site Update
20-142712.Police Department 2019 Recap
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
20-139813.Presentation on the Safe and Sane Fireworks Stand Application and
Lottery Process for 2020
CONSENT CALENDAR
20-137214.Approve and Adopt Minutes
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting, and
Successor Agency special meeting minutes dated January 21, 2020, as written and on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
Recommended Action:
20-142015.Receive and file the updated Huntington Beach City Council Manual
2020 digitally compiled to incorporate policy information previously
adopted by resolution
Receive and file the updated Huntington Beach City Council Manual 2020.
Recommended Action:
20-141716.Receive and file the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional
Housing Needs Assessment process
Receive and file the monthly Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process
status update.
Recommended Action:
Page 3 of 7
4
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
20-139717.Adopt Resolution Nos. 2020-11 and 2020-12 allowing the City Council
to support the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of
2020 initiative as recommended by the City Council
Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC)
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-11, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Temporarily Suspending the City Council Manual Section 8 Regarding
Statewide Ballot Propositions;” and,
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-12, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Supporting the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of
2020.”
Recommended Action:
20-138918.Approve and authorize execution of a five (5) year License
Agreement with Southern California Edison (SCE), No. 9.3265 for
public parkland located at Arevalos Park
Approve the “License Agreement” with Southern California Edison for the use of the 2.58
acres of property commonly known as Arevalos Park, and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute any and all documents necessary to conclude this transaction.
Recommended Action:
20-139419.Approve and authorize execution of a Professional Services
Contract with iKW Solutions Inc. for $193,010 for Oracle/JD Edwards
Tools Software Upgrade and As Needed System Support Consulting
Services
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the “Professional Services
Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and iKW Solutions Inc. for Oracle/JD
Edwards Tools Software Upgrade and As Needed System Support Consulting Services.”
Recommended Action:
19-118620.Approve Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 18-002 by adopting
Ordinance No. 4191 to amend the zoning designation from CG
(Commercial General) to RM (Residential Medium Density)
Approved for introduction February 3, 2020 - Vote: 7-0
Adopt Ordinance No. 4191, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending
District Map 2 (Section Map 2-6-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision to
Rezone the Real Property Located at 712 Utica Avenue from Commercial General (CG) to
Recommended Action:
Page 4 of 7
5
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Residential Medium Density (RM) (Zoning Map Amendment No. 2018-002).”
19-128821.Adopt Ordinance No. 4204 repealing Chapter 10.40.125 of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code regarding vehicles marked for
sale on streets, as it is no longer legally valid
Approved for introduction February 3, 2020 - Vote: 7-0
Adopt Ordinance No. 4204, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Repealing
Chapter 10.40.125 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Sale On Vehicles
Upon Streets.”
Recommended Action:
PUBLIC HEARING
20-130222.Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004, General Plan
Amendment No. 19-002 by adopting Resolution No. 2020-03, Zoning
Map Amendment No. 19-002 by approving for introduction Ordinance
No. 4203, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 by
adopting Resolution No. 2020-04 (Park Avenue Rezone)
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004 with findings (Attachment No. 1)
and mitigation measures; and,
B) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 19-002 and adopt Resolution No. 2020-03,
“A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan
Amendment No. 19-002” (Attachment No. 2); Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002 with
findings (Attachment No. 1) and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4203, “An
Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property Located at the Terminus of Park
Avenue in Huntington Harbour from OS-WR-CZ-FP2 (Open Space-Water Recreation -
Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay) to RL-CZ-FP2 (Residential Low Density -
Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay) (Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002)”
(Attachment No. 3); and Local Coastal Program No. 19-001 with findings (Attachment No.
1) and adopt Resolution No. 2020-04, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 and
Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission” (Attachment No. 4).
Recommended Action:
20-139323.City Council’s Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Ellis Avenue Condos). The
matter is re-agendized at the Appellant’s request.
Page 5 of 7
6
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
The City Council may take one of the following action(s):
A) Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with
findings (Attachment No. 1); OR
B) Deny Without Prejudice Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 17-042 with findings (Attachment No. 1); OR
C) Tentatively Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No.
17-042 and direct Staff to conduct environmental analysis on the new information provided
in the Expert Traffic and Fire Code/Life Safety Reports in accordance with Section 15162
of the CEQA Guidelines (Attachments No. 2 and 3), and re-agendize for a future meeting.
Recommended Action:
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
20-140024.Consider adopting Resolution No. 2020-13 related to the Joint
Exercise of Powers for Membership in the Orange County Housing
Finance Trust (OCHFT), and authorize the City Manager to execute
the Orange County Housing Finance Trust Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Agreement
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-13, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Relating to the Joint Exercise of Powers for Membership in the
Orange County Housing Finance Trust;” and,
B) Authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Joint Powers Agreement to join
the Orange County Housing Finance Trust.
Recommended Action:
20-143225.Authorize and direct the City Manager/Executive Director to execute
a Purchase and Sale Agreement, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, for acquisition of real property located at 17631 Cameron
Lane by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Shigeru
Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and Mitsuru
Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust; Authorize and
direct the City Manager to execute an Option Agreement, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, to acquire real property located
17642 Beach Blvd. by and between the City of Huntington Beach and
Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and
Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust; and
Page 6 of 7
7
AGENDA February 18, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
approve allocation of funds necessary to complete the transaction to
acquire the property located at 17631 Cameron Lane
CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION:
A) Authorize and direct the City Manager/ Executive Director to execute a Purchase and
Sale Agreement and any additional necessary documents to consummate the transaction,
in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Huntington Beach/
Housing Authority and Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and
Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust to acquire the Property; and ,
B) Authorize and direct the City Manager/ Executive Director to execute an Option
Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Huntington
Beach/ Housing Authority and Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living
Trust, and Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust to acquire the
Option Property; and,
C) Appropriate funds of $3,250,000 from Fund 352 for acquisition of the Property.
Recommended Action:
COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS
20-142126.Submitted by Councilmember Posey - Direct Staff to Institute a Free
Handicap Beach Parking Program
Based on my assessment of the situation, I am requesting that the City Council vote to
direct staff to institute parking program modifications that would allow those with a
disabled parking placard to park for free in our beach parking lots located along PCH and
our downtown parking structures.
Recommended Action:
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is
Monday, March 2, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA.
INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND
STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT:
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
Page 7 of 7
8
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1409 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Year End Audit Results and Mid-Year Budget Update
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1423 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Rodgers Seniors’ Center Site Reuse Conceptual Diagram Review
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1425 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Mayor Semeta to Announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City
Manager and Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and
Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Huntington Beach Municipal
Teamsters (HBMT); Management Employees' Organization (MEO); and Police Officer's
Association (POA).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™11
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1418 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, three
(3).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™12
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1419 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Kilhullen (Barbara)
v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2019-01091611.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1424 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to
meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in
attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police,
regarding the following: Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT); Management
Employees' Organization (MEO); and Police Officer's Association (POA).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™14
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1379 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Mike Michaud of Dance 4 Joy Ministries and member of the Greater Huntington Beach
Interfaith Council
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1369 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on Victoria Alberty to present the “Adoptable Pet of the Month”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1412 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on new Huntington Beach Fire Chief Scott Haberle for an official pinning
ceremony
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™17
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1431 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on Kenneth Inouye, President of the Orange County Human Relations
Committee, who will present its Annual Report
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™18
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1426 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Ascon Landfill Site Update
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™19
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1427 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Police Department 2019 Recap
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™20
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1398 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Presentation on the Safe and Sane Fireworks Stand Application and Lottery Process for 2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™21
SAFE AND SANE
FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION AND
LOTTERY PROCESS 2020
22
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
Application Period: March 1 through March 31
Permits: The maximum number of permits that
may be issued during any one calendar year
shall be fifteen, with a maximum number of five
permits issued to qualified organizations in
each of the following categories:
Civic Organizations
High School
Youth Sports 23
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS (5):
Organizations operating within the City whose
sole purpose is for civic betterment or
charitable or religious purposes to and for the
citizens of Huntington Beach –EXCLUDES high
school extracurricular activities or youth or adult
sports groups
Approved applications will be entered into a
lottery drawing held at the April 20 City Council
meeting 24
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
HIGH SCHOOL (5):
High schools operating within the City that
agree to use the proceeds for the benefit of
valid student extracurricular activities/sports
shall be allowed to submit one application
Each public high school may be awarded one
permit; upon application receipt and approval,
each high school shall hold a lottery among its
student clubs and organizations, and can
dedicate its stand to not more than two groups
25
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
Private high schools may each enter one application; approved applications will be
entered into a lottery drawing held at the
April 20 City Council meeting to award a fifth
high school permit
If no private high schools apply, the four
public high schools will be entered into the
lottery drawing for the fifth high school
permit
26
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
YOUTH SPORTS (5):
Organizations operating within the City
whose main purpose is to benefit a valid
youth sports activity –EXCLUDES individual
club or travel sports teams, or high school
extracurricular activities/sports groups
Approved applications will be entered into a
lottery drawing held at the April 20 City
Council meeting
27
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
Prior to March 1, applicants successful in
the 2019 application process will be
notified by email of the 2020 process; and,
A public announcement regarding the 2020
application process will be posted to local
social media sites
28
2020 FIREWORKS STAND
APPLICATION/LOTTERY PROCESS
At the conclusion of the lottery drawing held on April 20, representatives from the Fire Department will be standing by to meet with successful applicants to explain what happens next, and to distribute temporary fireworks stand sales applications
For more information, visit these online resources:
Fireworks Information –2020 http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/fireworks/
HB Municipal Code Chapter 5.90 –Fireworks
29
QUESTIONS?
30
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1372 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Board Members
SUBMITTED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City/Agency Clerk
PREPARED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City/Agency Clerk
Subject:
Approve and Adopt Minutes
Statement of Issue:
The City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting, and Successor Agency special meeting
minutes dated January 21, 2020 require review and approval.
Financial Impact:
None.
Recommended Action:
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting, and Successor
Agency special meeting minutes dated January 21, 2020, as written and on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve and/or request revision(s).
Analysis:
None.
Environmental Status:
Non-Applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. January 21, 2020 CC/PFA regular meeting, and Successor Agency special meeting minutes
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™31
Minutes
City Council/Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting
Successor Agency Special Meeting
City of Huntington Beach
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
4:00 PM - Council Chambers
6:00 PM - Council Chambers
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
A video recording of the 6:00 PM portion of this meeting
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at
www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/
4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER — 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
Absent: None
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Received After Agenda Distribution) — None
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) — None
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION – 4:01 PM
A motion was made by Posey, second by Peterson to recess to Closed Session for Items 2 - 7. With no
objections the motion passed.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S)
1. 20-1342 Mayor Semeta announced: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City
Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor
negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis
Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the
following: Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA); Management Employees’
Organization (MEO); Police Officer’s Association (POA); Police Management
Association (PMA); Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA) Surf City
Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
32
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 2 of 17
CLOSED SESSION
2. 20-1352 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following Workers'
Compensation Claims:
a. Cormac O'Connell v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case Nos.
COHB-11-0005; COHB-16-0309; and COHB-17-0266.
b. Bernard Atkins v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case No. COHB-
18-0040.
c. Gary Kim v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case No. COHB-16-
0098.
d. Larry Pitcher v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case No. COHB-
15-0196.
e. Richard Spencer v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case No.
COHB-19-0003.
f. Estella Miranda v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers' Comp. Case No. COHB-
12-0242.
3. 20-1333 Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council recessed into Closed
Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and
Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and
Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Municipal Employees’
Association (MEA); Management Employees’ Organization (MEO); Police Officer’s
Association (POA); Police Management Association (PMA); Marine Safety
Management Association (MSMA) Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association
(SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
4. 20-1330 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit:
HBPOA and Yasha Nikitin v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-
2019-01093906.
5. 20-1331 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit:
Rosier (Maliek) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: SACV 18-2175
DOC (DFMx).
6. 20-1332 Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation.
Number of cases, four (4).
7. 20-1343 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit:
City of Huntington Beach v. State of California (SB 54); OCSC Case No. 30-2018-
00984280.
33
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 3 of 17
6:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING AND CALLED TO
ORDER A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH — 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Peterson
INVOCATION
In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or
belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.
8. 19-1203 Pastor Nader Hanna of Faith Lutheran Church of Huntington Beach and member of
the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY
In the matter of the City of Huntington Beach v. State of California (SB 54), OCSC Case No. 30-2018-
00984280, City Attorney Michael Gates provided background and reported that by a vote of 5-2 (Hardy,
Carr – No), he received Council authorization to file an appeal of the case with the California Supreme
Court.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
9. 19-1245 Mayor Semeta called on Victoria Alberty for the "Adoptable Pet of the Month"
Victoria Alberty of Waggin' Trails Rescue Foundation introduced Gisela Campagne, the Founder of
Waggin' Trails, and Toby, a 1 - 2 year old, very calm, quiet and friendly dog of unknown breed mix.
More information on Toby can be found at www.ozzieandfriendsrescue.org, or www.waggintrails.org.
10. 20-1347 Mayor Semeta presented a commendation to Visit Huntington Beach President &
CEO Kelly Miller and staff to recognize and celebrate the organization’s 30 years
of destination brand marketing and promotion of Surf City USA as a global
destination
President and CEO Miller introduced as a group the Visit Huntington Beach staff, and provided a few
historical facts from the last 30 years. He further explained the financial impact to the City's General
Fund from the non-Orange County visitors who come each year due to the efforts of Visit Huntington
Beach to make Huntington Beach a destination city.
11. 20-1327 Mayor Semeta kicked off her "Making a Difference in Huntington Beach" Awards
Program by giving her first award to the volunteers of the Secret Garden and the
HB Tree Society
34
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 4 of 17
Mayor Semeta explained her vision in creating the award, and why she selected the honorees for this
first award. She encouraged residents to make nominations for future awards by following the protocol
as outlined on the City's website, and invited recipients to join her.
Jean Nagy, Volunteer Director of the HB Tree Society thanked City staff and volunteers for supporting
their efforts to enhance various City parks. She recognized the merits of Annie Anderson, Cheryl
Johnson, Lauren Carroll and Cat Henderson who were unable to attend the meeting, in addition to
student volunteers and their parents.
Juana Mueller, Volunteer Manager at Secret Garden, welcomed anyone wishing to volunteer efforts to
enhance various City parks.
Secret Garden Volunteers honored: Juana Mueller, Betty Reinertson, Craig Goldenson, Keleigh
Rosas, Gary Thomas, Shari Engel and Steve Engel.
HB Tree Society Volunteers honored: Jean Nagy, Annie Anderson, Shirley Knopf, Shelia Holiday,
Cheryl Johnson, Leslie Gilson, Steve Campbell, Cat Henderson, Dwight Dodd, Susie Dodd, Mary
Leboeuf, Gail Altmari-Brown, Loren Carroll, and Mimi Irvin.
12. 19-1244 Mayor Semeta called on Dawn McCormick of Timeless Treasures Boutique who
presented a donation to the Waggin’ Trails Rescue Foundation
Dawn McCormick of Timeless Treasures Boutique presented a check for $1,250 to Gisela Campagne,
Founder of Waggin' Trails, in support of their rescue work. Ms. Campagne thanked Ms. McCormick for
the continued support, and announced that May 3, 2020, is the date for the upcoming Wags and Wine
fundraising event at the Paséa Hotel.
13. 19-1224 Mayor Semeta called on players and coaches from the Marina High School Varsity
Football Team to recognize them as CIF Champions
Coach Jeff Turley thanked the City Council for recognizing the team, and described their hard work and
accomplishments. Commendations were distributed, and photographs with Council were taken.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Received After Agenda Distribution) — None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit)
The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in
the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas.
Tony Bisson, a resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared his personal experiences
related to neighborhood parking violations on street sweeping days. (00:31:56)
Jose Castaneda, representing Climate Action Campaign, was called to speak and shared comments on
Community Choice Energy options which could provide the opportunity for local control and energy
35
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 5 of 17
savings, and asked that City Council allow Climate Action Campaign to share educational information
throughout the process so that an informed decision can be made on this issue. (00:35:04)
Ranjeet Singh was called to speak and shared his experience of many vehicles parking across the
walkway in his neighborhood, but it appears that only his tenants are getting parking violation tickets.
Mayor Semeta asked Mr. Singh to complete a blue card for staff follow up. (00:37:45)
Jim Nowaczewsky, a resident of Huntington Beach and representing Kee Safety, was called to speak
and shared his opinions regarding an anodized aluminum product as being superior to wood for the
Bluff Top railing project. (00:40:45)
Jill Gorski was called to speak and asked for an amendment to the code that controls the number of
animals allowed on a property, and distance restrictions. Mayor Semeta asked Ms. Gorski to complete
a blue card for staff follow-up. (00:43:50)
Ben was called to speak, and presented his ideas for several additional parks within the City. (00:46:30)
Natalie Moser, a resident of Huntington Beach and Chair of the Human Relations Task Force, was
called to speak and announced the inaugural Cultural Cinema Showcase, to be held on Thursday,
February 6, 6:30 pm, at the HB Senior Center, and described a number of activities sponsored by the
Human Relations Task Force to build and celebrate diversity in the community. (00:49:09)
Teresa Carlisle, member of the Huntington Beach Art Center Artist Council, was called to speak and
stated that 2020 is the 25th Anniversary of the Huntington Beach Art Center, and announced the next
exhibition, Centered on the Center, January 25 through February 29, with an Opening Recept ion on
Saturday, January 25; and Art for Lunch on Thursday, February 13, 11:30 to 1:30 at the Art Center.
(00:51:14)
Brent Nichols, owner of the dental business next door to the 3rd Street Commercial Building project,
was called to speak and stated his opposition to Public Hearing Item No. 19-1205 regarding the appeal
for the 3rd Street Commercial Building project, because of the expected increased negative impact to
an existing parking problem in that area. (00:52:36)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
Councilmember Peterson reported attending a meeting of the Sanitation District regarding the
Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS).
Councilmember Carr reported attending the W est Orange County Water Board meeting where Mayor
Pro Tem Hardy was re-elected as the Water Board Chair; attending the Environmental Board meeting
as Council Liaison where there are two (2) Board openings; and attending the Youth Board meeting,
and announced the Youth In Government Day will be March 17. She also reported meeting with the
Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA).
Councilmember Posey reported attending the December meetings of the Orange County District Vector
Control Board where he was elected as Vice President, Mosquito Vector Control, and Orange County
Parks Commission where a new chair was elected for the Fourth District; and reported meeting with the
36
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 6 of 17
Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA), and speaking with the Huntington Beach
Firefighters' Association.
Councilmember Brenden reported meeting with the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association
(HBPOA).
Councilmember Delgleize reported attending a meeting of the Orange County Transit Authority, and
meeting with Congressman Alan Lowenthal regarding the Orange County flood plain and effect on
Huntington Beach.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
14. 20-1351 Ascon Landfill Site Update
Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins presented a brief slide presentation that reiterated that clean-up
efforts have stopped, described connection of the fire hydrant on Magnolia Street to an onsite water
tower, stated continued inspection and maintenance of stormwater management measures, and stated
the City’s ongoing contact with a third party technical advisor.
15. 20-1356 City Manager Chi provided an update on Councilmember Brenden and Peterson’s
September 16, 2019 request that staff return to Council with Ordinance(s) related
to Sober Living Homes
City Manager Chi described staff progress on the initial draft ordinance using Costa Mesa as a model
and discussed collaboration between the City Attorney and Community Development departments on
establishing provisions scheduled for review by the Planning Commission in February/March, and
finalized by Council in April.
City Manager Chi also announced issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the International Surf
Museum that will remain open until February 13, 2020.
CONSENT CALENDAR
16. 19-1248 Approved and Adopted Minutes
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve and adopt the City Council/Public
Financing Authority regular meeting minutes and the special meetings of the Housing Authority, Parking
Authority and Successor Agency dated December 16, 2019, as written and on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
17. 20-1325 Annual Review of the City Code of Ethics
37
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 7 of 17
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to direct the City Clerk to record in the official minutes
that the City Code of Ethics was presented to the City Council, City Manager, Chairpersons, and City
Department Directors for their review and distribution as required by Resolution No. 2016-73.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
18. 20-1344 Received and filed the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional Housing
Needs Assessment process
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to receive and file the monthly Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) process status update.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
19. 19-1296 Approved appointments to the Huntington Beach Human Relations Task Force
(HRTF) as recommended by City Council liaisons Mayor Pro Tem Hardy and
Councilmember Brenden
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve the reappointments of Natalie Moser and
Vashia Rhone for terms to expire December 31, 2023, as recommended by City Council liaisons Hardy
and Brenden; and, approve the appointments of Ashley Dos Santos, Antonio Benitez, and Hemesh
Patel for terms to expire December 31, 2021, as recommended by City Council liaisons Hardy and
Brenden; and, approve the appointments of Rhonda Bolton, Teresa Carlisle and Timothy Stuart for
terms to expire December 31, 2023, as recommended by City Council liaisons Hardy and Brenden.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
20. 19-1291 Authorized use of existing on-call construction management/inspection contracts
with Wallace and Associates, Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc.,
and Dudek for City related projects
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to authorize the use of existing on-call construction
management/inspection contracts with Wallace and Associates, Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and
Associates, Inc., and Dudek for any City related projects and activities including those in the approved
CIP.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
38
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 8 of 17
NOES: None
21. 20-1321 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 to accept and approve the Development Impact
Fee Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19 and Make Government Code Section 66006 and
66001 Findings
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to adopt Resolution No. 2020-08, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to accept and approve the Development Impact Fee
Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2019 and to make the Findings as required by Government
Code Section 66006(b) and 66001(d)."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
22. 19-1277 Approved and authorized execution of two Landscape Maintenance Agreements
with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Pacific City
Retail and Paséa Hotel for Maintenance of Landscape Improvements within the
State Highway Right of Way on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute and record the "Landscape Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on
Route 1 Within the City of Huntington Beach" for the Pacific City Retail project (Attachment 1); and,
approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and record the "Landscape Maintenance
Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of Huntington Beach" for the
Paséa Hotel project (Attachment 2).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
23. 20-1328 Approved and authorized execution of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with
Waymakers to authorize a one-year contract extension and additional
compensation of $114,509 for management of the Victim and Witness Assistance
Services Program; and, approved grant fund appropriation
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute "Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Community
Service Programs, Inc. (Waymakers) for Victim and Witness Assistance Services;" and, approve
appropriation of $114,509 contingent upon grant funding provided by the California Office of
Emergency Services, and increase professional services authority for the commensurate amount.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
39
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 9 of 17
24. 19-1285 Approved and authorized execution of an Amendment to a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Orange County Transportation Authority and the cities of
Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa to extend the deadline for completion of street
improvements associated with the potential removal of the Garfield/Gisler
crossing of the Santa Ana River
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute
"Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding C-6-0834 among Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain
Valley and Huntington Beach and Orange County Transportation Authority Regarding Agency
Responsibilities for Implementing the Consensus Recommendation for the Garfield-Gisler Bridge
Crossing over the Santa Ana River."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
25. 19-1290 Approved and authorized execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Between the City of Huntington Beach and SC Cleaning Specialist for the
Installation and Maintenance of Marina Trash Skimmer at 16011 Santa Barbara
Lane
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the "Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Huntington Beach and SC
Cleaning Specialist for the Installation and Maintenance of Marina Trash Skimmer(s) in Huntington
Harbour," (16011 Santa Barbara Lane).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
26. 20-1346 Approved the appointment of Scott Haberle to the position of Fire Chief, and
authorized the City Manager to execute the employment agreement
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute
the "Employment Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Scott Haberle" for the position
of Fire Chief.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
City Manager Chi thanked the Council for approving the appointment of Mr. Haberle to the position of
Fire Chief, and being a part of the process for selecting the new Fire Chief.
40
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 10 of 17
Mr. Haberle expressed his appreciation and gratitude for this opportunity to serve Huntington Beach.
27. 19-1249 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-01 authorizing the Director of Public Works to
submit application(s) and administer the Used Oil Payment Program (UOPP) for
Eligible CalRecycle Grants; and, appropriate funds
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to adopt Resolution No. 2020-01, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Submit
Application(s) and Administer the Used Oil Payment Program for Eligible CalRecycle Grants;" and,
appropriate $54,699 to used Used Oil OPP grant fund account 96066046.69505.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
28. 20-1299 Adopted Resolution No. 2020-02 approving the submittal of an application to the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for funding under the Project V
Community-Based Transit/Circulators Program
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to adopt Resolution 2020-02 "A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving the submittal of the Project V application to the
Orange County Transportation Authority for funding under the Project V Community-Based
Transit/Circulators Program."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
29. 20-1301 Adopted Successor Agency Resolution Nos. 2020-02 and 2020-01 approving the
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for
the Huntington Beach Successor Agency for the period of July 1, 2020, through
June 3, 2021, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34177 and
related actions
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to adopt Resolution No. 2020-01, "A Resolution of the
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the
Successor Agency Administrative Budget for the Period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021;" and,
adopt Resolution No. 2020-02, "A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the Period
July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 ('ROPS 20-21')."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
41
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 11 of 17
PUBLIC HEARING
30. 19-1170 Public Hearing Continued Open from December 16, 2019 to consider Zoning Text
Amendment No. 19-002 (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Update) by approving for introduction Ordinance Nos. 4193, 4194, 4195, 4196,
4197, 4198 and 4199
Community Development Director Ursula Luna-Reynosa introduced Associate Planner Nicole Aube
who presented a PowerPoint communication entitled Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 with slides
titled: Purpose and Background, Request, Vehicle Storage, Residential Privacy Design Standards,
Parking & Parking Structures, Miscellaneous Cleanup, ZTA No. 2019-002 Analysis, and Planning
Commission and Staff Recommendation.
Councilmember Peterson and staff discussed that existing legal and permitted storage facilities
throughout the City will be grandfathered in unless they make any changes, or violations are reported,
that would require a review. Those situations would require meeting the new standards.
Mayor Semeta announced the continued open Public Hearing for Item No. 30.
Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced there was no
supplemental communications received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda
packet, and no one had signed up to speak.
Mayor Semeta closed the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Hardy, second Posey to find Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class
20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment No. 1); approve Zoning
Text Amendment No. 19-002 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and after the City Clerk reads by title,
approve for introduction:
Ordinance No. 4193, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled R
Residential Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);"
Ordinance No. 4194, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 203 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled
Definitions (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);"
Ordinance No. 4195, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 204 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Use
Classifications (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);"
Ordinance No. 4196, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 231 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Off-
Street Parking and Loading Provisions (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);"
42
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 12 of 17
Ordinance No. 4197, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Site
Standards (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);"
Ordinance No. 4198, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 212 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled I
Industrial Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);" and,
Ordinance No. 4199, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled C
Commercial Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);" (Attachment Nos. 3 - 9).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
31. 19-1205 Denied Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No.
19-001 (3rd Street Commercial Building)
Community Development Director Ursula Luna-Reynosa introduced Associate Planner Jessica Bui who
presented a PowerPoint communication entitled: 3rd Street Commercial Building Appeal with slides
titled: Project Request, Subject Site, Site Plan, Parking, Parking Design: 1st Floor, Parking Design: 2nd
Floor, Parking Plan, General Plan & Zoning Compliance, PC Meeting - November 12, 2019, Appeal,
and City Council Action.
Councilmember Posey confirmed with staff that the Planning Commission agrees that this project
complies with the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), that no variances, nor parking in-lieu fees, were
requested, the applicant did not provide any queuing studies or documentation, and parking elevators
are not new technology.
Mayor Semeta and Associate Planner Bui discussed queuing dimensions, which are not currently
addressed in the Huntington Beach Code, and briefly reviewed requirements from other area cities, and
confirmed that this project does not have a dedicated queuing area.
Councilmember Carr confirmed with Associate Planner Bui that queuing is not permitted on any public
right-of-way.
Director Luna-Reynosa stated that the project does meet the number of parking spaces required per
Code in an unconventional manner; however, tandem and parking management through valet service
is conditionally allowed.
Councilmember Posey confirmed with Director Luna-Reynosa that hotels cannot queue onto the street
and must have adequate on-site space.
Mayor Semeta opened the Public Hearing for Item No. 31.
43
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 13 of 17
Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental
communications received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda packet:
#31. 19-1205 Communication submitted by Donald Slaven regarding the 3rd Street Commercial
Building.
#31. 19-1205 PowerPoint communication entitled 3rd Street Commercial Building Appeal, 321 3rd
Street, CDP 19-001 & CUB 19-001.
Public Hearing – 7 speakers
Bob McMahon was called to speak and shared his concerns about the size of this project, stated his
opinion that more architectural detail is needed for the building, and he would like to see more details
on how this building will appear in relation to the existing surrounding environment rather than just the
front elevation which was presented. (01:40:30)
Jeff Bergsma, project applicant and architect, was called to speak and clarified that during the design
review process there will be 3D renderings and consideration of adjacent properties. Mr. Bergsma also
reviewed the parking plan and stated in his view queuing is accommodated by the 14 spaces at ground
level, plus the 5 spaces in the drive aisle in conjunction with staggered worker shifts. Regarding
concerns about delivery truck space, Mr. Bergsma stated that this project has a much larger alley set -
back than currently exists, and his understanding that delivery trucks should use the designated space
on Main Street. (01:42:37)
Richard Raskin, Parking Consultant for Project, was called to speak and stated that in his professional
opinion the parking plan presented will prevent the need for queuing. He also stated that the tenant will
allow staggered employee start times from 7 to 9 a.m. so that staff vehicles will not arrive all at the
same time.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy and Mr. Raskin discussed that at least one valet will remain on the premises
until the last employee has left for the day, or the valet can leave the key with the employee with
instructions for elevator operation; and arrangements can be made for an employee who needs to
occasionally start their day unusually early. (01:45:52)
Bob Bolen, a long-time resident and business owner of the building behind this project, was called to
speak and stated his opposition to this project. He shared his concerns about current deliveries for
neighboring businesses in that alley all day long, and believes that a four-story building surrounded by
one- and two-story buildings is out of place. He further stated his opinion that the project does not meet
the "intent" of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding compatibility with the surrounding area, and that
no one has addressed the issue of alley traffic at lunch time. (01:49:39)
Brent Nichols, owner of a next door business, was called to speak and stated his concerns regarding
the parking plan which he believes will negatively impact an already congested alley. He
recommended that a parking study be completed before this project is approved. (01:52:59)
Bill Collins, representing the Property Manager, was called to speak and stated that Property
Management is interested in dialogue to address neighbor concerns to make this project work. He also
stated that executive employees usually eat lunch at Main Street restaurants, normally do not leave in
44
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 14 of 17
their cars during the day, and that they also have the option to park at the Promenade. He added that
the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project, and he asked that Council do the same.
(01:54:41)
Keith Bohr, representing the Property Owner, was called to speak and shared slides of area street
views and described area deliveries and vehicles during the 7 - 9 a.m. time frame to document the lack
of vehicle congestion. He further stated that in reality most employees will want the Promenade
parking permit which will further reduce the number of vehicles park ing at the project site. Mr. Bohr
expressed a desire to be a good neighbor with a project that meets code, and brings more people to
the Downtown District. (01:56:41)
There being no more speakers, Mayor Semeta closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Peterson and staff discussed queuing concerns and staff confirmed that queuing in the
drive aisle would block ground level parking spaces and the parking elevator. Councilmember
Peterson stated he is not convinced that staggered work times would solve alley parking concerns, and
believes that queuing should happen on the property, or another parking system should be developed.
Councilmember Posey described various scenarios regarding parking to support his opinion there will
be no parking problems.
Councilmember Carr expressed her concern that no one has addressed the issue of ground level
parking for customers. All vehicles needing to park will not belong to employees. She asked why ways
to minimize queueing are being discussed when queueing is not allowed, and suggested that if the
building was smaller, queueing might be possible on the property. Councilmember Carr would like to
see a parking feasibility study completed for this project, and she cannot support a project which
stipulates that employees must stagger their starting times to make it work.
Councilmember Delgleize would like to see queuing only in the garage, and stated support for
Councilmember Carr's comments regarding a parking study and the possibility of reducing the building
size.
Councilmember Posey asked why there is concern about queueing in the alley when delivery trucks are
already doing that, rather than parking on Main Street.
Councilmember Brenden and Keith Bohr discussed that the developer looked at the lot size and then
determined how best to maximize the space without variances and special permits. Mr. Bohr stated
that per code, access must be from the alley vs. 3rd Street, and stated the height of the subterranean
level is 9 feet. Councilmember Brenden and Planner Bui discussed tandem parking and that it is not
defined in the City's code, but staff generally defines it as one car parked in front of another, rather than
one above another.
Planner Bui explained that the plan meets the Circulation Element which allows for shared parking or
other creative parking arrangements that optimize other available parking areas, and compatibility is
defined in terms of land use, architectural design of neighboring buildings, scale, and character.
Councilmember Brenden asked how this project meets the compatibility test when the building is larger
than any of the neighboring buildings. Director Luna-Reynosa explained that land use is the primary
45
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 15 of 17
criteria, and stated that compatibility is very subjective criteria, and added that the Council has the right
to disagree with the previous findings and articulate the changes they would like to see.
Councilmember Brenden stated that he believes this project should not be approved with stipulations or
conditions that may not apply in the future to another tenant, such as staggered shifts for employees,
nor does he support "government" making such stipulations.
Mayor Semeta stated that many of her concerns have already been discussed, including
Councilmember Brenden's comments that the project has to work many years in the future as she is
concerned about approving conditions for current situations which may not be feasible for future or new
tenants. She stated that in her opinion this plan is an "experiment" which she is not comfortable
supporting.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy stated her concerns about parking, mechanics of parking elevator reliability in
moist beach air, compatibility scale and size of the project, and conditions or variances which are
specific to the current tenant but probably will not work long-term for future businesses.
Councilmember Posey asked, and Mr. Bohr confirmed, that the project meets all Downtown Specific
Plan criteria, and the Planning Commission approved the plan 6/0/1 (one absence). He stated his
support for this project because he doesn't see any data that supports the concerns being discussed.
Councilmember Peterson stated his opinion that while the project may meet the letter of the law, he had
concerns about compatibility with residential and two-story neighbors. Director Luna-Reynosa
described three criteria required to approve or deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and that Council
could deny if any one criteria was not met. Councilmember Peterson stated that he felt the project did
not meet the first criteria, i.e., establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be
detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity, nor detrimental to the
value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Stating his opposition, he made a motion
to deny the project based on its inability to meet the first criteria. Mayor Semeta the seconded his
motion.
In response to Councilmember Delgleize, Director Luna-Reynosa repeated the two additional CUP
criteria: the granting of the CUP will not adversely affect the General Plan; and, the proposed use will
comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25,
and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located.
Councilmember Delgleize stated that in her opinion the building is too big for the immediate
neighborhood.
Councilmember Posey confirmed with Councilmember Peterson that the motion on the table is to deny
Item 31 B), the Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001, and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 based
on Conditional Use Permit criteria 1.
The motion made by Peterson, second Semeta to deny Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 based on inability to meet Conditional Use Permit criteria 1, carried
by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: Posey
46
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 16 of 17
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
32. 19-1289 Approved for introduction Ordinance No. 4202, which amends Chapter 13.54 of
the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regarding specific events to prohibit
weapons at parades and protests
Chief Handy briefly described the background for the ordinance, described local protest events that
have caused public discourse, and described weapons of various sorts that have been found and
confiscated. Chief Handy explained they worked with other cities in Orange County to come up with
this ordinance to expand the definition of specific events and weapons, and to allow officers to take pro-
active action as opposed to waiting for an incident to happen. Chief Handy further stated that the
objective is to enhance public safety and officer protection while people exercise their free speech
rights.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the Chief and City Attorney for including the carry a concealed
weapon (CCW) permit clause.
Chief Handy explained that people with a CCW permit are trained, they are licensed, and they know
and agree to the rules.
Councilmember Carr confirmed with Chief Handy that an American Flag can be carried, but it must be
on a hollow plastic pole vs. wood, which could be used as a weapon.
A motion was made by Peterson, second Delgleize to after the City Clerk reads by title, approve for
introduction Ordinance No. 4202, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter
13.54 Regarding Specific Events to Prohibit Weapons at Parades and Protests."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
Councilmember Peterson congratulated American Legion Post 133 for the 100th Birthday Gala event
and donation received from Tee It Up for the Troops to benefit the Veterans' Resource Center.
Councilmember Carr reported attending the 20th Annual Surf City Splash, the Huntington Beach Fire
Academy Graduation, and the California Commission on Aging meeting in Sacramento.
Councilmember Delgleize reported attending a Santa Ana Watershed meeting, and a town hall meeting
with Congressman Harley Rouda. Councilmember Delgleize announced her appointment of Chris
Morrow to the Finance Commission replacing Charlie Bunten, and thanked Mr. Bunten for his service
over the last five years. She also briefly explained a current project of Be Well OC that is working with
the Orange County Health Agency to remove the stigma of mental illness.
47
Council/PFA Regular Minutes
Successor Agency Special Minutes
January 21, 2020
Page 17 of 17
Councilmember Brenden reported he will be participating in the Superbowl Sunday Surf City Run half
marathon, represented the City for the Chamber of Commerce Ribbon Cutting ceremony for the Ashley
Homestore Grand Opening, and took a business tour of Vispero which provides products to provide
greater accessibility for visually impaired individuals.
Councilmember Posey reported he and City Manager Chi worked with County Supervisor Michelle
Steele to deliver an update on Opportunity Zones, an investment program which allows for deferment of
capital gains for ten years.
Mayor Semeta reported attending the 20th Annual Surf City Splash; provided the welcoming comments
for the HBFD Fire Academy Graduation Ceremony; presented HB pins to nearly 200 students and
teachers from Tianjin, China visiting Hawes Elementary School, hosted by the Huntington Beach
School District; congratulated Hawes Elementary School for receiving the Distinguished School Award
this year; and meeting with Congressman Rouda and City Manager Chi to discuss priorities for federal
funding for Huntington Beach.
ADJOURNMENT — 8:54 PM
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority
is Monday, February 3, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California.
INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND
STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
_______________________________________
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach and Secretary of
the Public Financing Authority of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk-Secretary
______________________________________
Mayor-Chair
48
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1420 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk
Subject:
Receive and file the updated Huntington Beach City Council Manual 2020 digitally compiled to
incorporate policy information previously adopted by resolution
Statement of Issue:
The Council Manual has been updated to reflect information for current calendar and/or fiscal years.
Financial Impact:
None.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the updated Huntington Beach City Council Manual 2020.
Alternative Action(s):
Deny the request, and provide staff with alternative direction.
Analysis:
In March 2019, the City Council adopted a new, digitally compiled manual that incorporated policy
information previously adopted by resolution with enhanced formatting and links to local government
resource material. Resolution No. 2019-09 described the Manual as a living document, updated to
ensure its contents remain current and relative. The City Council, at its discretion by resolution, can
amend the Manual at any time.
Revisions in this update include:
·References to calendar/fiscal years
·New Organizational Chart
·New Forward Letter (signed by Oliver Chi, City Manager)
·New Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2020
·Revised Description of Mayor’s Award in Mayor Protocal Handbook (new selection process to
be implemented in March 2020)
·Revised Agenda Review Meeting Time in Mayor Protocal Handbook (changed from 4:30 PM
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™49
File #:20-1420 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
to 4:00 PM)
·New 2020 Council Liaison List
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Huntington Beach City Council Manual 2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™50
51
Council Manual
Material Provided By: City of Huntington Beach; Institute for Local Government (ILG)
Table of Contents
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFORMATION
Forward …………...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………...…………4
City Charter ……...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………...…………5
Organization Chart – from Adopted FY 2019/20 Budget…………………….……………………….…………………………………….…..……….28
Council Meetings and Parliamentary Procedure……………………………………………………………………………..………….………..…………30
The Agenda Process ………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..……...…35
Procedure for Selection of Mayor Pro Tem …………………………..…………………………………….………………….……………………….…..…38
Code of Ethics ……………………………………..…………………………………………….………………….……………………………….……….……………..……40
Required Trainings (AB 1234 Ethics; AB 1661 Sexual Harassment Prevention)……………………………………....……………………45
Statewide Ballot Propositions, Appeal of Planning Decisions,
Guidelines for Representing the City at Conferences or Other Such Meetings..……………………………………………………52
Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees ……………………………………………….......………………..…..…………………60
Statement of Economic Interests – Form 700 Reporting ………………..………………….……………………………………..…………………..72
Conflict of Interest Map ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......……………….…103
General Rules for Gifts and Honoraria …………………………………..………..………………….……………………………………..……………….…105
New Mayor Protocol Handbook (includes current Council Liaison List) ……………………………………………….……………….…..107
ILG RESOURCES
RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
Types and Responsibilities of Local Agencies LINKS TO ARTICLES
Local Agency Powers and Limitations
What are the Sources of Law Affecting Local Agencies
Legislative versus Adjudicative Decision Making
BUDGETING AND FINANCE
The Basics of Municipal Revenues in California
The Financial Management for Elected Officials: Questions to Ask
LEADERSHIP SKILLS
Governing Board Member Strategies
Transparency in Local Government: Protecting Your Community Against Corruption
Tips for Promoting Civility in Public Meetings
52
Council Manual
Material Provided By: City of Huntington Beach; Institute for Local Government (ILG)
PUBLIC TRUST & TRANSPARENCY
The Ethics of Speaking One's Mind
The ABCs of Open Government Laws (Brown Act)
Ethics Law Principles for Public Servants: Key Things to Know
MAKING DECISIONS
How Local Agencies Make Things Happen
How Your Agency Counsel Should Advise You When Agency Contracts Represent a Conflict of Interest
LAND USE
The Nuts and Bolts of Project Review
WORKING WITH STAFF
Board/Executive Staff Communications Strategies
Elected Official Direction to Staff
WORKING WITH RESIDENTS AND THE MEDIA
Why Engage the Public?
Media Relations Tips for Newly Elected Officials
Dealing with Emotional Audiences
Social Media and Public Agencies: Legal Issues to be Aware of
Taking the Bite Out of Blogs: Ethics in Cyberspace
WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN
Saying Your Sorry
A Leader's Role When Tragedy Strikes
53
454
5 55
City Charter
Formatting of the original Council Manual adopted in 1976 and revised versions thereafter
outlined language taken directly from the City Charter and referenced section numbers.
This revised Council Manual includes the City Charter in its entirety (attached) as a complete
reference guide that includes the topics outlined in prevision versions:
Rules of Office of Councilpersons (Charter § 300)
Duties and Limitations of the City Council (Charter § 301, 303, 304, 307, 308,
311, 313, 400, 401, 403, 405, 500, 602, 603, 604, 608, 610, 615, 616)
Duties of the Mayor (Charter § 303, 305, 613)
Duties of the Mayor Pro Tempore (Charter § 306)
Compensation of Councilpersons (Charter § 302; HBMC § 2.28.010)
6 56
City Charter
City of Huntington BeaCH
Incorporated February 17, 1909
7 57
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 1 of 20
12/6/10
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY CHARTER
Incorporated, February 17, 1909
(Election February 9, 1909; 94 votes cast for incorporation and 25 votes against)
CHARTER AMENDMENTS
Effective Dates
Charter Election Certified - Res. 773 Results 5/3/37........…………5/17/37
Amendments……………………………………………………..…..2/2/40
Amendments…………………………………………………….….1/29/47
Amendments……………………………………………………..…1/27/49
Amendments……………………………………………………..…..5/9/49
Revised.............................……………………........……………..….5/1/50
New Charter………………………………………………….….….2/10/66
Amendments………………………………………………….….…1/18/71
Amendments………………………………………………….….…..6/5/75
Amendments……………………………………………………....12/10/76
Amendments……………………………………………………..…7/17/78
Amendments..(Consolidation November)……………………..…...12/9/82
Amendments…………………………………………………..……12/7/84
Amendments……………………………………………………..…12/7/90
Amendments……………………………………………………......4/22/02
Revised……..(Certified by the Secretary of State 1/6/11).…….….12/6/10
8 58
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 2 of 20
12/6/10
CITY CHARTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I. INCORPORATION AND POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 100. Name
Section 101. Seal
Section 102. Boundaries
Section 103. Powers of City
Section 104. Construction
Section 105. Intergovernmental Relations
ARTICLE II. FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Section 200. Council-Manager Form of Government
ARTICLE III. ELECTIVE OFFICES
Section 300. City Council, Attorney, Clerk and Treasurer. Terms
Section 301. Powers Vested in City Council
Section 302. Compensation
Section 303. Meetings and Location
Section 304. Quorums, Proceedings and Rules of Order
Section 305. Presiding Officer
Section 306. Mayor Pro Tempore
Section 307. Non-interference with Administration
Section 308. Official Bonds
Section 309. City Attorney. Powers and Duties
Section 310. City Clerk. Powers and Duties
Section 311. City Treasurer. Powers and Duties
Section 312. Vacancies, Forfeitures and Replacement
Section 313. Conflict of Interest, Nepotism
ARTICLE IV. APPOINTIVE OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
Section 400. City Manager. Composition, Term, Eligibility, Removal
Section 401. Powers and Duties
Section 402. Acting City Manager
Section 403. Personnel
Section 404. Retirement System
Section 405. Boards, Commissions and Committees
ARTICLE V. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Section 500. Regular Ordinances. Enactment, Adoption, Publication, Amendment, When
Effective and Codification
Section 501. Emergency Ordinances
Section 502. Resolutions
Section 503. Publishing of Legal Notices
9 59
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 3 of 20
12/6/10
ARTICLE VI. FISCAL ADMINISTRATION
Section 600. Fiscal Year
Section 601. Annual Budget, Preparation by the City Manager
Section 602. Annual Budget. Submission to the City Council
Section 603. Annual Budget. Public Hearing
Section 604. Annual Budget. Further Consideration and Adoption
Section 605. Annual Budget Appropriations
Section 606. Determination of City Tax Rate
Section 607. Tax Limits
Section 608. Vote Required for Tax Measures
Section 609. Real Estate Transfer Tax
Section 610. Bonded Debt Limit
Section 611. Revenue Bonds
Section 612. Public Utilities and Parks and Beaches
Section 613. Execution of Contracts
Section 614. Contracts on Public Works
Section 615. Granting of Franchises
Section 616. Independent Audit
Section 617. Infrastructure Fund
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS
Section 700. General Municipal Elections
Section 701. Special Municipal Elections
Section 702. Procedure for Holding Elections
Section 703. Initiative, Referendum and Recall
Section 704. Nomination Papers
ARTICLE VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 800. Transition
Section 801. Definitions
Section 802. Violations
Section 803. Property Rights Protection Measure
Section 804. Charter Review
10 60
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 4 of 20
12/6/10
CHARTER
We, the people of the City of Huntington Beach, State of California believe fiscal responsibility and the
prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for confidence in government, that ethics and integrity are
the foundation of public trust and that just governance is built upon these values. Through the enactment
of this Charter as the fundamental law of the City of Huntington Beach under the Constitution of the State
of California, we do hereby exercise the privilege of retaining for ourselves, the benefits of local
government, by enacting the laws, rules, regulations and procedures set forth herein pertaining to the
governance and operation of our City.
It is incumbent upon those who govern and make decisions for and on behalf of the City of Huntington
Beach to legally, as well as morally, abide by the provisions of this Charter, in its strictest sense, to assure
the continued success and well-being of our fair City.
ARTICLE I
INCORPORATION AND POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 100. NAME. The municipal corporation now existing and known as the City of Huntington
Beach shall remain and continue to exist as a municipal corporation under its present name of "City of
Huntington Beach."
Section 101. SEAL. The City shall have an official seal which may be changed from time to time by
ordinance. The present official seal shall continue to be the official seal of the City until changed in the
manner stated.
Section 102. BOUNDARIES. The boundaries of the City shall continue as now established until changed
in the manner authorized by law.
Section 103. POWERS OF CITY. The City shall have the power to make and enforce all laws and
regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be
provided in this Charter or in the Constitution of the State of California.
Section 104. CONSTRUCTION. The general grant of power to the City under this Charter shall be
construed broadly in favor of the City. The specific provisions enumerated in this Charter are intended to
be and shall be interpreted as limitations upon the general grant of power and shall be construed narrowly.
If any provisions of this Charter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the remainder of the Charter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall
not be affected thereby.
Section 105. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. The City may exercise any of its powers or
perform any of its functions and may participate in the financing thereof, jointly or in cooperation, by
contract or otherwise, with any one or more states or civil divisions or agencies thereof, or the United
States or any agency thereof.
ARTICLE II
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Section 200. COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The municipal government
provided by this Charter shall be known as the Council-Manager form of government.
11 61
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 5 of 20
12/6/10
ARTICLE III
ELECTIVE OFFICES
Section 300. CITY COUNCIL, ATTORNEY, CLERK AND TREASURER. TERMS. The elective
officers of the City shall consist of a City Council of seven members, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer and a
City Attorney, all to be elected from the City at large at the times and in the manner provided in this
Charter and who shall serve for terms of four years and until their respective successors qualify. Subject
to the provisions of this Charter, the members of the City Council in office at the time this Charter takes
effect shall continue in office until the expiration of their respective terms and until their successors are
elected and qualified. Four members of the City Council shall be elected at the general municipal election
held in 1966, and each fourth year thereafter. Three members of the City Council shall be elected at the
general municipal election held in 1968, and each fourth year thereafter. No person shall be elected as a
member of the City Council for more than two consecutive terms and no person who has been a member
for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected a member shall be elected to
the City Council more than one further consecutive term. Subject to the provisions of this Charter, the
City Clerk, City Treasurer and City Attorney in office at the time this Charter takes effect shall continue
in office until the expiration of their respective terms and the qualification of their successors. A City
Clerk and City Treasurer shall be elected at the general municipal election held in 1968, and each fourth
year thereafter. A City Attorney shall be elected in 1966, and each fourth year thereafter.
The term of each member of the City Council, the City Clerk, the City Treasurer and the City Attorney
shall commence on the first Monday following the certification of the election. Ties in voting among
candidates for office shall be settled by the casting of lots.
If no candidate meets the qualifications for office of the City Clerk, City Treasurer, or City Attorney, the
City Council shall fill that position by appointment until the next municipal general election in which a
qualified candidate is elected.
Section 301. POWERS VESTED IN CITY COUNCIL. All powers of the City shall be vested in the
City Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter.
Section 302. COMPENSATION. The members of the City Council including the Mayor shall receive as
compensation for their services as such a monthly salary in the sum of One Hundred Seventy-five Dollars
per month. In addition, each member of the City Council shall receive reimbursement on order of the City
Council for Council authorized traveling and other expenses when on official duty upon submission of
itemized expense accounts therefor. In addition, members shall receive such reasonable and adequate
amounts as may be established by ordinance, which amounts shall be deemed to be reimbursement to
them of other routine and ordinary expenses, losses and costs imposed upon them by virtue of their
serving as City Councilpersons.
Section 303. MEETINGS AND LOCATION.
(a) Regular Meetings. The City Council shall hold regular meetings at least twice each
month at such time as it shall fix by ordinance or resolution and may adjourn or re-adjourn any regular
meeting to a date and hour certain which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so
adjourned each adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. If the hour to which a
meeting is adjourned is not stated in the order of adjournment, such meeting shall be held at the hour for
holding regular meetings. If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday such regular meeting shall
be held on the next business day.
(b) Special Meetings. A special meeting may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by a
majority of the members of the City Council, by written notice to each member of the City Council and to
each local newspaper of general circulation, radio or television station requesting notice in writing. Such
12 62
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 6 of 20
12/6/10
notice must be delivered personally or by mail at least twenty-four hours before the time of such meeting
as specified in the notice.
The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be
transacted. No other business shall be considered at such meeting. If any person entitled to such written
notice files a written waiver of notice with the City Clerk, it may be dispensed with. This notice
requirement shall be considered fulfilled as to any person who is actually present at the meeting at the
time it convenes. In the event of an emergency affecting the public peace, health or safety, a special
meeting may be called as provided in this section with less than twenty-four hours written notice by the
Mayor Pro Tem in the Mayor's absence or by any member of the City Council in the absence of both the
Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem provided that the nature of the emergency is set forth in the minutes of the
meeting.
(c) Place of Meetings. All regular meetings shall be held in the Council Chambers of the
City or in such place within the City to which any such meeting may be adjourned. If, by reason of fire,
flood or other emergency, it shall be unsafe to meet in the place designated, the meetings may be held for
the duration of the emergency at such place within the City as is designated by the Mayor, or, if he should
fail to act, by a majority of the members of the City Council.
(d) Open Meetings. All regular and special meetings of the City Council shall be open and
public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend such meetings, except that the provisions of this
section shall not apply to executive sessions. Subject to the rules governing the conduct of City Council
meetings, no person shall be denied the right to be heard by the City Council.
(e) Dissemination of Information. The City Council shall adopt rules to ensure thorough
and timely dissemination of information via current technology by resolution.
Section 304. QUORUMS, PROCEEDINGS AND RULES OF ORDER.
(a) Quorum. A majority of the members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum to do
business but a lesser number may adjourn from time to time. In the absence of all the members of the City
Council from any regular meeting or adjourned regular meeting, the City Clerk may declare the same
adjourned to a stated day and hour. The City Clerk shall cause written notice of a meeting adjourned by
less than a quorum or by the City Clerk to be delivered personally or by mail to each Council member at
least twenty-four hours before the time to which the meeting is adjourned, or such notice may be
dispensed with in the same manner as specified in this Charter for dispensing with notice of special
meetings of the City Council.
(b) Proceedings. The City Council shall judge the qualification of its members as set forth
by the Charter. It shall judge all election returns. Each member of the City Council shall have the power
to administer oaths and affirmations in any investigation or proceeding pending before the City Council.
The City Council shall have the power and authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine
them under oath and to compel the production of evidence before it. Subpoenas shall be issued in the
name of the City and be attested by the City Clerk. They shall be served and complied with in the same
manner as subpoenas in civil actions. Disobedience of such subpoenas, or the refusal to testify (upon
other than constitutional grounds), shall constitute a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable in the same
manner as violations of this Charter are punishable. The City Council shall have control of all legal
business and proceedings and all property of the legal department, and may employ other attorneys to
take charge of or may contract for any prosecution, litigation or other legal matter or business.
(c) Rules of Order. The City Council shall establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings
and evict or prosecute any member or other person for disorderly conduct at any of its meetings. Upon
adoption of any ordinance, resolution, or order for payment of money, or upon the demand of any
13 63
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 7 of 20
12/6/10
member, the City Clerk shall call the roll and shall cause the ayes and noes taken on the question to be
entered in the minutes of the meeting.
Section 305. PRESIDING OFFICER. At the Council meeting at which any Council member is installed
following any general or special municipal election, and at any time when there is a vacancy in the office
of Mayor, the City Council shall meet and shall elect one of its members as its presiding officer, who
shall have the title of Mayor. The Mayor may make and second motions and shall have a voice and vote
in all its proceedings. The Mayor shall be the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes; shall
have the primary but not the exclusive responsibility for interpreting the policies, programs and needs of
the City government to the people, and as occasion requires, may inform the people of any major change
in policy or program; and shall perform such other duties consistent with the office as may be prescribed
by this Charter or as may be imposed by the City Council. The Mayor shall serve in such capacity at the
pleasure of the City Council.
Section 306. MAYOR PRO TEMPORE. The City Council shall also designate one of its members as
Mayor Pro Tempore, who shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. The Mayor Pro
Tempore shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor's absence or disability or at the Mayor's
request.
Section 307. NON-INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION. Except as otherwise provided in
this Charter, no member of the City Council shall order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the
City Manager, or by any of the department heads in administrative service of the City, of any person to
any office or employment, or removal therefrom. Except for the purpose of investigation and inquiry, the
members of the City Council shall deal with the administrative service under the jurisdiction of the City
Manager solely through the City Manager, and no member of the City Council shall give orders to any
subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.
No elected department head or staff of the Office of the elected department head shall be a member of the
management negotiation team for the purposes of negotiations of memorandums of understanding with
the employee bargaining units.
Section 308. OFFICIAL BONDS. The City Council shall fix by ordinance or resolution the amounts and
terms of the official bonds of all officials or employees who are required by this Charter or by ordinance
to give such bonds. All bonds shall be executed by responsible corporate surety, shall be approved as to
form by the City Attorney, and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Premiums on official bonds shall be
paid by the City. A blanket bond may be used if it provides the same protection as the required separate
bond would provide.
In all cases wherein an employee of the City is required to furnish a faithful performance bond, there shall
be no personal liability upon, or any right to recover against, the employee's superior officer or other
officer or employee or the bond of the latter, unless such superior officer, or other officer or employee is a
party to the act or omission, or has conspired in the wrongful act directly or indirectly causing the loss.
Section 309. CITY ATTORNEY. POWERS AND DUTIES. To become and remain eligible for City
Attorney the person elected or appointed shall have graduated from a law school accredited by the
American Bar Association, be an attorney at law, duly licensed as such under the laws of the State of
California, shall have been engaged in the practice of law in this State for at least five years prior to their
election or appointment. The City Attorney shall have the power and may be required to:
(a) Represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law
pertaining to their offices.
14 64
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 8 of 20
12/6/10
(b) Prosecute on behalf of the people any or all criminal cases arising from violation of the
provisions of this Charter or of City ordinances and such state misdemeanors as the City has the power to
prosecute, unless otherwise provided by the City Council.
(c) Represent and appear for the City in any or all actions or proceedings in which the City is
concerned or is a party, and represent and appear for any City officer or employee, or former City officer
or employee, in any or all civil actions or proceedings in which such officer or employee is concerned or
is a party for any act arising out of their employment or by reason of their official capacity.
(d) Attend all regular meetings of the City Council, unless excused, and give their advice or
opinion orally or in writing whenever requested to do so by the City Council or by any of the boards or
officers of the City.
(e) Approve in writing the form of all contracts made by and all bonds and insurance given
to the City.
(f) Prepare any and all proposed ordinances and City Council resolutions and amendments
thereto.
(g) Devote such time to the duties of their office and at such place as may be specified by the
City Council.
(h) Perform such legal functions and duties incident to the execution of the foregoing powers
as may be necessary.
(i) Surrender to their successor all books, papers, files, and documents pertaining to the
City's affairs.
(j) Assist and cooperate with the City Manager consistent with Section 403 of the City Charter.
(k) Provide advice related to compliance with the City Charter to all elected and appointed
officials of the City.
Section 310. CITY CLERK. POWERS AND DUTIES. To become and remain eligible for City Clerk,
the person elected or appointed shall have a Bachelor’s Degree in business, public administration, or a
related field, and hold a certification as a Municipal Clerk or obtain such certification within the first three
years in office. The City Clerk shall have the power and shall be required to:
(a) Attend all meetings of the City Council, unless excused, and be responsible for the
recording and maintaining of a full and true record of all of the proceedings of the City Council in records
that shall bear appropriate titles and be devoted to such purpose.
(b) Maintain separate records, in which shall be recorded respectively all ordinances and
resolutions, with the certificate of the Clerk annexed to each thereof stating the same to be the original or
a correct copy, and as to an ordinance requiring publication, stating that the same has been published or
posted in accordance with this Charter.
(c) Maintain separate records of all written contracts and official bonds.
(d) Keep all records in their possession properly indexed and open to public inspection when
not in actual use.
(e) Be the custodian of the seal of the City.
15 65
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 9 of 20
12/6/10
(f) Administer oaths or affirmations, take affidavits and depositions pertaining to the affairs
and business of the City and certify copies of official records.
(g) Be ex officio Assessor, unless the City Council, has availed itself, or does in the future
avail itself, of the provisions of the general laws of the State relative to the assessment of property and the
collection of City taxes by county officers, or unless the City Council by ordinance provides otherwise.
(h) Have charge of all City elections.
(i) Perform such other duties consistent with this Charter as may be required by ordinance or
resolution of the City Council.
(j) Assist and cooperate with the City Manager consistent with Section 403 of the City
Charter.
The City Clerk may, subject to the approval of the City Council, appoint such deputy or deputies to assist
them or act for them, at such salaries or compensation as the Council may by ordinance or resolution
prescribe.
Section 311. CITY TREASURER. POWERS AND DUTIES. To become and remain eligible for City
Treasurer, the person elected or appointed shall have a minimum of five years of financial and/or treasury
experience, and have either:
A Master’s Degree in accounting, finance, business, or public administration; or
A Bachelor’s Degree in accounting, finance, business, or public administration with certification
by the California Municipal Treasurer’s Association, or their successor, within three years of election or
appointment.
The City Treasurer shall have the power and shall be required to:
(a) Receive on behalf of the City all taxes, assessments, license fees and other revenues of
the City, or for the collection of which the City is responsible, and receive all taxes or other money
receivable by the City from the County, State or Federal governments, or from any court, or from any
office, department or agency of the City.
(b) Have and keep custody of all public funds belonging to or under control of the City or
any office, department or agency of the City government and deposit or cause to be deposited all funds
coming into their hands in such depository as may be designated by resolution of the City Council, or, if
no such resolution be adopted, then in such depository designated in writing by the City Manager, and in
compliance with all of the provisions of the State Constitution and laws of the State governing the
handling, depositing and securing of public funds.
(c) Pay out moneys only on proper orders or warrants in the manner provided for in this
Charter.
(d) Prepare and submit to the Director of Finance monthly written reports of all receipts,
disbursements and fund balances, and shall file copies of such reports with the City Manager and City
Council.
(e) Perform such other duties consistent with this Charter as may be required by ordinance or
resolution of the City Council.
16 66
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 10 of 20
12/6/10
(f) Assist and cooperate with the City Manager consistent with Section 403 of the City
Charter.
The City Treasurer may, subject to the approval of the City Council, appoint such deputy or deputies to
assist them or act for them, at such salaries or compensation as the Council may by ordinance or
resolution prescribe.
Section 312. VACANCIES, FORFEITURES AND REPLACEMENT.
(a) Vacancies. A vacancy in the City Council or in any other office designated as elective by
this Charter, from whatever cause arising, shall be filled by appointment by the City Council.
(b) Forfeiture. If a member of the City Council is absent from all regular meetings of the
City Council for a period of thirty consecutive days from and after the last regular City Council meeting
attended by such member, unless by permission of the City Council expressed in its official minutes, th e
office shall become vacant. If an elected City officer pleads guilty or no contest to or is convicted of a
felony or any crime of moral turpitude, or ceases to be an elector of the City, the office shall become
vacant. The City Council shall declare the existence of such vacancy. Any elective officer of the City who
shall accept or retain any other elective public office, except as provided in this Charter, shall be deemed
thereby to have vacated the office under the City Government.
(c) Replacement. In the event it shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within sixty days
after such office shall become vacant, the City Council shall forthwith cause an election to be held to fill
such vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term.
Section 313. CONFLICT OF INTEREST, NEPOTISM.
(a) Conflict of Interest. The City Council shall adopt or approve rules and regulations
regulating conflicts of interest and promoting fair dealing in all City business.
(b) Nepotism. The City Council shall not appoint to a salaried position under the City
government any person who is a relative by blood or marriage within the third degree of any one or more
of the members of such City Council, nor shall the City Manager or any department head or other officer
having appointive power appoint any relative of such person or of any Council member within such
degree to any such position.
This provision shall not affect the employment or promotional status of a person who has attained a
salaried position with the City prior to the existence of a situation contemplated by this provision;
however, Council members or officers with appointive powers in such a situation shall disqualify
themselves from all decisions affecting the employment and promotional status of such person.
ARTICLE IV
APPOINTIVE OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
Section 400. CITY MANAGER. COMPOSITION, TERM, ELIGIBILITY, REMOVAL.
(a) Composition. There shall be a City Manager who shall be the chief administrative officer
of the City.
(b) Term. The City Manager shall be appointed by the affirmative vote of at least a majority
of the members of the City Council and shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council; provided,
however, that the person occupying the office shall not be removed from office except as herein provided.
17 67
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 11 of 20
12/6/10
(c) Eligibility. The City Manager shall be chosen on the basis of executive and
administrative qualifications, with special reference to actual experience in and knowledge of accepted
practice as regards the duties of the office as herein set forth. No person shall be eligible to be appointed
City Manager or Acting City Manager while serving as a member of the City Council nor within one year
following the termination of membership on the City Council.
(d) Removal. The City Manager shall not be removed from office during or within a period
of ninety days next succeeding any municipal election at which a member of the City Council is elected.
At any other time the City Manager may be removed only at a regular meeting of the City Council and
upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the City Council. At least thirty days prior to
the effective date of removal, the City Manager shall be furnished with a written notice stating the
Council's intentions and, if requested by the City Manager, the reasons therefor. Within seven days after
receipt of such notice, the City Manager may by written notification to the City Clerk request a public
hearing before the City Council, in which event the Council shall fix a time for a public hearing which
shall be held at its regular meeting place before the expiration of the thirty-day period above referred to.
The City Manager shall appear and be heard at such hearing. After furnishing the City Manager with
written notice of the intended removal, the City Council may suspend the City Manager from duty, but his
compensation shall continue until removal as herein provided. In removing the City Manager, the City
Council shall use its uncontrolled discretion and its action shall be final and shall not depend upon any
particular showing or degree of proof at the hearing, the purpose of which is to allow the City Council and
the City Manager to present to each other and to the public all pertinent facts prior to the final action of
removal.
Section 401. POWERS AND DUTIES. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, the City Manager
shall be responsible to the City Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City. Without
limiting this general grant of powers and responsibilities, the City Manager shall have the power and be
required to:
(a) Appoint, promote, demote, suspend or remove department heads, officers and employees
of the City except elective officers and the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police shall not be appointed or
removed until the City Manager shall first have reviewed such appointment or removal with the City
Council and have received approval for such appointment or removal by a majority vote of the full City
Council.
(b) Prepare the budget annually, submit it to the City Council, and be responsible for its
administration upon adoption.
(c) Prepare and submit to the City Council as of the end of each fiscal year, a complete report
on the finances of the City, and annually or more frequently, a current report of the principal
administrative activities of the City.
(d) Keep the City Council advised of the financial condition and future needs of the City and
make such recommendations as may seem desirable.
(e) Maintain a centralized purchasing system for all City offices, departments and agencies.
(f) Prepare, administer and enforce rules and regulations recommended to and adopted by
the City Council governing the contracting for, purchase, inspection, storage, inventory, distribution and
disposal of all supplies, materials and equipment required by any office, department or agency of the City
government.
(g) Be responsible for the compliance by the City with the laws of the State pertaining to the
City, the provisions of this Charter and the ordinances, franchises and rights of the City.
18 68
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 12 of 20
12/6/10
Subject to policy established by the City Council, exercise control of all administrative offices and
departments of the City and of all appointive officers and employees, and prescribe such general rules and
regulations as deemed necessary or proper for the general conduct of the administrative offices and
departments of the City under their jurisdiction.
(h) Perform such other duties consistent with this Charter as may be required by the City
Council.
Section 402. ACTING CITY MANAGER. During any temporary absence or disability of the City
Manager, the City Manager shall appoint one of the other officers or department heads of the City to
serve as Acting City Manager. In the event the City Manager fails to make such appointment, such
appointment may be made by the City Council.
Section 403. PERSONNEL. In addition to the City Council, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer, a City
Attorney and City Manager, the officers and employees of the City shall consist of such other officers,
assistants, deputies and employees as the City Council may provide by ordinance or resolution. The City
Council shall establish such reasonable compensation and fringe benefits as are appropriate by ordinance
or resolution for such offices, officials and employees except as herein provided.
The City Council shall maintain by ordinance a comprehensive personnel system for the City. The City
Manager and any officers designated as elective by the Charter shall be exempt. The system shall consist
of the establishment of minimum standards of employment and qualifications for the various classes of
employment and procedures to be followed in advancement, demotion, suspension and discharge of
employees included within the system, as the City Council shall determine to be for the best interest of
the public service. The ordinance shall designate the appointive officers and employees who shall be
included within the system. By subsequent ordinances the City Council may amend the system or the list
of appointive officers and employees included within the system. The system shall comply with all other
provisions of this Charter.
It shall be the duty of all department heads, whether appointed or elected, to assist and cooperate with the
City Manager in administering the affairs of the City in the most efficient, fiscally responsible, and
harmonious manner consistent with the duties as prescribed by law, City Charter, or by ordinance.
Section 404. RETIREMENT SYSTEM. The City shall participate in a retirement system.
Section 405. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. The City Council shall establish such
boards, commissions and committees as are deemed necessary for the orderly functioning of the City. All
such boards, commissions and committees shall report directly to the City Council.
ARTICLE V
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Section 500. REGULAR ORDINANCES. ENACTMENT, ADOPTION, PUBLICATION,
AMENDMENT, WHEN EFFECTIVE AND CODIFICATION.
(a) Enactment. In addition to such other acts of the City Council as are required by this
Charter to be taken by ordinance, every act of the City Council establishing a fine or other penalty, or
granting a franchise, shall be by ordinance. The enacting clause of all ordinances shall be substantially as
follows: "The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows:" No order for the
payment of money shall be adopted or made at other than a regular or adjourned regular meeting. Upon
introduction, an ordinance shall be read by title only. Unless a higher vote is required by other provision s
of this Charter, the affirmative vote of at least four of the City Council shall be required for the enactment
of any ordinance or for the making or approving of any order for the payment of money. All ordinances
shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
19 69
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 13 of 20
12/6/10
(b) Adoption. A regular ordinance shall be adopted only at a regular or adjourned regular
meeting held no less than five days after its introduction. In the event that any ordinance is altered after its
introduction, it shall be finally adopted only at a regular or adjourned regular meeting held no less than
five days after the date it was so altered. The correction of typographical or clerical errors shall not
constitute the making of an alteration within the meaning of the foregoing sentence.
(c) Publication. The City Clerk shall cause each ordinance to be posted in three places
designated by the City Council within the City and to be published by title with a brief summary at least
once within fifteen days after its adoption in a daily, semiweekly or weekly newspaper, published in the
County or the City and circulated in the City, which is selected by the City Council for that purpose.
Current technology shall be used to ensure the widest possible dissemination.
(d) Amendment. The amendment of any section or subsection of an ordinance may be
accomplished solely by the re-enactment of such section or subsection at length, as amended.
(e) When Effective. Every ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after the
date of its adoption, except the following, which shall take effect upon adoption:
(1) An ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election;
(2) An improvement proceeding ordinance adopted under some special law or
procedural ordinance relating thereto;
(3) An ordinance declaring the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation,
or fixing the rate of property taxation, or levying the annual tax upon property.
(4) An emergency ordinance adopted in the manner provided in this Charter.
(f) Codification. Detailed regulations pertaining to any subject and comprehensive
codifications of valid ordinances may be adopted by reference, with the same effect as an ordinance, in
the manner set forth herein; however, such regulations and codifications need not be published in the
manner required for other ordinances, but not less than three copies thereof shall be filed for use and
examination by the public in the office of the City Clerk prior to adoption. Ordinances codified shall be
repealed as of the effective date of the codification. Amendments to the code shall be enacted by
ordinance.
Section 501. EMERGENCY ORDINANCES. Any ordinance declared by the City Council to be
necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,
and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be adopted in the manner provided in
Section 500 except that such emergency ordinance may be introduced, enacted and adopted at one and the
same regular or special meeting and shall take effect immediately upon adoption if passed by at least five
affirmative votes. An emergency ordinance shall expire automatically after 120 days.
Section 502. RESOLUTIONS. The City Council may act by resolution or minute order in all actions not
required by this Charter to be taken by ordinance.
Section 503. PUBLISHING OF LEGAL NOTICES. The City Council shall cause to be published all
legal notices and other matters required to be published by law in a daily, semiweekly or weekly
newspaper published in the County or the City and circulated in the City which is selected by the City
Council for that purpose and using current technology. No defect or irregularity in proceedings taken
under this section shall invalidate any publication where it is otherwise in conformity with this Charter or
law or ordinance.
20 70
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 14 of 20
12/6/10
ARTICLE VI
FISCAL ADMINISTRATION
Section 600. FISCAL YEAR. The fiscal year of the City shall be as set forth by resolution of the City
Council.
Section 601. ANNUAL BUDGET, PREPARATION BY THE CITY MANAGER. At such date as the
City Manager shall determine, each board or commission and each department head shall furnish to the
City Manager, personally, or through the Director of Finance, estimates of the department's, board's or
commission's revenue and expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year, detailed in such manner as may be
prescribed by the City Manager. In preparing the proposed budget, the City Manager shall review the
estimates, hold conferences thereon with the respective department heads, boards or commissions as
necessary, and may revise the estimates as may be deemed advisable.
Section 602. ANNUAL BUDGET. SUBMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. The City Manager
shall submit the proposed budget to the City Council at least thirty days prior to the beginning of each
fiscal year. After reviewing the proposed budget and making such revisions as it may deem advisable, the
City Council shall hold a public hearing thereon at least fifteen days prior to the beginning of each fiscal
year and shall cause to be published a notice thereof not less than ten days prior to said hearing. Copies of
the proposed budget shall be available for inspection by the public in the office of the City Clerk at least
ten days prior to said hearing.
Section 603. ANNUAL BUDGET. PUBLIC HEARING. At the time so advertised or at any time to
which such public hearing shall from time to time be adjourned, the City Council shall hold a public
hearing on the proposed budget, at which interested persons desiring to be heard shall be given such
opportunity.
Section 604. ANNUAL BUDGET. FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION. At the
conclusion of the public hearing the City Council shall further consider the proposed budget and make
any revisions thereof that it may deem advisable and on or before the last day of the fiscal year it shall
adopt the budget with revisions, if any, by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the total members
of the Council. Upon final adoption, the budget shall be in effect for the ensuing fiscal year. Copies
thereof, certified by the City Clerk, shall be filed with the City Manager, Director of Finance, City
Treasurer and the person retained by the City Council to perform the post audit function, and a further
copy shall be placed, and shall remain on file in the office of the City Clerk where it shall be available for
public inspection. The budget so certified shall be reproduced and copies made available for the use of the
public and of departments, offices and agencies of the City.
Section 605. ANNUAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. From the effective date of the budget, the
several amounts stated therein as proposed expenditures shall be and become appropriated to the several
departments, offices and agencies for the respective objects and purposes therein named; provided,
however, that the City Manager may transfer funds from one object or purpose to another within the same
department, office or agency. All appropriations shall lapse at the end of the fiscal year to the extent that
they shall not have been expended or lawfully encumbered.
At any public meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the
budget by motion adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the total members of the City
Council.
Section 606. DETERMINATION OF CITY TAX RATE. The City Council shall prescribe by
ordinance for the assessment, levy and collection of taxes upon property which is taxable for municipal
purposes. If the City Council fails to fix the rate and levy taxes on or before August 31 in any year, the
rate for the next preceding fiscal year shall thereupon be automatically adopted and a tax at such rate shall
be deemed to have been levied on all taxable property in the City for the current fiscal year.
21 71
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 15 of 20
12/6/10
Section 607. TAX LIMITS.
(a) The City Council shall not levy a property tax for municipal purposes in excess of One
Dollar annually on each One Hundred Dollars of the assessed value of taxable property in the City, except
as otherwise provided in this section, unless authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of the
electors voting on a proposition to increase such levy at any election at which the question of such
additional levy for municipal purposes is submitted to the electors. The number of years that such
additional levy is to be made shall be specified in such proposition.
(b) There shall be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other
property taxes for municipal purposes are levied and collected, as additional taxes not subject to the above
limitation, if no other provision for payment thereof is made:
1. A tax sufficient to meet all liabilities of the City of principal and interest of all
bonds and judgments due and unpaid, or to become due during the ensuing fiscal
year, which constitute general obligations of the City; and
2. A tax sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in
which the City participates, due and unpaid or to become due during the ensuing
fiscal year.
(c) Special levies, in addition to the above and not subject to the above limitation, may be
made annually, based on City Council approved estimates, for the following specific purposes, but not to
exceed the following respective limits for those purposes for which limits are herein set forth, to wit:
parks and recreation and human services not to exceed $0.20 per One Hundred Dollars; Libraries not to
exceed $0.15 per One Hundred Dollars; promotional interests and cultural affairs not to exceed $0.07 per
One Hundred Dollars; and civil defense and disaster preparedness not to exceed $0.03 per One Hundred
Dollars. The proceeds of any special levy shall be used for no other purpose than that specified.
Section 608. VOTE REQUIRED FOR TAX MEASURES. No tax, property tax, or other measure
whose principal purpose is the raising of revenue, or any increase in the amount thereof, shall be levied,
enacted or established except by ordinance adopted by the affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of
the City Council; provided, however, that any tax levied or collected pursuant to Section 607(b) of this
Charter shall be exempt from the minimum voting requirement of this section.
This section shall not apply to any license, permit, or any other fee or charge whose principal purpose is
to pay or reimburse the City for the cost of performing any regulatory function of the City under its police
power in connection with the City's duty to preserve or maintain the public peace, health, safety and
welfare.
This section shall not apply to any user or service fee or charge provided such fee or charge is directly
related to such use or service, is charged to the user or person receiving such service, and is to pay or
reimburse the City for the costs of providing such use or service.
This section shall not apply to any fee or charge relating to any franchise or proprietary function of the
City.
Section 609. REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX. The City Council shall not levy a tax on the transfer
or conveyance of any interest in real property unless authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of
the electors voting on a proposition submitted to the electors to authorize such tax at a general or special
election.
22 72
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 16 of 20
12/6/10
Section 610. BONDED DEBT LIMIT. The City shall not incur an indebtedness evidenced by general
obligation bonds which shall in the aggregate exceed the sum of 12 percent of the total assessed valuation,
for purposes of City taxation, of all the real and personal property within the City.
No bonded indebtedness which shall constitute a general obligation of the City may be created unless
authorized by the affirmative vote of the majority required by law of the electors voting on such
proposition at any election at which the question is submitted to the electors.
Section 611. REVENUE BONDS. Bonds which are payable only out of such revenues, other than taxes,
as may be specified in such bonds, may be issued when the City Council by ordinance shall have
established a procedure for the issuance of such bonds. Such bonds, payable only out of revenues, shall
not constitute an indebtedness or general obligation of the City. No such bonds payable out of revenues
shall be issued without the assent of the majority of the voters voting upon the proposition for issuing the
same at an election at which such proposition shall have been duly submitted to the registered voters of
the City.
It shall be competent for the City to make contracts and covenants for the benefit of the holders of any
such bonds payable only from revenues and which shall not constitute a general obligation of the City for
the establishment of a fund or funds, for the maintaining of adequate rates or charges, for restrictions
upon further indebtedness payable out of the same fund or revenues, for restrictions upon transfer out of
such fund, and other appropriate covenants. Money placed in any such special fund for the payment of
principal and/or interest on any issue of such bonds or to assure the application thereof to a specific
purpose shall not be expended for any other purpose whatever except for the purpose for which such
special funds were established and shall be deemed segregated from all other funds of the City and
reserved exclusively for the purpose for which such special fund was established until the purpose of its
establishment shall have been fully accomplished.
Section 612. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PARKS AND BEACHES.
(a) No public utility or park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated
by the City shall be sold, leased, exchanged or otherwise transferred or disposed of unless authorized by
the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special
election at which such proposition is submitted.
(b) No golf course, driving range, road, building over three thousand square feet in floor area
nor structure costing more than $161,000.00 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof
now or hereafter owned or operated by the City unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a
majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of
the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is
submitted after the appropriate environmental assessment, conceptual cost estimate, and reasonable
project description has been completed and widely disseminated to the public. Effective January 1, 2011,
and each year thereafter, the maximum cost will be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for the Los
Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area.
(c) Section 612(a) and 612(b) shall not apply;
(1) to libraries or piers;
(2) to any lease, franchise, concession agreement or other contract where;
- the contract is to perform an act or provide a service in a public park or beach
AND
- such act was being performed or service provided at the same location prior to
January 1, 1989 AND
23 73
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 17 of 20
12/6/10
- the proposed lease, franchise, concession agreement or other contract would
not increase the amount of parkland or beach dedicated to or used by the party
performing such act or providing such service.
(3) to above ground public works utility structures under 3,000 square feet;
(4) to underground public works utility structures if park or beach use is not
impeded;
(5) to any public works construction, maintenance or repair mandated by state or
federal law that does not negatively impact recreational opportunities; or
(6) to renewable energy projects that do not negatively impact recreational
opportunities.
(d) If any section, subsection, part, subpart, paragraph, clause or phrase of this amendment,
or any amendment or revision of this amendment, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional,
the remaining sections, subsections, parts, subparts, paragraphs, clauses or phrases shall not be affected
but shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 613. EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS. Except as hereinafter provided, the City shall be bound
by a contract only if it is made in writing, approved by the City Council and signed on behalf of the City
by the Mayor and City Clerk or by a City officer designated by the City Council and only upon the
direction of the City Council. Exceptions to this procedure are as follows:
(a) By ordinance or resolution the City Council may authorize the City Manager or other
officer to bind the City, with or without a written contract, for the acquisition of equipment, materials,
supplies, labor, services or other items included within the budget approved by the City Council, and may
impose a monetary limit upon such authority.
(b) By ordinance or resolution, the City Council may provide a method for the sale or
exchange of personal property not needed in the City service or not fit for the purpose for which intended,
and for the conveyance of title thereto.
(c) Contracts for the sale of the products, commodities or services of any public utility
owned, controlled or operated by the City may be made by the manager of such utility or by the head of
the department or City Manager upon forms approved by the City Manager and at rates fixed by the City
Council.
Section 614. CONTRACTS ON PUBLIC WORKS. Except as hereinafter expressly provided, every
contract involving an expenditure as set forth by ordinance of the City Council for the construction or
improvement (excluding maintenance and repair) of public buildings, works, streets, drains, sewers,
utilities, parks and playgrounds, and each separate purchase of materials or supplies for the same, where
the expenditure required for such purchase shall exceed the amount set by ordinance, shall be let to the
lowest responsible bidder after notice by publication in accordance with Section 503 by two or more
insertions, the first of which shall be at least ten days before the time for opening bids.
The City Council may reject any and all bids presented and may readvertise in its discretion. After
rejecting bids, or if no bids are received, or without advertising for bids if the total amount of the contract
or project is below the amount set by ordinance, the City Council may declare and determine that in its
opinion, the work in question may be performed better or more economically by the City with its own
employees, or that the materials or supplies may be purchased at lower price in the open market, and after
the adoption of a resolution to this effect by the affirmative vote of a majority of the total members of the
24 74
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 18 of 20
12/6/10
City Council, it may proceed to have said work done or such materials or supplies purchased in the
manner stated without further observance of the provisions of this section.
All public works contracts exceeding the amount set by ordinance may be let and purchases exceeding the
amount set by ordinance may be made without advertising for bids if such work or the purchase of such
materials or supplies shall be deemed by the City Council to be of urgent necessity for the preservation of
life, health, or property and shall be authorized by at least five affirmative votes of the City Council.
Projects for the extension, replacement or expansion of the transmission or distribution system of any
existing public utility operated by the City or for the purchase of supplies or equipment for any such
project or any such utility may be excepted from the requirements of this section by the affirmative vote
of a majority of the total members of the City Council.
Section 615. GRANTING OF FRANCHISES. The City Council shall by ordinance regulate the
granting of franchises for the City.
Section 616. INDEPENDENT AUDIT. The City Council shall provide for an independent annual audit
of all City accounts and may provide for such more frequent audits as it deems necessary. Such audits
shall be made by a certified public accountant or firm of such accountants who have no personal interest,
direct or indirect, in the fiscal affairs of the City government or any of its officers. The Council may,
without requiring competitive bids, designate such accountant or firm annually provided that the
designation for any particular fiscal year shall be made no later than thirty days after the beginning of
such fiscal year. As soon as practicable after the end of the fiscal year, a final audit and report shall be
submitted by such accountant to the City Council, one copy thereof to be distributed to each member.
Additional copies of the audit shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk where they shall be
available for inspection by the general public, and a copy of the financial statement as of the close of the
fiscal year shall be published in the official newspaper.
Section 617. INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.
(a) All revenue raised by vote of the electors or imposed by vote of the City Council on or after
March 5, 2002, by a measure which states that the revenue to be raised is for the purpose of infrastructure,
as said term is defined in this paragraph, shall be placed in a separate fund entitled "Infrastructure Fund."
The term "Infrastructure" shall mean long-lived capital assets that normally are stationary in nature and
normally can be preserved for significantly greater number of years. They include storm drains, storm
water pump stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, bridges, street trees,
landscaped medians, parks, beach facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, streetlights, block walls along
arterial highways, and all public buildings and public ways. Interest earned on monies in the
Infrastructure Fund shall accrue to that account. Monies in said Fund shall be utilized only for direct costs
relating to infrastructure improvements or maintenance, including construction, design, engineering,
project management, inspection, contract administration and property acquisition. Monies in said Fund
shall not be transferred, loaned or otherwise encumbered for any other purpose.
(b) Revenues placed in the Infrastructure Fund shall not supplant existing infrastructure funding.
The average percentage of general fund revenues utilized for infrastructure improvements and
maintenance, for the five- (5) year period of 1996 to 2001, is and was 14.95%. Expenditures for
infrastructure improvements and maintenance, subsequent to 2001, shall not be reduced below 15% of
general fund revenues based on a five- (5) year rolling average.
(c) The City Council shall by ordinance establish a Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Board to
conduct an annual review and performance audit of the Infrastructure Fund and report its findings to the
City Council prior to adoption of the following fiscal-year budget.
25 75
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 19 of 20
12/6/10
ARTICLE VII
ELECTIONS
Section 700. GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. General municipal elections shall be held in the
city on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each even-numbered year.
Section 701. SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. All other municipal elections that may be held by
authority of this Charter, or of any law, shall be known as special municipal elections.
Section 702. PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING ELECTIONS. All elections shall be held in accordance
with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, as the same now exists or hereafter
may be amended, for the holding of municipal elections, so far as the same are not in conflict with this
Charter.
Section 703. INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL. There are hereby reserved to the electors
of the City the powers of the initiative and referendum and of the recall of municipal elective officers.
The provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, as the same now exists or hereafter may
be amended, governing the initiative and referendum and the recall of municipal officers, shall apply to
the use thereof in the City so far as such provisions of the Elections Code are not in conflict with the
provisions of this Charter.
Section 704. NOMINATION PAPERS. Nomination papers for candidates for elective municipal office
must be signed by not less than twenty nor more than thirty electors of the City.
ARTICLE VIII
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 800. TRANSITION. Elective officers and elective officers whose offices are made appointive of
the City shall continue to hold such offices until the completion of their current terms and the election or
appointment and qualification of their respective successors under this Charter. All boards, commissions
and committees presently in existence shall continue to act in accordance with their original grant of
authority until such time as the City Council adopts appropriate ordinances pertaining to their activities or
for one year, whichever occurs first. All lawful ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations, and
portions thereof, in force at the time this Charter takes effect and not in conflict or inconsistent herewith,
are hereby continued in force until the same shall have been duly repealed, amended, changed or
superseded by proper authority.
Section 801. DEFINITIONS. Unless the provisions or the context otherwise requires, as used in this
Charter:
(a) "Shall" is mandatory, and "may" is permissive.
(b) "City" is the City of Huntington Beach and "department," "board," "commission,"
"agency," "officer," or "employee" is a department, board, commission, agency, officer or
employee, as the case may be, of the City of Huntington Beach.
(c) "County" is the County of Orange.
(d) "State" is the State of California.
(e) The masculine includes the feminine and the feminine includes the masculine.
(f) The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.
26 76
City of Huntington Beach City Charter Page 20 of 20
12/6/10
(g) "Person" includes firm and corporation.
Section 802. VIOLATIONS. The violation of any provision of this Charter shall be a misdemeanor.
Section 803. PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE.
(a) The City shall not enact or enforce any measure which mandates the price or other
consideration payable to the owner in connection with the sale, lease, rent, exchange or other transfer by
the owner of real property. Any such measure is hereby repealed.
(b) The word "mandates" as used in subsection (a) includes any measure taken by ordinance,
resolution, administrative regulation or other action of the City to establish, continue, implement or
enforce any control or system of controls on the price or other terms on which real property in the city
may be offered, sold, leased, rented, exchanged or otherwise transferred by its owner. The words "real
property" as used in subsection (a) refer to any parcel of land or site, either improved or unimproved, on
which a dwelling unit or residential accommodation is or may be situated for use as a home, residence or
sleeping place.
(c) This Section 803 shall not apply to:
(1) any real property which contains serious health, safety, fire or building code
violations, excluding those caused by disasters, for which a civil or criminal
citation has been issued by the City and remains unabated for six months or
longer;
(2) any real property owned by a public entity, and real property where the owner
has agreed by contract with the public entity, including the City and any of its
related agencies, to accept a financial contribution or other tangible benefit
including without limitation, assistance under the Community Redevelopment
Law;
(3) any planning or zoning power of the City as relates to the use, occupancy or
improvement of real property and to any real property which the City or any of
its related agencies may acquire by eminent domain, purchase, grant or donation;
(4) any power of the City to require a business license for the sale or rental of real
property, whether for regulation or general revenue purposes;
(5) any dwelling unit or accommodation in any hotel, motel or other facility when
the transient occupancy of that dwelling unit or accommodation is subject to a
transient occupancy tax; or
(6) to impair the obligation of any contract entered into prior to the enactment of this
Section 803 or otherwise required by State law.
Section 804. CHARTER REVIEW. The City Council shall determine if there is a need to convene a
citizen’s Charter Review Commission to conduct a review of the City Charter no less frequently than
every ten years.
27 77
28 78
2979
30 80
Council Meetings
(All meetings are subject to the Brown Act)
Regular Council Meetings. Regular meetings of the City Council/Public Financing Authority are
held on the first and third Mondays of each month, and typically begin on or preceding the hour
of 4:00 P.M in the Council Chambers. A Study Session used to present information to Council
for discussion purposes only with no objection being taken or Closed Session may be convened
subject to the Brown Act, and may be scheduled prior to the main, public meeting that
convenes at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. If a regularly scheduled meeting falls on a
holiday, the meeting will be held on the next business day.
Special Council Meetings. Special meetings including meetings to adjourn to Closed Session
may be called by the Mayor or a majority of the members of the Council, and noticed
accordingly to identify the time and place of the special meeting.
Public Input. Each regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to
address the Council on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. The
Mayor, subject to appeal as a decision of the chair, may establish time limits for particular issues
and individual speakers. Members of the public wishing to speak shall fill out a form provided
by the City Clerk, and will be called to the podium at the appropriate time to provide comments
within a 3-minute time limit. No person may donate his or her time to another speaker.
Parliamentary Procedure
Roberts Rules of Order. In all matters of parliamentary procedure not expressly provided for in
the City Charter or the ordinances or resolutions of the City of Huntington Beach, the procedure
contained in the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order, as it now exists or future revisions
thereof, shall control. Failure to comply with technical procedural rules shall not effect the
Council’s ultimate decision except to the extent the failure violates due process.
Parliamentarian. The City Attorney is parliamentarian for the City Council, and upon the
request of the Mayor or upon his own initiative, shall make rulings on points of parliamentary
procedure.
Motions. Motions may be made by any member of the Council and require a second, except
when a second is not required by Roberts Rules of Order. A motion may be withdrawn by the
mover with the consent of the second and in the absence of objection from any other member
of the Council.
The Vote. The vote on all motions shall be by roll call, and recorded by electronic or other
means necessary to record the vote.
31 81
Division of Question (“Split Vote”). If the question contains two (2) or more divisible
propositions, the Mayor may, and at the request of any Councilperson shall, divide the question
(also called “split vote”). Example:
1. Waive further reading of ordinance/resolution (requires unanimous vote)
2. Adopt
Tie votes. If a vote results in a tie, the motion fails except that on appellate matters a tie vote on
a motion to sustain the lower body’s decision has the effect of sustaining the decision of the
lower body. A tie vote on a negative motion does not approve the affirmative side of the
motion. Thus, a tie vote on a motion to disapprove or not to do something does not
automatically adopt the opposite. After such tie vote, the question should be made in the
affirmative mode.
Rights of Mayor. Each member of Council including the Mayor may make motions, second
motions and vote on motions. The practice of some deliberative bodies where the Chairman
does not vote except to break a tie does not apply to the Council.
Other Actions. Actions which are not required by the City Charter or City ordinances to be in
the form of ordinances or resolutions may be effectuated by minute action.
Minute Actions. In all situations where an action of the Council under the express provisions of
the City Charter or ordinances shall or may be by resolution, a “minute action” of the Council
adopted by at least four (4) affirmative votes shall be deemed a resolution for all purposes, and
such action shall not fail merely because it lacks the form or title of a resolution.
Minute actions require the affirmative votes of a majority of Councilpersons present and voting,
but not less than three (3), except when less than a quorum is present, the lesser number may
adjourn from time to time.
Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider, when appropriate under the Brown Act and
Roberts Rules of Order, may be made at the same meeting or no later than the next regular
meeting if the item is placed on the agenda of the City Council by a Councilperson who voted on
the prevailing side of the motion to which it applies.
• The vote required to adopt a motion to reconsider shall be a simple majority of
Councilpersons present and voting, except that such motion shall require four (4)
affirmative votes in order to reconsider any motion which required four (4) affirmative
votes for adoption.
• A motion to reconsider may be made only once with respect to any motion to which it
applies. However, a motion to reconsider a main motion does not preclude the making
of a motion to which it applies.
32 82
• A motion to reconsider a main motion does not preclude the making of a motion to
reconsider the main motion as amended.
• A motion to amend may be reconsidered.
• A motion to reconsider a motion to reconsider is not permitted. The vote on the motion
to reconsider shall be taken at the time the motion to reconsider is made except that the
vote on a motion “to reconsider and enter upon the minutes” shall be taken at the next
regular meeting of the City Council if said minutes are on the agenda.
• The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is to vacate the vote taken on the
motion to which it applies and to present the motion to which it applies to the body for
action as if no vote had been taken on it. The new vote on the motion to which it applies
neither sustains nor overrules such motion because the old vote is vacated, and the new
vote is taken as though no previous vote had been taken.
Vote Required on Appellate Matters. Where action has been taken by a lower body that would
be final if not appealed, such as decisions by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning
Commission, and is subsequently appealed to the higher body, the following procedure applies:
1. If the motion is to sustain the lower body’s decision, a majority of those present and
voting is sufficient (four (4) affirmative votes not required). It is not necessary to make a
motion to overrule. When there is a tie vote, the lower body is sustained. However, if
the motion to sustain gets less than a tie vote, a motion to overrule must be made.
2. If the motion is to overrule the decision of the lower body, four (4) affirmative votes are
required. If there are less than four (4) affirmative votes, the decision of the lower body
is deemed sustained and no further vote is required.
3. If a motion is made to modify the decision of the lower body, two separate steps must
be taken:
a) First, the motion to modify requires four (4) affirmative votes.
b) Second, if the motion to modify is adopted, a motion to sustain the decision of the
lower body as modified requires the same vote as the motion to sustain.
c) A motion to overrule the decision of the lower body, as modified, requires four (4)
affirmative votes. If there are less than four affirmative votes, the decision of the
lower body, as modified, is deemed sustained without further vote.
d) If a motion to modify fails, the next motion is either to sustain or to overrule the
33 83
subordinate body.
Doing Business After 11:00 P.M. No meeting shall continue beyond 11:00 P.M. without a
majority vote of the Council (Resolution No. 2015-46).
34 84
35 85
The Agenda Process
The Agenda Process is a schedule of activities that occur prior to placing an item on the City
Council/Public Financing Authority agenda. In March 2003, Council approved a policy that
provided a timeline for agenda-related activities to facilitate timely compilation and delivery of
the agenda packet to Council, staff, and the public. Agenda activities include creation of a
Request for Council Action (RCA/staff report), and depending upon the type of request, may
require scheduling a public hearing, submitting a Request for Legal Service (RLS) to the City
Attorney (legal review of a document or request to prepare a resolution or ordinance), review of
fiscal impact information by the Finance Department, and others.
All RCAs must be submitted to the City Manager for review and approval. The City Manager may
request department modifications to the RCA, and once approved, the RCA is forwarded to the
City Clerk for additional review for complete materials and final placement on a future agenda.
The City Clerk prepares a draft agenda and presents it to the City Manager, City Attorney,
department heads and select Councilmembers at Agenda Review, a meeting held each Monday
afternoon the week preceding a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. This meeting is
designed to provide staff and the Mayor an opportunity to share information, ask questions or
make recommendations to the agendized items. Agenda Review is also the last day a
Councilmember can place an item on the agenda. Exceptions can be made for a time-sensitive
item that cannot be delayed to a future Council meeting. Items placed on the agenda by
individual Councilmembers will be agendized for future action by the City Manager.
Following Agenda Review, agenda packet material is finalized and electronically compiled into
iLegislate, the application used by Council and staff to review agenda-related materials on City-
issued iPads or personal e-devices. At 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding a regularly
scheduled City Council meeting, Council is advised by email communication that the e-packet is
accessible and ready for downloading onto their City-issued iPads or personal e-devices.
Following release to Council, agenda material is made visible to staff and the public at
https://huntingtonbeach.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. If a holiday occurs on the Monday or
Tuesday prior to Wednesday’s scheduled agenda packet release, delivery of packet material to
Council and the public may delayed by one additional day.
Please refer to 2020 Agenda Deadline Schedule (attached) as an outline of the agenda process
schedule for staff and Councilmembers.
36 86
MEETING
DATE
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICES TO CITY
CLERK 19 Days
Prior*
WED. 5 PM
ITEMS DUE
TO ADMIN
14 Days
Prior
MON. 5 PM
ITEMS
DUE TO
CLERK
WED. 5
PM
CITY MANAGER'S
REVIEW
(COUNCILMEMBER
ITEMS DUE)
MON. 4 PM
PACKET
RELEASE
WED. 5PM
3 WEEKS BEFORE 2 WEEKS BEFORE WEEK BEFORE
01/21/20 12/23/19 01/06 01/08 01/13 01/15
02/03/20 01/15 01/21 01/22 01/27 01/29
02/18/20 01/29 02/03 02/05 02/10 02/12
03/02/20 02/12 02/18 02/19 02/24 02/26
03/16/20 02/26 03/02 03/04 03/09 03/11
04/06/20 03/18 03/23 03/25 03/30 04/01
04/20/20 04/01 04/06 04/08 04/13 04/15
05/04/20 04/15 04/20 04/22 04/27 04/29
05/18/20 04/29 05/04 05/06 05/11 05/13
06/01/20 05/13 05/18 05/20 05/26 05/27
06/15/20 05/27 06/01 06/03 06/08 06/10
07/06/20 06/17 06/22 06/24 06/29 07/01
07/20/20 07/01 07/06 07/08 07/13 07/15
08/03/20 07/15 07/20 07/22 07/27 07/29
08/17/20 07/29 08/03 08/05 08/10 08/12
09/08/20 08/19 08/24 08/26 08/31 09/02
09/21/20 09/02 09/08 09/09 09/14 09/16
10/05/20 09/16 09/21 09/23 09/28 09/30
10/19/20 09/30 10/05 10/07 10/12 10/14
11/02/20 10/14 10/19 10/21 10/26 10/28
11/16/20 10/28 11/02 11/04 11/09 11/11
12/07/20 11/18 11/23 11/25 11/30 12/2
12/21/20 12/02 12/07 12/09 12/14 12/16
37 87
38 88
Procedure for Selection of Mayor Pro Tem
The procedure for selection of the Mayor Pro Tem, pursuant to Resolution No. 6320, Charter
Sections 305 and 306, shall be as follows:
1. At the City Council meeting following any general or special municipal election at which
any Councilmember is installed, or as soon thereafter as the results of the election are
certified, the Council shall elect a Mayor and a Mayor Pro Tem. In non-election years,
the selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem shall be made at the first regular meeting
held in December.
2. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem shall serve terms of one year.
3. The member of the Council serving as Mayor Pro Tem shall become the Mayor upon the
expiration of the seated Mayor’s term.
4. The member of the Council having the longest consecutive City Council service shall
become the Mayor Pro Tem.
a) In the event that two Councilmembers have the same length of service, then the
member who received the greatest number of votes in the last Council election in
which such member was elected shall become Mayor Pro Tem.
b) If any member declines his/her term as it arises in rotation, that member shall
remain in the same place in the rotation cycle as if he/she had served.
c) Any Councilmember who has served as Mayor within the last four years will not be
eligible for election as Mayor Pro Tem.
39 89
40 90
Code of Ethics
In October 1993, the City Council adopted a City Code of Ethics by ordinance and resolution that
would set a standard of conduct for all elected officials, officers, employees, and members of
advisory boards, commissions, and committees of the City of Huntington Beach.
The most recent revision to the Code of Ethics was approved in November 2016. Resolution No.
2016-73 requires that the City Council, City Departments, and all boards, commissions and
committees are to formally review the Code of Ethics with their members on an annual basis. In
January of each year, the Mayor presents the Code of Ethics to the City Council, and “directs the City
Clerk to record in the official minutes that the City Code of Ethics was presented to the City Council,
City Manager, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors for their review and distribution as
required by Resolution No. 2016-73.”(1)
The Council also finds that “Any official found to be in violation of the Code of Ethics may be subject
to censure by the City Council. Any member of an advisory board, commission or committee found
to be in violation may be subject to dismissal. In the case of an employee, appropriate action shall
be taken by the City Manager or by an authorized designee.”(2)
(1)Resolution 2016-73
(2)Resolution Nos. 6524 (10/93); 6540 (11/93)
41 91
City of Huntington Beach
Code of Ethics
Preamble
The citizens of the City of Huntington Beach are entitled to responsible, fair and honest city
government that operates in an atmosphere of respect and civility. Accordingly, the Huntington
Beach City Council, adopts this code to:
1. Describe the standards of behavior to which its leaders and staff aspire.
2. Provide an ongoing source of guidance to elected leaders, city officials and staff in their
day-to-day service to the city.
3. Promote and maintain a culture of ethics.
Pledge
On , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted a Code of
Ethics, which applies to all City elected or appointed officials, city employees, and members
of its boards, commissions, committees, and task forces and requires the following pledge:
Code of Ethics
Responsibility
• I understand that the community expects me to serve with dignity and respect, as well
as be an agent of the democratic process.
• I avoid actions that might cause the public to question my independent judgment.
• I do not use my office or the resources of the city for personal or political gain.
• I am a prudent steward of public resources and actively consider the impact of my
decisions on the financial and social stability of the city and its citizens.
Fairness
• I promote consistency, equity and non-discrimination in public agency decision-making.
• I make decisions based on the merits of an issue, including research and facts.
• I encourage diverse public engagement in our decision-making processes and support
the public's right to know.
Respect
• I treat my fellow city officials, staff, commission members and the public with patience,
courtesy, civility, and respect, even when we disagree on what is best for the
community and its citizens.
Honesty
• I am honest with all elected officials, staff, commission members, boards, the public and
others.
• I am prepared to make decisions when necessary for the public's best interest, whether
those decisions are popular or not.
• I take responsibility for my actions, even when it is uncomfortable to do so.
42 92
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CODE OF ETHICS
• All current elected and appointed city officials including current members
of all city boards, commissions, committees, and task forces, and all
current city employees will be given a copy of the newly adopted City Code
of Ethics following its adoption on and asked to sign an
acknowledgement form at that time.
THEREAFTER:
• All elected officials of the city will be given a copy of the City Code of
Ethics and asked to sign an acknowledgement form at the time of their
swearing in.
• All new employees of the city will be given a copy of the City Code of
Ethics and asked to sign an acknowledgement form as part of their new
employee orientation.
• Each new member of a city board, commission, committee, or task force
will be given a copy of the City Code of Ethics and asked to sign an
acknowledgement form at their first meeting.
43 93
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CODE OF ETHICS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT FORM
Name
Title
Board/Department
Date
Signature
44 94
45 95
Required Trainings for Council Members
AB 1234 – Ethics; AB 1661 – Sexual Harassment Prevention
Ethics Training
In addition to the City Code of Ethics, effective January 1, 2016, each local official of cities,
counties, and special districts in California are mandated by state law to receive at least two
hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to his or her public service
every two years.
The City Attorney's Office runs training sessions in compliance with the requirements of AB 1234
approximately every six months. An online training program by FPPC on a cost-free basis can be
accessed via their website (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials-and- employees-rules-
/ethics-training.html). The Institute of Local Government (ILG) also offers two, one-hour self-
study exercises as an option for local officials to satisfy AB 1234 requirements.
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training and Education
State law requires all city officials in California to complete at least 2-hours of sexual harassment
prevention training and education if the local agency provides any type of compensation, salary,
or stipend to those officials. This training content includes federal and state statutes outlawing
sexual harassment, solutions available to victims, and “practical examples” to teach officials how
to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace.
Thus, City Council member must receive training within the first six months of taking office and
renew at least once every two years. Attendance to this training is aligned with the City’s
commitment to preventing inappropriate conduct at all times and creating a work environment
that is safe, respectful, and free of any types of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
See Administrative Regulation 412 (attached) for more details.
Training and/or education may be offered internally through the City Attorney’s Office, or by ILG,
nonprofits, or commercial organizations -- please consult with the City Clerk’s office. Costs
related to attend such trainings can be reimbursed by the City.
NOTE: When these trainings are finished, you must print the Certification of Completion (both)
provided at the end of such trainings and submit a copy of the certificate to the City Clerk in a
timely manner.
These laws require the City Clerk to retain training records for five (5) years minimum as these
public records are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, as specified.
46 96
47 97
48 98
49 99
50 100
51 101
52 102
Statewide Ballot Propositions
The City Council shall take no stand, either pro or con, with respect to any statewide ballot
proposition. (Resolution 4344 – 10/76)
Appeal of Planning Decisions
A City Council member may appeal a decision of the director, Design Review Board,
Environmental Assessment Committee, Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other
person but need not be accompanied by the fee prescribed for an appeal. (HBZSO §248.28)
The City Council member appealing the decision is not disqualified by that action from
participating in the appeal hearing and the deliberations nor from voting as a member of the
reviewing body. (HBZSO §248.28)
The time limit for filing the appeal is ten (10) calendar days after the decision. The appeal must
specify in detail the reasons for the appeal, and the hearing is limited to the specific reasons.
Guidelines for Councilpersons representing the
City at conferences or other such meetings
At any conference or other such meeting where the City is represented by one or more
members of the City Council, the following guidelines shall be followed per Resolution 4366-
12/76:
1. Whenever possible, Councilpersons shall represent the City as “instructed delegates by
majority vote of the City Council.”
2. In the event no prior instructions or directions have been given, a poll shall be taken of the
delegates attending such conference, or other such meeting, so that any vote or action
taken by such Councilpersons shall reflect the wishes of a majority of delegates.
3. In the event no prior instructions or directions have been given delegates, or in the event
that the City of Huntington Beach is not represented at a conference or other such meeting,
but the matter at issue is one on which the Orange County League of Cities has taken a
stand concurred in by the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council shall be bound by the
action taken on such issue by the Orange County League of Cities.
Additional guidelines include:
4. Members of the Council should avoid discussion or comment on the City matters at
conferences or other such meetings or on social media, other than as part of the
scheduled program. Discussions where 4 or more City Councilmembers are present could
53 103
inadvertently create a “serial meeting” of a majority of the members of the Council in
violation of the Brown Act.
5. Each Councilmember has a travel budget used for expenses when attending conferences
or training. The Council’s Administrative Assistant can verify each year the amount
budgeted for travel, and guidelines for use of funds can be found in Resolution No. 2006-
79 (attached). A per diem allowance is available for each full day of out-of-town travel to
a conference or training, and/or on official business authorized by the Council. If/when a
Councilmember depletes allocated travel funds, additional travel may be funded by
another Councilmember who still has travel funds available.
6. If any more than 3 Councilmembers want to attend the same conference, then seniority
would determine who attends. Seniority is determined by the Councilmember position
with the Mayor having first right of refusal and the immediate past Mayor placed at the
bottom of the list.
54 104
55 105
56 106
57 107
58 108
59 109
60 110
Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees
When a vacancy occurs for any reason on any board or agency over which Council has
power to fill by appointment, subject to the provisions of the Maddy Act (Government Code
§ 54970), the following procedure shall be used to fill such vacancy:
1. On or before December 31 of each year, the City Clerk shall prepare and bring
before Council for approval the Maddy Act Local Appointments List (attached), that
alerts citizens of vacancies scheduled to occur on regular and ongoing boards,
commissions and committees appointed by Council in the following year.
2. The Local Appointments List will be published and remain on the City’s website for
the entire year, and shall also be posted at bulletin board locations accessible to the
public.
3. When an unscheduled vacancy occurs, a special Notice of Vacancy (NOV) shall be
published and posted not earlier than twenty (20) days before, or not later than
twenty (20) days after, the vacancy occurs. A final appointment shall not be made
for at least ten (10) working days after a posting of vacancy. If Council finds that an
emergency exists, it may fill the vacancy immediately provided that the person
appointed shall serve only on an acting basis until the final appointment is made.
4. The Council shall, as soon as is reasonably possible, fill any such vacancies, but
nothing herein shall be construed to limit its choice to a person who has submitted
an application, as outlined above.
Based on applications received per each board, commission or committee, Council and staff
liaisons will work together to evaluate each applicant’s qualifications, and put forth a
recommendation to the City Council for approval.
61 111
City of Huntington Beach
MADDY ACT
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST – 2020
Opportunity for Public Service on
City Boards and Commissions
CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TERMS
WHICH HAVE EXPIRATION DATES OCCURING IN CALENDAR YEAR 2020
This list is prepared to inform members of the community of opportunities to serve on City boards
and commissions and to invite applications from interested parties.
Please note that the following information pertains to openings that will be available in 2020
because of expiration of members’ terms. Very often during the year there will be openings on
boards, commissions and committees because members resign. These openings are posted
separately at the Civic Center and Huntington Central Library, and are listed on the city’s website
at: http://www.surfcity-hb.org/Government/boards_commissions/notice_of_vacancies.cfm.
ROBIN ESTANISLAU, CITY CLERK
Office of the City Clerk
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
714-536-5227
62 112
MADDY ACT LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST - 2020
(Chapter 10, Section 54970, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code)
The following information provides notification of membership terms on City boards, commissions
and committees due to expire in 2020:
CHILDREN’S NEEDS TASK FORCE
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Dominique Sardinas* 9/1/2017 8/30/2020
*Youth Member
CHILDREN’S NEEDS TASK FORCE was established in 2000,by Resolution 2000-78 and the
CNTF bylaws, which develops and implements plans for youth and children that will ensure the
best possible environment for raising children to become successful members of our
community. The Task Force meets the fourth Thursday every other month at 4:00 p.m. in Room
B-8 of the Civic Center. Staff support is provided through the Community Services Department
at (714) 374-1583.
Necessary Requirements: Residents or work within the City. Task Force members are
recommended by the City Council liaisons.
Members and Appointments: The Children’s Needs Task Force is made up of thirteen (13)
members and shall consist of a minimum of one student representative and not more than one-
third of the 13 member total allowable membership. Adult members serve a 4-year term up to
two terms. Student members serve a 1-year term up to four terms.
CITIZENS INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
The Charter directs that the City Council establish a CITIZENS INFRASTRUCTURE
ADVISORY BOARD (CIAB) for the oversight of infrastructure. In 2002, the Public Works
Commission became the auditing body. In 2015, an Ordinance was created to establish the
CIAB as required by Charter section 617. Staff support is provided by the Public Works
Department at (714) 375-5070.
Members and Appointments: The CIAB shall be comprised of seven members, to be directly
appointed by members of the City Council.
Note: Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic
Interests."
Necessary Requirements: The Board shall act in an advisory capacity to the City council in
matters pertaining to infrastructure. The Board should meet monthly in the quarter prior to
release of the annual budget.
63 113
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ADVISORY BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ADVISORY BOARD (CPAB) makes recommendations to the City
Council on eligible activities for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and
other Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs annually. Meetings are held on the 1st
Thursday of the month beginning at 6:00 p.m. in Room B-8 of the Civic Center; additional
meetings may be required depending on the number of grant applications received or as other
issues arise. Staff support is provided by the Office of Business Development at (714) 536-5470.
Members and Appointments: CPAB includes seven, individual appointments by the City
Council.
Necessary Requirements: As an advisory board of seven Council-appointed citizens,
members shall have an interest in providing citizen participation and coordination in the City’s
planning processes for the City’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs. Members
shall have an interest in assessing the needs of the community, particularly that of low and
moderate income households, evaluate and prioritize projects pertaining to the required plans,
and provide recommendations to the City Council. Low-income and disadvantaged persons are
encouraged to apply.
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION was established in 1965, by MC 2.64.010, which
reviews and provides recommendations relating to the city’s parks, beaches, and recreational
facilities. The Commission meets the second Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers. Staff support is provided by the Community Services Department at (714)
536-5434.
Necessary Requirements: City resident, interested in recreational programming and
development of parks.
Members and appointments: The Commission consists of 13 members - seven direct
appointments by individual Council Members to serve a consecutive 4-year term; six direct
school-district appointments to a one-year term. Each elementary, high school and public
community college district having facilities within the City may recommend to the Council, on or
before the third Monday in June of each year, two or more persons, residents of the City of
Huntington Beach, to represent their district. One of said persons shall be appointed by the
Council for a one-year term which will terminate on July 1 the following year. In the event that
any district shall not make such recommendations to the Council by the first day of July, then
the Council may appoint some qualified person to a one-year term to represent such school
district on the Commission.
64 114
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Mariana Morris 12/31/2016 12/31/2020
Lilli Cutler 12/31/2016 12/31/2020
The DESIGN REVIEW BOARD reviews design, colors and materials for projects located within
Specific Plan Areas, and areas designated by City Council, City facilities or projects abutting or
adjoining City facilities, projects in or abutting or adjoining OS-PR and OS-S districts, and
General Plan primary and secondary entry nodes. This process ensures that the aesthetic
values of the adopted Urban Design Guidelines are implemented through high quality
architectural style, superior landscaping and compatibility of design with surrounding properties.
The Design Review Board assists the Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator,
and Planning Commission in reviewing development plans and architectural drawings within
designated geographic areas of the City. The Board makes recommendations to the
Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, and Planning Commission and may
impose conditions or modifications on projects reviewed. The Board meets on the second
Thursday of each month at 3:30 P.M. in Room B-8 located at the Lower Level of City Hall. Staff
support is provided through the Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271.
Note: Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic
Interests."
Necessary Requirements: City resident, at least 18 years of age and interested in guiding,
encouraging and promoting the maintenance of harmonious, compatible, attractive and
aesthetic developments within special and unique areas of the City. Members must have
training, education or work experience in design-related fields including, but not limited to,
architecture, landscaping, art, urban/environmental design and aesthetics.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
There are no Environmental Board term expirations in 2020
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD studies and reports on issues related to the environment of the
City of Huntington Beach and investigate all actual and potential threats to a clean environment
for the city and its inhabitants. It is made up of nine members who meet on the 3rd Wednesday
of each month at 6:00 p.m. at the Central Library, Room B. Staff support is provided through
the City Manager’s Office at (714) 536-5265.
Necessary Requirements: City resident and preferably the following: 1) A general interest in
the environment and protecting its quality; 2) An interest in local government and becoming
involved in its operation; 3) Preferably a specific interest in the activities of the Environmental
Board which relate to (a) long range local and regional planning, (b) state and federal
environmental legislation and its impact upon the community, (c) energy conservation, and (d)
solid waste disposal.
65 115
FINANCE COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
FINANCE COMMISSION acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council in matters pertaining
to financial planning.
The Finance Commission consists of seven members individually appointed by a member of the
City Council, and serves a concurrent Council term.
The Finance Commission holds regular monthly meetings on the fourth Wednesday of each
month at 5:00 PM in Room B-7 of City Hall. All meetings are open to the public and special
meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. In the event a member
retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall be made to fill the remainder of the
unexpired term. Staff support is provided through the Finance Department at (714) 536-5630.
Note: Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic
Interests."
Necessary Requirements: City resident of the City of Huntington Beach. Commissioners are
appointed by Council.
FOURTH OF JULY EXECUTIVE BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
FOURTH OF JULY EXECUTIVE BOARD was established in 1983, by MC 2.106.010 which is
responsible for the fundraising, coordination and presentation of the City's annual Fourth of July
Celebration, including a parade, fireworks, 5K run and related entertainment. The board meets
monthly on the 1st Wednesday at 6:00 pm year-round, with two meetings in May and weekly or as-
needed meetings in June. The meetings are held in B-8 on the Lower Level of the Civic Center,
2000 Main Street. Appointments are made on an as-needed basis. Staff support is provided
through the Community Services Department at (714) 374-5312.
Necessary Requirements: Resident of the City of Huntington Beach.
HARBOR COMMISSION
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Renee Hunter 3/4/2019 12/31/2020
John Ochs 3/4/2019 12/31/2020
Michael VanVoorhis 3/4/2019 12/31/2020
HARBOR COMMISSION was established in 2019, by MC 2.65.010, which shall act in an advisory
capacity to the City Council on matters pertaining to the Huntington Beach harbor its beaches,
facilities, and parks. The Board is made up of seven (7) members. The Board meets as needed
on the fourth Thursday of each month at 5:00 P.M. at City Hall, Room B-7 (lower level). Staff
support is provided by the Community Services Department at (714) 536-5292.
Necessary Requirements: Resident of the City of Huntington Beach. Commissioners are
appointed by Council.
66 116
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
There are no Historic Resources Board term expirations in 2020
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD provides information to the City Council pertinent to the
conservation and preservation of the City’s historic resources. The Board is made up of 9
members. The Board meets as needed on the 3rd Wednesday of each month at 5:00 P.M. at City
Hall, Room B-7 (lower level). Staff support is provided by the Community Development
Department at (714) 536-5271.
Necessary Requirements: City resident and preferably the following: 1) A general interest in
local history; and, 2) An interest in becoming involved in local government.
HUMAN RELATIONS TASK FORCE
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
There are no Human Relations Task Force term expirations in 2020
HUMAN RELATIONS TASK FORCE was initially formed by the City Council in February 1997.
The mission of the Task Force is to promote and celebrate the diversity of our community through
education and understanding. In order to achieve these goals, the Task Force sponsors
community events through the year and serves as a resource to the community in promoting
human dignity and cooperation.
The Task Force is comprised of nine members. The Human Relations Task Force meets on the
1st Tuesday of each month at 6:45 p.m. at the Central Library, Room B. Staff support is provided
by the Huntington Beach Police Department at (714) 536-5903.
Necessary Requirements: Interested in promoting cultural diversity efforts within the
community. Fundraising and public information work experience is beneficial.
INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD currently consists of seven members. Each City Council
Member shall appoint one member of the Board to serve the same term as the City Council
Member.
The purpose of the Board is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Treasurer and the City
Council in matters pertaining to the financial planning and the City's investments as per
Municipal Code Chapter 2.109.
67 117
The IAB meets on a quarterly basis (January, April, July, October) on the third Thursday of the
month at 6:30 PM in Room B-7 of the Huntington Beach Civic Center.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. Staff support is provided by the City
Treasurer’s Department at (714) 536-5200.
JET NOISE COMMISSION
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
There are no Jet Noice Commission term expirations in 2020
JET NOISE COMMISSION (JNC) was formed to monitor issues related to jet noise from
commercial aviation traffic flying over the City, to act as an advisory body to the Council on matters
pertaining to jet noise from commercial aviation traffic over the City, and to engage with
neighboring cities, regulatory bodies, airlines, and staff regarding the impact of air traffic activities
on the quality of life in Huntington Beach.
The Commission shall consist of seven at-large members recommended by two Council liaisons,
and appointed by a majority of the City Council. The Commission shall meet at such time and
place as fixed by resolution. Staff support is provided by City Manager’s Office at (714) 536-5537.
Necessary Requirements: Members shall hold no paid office or employment in the City
government while serving on the JNC.
LIBRARY BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
There are no Library Board term expirations in 2020
LIBRARY BOARD makes recommendations to the City Council on matters related to the City’s
libraries and library services in areas as deemed necessary by the City Council. It is a seven-
member board that meets on the 3rd Tuesday of each month at 5:00 p.m. in the Central Library
Administrative Conference Room. Staff support is provided by the Library Services Department
at (714) 960-8836.
Necessary Requirements: City resident 30 days prior to appointment and 18 years of age with
an interest in the operation and conduct of city libraries.
68 118
MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Sharon Dana 2/21/2012 8/5/2020
Manuel Vizinho 5/20/2013 8/5/2020
MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD ensures the quality of life in mobile home parks and
reviews matters concerning mobile home parks in the City of Huntington Beach through healthy
communication with park owners, manufactured home owners, and the City Council. Nine
members, three each as follows: Park representatives, Resident/Owner representatives, and
citizens at-large who have no affiliation or relationship with mobile home parks. They meet
quarterly at 6:00 p.m. on the 4th Monday of the month in January, April, July, and October at a
City Hall (see Agenda for location changes) with special meetings scheduled as needed. Staff
support is provided by the Office of Business Development at (714) 536-5470.
Necessary Requirements: The board consists of nine members: three Huntington Beach
mobile home park owners; three Huntington Beach mobile home resident owners; and, three
Huntington Beach independent citizens at-large who have no affiliation or relationship with
mobile home parks.
PERSONNEL COMMISSION
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
David Ellis 09/04/18 06/30/20
William Blair 09/04/18 06/30/20
PERSONNEL COMMISSION acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council and City Manager
on personnel administration, hears appeals on grievance matters and appeals from decisions
related to the employer-employee relations resolution, reviews impasse matters, and performs
other personnel duties and functions as may be requested by the City Council or prescribed by
ordinance or resolution. There are five commission members and meetings take place at 5:30
p.m. on the 3rd Wednesday of each month in Room B-8 of the Civic Center. Staff support is
provided by the Human Resources Department at (714) 960-8828.
Necessary Requirements: City resident for 30 days prior to appointment. Desirable
qualifications are education and work experience in private or public personnel administration.
PLANNING COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Members and Appointments: The PLANNING COMMISSION includes seven members who
are appointed by the City Council members. Each City Council member appoints one
commissioner to this quasi-judicial body that is empowered by State law and the City Council.
Meeting Times and Dates: The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth
Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Study sessions are frequently
69 119
held at 5:15 p.m. prior to the meeting in Council Chambers. Agendas are available to the public
the Thursday prior to the meeting.
Note: Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic
Interests."
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. Staff support is provided by the
Community Development Department at (714) 536-5276.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Members and Appointments: The PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION consists of seven (7)
members who are residents of the City of Huntington Beach. Each City Councilmember
appoints a member of the Commission to a term that coincides with the City Councilmember's
term. No member may have interest in any contract with the city either during his or her terms or
for a period of one year after cessation of Commission service. All members serve without
compensation, may hold no other office or employment in city government and no other
employment that is incompatible with Commission service.
Meeting Times and Dates: The Public Works Commission holds regular monthly meetings, on
the third Wednesday of each month at 5:00 PM at the Utilities Yard located on 19021
Huntington Street. All meetings are open to the public and special meetings may be called in
conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to compete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. Staff support is provided by the Public
Works Department at (714) 375-5055.
YOUTH BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
REPRESENTATIVES:
Samuel Dater – EHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Amy Zang – HBHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Tatum Osborne – MHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Natalie Blazquez – OVHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
AT LARGE MEMBERS:
Caitlin Sheetz – EHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Jenna Ali – HBHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Andre Mai – HBHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Kathryn Robinson – MHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
Bella Brannon – OVHS 6/1/2019 5/31/2020
70 120
YOUTH BOARD was established in 1987, by MC 2.108, which is a voluntary advisory board to
the City Council regarding youth achievement, problems, and needs. The board represents,
involves, and promotes youth participation in community affairs. The board meets on the
second Monday of each month at 3:30 p.m. public meeting rooms. Note: A separate
application is required for review by the City Council Liaisons. Staff support is provided by the
Community Services Department at (714) 374-5312.
Necessary Requirements: All members shall be enrolled in high school and shall be residents
of this city during their service on the board. The Youth Board was formed to promote Council,
city staff and public understanding of the achievements, problems and needs of the city's young
people and under Council direction, to enable young people to participate in various city
activities and make recommendations to the Council, and further to promote and encourage
increased interest and participation among young people in community affairs.
71 121
72 122
Statements of Economic Interests - Form 700 Reporting
(1)The Political Reform Act (Act) prohibits a public official from using his or her official position to
influence a governmental decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Every state and
local agency must adopt a conflict of interest code that identifies all officials and employees
within the agency who make governmental decisions based on the positions they hold. The
individuals in the designed positions must disclose their financial interests as specified in the
agency’s conflict of interest code.
To help identify potential conflicts of interest, the law requires public officials and employees in
designated positions in a conflict of interest code to report their financial interests on a form
called Statement of Economic Interests – Form 700. The conflict of interest codes and the Form
700s are fundamental tools in ensuring that officials are acting in the public’s best interest and
not their own.
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the agency responsible to provide public
officials with answers to questions related to the content they report on their Form 700.
Frequently asked questions and other resource information including an online advice system
can be accessed at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Form700.html.
The City’s Conflict of Interest Code (Resolution No. 2018-58, attached), details provisions, filing
of statements, designation of positions, exclusions, and level of disclosure by category.
All designated filers must file Form 700 information electronically through NetFile, the City’s
online portal certified by the FPPC to accept Form 700 and FPPC campaign disclosure
documents. The City Clerk’s office administers the NetFile application, and keeps in contact
with all new and existing filers to provide account information, alert filers of deadlines, and
assist them with navigational issues. The filer portal is located at https://netfile.com/Filer/.
Form 700 information is also used by City staff to create a conflict of interest map for each
public official who is responsible to make policy decisions for the City.
(1)http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/rules-on-conflict-of-interest-codes.html
73 123
74124
75125
76126
77127
78128
79129
80130
81131
82132
83133
84134
85135
86136
87137
88138
89139
90140
91141
92142
93143
94144
95145
96146
97147
98148
99149
100150
101151
102152
103 153
CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAP
CREATED FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
BY THE CITY’S GIS ANALYST
104 154
105 155
General Rules for Gifts and Honoraria1
$10 Lobbyist Gift Limit: Elected officials, including members of the legislature, and legislative
employees may not accept a gift or gifts totaling more than $10 in a calendar month from any
individual who is registered as a lobbyist under state law. The $10 limit also applies to gifts
received by officials and employees of state agencies if their agency is listed on the registration
statement of the lobbyist's employer or firm.
$500 Gift Limit (Effective January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2020): State and local officials and
employees are prohibited from receiving a gift or gifts totaling more than $500 in a calendar year
from certain sources. For elected state officials and many others, the prohibition is applicable to
gifts from any source, although there are exceptions (for example, gifts from family members). For
state and local officials and employees who file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700s)
under an agency's conflict of interest code, the gift limit is applicable only to individuals and
entities that would have to be disclosed on the Form 700. This gift limit is adjusted for inflation
every odd-numbered year. (Note: Judges are not subject to the Act's gift prohibitions, but are
covered by the Code of Civil Procedure.)
Honoraria: An honorarium is a payment received for making a speech, publishing an article or
attending any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal or similar
gathering. State and local elected officers and candidates for those offices and all officials holding
positions listed in Government Code Section 87200 are prohibited from receiving honoraria
payments. Likewise, an employee designated under a state or local government agency's conflict
of interest code is prohibited from receiving honoraria payments from any source of gifts or
income the employee is required to report on his or her Statement of Economic Interests (Form
700). Some limited exceptions apply, such as income earned from a bona fide business or
profession.
Exceptions for Travel: Certain payments for travel are excluded from the gift limits and
honoraria prohibition. Refer to the City’s travel reimbursement policy guidelines.
Loan Restrictions: Public officials who are required to file Statements of Economic Interests
(Form 700s) or who are exempt employees may not receive any personal loan aggregating more
than $250 from an official, employee, or consultant of, or from anyone who contracts with, their
governmental agencies. In addition, elected officials may not receive any personal loan
aggregating more than $500 from a single lender unless certain terms of the loan are specified in
writing. Under certain circumstances, a personal loan that is not being repaid or is being repaid
below certain amounts may become a gift to the official who received it.
1 Retrieved from California Fair Political Practices Commission
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials-and-employees-rules-/gifts-and-honoraria.html. For more information,
please refer to California Government Code Section 89503.
106 156
107 157
New Mayor Protocol Handbook
The Mayor is the Presiding Officer of the City Council.
The Mayor may make and second motions and shall have both voice and
vote in all Council proceedings.
The Mayor is the ceremonial head of the city and shall have the primary, but
not exclusive, duty to interpret the policies, programs, and needs of city
government to the people.
The Mayor may inform the people of any major change in policy or
program, as necessary.
The Mayor may call special meetings of the City Council.
The Mayor may execute contracts on behalf of the city when the contracts
have been approved by the City Council.
The Mayor shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council.*
*City Charter Sections 303, 305, & 613
108 158
DAIS SEATING ASSIGNMENTS – Mid November
1. Mayor develops seating chart (based on input from other City Council Members)
2. Protocol has been the Mayor Pro Tem sits to the right of the Mayor and the Past Mayor sits to
the left. The other seats are up to the Mayor and Councilmembers.
3. Final dais seating assignments will be relayed to the City Council Administrative Assistant and
City Clerk.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR OATH OF OFFICE MEETING - 1st Meeting in December
1. Meeting Festivities - Planned by Mayor
a) Refreshments – Cake, punch, and coffee will be ordered by Administration in recognition
of the incoming and outgoing Mayors (Mayor may provide their own cakes)
b) Dinner - Usually a light meal is provided by Administration in Caucus Room (may not
need)
c) Guest Invitations - Handled by Mayor, as desired
d) Meeting Time – Regular session begins at 6:00 PM (no study session)
e) Council Agenda – may include closed sessions, objective is a light agenda
2. Meeting Agenda Order
a) Meet with Community Relations Officer, City Council Administrative Assistant and City
Clerk with outgoing Mayor to review specific agenda order of events for first meeting in
December.
Incoming Mayor presents a special surfer statue (or other award) to the outgoing
Mayor in appreciation of service
Outgoing Mayor presents a gavel and wooden box to the new Mayor
Gifts if the Mayor so chooses are presented by the outgoing Mayor, Council
Members, elected officials (Clerk, Attorney & Treasurer) and City Manager
Outgoing Council Members given the opportunity to speak
Outgoing Mayor gives an end of term speech
b) Incoming Mayor’s Speech
c) Meet with City Clerk regarding Robert’s Rules, meeting protocol, etc. (optional)
OFFICE ASSIGNMENTS
1. Relocation to Mayor’s Office
a) Personal items to be moved by Mayor
b) Staff will assist in moving other items
c) Notify City Council Administrative Assistant if furniture is to be moved
IMMEDIATE ITEMS FOR ACTION
109 159
2. Assignment of City Council Offices
a) Mayor coordinates office move with incoming Mayor
b) Incoming Mayor coordinates office assignments with new City Council (as required).
Historically, the Mayor is at the far end on the south side of the fourth floor; the Mayor Pro
Tem is next to the Mayor (#6) and offices #4 & 5 are for councilmembers with more
seniority. The offices on the north side of the floor (#1, 2, & 3) are for the newer Council
Members.
c) Notify City Council Administrative Assistant of new office assignments
PARKING SPACE
Public Works staff will change parking signs following the swearing-in ceremony, moving the
immediate past Mayor to the end of the row of City Council parking spaces. This protocol is for
the Mayor to have the first space, the Mayor Pro Tem the second and the remainder of the
parking spaces to be assigned based on the anticipated succession to Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
as described in Resolution #6320.
ASSIGNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL LIAISONS TO ADVISORY BODIES
1. The assignment of City Council Liaisons is conducted annually by the Mayor and is governed by
Resolution 99-83 (adopted 10/4/99). A summary of the process is described below:
a) In early November, the incoming Mayor distributes a memo asking that each City Council
Member advise him/her on the Council liaison assignments that are of interest to them and
for which they will be available.
b) Council responses are to be submitted to the incoming Mayor about mid-November.
c) Based on the requests received, the incoming Mayor will prepare a preliminary list of
assignment.
d) The Mayor’s preliminary list of assignments will be distributed to all the City Council
Members and the City Clerk at least one week prior to the City Council meeting at which the
appointments are made.
e) Appointments are approved at the 2nd City Council Meeting in December (see current
Council Liaison List, attached).
2. In considering these assignments, it should be noted that the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are
assigned to the following bodies as prescribed by originating documents:
a) The Mayor or their designee represents the city at the Orange County City Selection
Committee meetings.
b) The Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and most recent Past Mayor are the prescribed members
of the Economic Development Committee and Downtown EDC.
Additionally, the Mayor traditionally participates in the following bodies:
c) Visit Huntington Beach
d) League of California Cities – Orange County City Selection Committee
110 160
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
1. Presentation of Mayor’s HB Excellence Award
The purpose of the Mayor’s HB Excellence Award is to recognize outstanding employee
performance.
The award is presented on a monthly basis, typically at the 2nd regular City Council meeting of
month. The only exception is the month of December when the outgoing Mayor recognizes staff
members of their choice.
2. Presentations at City Council Meetings
Requests: All requests should be submitted to the Mayor in writing with a copy to the
Community Relations Officer. Presentations may be requested by department heads,
members of the community, or other City Council Members. All requests must be approved
by the Mayor.
Schedule: Requests should be made a minimum of two weeks prior to the date of the
City Council meeting and should include contact information for the recipient.
Confirmation of Presentation(s): The final review of presentations is conducted at
Agenda Review (the Monday preceding the City Council meeting at 4:00 PM).
Presentation: The Mayor is responsible for presenting and receiving all awards at City
Council meetings. The Mayor may invite other City Council Members and/or staff to
participate with him/her as desired
ONGOING MEETINGS
1. Attendance of Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem at Agenda Review Meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to allow the City Manager to review the items scheduled for the
next City Council meeting with the department heads prior to the printing of the final agenda.
Questions regarding specific items or the order of the items may be discussed here. The Mayor
and/or Mayor Pro Tem attend at their discretion.
Schedule: The Monday prior to each City Council Meeting, B-8, 4:00 pm.
2. City Council Meeting Preparation with the City Manager
The purpose of this meeting is to review the agenda packet materials with the City Manager prior
to the City Council meeting.
Schedule: Occurs sometime between Agenda Packet Delivery and the City Council Meeting
depending on the Mayor’s schedule (to be arranged with City Manager).
MAYORAL FUNCTIONS
111 161
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) reviews recommendations from staff and other
agencies on the need for the city to take a position on legislation pending before either the State
or Federal governments. Recommendations of the IRC are taken to the City Council for approval.
The Mayor is authorized to send letters stating the city position on the specified legislation on
behalf of the city to the legislators.
When legislation is moving quickly and requires decisive action, the chair of the IRC, with approval
from the Mayor and the City Manager can take a position on behalf of the city. If the Mayor is
unavailable, the Mayor Pro Tem can act on the Mayor’s behalf. If the Mayor is a member of the
IRC then the chair of the IRC and the Mayor Pro Tem, and the City Manager would make the
decision. When neither the Mayor nor Mayor Pro Tem is available, the senior most member of the
Council can act on their behalf. This position will subsequently be brought to the IRC and the City
Council.
The IRC is also responsible for preliminary review of the city's funding priorities and for working
with State and Federal legislators and the city's lobbyists in seeking funding. To that end, the
Mayor and/or the IRC chair may travel to Washington D.C. and Sacramento each year.
CEREMONIAL FUNCTIONS
Throughout the year, there are a number of ceremonial functions to attend. While the entire City
Council is usually invited to most of these events, the public often anticipates the Mayor’s
presence as the ceremonial head of the city. Generally, there are three types of functions:
City Functions (i.e. opening of new city facilities and employee or volunteer award lunches,
etc.)
Community Events (i.e. Miss. Huntington Beach Pageant, Chamber of Commerce Ribbon
Cuttings, Boy Scout Eagle meetings, etc.)
Other Local, County, and Regional Agencies (Functions of the County or special district i.e.
OCTA, etc.)
1. Mayoral Ceremonial Acceptance Protocol
According to the City Charter, the Mayor is the ceremonial head of the city. Therefore, the Mayor
traditionally represents the city at community events and functions. If the Mayor is not able to
attend a particular function, the City Council’s Administrative Assistant will utilize the following
order in accepting the invitation:
a) Mayor Pro Tem
b) Immediate Past Mayor
c) Remaining City Council Members as directed by the Mayor according to interest
112 162
2. Mayoral Ceremonial Absence Protocol
If the Mayor accepts an invitation to any of these events, and later finds that he/she is unable to
attend due to sickness or other reasons, staff will utilize the above protocol for identifying a
replacement. The City Council Administrative Assistant will contact the organization hosting the
event and notify them that the Mayor will be unable to attend due to extenuating circumstances.
3. Proclamations, Certificates of Recognition, & Commendations
a) Purpose of Proclamations, Commendations, Recognitions: To recognize citizens,
individuals, or organizations that have provided outstanding service to the community as
leaders of charitable or business associations or are recognized in the community for
outstanding achievements (i.e. Little League champions)
b) Presentation of: Presented by the Mayor at a City Council Meeting, an off-site ceremony,
or mailed
c) Final Draft: Prepared by the Community Relations Officer prior to signature
d) Signature: Mayor typically signs on behalf of the City Council. At times, the Mayor may
request that the document be signed by the full City Council.
RECOMMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTICIPATION
League of California Cities – The Orange County Division of the Leagues holds monthly
general membership (dinner) meetings. The Mayor and other Council Members have
traditionally been active participants in these meetings as well as the League’s committee
structure.
The City Selection Committee (A Committee of the 34 Orange County Mayors) meets
monthly in conjunction with the League dinners. This committee has responsibility for
decisions relating to the county as a whole and makes appointments to powerful boards
such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the Orange County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO). It is very important for the Mayor or their designee to attend these
meetings.
TERM EXPIRATION ACTIVITIES
At Mayor’s discretion, provide gifts to fellow City Council Members, City Treasurer, City
Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager
Prepare outgoing “Accomplishments” Speech
Outgoing Mayor presents gavel to incoming Mayor
Staff Contact: Community Relations Officer
113 163
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Code of Ethics
In January of each year, the City Council affirms the Council approved Code of Ethics (Code) for all
elected officials, officers, employees and members of advisory boards, commissions, and
committees. The current code requests that all employees and board/commission members sign
an acknowledgement indicating that they received a copy. Specifically, the code states that it
should be reviewed annually by the City Council, as well as by all employees, boards,
commissions, and committees. The Mayor, City Manager, and chairpersons shall be responsible
for accomplishing this review.
Copies of the code, along with the acknowledgement form, will be sent to all department heads,
and board/commission staff liaisons requesting that they review the code with their
employees/members.
EXISTING PRACTICES
1. Board Appreciation or Mayor’s Reception
An appreciation reception for the members of the City Council appointed board and commission
members has been held in the past. If it is an informational meeting, staff will prepare the
appropriate notices and publicize the meeting via a press release and directed mailings. This is
optional and has been funded in the past by the City.
2. Meetings with Chairs of Advisory Boards (optional)
Also at the discretion of the Mayor, meetings may be scheduled between the Mayor and the chairs
of each of the city’s advisory bodies. Some Mayors have opted to schedule individual/small group
meetings with chairs and/or attend a regular meeting of each of the different citizen boards. If
preferable, a round-table meeting can be scheduled with the chairs as a group.
3. Master Calendar of Events
The calendar shown below highlights many of the annual events the Mayor and the City Council
are invited to. The events denoted with an asterisk (*) mark some of the events in which the
Mayor is often invited to address the audience. Other events may only require the Mayor to give
an award or read a proclamation. The purpose of this draft calendar is to alert the Mayor to the
number of events during the upcoming year.
Jan: HB Chamber of Commerce Annual Dinner
Annual Police Department Employee Awards Presentation Ceremony
MAYORAL ACTIVITIES FOR UPCOMING YEAR
114 164
Feb: Miss Huntington Beach Scholarship Pageant
Surf City USA Marathon
Washington DC trip to meet with Lobbyists
Mar: Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association Annual General Meeting
Chamber of Commerce Planning Conference
Lifeguard Tryouts
C.E.R.T. Training Class
Sister City trip to Anjo, Japan (Not City funded)
April: Council on Aging Senior Team (C.O.A.S.T) Volunteer Luncheon Youth
in Government Day
Annual Easter Egg Hunt/Kiwanis
May: Library Volunteers Luncheon
Annual Duck-A-Thon
Memorial Day Service
Soroptimist Awards Dinner
June: Project Self-Sufficiency June Recognition Awards
Literacy Volunteers of America Annual Meeting and Ice Cream Social Concours
d’Elegance
Annual Pier Swim; Junior Lifeguard Program opening day
July: Fourth of July Parade & Activities
Junior Lifeguard Annual Hot Dog BBQ
Friends of Junior Lifeguard Annual Pancake Breakfast
Aug: U.S. Open of Surfing
Sept: Opening of Oktoberfest at Old World Village
Council on Aging Senior Saturday
League of Cities Annual Conference
Patriot’s Day Ceremony
City’s Green Expo
OC Division of the League - Installation
Oct: HB Chamber of Commerce Public Safety Awards Luncheon
Annual Distance Derby
Public Safety Awards Luncheon
Interfaith Council Annual Procession of Lights
Nov: Veteran’s Day Ceremony
Dec: Changing of the Mayor Annual
Economic Conference
115 165
Holiday Tree Trimming Festivities
In addition to these, there are other ongoing events. Some of these are also listed below. The
Mayor should decide how he/she would like to respond to these invitations and advise the City
Council Administrative Assistant.
Other Ongoing Activities of Interest
Citizen’s Police Academy Graduations (As needed – No regular schedule)
Cub Scouts Blue and Gold Dinners
Eagle Scouts Courts of Honor
Kiwanis Meetings
Rotary Meetings
Requests for Lunch with the Mayor as a Raffle Prize for Charitable Organizations
(Mayor should advise City Council Administrative Assistant on the number of guests they will
pay for)
OFFICE HOURS
It is recommended that regular office hours be established. This assists staff in scheduling
meetings without the need to contact the Mayor each time a meeting is required. Consideration
should also be given to scheduling a weekly block of time that may be used to meet with the public
or review documents.
RESPONDING TO CITIZEN INQUIRIES
Citizen inquiries are processed through the MyHB online content management system.
RESPONDING TO REQUESTS FOR MEETINGS BY CITIZENS
The following process is currently followed when citizens request meetings with the Mayor and
City Council.
1. Before scheduling a meeting, Administrative staff advises citizen of other available
options, such as:
a) Sending a letter explaining the nature of the issue
b) Speaking directly to the appropriate department staff
If this is not satisfactory to the resident, a meeting is scheduled. The City Council’s
Administrative Assistant is directed to notify the department head of the meeting and schedule
the appropriate staff to meet with the resident.
Note: Meetings are not scheduled if the issue involves matters in litigation, when a claim has been
filed against the city, or when a traffic citation has been issued.
116 166
SIGNATURE PROTOCOL
1. The Mayor is required to sign the following documents in person:
a) All County, State, and Federal agreements or documents
b) Documents which must be notarized
2. A signature stamp is currently used for the following items: (per City Council Resolution)
a) All other local documents/agreements approved by City Council
3. Other documents signed by the Mayor:
a) Proclamations, etc. - signed by Mayor and/or full City Council
b) Letters to citizens applying for and receiving a board/commission appointment
c) Specific letters relating to Citizen Inquires
d) Letters on Legislative Positions as directed by City Council/Intergovernmental Relations
117 167
118 168
119 169
120 170
121 171
122 172
123173
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1417 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Receive and file the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs
Assessment process
Statement of Issue:
During the July 15, 2019, City Council Study Session, Community Development staff presented an
overview of the 6th Cycle RHNA process and related items of information as directed by the City
Council. At the end of the study session, the City Council requested monthly updates on the status of
the 6th Cycle RHNA process. This update provides a summary of what has occurred since the last
monthly update on January 21, 2020.
Financial Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the monthly Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process status update.
Alternative Action(s):
Provide alternative direction to staff.
Analysis:
RHNA Methodology Adoption
In January, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) notified SCAG that the
draft RHNA methodology,as recommended by the Regional Council on November 7, 2019, met the
requirements of state law. The next step in the SCAG adoption process is for the RHNA
Subcommittee to consider the Final RHNA Allocation Methodology at its next meeting on February
24, 2020, for recommendation to the Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee
(CEHD) and the Regional Council. The Regional Council is expected to consider the Final RHNA
Allocation Methodology at its March 5, 2020, meeting. Once adopted, SCAG will allocate the RHNA
units to its member jurisdictions pursuant to the adopted Final RHNA Allocation Methodology.
According to the current recommended methodology, Huntington Beach would be allocated 13,321
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™174
File #:20-1417 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
According to the current recommended methodology, Huntington Beach would be allocated 13,321
RHNA units.
RHNA Appeals Procedures
The RHNA Subcommittee will also discuss and adopt RHNA appeal procedures during the February
24th meeting.City staff participated in a SCAG workshop to preview the draft RHNA appeals
procedures on February 3, 2020. There are several notable differences in the state law relating to
RHNA appeals for the 6th cycle. The table below describes the differences.
Topic 5th Cycle 6th Cycle
Process Two processes - revision request
and appeals process
No revision request; appeal process
only
Who can appeal Only a jurisdiction could appeal its
own RHNA allocation
Any jurisdiction and HCD can
appeal another jurisdiction’s RHNA
allocation
Reasons for appeal Cannot be based on:·Local
ordinances
Cannot be based on:·Local
ordinances ·Underproduction of
housing based on last RHNA ·
Stable population growth
It is anticipated that the required 45-day appeal period will be April 10, 2020 through May 25, 2020.
Subsequent to the appeal period, there will be a 45-day comment period. The current draft RHNA
appeals procedures indicate that the appeals hearings will occur no later than August 8, 2020. Units
that are successfully appealed will be redistributed to the other SCAG jurisdictions based on the
RHNA statute and adopted appeals procedures. Once reallocation of appealed units occurs, a final
allocation plan will be prepared for final adopted by the Regional Council in October 2020. A copy of
the draft RHNA appeals procedures is provided in Attachment No. 1.
Environmental Status:
The filing of a status update on the 6th Cycle RHNA process is not a project as defined by Section
15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and is not subject to CEQA.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Draft RHNA appeals procedures
2. City Attorney letter to SCAG, dated November 20, 2019
3. SCAG response letter, dated February 5, 2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™175
1
6th RHNA Cycle Appeals Procedures*
(Draft for February 3, 2020 Workshop Use)
*Comments on this Workshop Draft may be submitted by Monday, February 10, 5:00 p.m. to
housing@scag.ca.gov for considerations in the development of a staff-recommended RHNA
Appeal Procedures for RHNA Subcommittee Action on February 24. Please see
www.scag.ca.gov/rhna for additional meeting information.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65584.05, any local jurisdiction within the SCAG
region may file an appeal to modify its allocated share or another jurisdiction’s share of
the regional housing need included as part of SCAG’s Draft Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Plan, hereinafter referred to as the “Draft RHNA Plan.”
The California Department of Housing and Community Development, hereinafter
referred to as “HCD”, may also file an appeal to one or more jurisdiction’s draft RHNA
allocation. No appeal shall be allowed relating to post-appeal reallocation adjustments
made by SCAG, as further described in Section II, below.
I. APPEALS PROCESS
A. DEADLINE TO FILE
The period to file appeals shall commence on April 10, 2020, which shall be deemed as
the date of receipt by jurisdictions and HCD of the draft RHNA Plan. In order to comply
with Government Code § 65584.05(b), a jurisdiction or HCD seeking to appeal a draft
allocation of the regional housing need must file an appeal by 5:00 p.m. May 25, 2020.
Late appeals shall not be accepted by SCAG.
B. FORM OF APPEAL
The local jurisdiction shall state the basis and specific reasons for its appeal on the
appeal form prepared by SCAG, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
Additional documents may be submitted by the local jurisdiction as attachments, and all
such attachments should be properly labeled and numbered.
C. BASES FOR APPEAL
Local jurisdictions shall only file an appeal based upon the criteria listed below. In order
to provide guidance to potential appellants, information regarding SCAG’s allocation
methodology approved by SCAG’s Regional Council on March 5, 20201, and application
of local factors in the development of SCAG’s adopted Final Methodology is attached
1 This date is the scheduled date for adoption of the Final RHNA Methodology by the SCAG
Regional Council. In the event of a date change, this section will be amended.
176
2
hereto as Exhibit “B”. Appeals based on “change of circumstance” can only be filed by
the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change in circumstance occurred.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, filed appeals must include a statement
as to why the revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in
Section 65584. Additionally, Government Code Section 65584.05(b) requires that all
filed appeals must be consistent with, and not to the detriment of, the development
pattern in the sustainable communities strategy, or SCAG’s Connect SoCal Plan,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65080(b)(2).
1. Methodology – That SCAG failed to determine the jurisdiction’s
share of the regional housing need in accordance with the
information described in the allocation methodology established
and approved by SCAG, and in a manner that furthers, and does
not undermine the five objectives listed in Government Code
Section 65584(d).
2. Local Planning Factors and Information Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) – That SCAG failed to consider information
submitted by the local jurisdiction relating to certain local factors
outlined in Govt. Code § 65584.04(e) and information submitted
by the local jurisdiction relating to affirmatively furthering fair
housing pursuant to Government Code § 65584.04(b)(2) and
65584(d)(5) including the following:
a. Each jurisdiction’s existing and projected jobs and housing
relationship.
b. The opportunities and constraints to development of
additional housing in each jurisdiction, including the
following:
(1) lack of capacity for sewer or water service due to
federal or state laws, regulations or regulatory
actions, or supply and distribution decisions made
by a sewer or water service provider other than the
local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from
providing necessary infrastructure for additional
development during the planning period;
(2) the availability of land suitable for urban
development or for conversion to residential use,
the availability of underutilized land, and
opportunities for infill development and increased
residential densities;
177
3
(3) Lands preserved or protected from urban
development under existing federal or state
programs, or both, designed to protect open space,
farmland, environmental habitats, and natural
resources on a long-term basis, including land
zoned or designated for agricultural protection or
preservation that is subject to a local ballot
measure that was approved by the voters of that
jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to
non-agricultural uses.
(4) County policies to preserve prime agricultural land,
as defined pursuant to Government Code § 56064,
within an unincorporated area, and land within an
unincorporated area zoned or designated for
agricultural protection or preservation that is
subject to a local ballot measure that was approved
by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or
restricts its conversion to non-agricultural uses.
c. The distribution of household growth assumed for
purposes of a comparable period of regional
transportation plans and opportunities to maximize the
use of public transportation and existing transportation
infrastructure.
d. Agreements between a county and cities in a county to
direct growth toward incorporated areas of the county or
designated for agricultural protection or preservation that
is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by
the voters of the jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts
conversion to nonagricultural uses.
e. The loss of units contained in assisted housing
developments, as defined in Government Code §
65583(a)(9), that changed to non-low-income use through
mortgage prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or
termination of use restrictions.
f. The percentage of existing households at each of the
income levels listed in subdivision (e) of Section 65584 that
are paying more than 30 percent and more than 50
percent of their income in rent.
g. The rate of overcrowding.
178
4
h. The housing needs of farmworkers.
i. The housing needs generated by the presence of a private
university or a campus of the California State University or
the University of California within any member
jurisdiction.
j. The loss of units during a state of emergency that was
declared by the Governor pursuant to the California
Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7(commencing with
Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning
period immediately preceding the relevant revision
pursuant to Section 65588 that have yet to be rebuilt or
replaced at the time of the analysis. For purposes of these
guidelines, this applies to loss of units during a state of
emergency occurring since October 2013 and have not yet
been rebuilt or replaced by the time of the development
of the draft RHNA methodology, or November 7, 2019.
k. The region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets provided by
the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080,
to be met by SCAG’s Connect SoCal Plan.
l. Information based upon the issues, strategies, and actions
that are included, as available in an Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice or an Assessment of
Fair Housing completed by any city or county or the
California Department of Housing and Community
Development, and in housing elements
3. Changed Circumstances – That a significant and unforeseen
change in circumstance has occurred in the jurisdiction after April
30, 2019 and merits a revision of the information previously
submitted by the local jurisdiction. Appeals on this basis shall
only be made by the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change
in circumstances has occurred.
D. LIMITS ON SCOPE OF APPEAL
Existing law explicitly limits SCAG’s scope of review of appeals. Specifically, SCAG shall
not grant any appeal based upon the following:
179
5
1. Any other criteria other than the criteria in Section I.C above.
2. A local jurisdiction’s existing zoning ordinance and land use
restrictions, including but not limited to, the contents of the local
jurisdiction’s current general plan. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65584.04(e)(2)(B), SCAG may not limit its consideration of
suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban development to
existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of a locality,
but shall consider the potential for increased residential
development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use
restrictions.
3. Any local ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure or standard
limiting residential development. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65584.04(g)(1), any ordinance, policy, voter-approved
measure, or standard of a city or county that directly or indirectly
limits the number of residential building permits shall not be a
justification for a determination or a reduction in a city’s or
county’s share of regional housing need.
4. Prior underproduction of housing in a jurisdiction from the
previous regional housing need allocation. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65584.04)(g)(2), prior underproduction
of housing in a jurisdiction from the previous housing need
allocation, as determined by each jurisdiction’s annual production
report submitted to Government Code Section 65400(a)(2)(H)
cannot be used as a justification for a determination or reduction
in a jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need.
5. Stable population numbers in a jurisdiction. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65584.04(g)(3), stable population
growth from the previous regional housing needs cycle cannot be
used as a justification for a determination or reduction in a
jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need.
E. COMMENTS ON APPEALS
At the close of the appeals period as set forth in I.A., SCAG shall notify all jurisdictions
within the region and HCD of all appeals and shall make all materials submitted in
support of each appeal available on its website after the close of the appeals filing
period. Local jurisdictions and HCD may comment on one or more appeals within the 45
days following the end of the appeals filing period. All comments must be filed by 5:00
pm July 9, 2020. No late comments shall be accepted by SCAG.
180
6
F. HEARING BODY
SCAG’s Regional Council has delegated the responsibility of considering appeals
regarding draft allocations to the RHNA Subcommittee, also referred to as the RHNA
Appeals Board. All provisions of the RHNA Subcommittee’s charter shall apply with
respect to the conduct of the appeal hearings. Per the RHNA Subcommittee charter,
which was adopted on February 7, 2019 by the Regional Council, all decisions made by
the RHNA Appeals Board are considered final and will not be reviewed by the SCAG
Regional Council.
G. APPEAL HEARING
SCAG shall conduct one public hearing to consider all appeals filed and comments
received on the appeals no later than August 8, 2020. This public hearing may be
continued (over several days if necessary) until all appeals are heard. Notice shall be
provided to the appealing jurisdictions, commenting jurisdictions, and HCD at least 21
days in advance of the hearing. The appeal hearing may take place provided that each
county is represented either by a member or alternate of the RHNA Appeals Board.
Alternates are permitted to participate in the appeal hearing, provided however, that
each county shall only be entitled to one vote when deciding on the appeal. In
alignment with the adopted RHNA Subcommittee charter, in the event the hearing
involves the member’s or alternate’s respective jurisdiction, the member or alternate
may elect not to participate in the discussion and vote by the RHNA Subcommittee
regarding such appeal.
The hearing(s) shall be conducted to provide the appealing jurisdiction (or HCD) with the
opportunity to make its case regarding a change in its draft regional housing need
allocation or another jurisdiction’s allocation, with the burden on the appealing
jurisdiction to prove its case. The RHNA Appeals Board need not adhere to formal
evidentiary rules and procedures in conducting the hearing. An appealing jurisdiction
may choose to have technical staff present its case at the hearing. At a minimum,
technical staff should be available at the hearing to answer any questions of the RHNA
Appeals Board SCAG staff shall also be permitted to present its position and may make
a recommendation on the technical merits of the appeal to the RHNA Appeals Board,
subject to any rebuttal by the appealing jurisdiction.
H. DETERMINATION OF APPEAL
The RHNA Appeals Board shall issue a written final determination to the appealing
jurisdiction after the conclusion of the public hearing(s). The final determination shall
either accept, reject, or modify each appeal for a revised share. The final
determinations shall be based upon the information and methodology set forth in
Government Code section 65584.04 and whether the revision is necessary to further the
objectives listed in Government Code section 65584(d). The final determination shall
181
7
include written findings as to how the determination is consistent with Government
Code section 65584.05. The decision of the RHNA Appeals Board shall be final, and local
jurisdictions shall have no further right to appeal.
In accordance with existing law, the final determination on an appeal by the RHNA
Subcommittee may require the adjustment of allocation of a local jurisdiction that is not
the subject of an appeal. Specific adjustments to jurisdictions not the subject of an
appeal as a result of an appeal will be included as part of the Appeal Board’s
determination. These specific adjustments will be excluded from the cumulative total
adjustments required to be reallocated as described in Section II of these Appeals
Guidelines.
I. ALTERNATIVE DATA REQUIREMENTS
To the extent a local jurisdiction submits admissible alternative data or evidentiary
documentation to SCAG in support of its appeal, such alternative data shall meet the
following requirements:
1. The alternative data shall be readily available for SCAG’s review
and verification. Alternative data should not be constrained for
use by proprietary conditions or other conditions rendering them
difficult to obtain or process.
2. The alternative data shall be accurate, current, and reasonably
free from defect.
3. The alternative data shall be relevant and germane to the local
jurisdiction’s basis of appeal.
4. The alternative data shall be used to support a logical analysis
relating to the local jurisdiction’s request for a change to its draft
regional housing need allocation.
II. POST-APPEAL REALLOCATION OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED
In accordance with existing law (see, Government Code Section 65584.05(g)), after the
conclusion of the appeals process, SCAG shall total the successfully appealed housing
need allocations. If the adjustments total seven percent (7%) or less of the regional
housing need, SCAG shall distribute the adjustments proportionally, to all local
jurisdictions. For purposes of these procedures, proportional distribution shall be based
on the share of regional need after the appeals are determined and prior to the
required redistribution.
182
8
If the adjustments total more than seven percent (7%) of the regional housing need,
existing law requires that SCAG to develop a methodology to distribute the amount
greater than seven percent to local governments. In this situation, SCAG will
redistribute the amount greater than the seven percent based on the “residual” existing
need calculation included in the adopted final RHNA methodology. To be consistent
with the “residual” existing need calculation, successfully appealed units above the
seven percent threshold will be redistributed to each county based on their proportion
of total successful appeals. Fifty percent (50%) of each county’s amount above the
regional seven percent will be redistributed based on population within a High Quality
Transit Area (HQTA) and fifty percent (50%) of the amount will be redistributed based
on share of regional jobs accessible. Communities designated as disadvantaged, defined
in the Final RHNA Methodology as having more than fifty percent (50%) of their
population in lower resource areas, will be exempt from redistribution of the amount
greater than seven percent. For more information regarding the existing need
distribution in the Final RHNA Methodology, please refer to Exhibit BSCAG’s adopted
Final RHNA Methodology.
III. FINAL RHNA PLAN
After SCAG reallocates units to all local jurisdictions resulting from successful appeals,
SCAG’s Regional Council shall review and consider adoption of the Final RHNA Plan for
SCAG’s 6th cycle RHNA. This is scheduled to occur on October 1, 2020.
183
9
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Draft RHNA Appeal Form (pending)
Exhibit B: SCAG’s Adopted 6th Cycle RHNA Final Methodology (pending)
Exhibit C:
Government Code Section 65580
Government Code Section 65584
Government Code Section 65584.04
Government Code Section 65584.05
184
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65584
65584. (a) (1) For the fourth and subsequent revisions of the housing element
pursuant to Section 65588, the department shall determine the existing and projected
need for housing for each region pursuant to this article. For purposes of subdivision
(a) of Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing need shall
include that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area
significantly affected by the general plan of the city or county.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that cities, counties, and cities and counties
should undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the
development of housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need, and
reasonable actions should be taken by local and regional governments to ensure that
future housing production meets, at a minimum, the regional housing need established
for planning purposes. These actions shall include applicable reforms and incentives
in Section 65582.1.
(3) The Legislature finds and declares that insufficient housing in job centers
hinders the state’s environmental quality and runs counter to the state’s environmental
goals. In particular, when Californians seeking affordable housing are forced to drive
longer distances to work, an increased amount of greenhouse gases and other pollutants
is released and puts in jeopardy the achievement of the state’s climate goals, as
established pursuant to Section 38566 of the Health and Safety Code, and clean air
goals.
(b) The department, in consultation with each council of governments, shall
determine each region’s existing and projected housing need pursuant to Section
65584.01 at least two years prior to the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section
65588. The appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties without a
council of governments, the department, shall adopt a final regional housing need
plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city
and county at least one year prior to the scheduled revision for the region required by
Section 65588. The allocation plan prepared by a council of governments shall be
prepared pursuant to Sections 65584.04 and 65584.05.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the due dates for the determinations
of the department or for the council of governments, respectively, regarding the
regional housing need may be extended by the department by not more than 60 days
if the extension will enable access to more recent critical population or housing data
from a pending or recent release of the United States Census Bureau or the Department
of Finance. If the due date for the determination of the department or the council of
governments is extended for this reason, the department shall extend the corresponding
185
housing element revision deadline pursuant to Section 65588 by not more than 60
days.
(d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall further all of the following
objectives:
(1) Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and
affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which
shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low
income households.
(2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of
environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development
patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets
provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080.
(3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing,
including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number
of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction.
(4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a
jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income
category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category
from the most recent American Community Survey.
(5) Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
(e) For purposes of this section, “affirmatively furthering fair housing” means
taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome
patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict
access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively
furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address
significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing
segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns,
transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair
housing laws.
(f) For purposes of this section, “household income levels” are as determined by
the department as of the most recent American Community Survey pursuant to the
following code sections:
(1) Very low incomes as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) Lower incomes, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Moderate incomes, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4) Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the moderate-income level of
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations made by the
department, a council of governments, or a city or county pursuant to this section or
Section 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.03, 65584.04, 65584.05, 65584.06, 65584.07, or
186
65584.08 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 989, Sec. 1.5. (AB 1771) Effective January 1, 2019.)
187
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65584.05
65584.05. (a) At least one and one-half years before the scheduled revision required
by Section 65588, each council of governments and delegate subregion, as applicable,
shall distribute a draft allocation of regional housing needs to each local government
in the region or subregion, where applicable, and the department, based on the
methodology adopted pursuant to Section 65584.04 and shall publish the draft
allocation on its internet website. The draft allocation shall include the underlying
data and methodology on which the allocation is based, and a statement as to how it
furthers the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584. It is the intent of
the Legislature that the draft allocation should be distributed before the completion
of the update of the applicable regional transportation plan. The draft allocation shall
distribute to localities and subregions, if any, within the region the entire regional
housing need determined pursuant to Section 65584.01 or within subregions, as
applicable, the subregion’s entire share of the regional housing need determined
pursuant to Section 65584.03.
(b) Within 45 days following receipt of the draft allocation, a local government
within the region or the delegate subregion, as applicable, or the department may
appeal to the council of governments or the delegate subregion for a revision of the
share of the regional housing need proposed to be allocated to one or more local
governments. Appeals shall be based upon comparable data available for all affected
jurisdictions and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate
documentation, and shall include a statement as to why the revision is necessary to
further the intent of the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584. An
appeal pursuant to this subdivision shall be consistent with, and not to the detriment
of, the development pattern in an applicable sustainable communities strategy
developed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080. Appeals
shall be limited to any of the following circumstances:
(1) The council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, failed to
adequately consider the information submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
65584.04.
(2) The council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, failed to
determine the share of the regional housing need in accordance with the information
described in, and the methodology established pursuant to, Section 65584.04, and in
a manner that furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of the objectives listed in
subdivision (d) of Section 65584.
(3) A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred in the local
jurisdiction or jurisdictions that merits a revision of the information submitted pursuant
188
to subdivision (b) of Section 65584.04. Appeals on this basis shall only be made by
the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change in circumstances has occurred.
(c) At the close of the period for filing appeals pursuant to subdivision (b), the
council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall notify all other
local governments within the region or delegate subregion and the department of all
appeals and shall make all materials submitted in support of each appeal available on
a publicly available internet website. Local governments and the department may,
within 45 days, comment on one or more appeals. If no appeals are filed, the draft
allocation shall be issued as the proposed final allocation plan pursuant to paragraph
(2) of subdivision (e).
(d) No later than 30 days after the close of the comment period, and after providing
all local governments within the region or delegate subregion, as applicable, at least
21 days prior notice, the council of governments or delegate subregion shall conduct
one public hearing to consider all appeals filed pursuant to subdivision (b) and all
comments received pursuant to subdivision (c).
(e) No later than 45 days after the public hearing pursuant to subdivision (d), the
council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall do both of the
following:
(1) Make a final determination that either accepts, rejects, or modifies each appeal
for a revised share filed pursuant to subdivision (b). Final determinations shall be
based upon the information and methodology described in Section 65584.04 and
whether the revision is necessary to further the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of
Section 65584. The final determination shall be in writing and shall include written
findings as to how the determination is consistent with this article. The final
determination on an appeal may require the council of governments or delegate
subregion, as applicable, to adjust the share of the regional housing need allocated to
one or more local governments that are not the subject of an appeal.
(2) Issue a proposed final allocation plan.
(f) In the proposed final allocation plan, the council of governments or delegate
subregion, as applicable, shall adjust allocations to local governments based upon the
results of the appeals process. If the adjustments total 7 percent or less of the regional
housing need determined pursuant to Section 65584.01, or, as applicable, total 7
percent or less of the subregion’s share of the regional housing need as determined
pursuant to Section 65584.03, then the council of governments or delegate subregion,
as applicable, shall distribute the adjustments proportionally to all local governments.
If the adjustments total more than 7 percent of the regional housing need, then the
council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall develop a
methodology to distribute the amount greater than the 7 percent to local governments.
The total distribution of housing need shall not equal less than the regional housing
need, as determined pursuant to Section 65584.01, nor shall the subregional distribution
of housing need equal less than its share of the regional housing need as determined
pursuant to Section 65584.03.
(g) Within 45 days after the issuance of the proposed final allocation plan by the
council of governments and each delegate subregion, as applicable, the council of
189
governments shall hold a public hearing to adopt a final allocation plan. To the extent
that the final allocation plan fully allocates the regional share of statewide housing
need, as determined pursuant to Section 65584.01 and has taken into account all
appeals, the council of governments shall have final authority to determine the
distribution of the region’s existing and projected housing need as determined pursuant
to Section 65584.01. The council of governments shall submit its final allocation plan
to the department within three days of adoption. Within 30 days after the department’s
receipt of the final allocation plan adopted by the council of governments, the
department shall determine if the final allocation plan is consistent with the existing
and projected housing need for the region, as determined pursuant to Section 65584.01.
The department may revise the determination of the council of governments if
necessary to obtain this consistency.
(h) Any authority of the council of governments to review and revise the share of
a city or county of the regional housing need under this section shall not constitute
authority to revise, approve, or disapprove the manner in which the share of the city
or county of the regional housing need is implemented through its housing program.
(i) Any time period in subdivision (d) or (e) may be extended by a council of
governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, for up to 30 days.
(j) The San Diego Association of Governments may follow the process in this
section for the draft and final allocation plan for the sixth revision of the housing
element notwithstanding such actions being carried out before the adoption of an
updated regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy.
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 634, Sec. 4. (AB 1730) Effective January 1, 2020.)
190
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65080
65080. (a) Each transportation planning agency designated under Section 29532 or
29532.1 shall prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan directed at achieving
a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system, including, but not limited
to, mass transportation, highway, railroad, maritime, bicycle, pedestrian, goods
movement, and aviation facilities and services. The plan shall be action-oriented and
pragmatic, considering both the short-term and long-term future, and shall present
clear, concise policy guidance to local and state officials. The regional transportation
plan shall consider factors specified in Section 134 of Title 23 of the United States
Code. Each transportation planning agency shall consider and incorporate, as
appropriate, the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations,
and state and federal agencies.
(b) The regional transportation plan shall be an internally consistent document and
shall include all of the following:
(1) A policy element that describes the transportation issues in the region, identifies
and quantifies regional needs, and describes the desired short-range and long-range
transportation goals, and pragmatic objective and policy statements. The objective
and policy statements shall be consistent with the funding estimates of the financial
element. The policy element of transportation planning agencies with populations
that exceed 200,000 persons may quantify a set of indicators including, but not limited
to, all of the following:
(A) Measures of mobility and traffic congestion, including, but not limited to,
daily vehicle hours of delay per capita and vehicle miles traveled per capita.
(B) Measures of road and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation needs, including,
but not limited to, roadway pavement and bridge conditions.
(C) Measures of means of travel, including, but not limited to, percentage share
of all trips (work and nonwork) made by all of the following:
(i) Single occupant vehicle.
(ii) Multiple occupant vehicle or carpool.
(iii) Public transit including commuter rail and intercity rail.
(iv) Walking.
(v) Bicycling.
(D) Measures of safety and security, including, but not limited to, total injuries
and fatalities assigned to each of the modes set forth in subparagraph (C).
(E) Measures of equity and accessibility, including, but not limited to, percentage
of the population served by frequent and reliable public transit, with a breakdown by
191
income bracket, and percentage of all jobs accessible by frequent and reliable public
transit service, with a breakdown by income bracket.
(F) The requirements of this section may be met using existing sources of
information. No additional traffic counts, household surveys, or other sources of data
shall be required.
(2) A sustainable communities strategy prepared by each metropolitan planning
organization as follows:
(A) No later than September 30, 2010, the State Air Resources Board shall provide
each affected region with greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile
and light truck sector for 2020 and 2035, respectively.
(i) No later than January 31, 2009, the state board shall appoint a Regional Targets
Advisory Committee to recommend factors to be considered and methodologies to
be used for setting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the affected regions.
The committee shall be composed of representatives of the metropolitan planning
organizations, affected air districts, the League of California Cities, the California
State Association of Counties, local transportation agencies, and members of the
public, including homebuilders, environmental organizations, planning organizations,
environmental justice organizations, affordable housing organizations, and others.
The advisory committee shall transmit a report with its recommendations to the state
board no later than September 30, 2009. In recommending factors to be considered
and methodologies to be used, the advisory committee may consider any relevant
issues, including, but not limited to, data needs, modeling techniques, growth forecasts,
the impacts of regional jobs-housing balance on interregional travel and greenhouse
gas emissions, economic and demographic trends, the magnitude of greenhouse gas
reduction benefits from a variety of land use and transportation strategies, and
appropriate methods to describe regional targets and to monitor performance in
attaining those targets. The state board shall consider the report before setting the
targets.
(ii) Before setting the targets for a region, the state board shall exchange technical
information with the metropolitan planning organization and the affected air district.
The metropolitan planning organization may recommend a target for the region. The
metropolitan planning organization shall hold at least one public workshop within
the region after receipt of the report from the advisory committee. The state board
shall release draft targets for each region no later than June 30, 2010.
(iii) In establishing these targets, the state board shall take into account greenhouse
gas emission reductions that will be achieved by improved vehicle emission standards,
changes in fuel composition, and other measures it has approved that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the affected regions, and prospective measures the state
board plans to adopt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from other greenhouse gas
emission sources as that term is defined in subdivision (i) of Section 38505 of the
Health and Safety Code and consistent with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25.5 (commencing
with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code), including Section 38566 of the
Health and Safety Code.
192
(iv) The state board shall update the regional greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets every eight years consistent with each metropolitan planning organization’s
timeframe for updating its regional transportation plan under federal law until 2050.
The state board may revise the targets every four years based on changes in the factors
considered under clause (iii). The state board shall exchange technical information
with the Department of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, local
governments, and affected air districts and engage in a consultative process with
public and private stakeholders, before updating these targets.
(v) The greenhouse gas emission reduction targets may be expressed in gross tons,
tons per capita, tons per household, or in any other metric deemed appropriate by the
state board.
(B) Each metropolitan planning organization shall prepare a sustainable
communities strategy, subject to the requirements of Part 450 of Title 23 of, and Part
93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, including the requirement to use
the most recent planning assumptions considering local general plans and other factors.
The sustainable communities strategy shall (i) identify the general location of uses,
residential densities, and building intensities within the region, (ii) identify areas
within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all
economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period of the
regional transportation plan taking into account net migration into the region,
population growth, household formation and employment growth, (iii) identify areas
within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing
need for the region pursuant to Section 65584, (iv) identify a transportation network
to service the transportation needs of the region, (v) gather and consider the best
practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in
the region as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 65080.01, (vi) consider
the state housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581, (vii) set forth a
forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the
transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce
the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there
is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved
by the state board, and (viii) allow the regional transportation plan to comply with
Section 176 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7506).
(C) (i) Within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
as defined by Section 66502, the Association of Bay Area Governments shall be
responsible for clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) of subparagraph (B); the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall be responsible for clauses (iv) and (viii) of
subparagraph (B); and the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall jointly be responsible for clause (vii) of subparagraph
(B).
(ii) Within the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, as defined in
Sections 66800 and 66801, the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization shall use
the Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region as the sustainable community strategy,
provided that it complies with clauses (vii) and (viii) of subparagraph (B).
193
(D) In the region served by the Southern California Association of Governments,
a subregional council of governments and the county transportation commission may
work together to propose the sustainable communities strategy and an alternative
planning strategy, if one is prepared pursuant to subparagraph (I), for that subregional
area. The metropolitan planning organization may adopt a framework for a subregional
sustainable communities strategy or a subregional alternative planning strategy to
address the intraregional land use, transportation, economic, air quality, and climate
policy relationships. The metropolitan planning organization shall include the
subregional sustainable communities strategy for that subregion in the regional
sustainable communities strategy to the extent consistent with this section and federal
law and approve the subregional alternative planning strategy, if one is prepared
pursuant to subparagraph (I), for that subregional area to the extent consistent with
this section. The metropolitan planning organization shall develop overall guidelines,
create public participation plans pursuant to subparagraph (F), ensure coordination,
resolve conflicts, make sure that the overall plan complies with applicable legal
requirements, and adopt the plan for the region.
(E) The metropolitan planning organization shall conduct at least two informational
meetings in each county within the region for members of the board of supervisors
and city councils on the sustainable communities strategy and alternative planning
strategy, if any. The metropolitan planning organization may conduct only one
informational meeting if it is attended by representatives of the county board of
supervisors and city council members representing a majority of the cities representing
a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of that county. Notice of the
meeting or meetings shall be sent to the clerk of the board of supervisors and to each
city clerk. The purpose of the meeting or meetings shall be to discuss the sustainable
communities strategy and the alternative planning strategy, if any, including the key
land use and planning assumptions to the members of the board of supervisors and
the city council members in that county and to solicit and consider their input and
recommendations.
(F) Each metropolitan planning organization shall adopt a public participation
plan, for development of the sustainable communities strategy and an alternative
planning strategy, if any, that includes all of the following:
(i) Outreach efforts to encourage the active participation of a broad range of
stakeholder groups in the planning process, consistent with the agency’s adopted
Federal Public Participation Plan, including, but not limited to, affordable housing
advocates, transportation advocates, neighborhood and community groups,
environmental advocates, home builder representatives, broad-based business
organizations, landowners, commercial property interests, and homeowner associations.
(ii) Consultation with congestion management agencies, transportation agencies,
and transportation commissions.
(iii) Workshops throughout the region to provide the public with the information
and tools necessary to provide a clear understanding of the issues and policy choices.
At least one workshop shall be held in each county in the region. For counties with
a population greater than 500,000, at least three workshops shall be held. Each
194
workshop, to the extent practicable, shall include urban simulation computer modeling
to create visual representations of the sustainable communities strategy and the
alternative planning strategy.
(iv) Preparation and circulation of a draft sustainable communities strategy and
an alternative planning strategy, if one is prepared, not less than 55 days before
adoption of a final regional transportation plan.
(v) At least three public hearings on the draft sustainable communities strategy in
the regional transportation plan and alternative planning strategy, if one is prepared.
If the metropolitan transportation organization consists of a single county, at least
two public hearings shall be held. To the maximum extent feasible, the hearings shall
be in different parts of the region to maximize the opportunity for participation by
members of the public throughout the region.
(vi) A process for enabling members of the public to provide a single request to
receive notices, information, and updates.
(G) In preparing a sustainable communities strategy, the metropolitan planning
organization shall consider spheres of influence that have been adopted by the local
agency formation commissions within its region.
(H) Before adopting a sustainable communities strategy, the metropolitan planning
organization shall quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions projected to be
achieved by the sustainable communities strategy and set forth the difference, if any,
between the amount of that reduction and the target for the region established by the
state board.
(I) If the sustainable communities strategy, prepared in compliance with
subparagraph (B) or (D), is unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by the state board, the
metropolitan planning organization shall prepare an alternative planning strategy to
the sustainable communities strategy showing how those greenhouse gas emission
targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure,
or additional transportation measures or policies. The alternative planning strategy
shall be a separate document from the regional transportation plan, but it may be
adopted concurrently with the regional transportation plan. In preparing the alternative
planning strategy, the metropolitan planning organization:
(i) Shall identify the principal impediments to achieving the targets within the
sustainable communities strategy.
(ii) May include an alternative development pattern for the region pursuant to
subparagraphs (B) to (G), inclusive.
(iii) Shall describe how the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets would be
achieved by the alternative planning strategy, and why the development pattern,
measures, and policies in the alternative planning strategy are the most practicable
choices for achievement of the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(iv) An alternative development pattern set forth in the alternative planning strategy
shall comply with Part 450 of Title 23 of, and Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of
Federal Regulations, except to the extent that compliance will prevent achievement
of the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the state board.
195
(v) For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), an alternative
planning strategy shall not constitute a land use plan, policy, or regulation, and the
inconsistency of a project with an alternative planning strategy shall not be a
consideration in determining whether a project may have an environmental effect.
(J) (i) Before starting the public participation process adopted pursuant to
subparagraph (F), the metropolitan planning organization shall submit a description
to the state board of the technical methodology it intends to use to estimate the
greenhouse gas emissions from its sustainable communities strategy and, if appropriate,
its alternative planning strategy. The state board shall respond to the metropolitan
planning organization in a timely manner with written comments about the technical
methodology, including specifically describing any aspects of that methodology it
concludes will not yield accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions, and suggested
remedies. The metropolitan planning organization is encouraged to work with the
state board until the state board concludes that the technical methodology operates
accurately.
(ii) After adoption, a metropolitan planning organization shall submit a sustainable
communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, if one has been adopted, to
the state board for review, including the quantification of the greenhouse gas emission
reductions the strategy would achieve and a description of the technical methodology
used to obtain that result. Review by the state board shall be limited to acceptance or
rejection of the metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the strategy
submitted would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets established by the state board. The state board shall complete its review within
60 days.
(iii) If the state board determines that the strategy submitted would not, if
implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the metropolitan
planning organization shall revise its strategy or adopt an alternative planning strategy,
if not previously adopted, and submit the strategy for review pursuant to clause (ii).
At a minimum, the metropolitan planning organization must obtain state board
acceptance that an alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established for that region by the state
board.
(iv) On or before September 1, 2018, and every four years thereafter to align with
target setting, notwithstanding Section 10231.5, the state board shall prepare a report
that assesses progress made by each metropolitan planning organization in meeting
the regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by the state board. The
report shall include changes to greenhouse gas emissions in each region and
data-supported metrics for the strategies used to meet the targets. The report shall
also include a discussion of best practices and the challenges faced by the metropolitan
planning organizations in meeting the targets, including the effect of state policies
and funding. The report shall be developed in consultation with the metropolitan
planning organizations and affected stakeholders. The report shall be submitted to
the Assembly Committee on Transportation and the Assembly Committee on Natural
196
Resources, and to the Senate Committee on Transportation, the Senate Committee
on Housing, and the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
(K) Neither a sustainable communities strategy nor an alternative planning strategy
regulates the use of land, nor, except as provided by subparagraph (J), shall either
one be subject to any state approval. Nothing in a sustainable communities strategy
shall be interpreted as superseding the exercise of the land use authority of cities and
counties within the region. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit the
state board’s authority under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted
to authorize the abrogation of any vested right whether created by statute or by common
law. Nothing in this section shall require a city’s or county’s land use policies and
regulations, including its general plan, to be consistent with the regional transportation
plan or an alternative planning strategy. Nothing in this section requires a metropolitan
planning organization to approve a sustainable communities strategy that would be
inconsistent with Part 450 of Title 23 of, or Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal
Regulations and any administrative guidance under those regulations. Nothing in this
section relieves a public or private entity or any person from compliance with any
other local, state, or federal law.
(L) Nothing in this section requires projects programmed for funding on or before
December 31, 2011, to be subject to the provisions of this paragraph if they (i) are
contained in the 2007 or 2009 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program,
(ii) are funded pursuant to the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and
Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20)
of Division 1 of Title 2), or (iii) were specifically listed in a ballot measure before
December 31, 2008, approving a sales tax increase for transportation projects. Nothing
in this section shall require a transportation sales tax authority to change the funding
allocations approved by the voters for categories of transportation projects in a sales
tax measure adopted before December 31, 2010. For purposes of this subparagraph,
a transportation sales tax authority is a district, as defined in Section 7252 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, that is authorized to impose a sales tax for transportation
purposes.
(M) A metropolitan planning organization, or a regional transportation planning
agency not within a metropolitan planning organization, that is required to adopt a
regional transportation plan not less than every five years, may elect to adopt the plan
not less than every four years. This election shall be made by the board of directors
of the metropolitan planning organization or regional transportation planning agency
no later than June 1, 2009, or thereafter 54 months before the statutory deadline for
the adoption of housing elements for the local jurisdictions within the region, after a
public hearing at which comments are accepted from members of the public and
representatives of cities and counties within the region covered by the metropolitan
planning organization or regional transportation planning agency. Notice of the public
hearing shall be given to the general public and by mail to cities and counties within
the region no later than 30 days before the date of the public hearing. Notice of election
shall be promptly given to the Department of Housing and Community Development.
The metropolitan planning organization or the regional transportation planning agency
197
shall complete its next regional transportation plan within three years of the notice
of election.
(N) Two or more of the metropolitan planning organizations for Fresno County,
Kern County, Kings County, Madera County, Merced County, San Joaquin County,
Stanislaus County, and Tulare County may work together to develop and adopt
multiregional goals and policies that may address interregional land use, transportation,
economic, air quality, and climate relationships. The participating metropolitan
planning organizations may also develop a multiregional sustainable communities
strategy, to the extent consistent with federal law, or an alternative planning strategy
for adoption by the metropolitan planning organizations. Each participating
metropolitan planning organization shall consider any adopted multiregional goals
and policies in the development of a sustainable communities strategy and, if
applicable, an alternative planning strategy for its region.
(3) An action element that describes the programs and actions necessary to
implement the plan and assigns implementation responsibilities. The action element
may describe all transportation projects proposed for development during the 20-year
or greater life of the plan. The action element shall consider congestion management
programming activities carried out within the region.
(4) (A) A financial element that summarizes the cost of plan implementation
constrained by a realistic projection of available revenues. The financial element shall
also contain recommendations for allocation of funds. A county transportation
commission created pursuant to the County Transportation Commissions Act (Division
12 (commencing with Section 130000) of the Public Utilities Code) shall be responsible
for recommending projects to be funded with regional improvement funds, if the
project is consistent with the regional transportation plan. The first five years of the
financial element shall be based on the five-year estimate of funds developed pursuant
to Section 14524. The financial element may recommend the development of specified
new sources of revenue, consistent with the policy element and action element.
(B) The financial element of transportation planning agencies with populations
that exceed 200,000 persons may include a project cost breakdown for all projects
proposed for development during the 20-year life of the plan that includes total
expenditures and related percentages of total expenditures for all of the following:
(i) State highway expansion.
(ii) State highway rehabilitation, maintenance, and operations.
(iii) Local road and street expansion.
(iv) Local road and street rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation.
(v) Mass transit, commuter rail, and intercity rail expansion.
(vi) Mass transit, commuter rail, and intercity rail rehabilitation, maintenance, and
operations.
(vii) Pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
(viii) Environmental enhancements and mitigation.
(ix) Research and planning.
(x) Other categories.
198
(C) The metropolitan planning organization or county transportation agency,
whichever entity is appropriate, shall consider financial incentives for cities and
counties that have resource areas or farmland, as defined in Section 65080.01, for the
purposes of, for example, transportation investments for the preservation and safety
of the city street or county road system and farm-to-market and interconnectivity
transportation needs. The metropolitan planning organization or county transportation
agency, whichever entity is appropriate, shall also consider financial assistance for
counties to address countywide service responsibilities in counties that contribute
toward the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by implementing policies for
growth to occur within their cities.
(c) Each transportation planning agency may also include other factors of local
significance as an element of the regional transportation plan, including, but not
limited to, issues of mobility for specific sectors of the community, including, but not
limited to, senior citizens.
(d) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, each transportation
planning agency shall adopt and submit, every four years, an updated regional
transportation plan to the California Transportation Commission and the Department
of Transportation. A transportation planning agency located in a federally designated
air quality attainment area or that does not contain an urbanized area may at its option
adopt and submit a regional transportation plan every five years. When applicable,
the plan shall be consistent with federal planning and programming requirements and
shall conform to the regional transportation plan guidelines adopted by the California
Transportation Commission. Before adoption of the regional transportation plan, a
public hearing shall be held after the giving of notice of the hearing by publication
in the affected county or counties pursuant to Section 6061.
(2) (A) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (c), and paragraph (1), inclusive,
the regional transportation plan, sustainable communities strategy, and environmental
impact report adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments on October 9,
2015, shall remain in effect for all purposes, including for purposes of consistency
determinations and funding eligibility for the San Diego Association of Governments
and all other agencies relying on those documents, until the San Diego Association
of Governments adopts its next update to its regional transportation plan.
(B) The San Diego Association of Governments shall adopt and submit its update
to the 2015 regional transportation plan on or before December 31, 2021.
(C) After the update described in subparagraph (B), the time period for San Diego
Association of Governments’ updates to its regional transportation plan shall be reset
and shall be adopted and submitted every four years.
(D) Notwithstanding clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b), the State Air Resources Board shall not update the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets for the region within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Association
of Governments before the adoption of the update to the regional transportation plan
pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(E) The update to the regional transportation plan adopted by the San Diego
Association of Governments on October 9, 2015, which will be prepared and submitted
199
to federal agencies for purposes of compliance with federal laws applicable to regional
transportation plans and air quality conformity and which is due in October 2019,
shall not be considered a regional transportation plan pursuant to this section and shall
not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(F) In addition to meeting the other requirements to nominate a project for funding
through the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (Chapter 8.5 (commencing
with Section 2390) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code), the San Diego
Association of Governments, until December 31, 2021, shall only nominate projects
for funding through the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program that are consistent
with the eligibility requirements for projects under any of the following programs:
(i) The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (Part 2 (commencing with
Section 75220) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code).
(ii) The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (Part 3 (commencing with Section
75230) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code).
(iii) The Active Transportation Program (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
2380) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code).
(G) Commencing January 1, 2020, and every two years thereafter, the San Diego
Association of Governments shall begin developing an implementation report that
tracks the implementation of its most recently adopted sustainable communities
strategy. The report shall discuss the status of the implementation of the strategy at
the regional and local level, and any successes and barriers that have occurred since
the last report. The San Diego Association of Governments shall submit the
implementation report to the state board by including it in its sustainable communities
strategy implementation review pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (J) of paragraph
(2) of subdivision (b).
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 634, Sec. 2. (AB 1730) Effective January 1, 2020.)
200
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OFFICE
of the
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael E. Gates
City Attorney
Mike Vigliotta
Chief Ass istant City Attorn ey
November 20, 2019
Ben Metcalf, Director
Tad Egawa, General Counsel
P .O . Box 190
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Teleph one: (7 14) 536-55 55
Facs imile: (7 14) 3 74-1590
California Department of Housing and Community Development
2020 West El Camino A venue
Sacramento, CA 95833
Bill Jahn, President
Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Joann Africa, Chief Counsel
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 9001 7
Jonathon T . Hughes, Regional Affairs Officer
Orange County Regional Office
OCTA Building
600 South Main Street, Suite 406
Orange, CA 92868
Brian L. Williams
Chief T r ial Co unsel
Gemia L .T. Mercer
Commun ity Prosec utor
Jemma Dunn
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Daniel S. Cha
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Scott Field
Deputy C ity Attorney
Re: SCAG's November '1111 Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary &
Capricious RHNA to the City of Huntington Beach/or the 6"' Planning Cycle
Dear Messrs. Metcalf, Gilhooley, lkhrata, and Hon. Viegas-Walker,
We are writing to place into the record an objection to the illegal and blatantly unfair vote
that took place at the November 7, 2019, Southern California Association of Governments
("SCAG") Regional Council Meeting . As you know, in a substitute motion, in a 43-19
vote , SCAG took action to approve an "alternative" Regional Housing Needs Allocation
("RHNA") distribution method proposed by, and promoted by, Riverside Mayor Rusty
Bailey .
To be abundantly clear, this violates the law both procedurally and substantively.
218400 .docx 201
Re: SCAG's November 7"' Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA
November 20, 2019
Page2
First, the City of Huntington Beach did not receive proper or adequate notice that SCAG
would entertain such a vote on such an "alternative" and legally unsupported
methodology. It was not clearly part of the advance agenda and there was only a brief,
vague letter sent by email two days prior to Huntington Beach that this "alternative"
methodology was being contemplated. To the contrary, prior to this meeting, SCAG had
consistently and repeatedly set forth certain methodologies upon which the City of
Huntington Beach relied.
In addition to the lack of adequate notice of the "alternative" RHNA distribution method
that ultimately occurred, the City of Huntington Beach was not allowed to provide any
meaningful input, or place any objections on the record at the meeting before the vote. In a
blatant disregard of controlling parliamentary rules, the Mayor Pro Tern of Huntington
Beach, Lyn Semeta's request to speak to the members was categorically denied-depriving
her and the City of Huntington Beach any opportunity to voice an objection to, or provide
any input to, the voting members before the vote was taken. Again, a blatant denial to
Huntington Beach to participate in the SCAG RHNA process.
Moreover, this illegal vote resulted in a massive shift ofRHNA for the 6th Cycle to coastal
cities. Prior to the November 7th vote, the City of Huntington Beach had been informed by
SCAG to anticipate a RHNA distribution for the 6th Cycle of 3,612 units. After the
November 7th vote by SCAG, the City of Huntington Beach has learned that the RHNA
distribution will be 13,300 -a nearly 370% increase to the City of Huntington Beach.
This massive shift of RHNA to beach cities, like Huntington Beach, squarely undermines
SCAG's long and historical defense of the legality of the RHNA methodology. The City of
Huntington Beach on the other hand has long held, and has repeatedly voiced, that the
methodology for RHNA determinations has been flawed, wrought with political
manipulation, and not based on objective, verifiable real-world empirical data, this latest
vote on November 7th proves the very point that Huntington Beach has argued all along,
i.e., that there is no rational methodology at all.
In fact, peeling back the veil of false pretense, we now see these RHNAs amount to nothing
more than an arbitrary and capricious assignment of a zoning/development burdens
imposed on cities by a political majority from outside those cities.
SCAG Denied the Cify of Huntington Beach a Voice, Participation in the Process
For the past year, the SCAG RHNA subcommittee and the City of Huntington Beach have
been meeting monthly, parsing through complicated formulas in an effort to determine a
reasonable methodology that complies with RHNA statutory law. These formulas appear
to provide unbridled discretion regarding options like proximity to jobs, access to
transportation, available land to build on and projected household growth when
determining RHNA distribution. As the process evolved, many public meetings were held
throughout the SCAG region to discuss and obtain public comment on
the methodology. All of this input also included the opportunity for individual
202
Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA
November 20, 2019
Page3
jurisdictions to use estimation calculator tools provided by SCAG to ascertain impacts of
various proposed methodologies on their city. The jurisdictions each had the opportunity
to provide suggestions for changing the proposed formulas and many cities, like
Huntington Beach, did provide suggestions.
At the end of this year-long process, SCAG staff proposed a final methodology to be voted
on at the November 7th Regional Council Meeting. Although we continue to object to the
1.3 million regional allocation, Huntington Beach and the other Orange County cities were
prepared to vote in favor of the SCAG staff-recommended methodology as it appeared to
be a fair, equitable formula for distribution based on reasonable factors, i.e., factors set
forth by State law. Bear in mind, with each change to the proposed methodology options
throughout the process, SCAG staff spent considerable time crunching the numbers,
applying the different factors so that at the time the Regional Council voted on the final
proposal, the methodology had been thoroughly vetted and analyzed for its impacts and
rationale as a "reasonable" methodology.
Unfortunately, at the 11th hour, after ignoring earlier multiple opportunities to give input as
to why an alternate formula should be proposed, the elected officials of Riverside and Los
Angeles, in an apparent backroom deal, sprung new, "alternative" (irrational) methodology
that capriciously and baselessly shifted a massive portion of the RHNA distribution onto
Orange County, targeting, specifically, beach cities.
Notably, the day of the meeting, eleven of the fourteen Los Angeles City Council
Members, who are all able to cast votes due to their city's size, decided to attend the
SCAG's meeting to vote against smaller Orange County. It appears that many of these
Council Members never attended prior SCAG meetings. San Bernardino County voted in
support of the deal because it benefitted them as well. As a result of the massive, 11th hour,
"overnight" shift ofRHNA to Orange County pursuant to the vote, Riverside's RHNA
went from 235,131 units to 165,696; San Bernardino's was reduced, 181,774 to 135,047;
and Orange County's increased dramatically from 107,978 units to 182,194.
It appears that the Los Angeles, Riverside contingent orchestrated the 11th hour vote ahead
of time and therefore had time to line up multiple comment letters and multiple public
comment speakers in advance to come to the Regional Council Meeting to speak and
support the alternative methodology. Orange County, kept in the dark until the last
minute, did not.
Setting aside for a moment the procedural violations, the new/alternative methodology was
not fully analyzed for impacts by SCAG staff before the vote -in square violation of
substantive provisions of State law. This methodology was not previously supported by
SCAG staff. The new/alternative method fails to follow applicable State law in part by
removing local input and growth forecast data. The time staff from all jurisdictions spent
analyzing and providing data regarding the realities of our own individual jurisdictions, in
terms of cities' ability to build housing, was completely and illegally disregarded. The
current methodology ignores the very real constraints that coastal cities must cope with
203
Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA
November 20, 2019
Page4
such as obtaining Coastal Commission approvals for zoning and development, and the
scarcity and lack of available land and other environmental constraints -including
Huntington Beach's particular interest in preserving the only large undeveloped and natural
portion of the City -its beautiful and highly valued Wetlands.
SCAG Not Adhering to State Law, Prescribed Methodology
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through Council of
Governments (COG) and/or Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
purports to identify certain existing and projected regional housing needs for alleged
projected State population and household growth. (Government Code§ 65584, et
seq.) SCAG covers the six-county Southern California region counties oflmperial, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. The COG develops a Regional
Housing Need Allocation Plan (RHNA-Plan) allocating the region's share of the Statewide
need to cities and counties within the region." The typical scenario is that HCD, in
consultation with each COG, such as SCAG, determines the existing and projected housing
needs for each region. (Government Code§ 65584.01 (describing the marrner in which the
needs determination shall be made).)
The RHNA plan must be consistent with the following objectives: (1) increasing the
housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability within the region in
an equitable marrner, which must result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation for low-
and very low-income units; (2) promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity,
the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of
efficient development patterns; (3) promoting an improved intraregional relationship
between jobs and housing; and ( 4) allocating a lower proportion of housing needs to an
income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of
households in that category. (Government Code § 65584( d).)
According to HCD, "the RHNA-Plan process requires local governments to be accountable
for ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated and provides a benchmark
for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local
government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land and opportunities for
housing development to address population growth and job generation." The November 7th
vote is in direct violation of State Housing law. Moreover, there is no evidence that the
State conducted an adequate constraints analysis such that projects built to accommodate
the City's additional RHNA numbers would be in conflict with the new State law and
regulation regarding water conservation. (Government Code Section 65584.04 (d)(2).)
In apparent contravention to the above State law authorities, it appears that SCAG is
unilaterally determining each jurisdiction's share ofRHNA through an arbitrary,
capricious, and clearly politically motivated approach that is in contravention to State
law. What this does, especially for the 13,300 RHNA assigned to Huntington Beach, in
combination with the unconstitutional State mandates under SB 35, SB 166, SB 1333, and
AB 101, is create a situation where Huntington Beach and many other cities will
204
Re: SCAG's November 7th Illegal Action to Apportion Excessive, Arbitrary & Capricious RHNA
November 20, 2019
Page 5
automatically be in violation of the newly passed State Housing laws . Such non-
compliance will immediately result, according to recent State laws, in massive monetary
damages to the City through the operation AB 101.
A scheme of laws that create an impossible situation for individuals and cities are illegal,
unconstitutional, and cannot stand. Clearly, the City of Huntington Beach's concerns with
this new proposed RHNA distribution are various, many of which have to do with what this
excessive RHNA figure means in the context of the recently-passed untenable, unworkable,
impractical, and unconstitutionally overreaching State Housing laws. Those are not the
complaints here. However, highlighting what excessive RHNA does to a city in light of
these laws is quite illuminating -and quite frankly demonstrates the punitive and
destructive nature of the State's grand housing proliferation scheme toward cities.
Based upon the foregoing and as a result of this illegal vote (if fully implemented), the City
of Huntington Beach will sustain real , appreciable damages. The November 7th vote by
SCAG, which resulted in a massive shift of distribution ofRHNA to Huntington Beach in
the amount of 13,300 for the 6th Cycle, procedurally and substantively violates State
Housing law.
As a result, SCAG must reconsider the November 7th vote in a manner that complies with
State law.
CHAEL E . GA TES,
City Attorney
~?~--=-==~~==::___
ERIK PETERSON,
Mayor
~r
Mayor Pro Tern
Southern California Association of Governments
Regional Council Member, District 64
205
Page | 1 of 3
February 7, 2020
Dear Mayor Peterson, Mayor Pro Tem Semeta and Mr. Gates:
On behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), I am
responding to your letter dated November 20, 2019, concerning the draft
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology approved by the
SCAG Regional Council on November 7, 2019.
SCAG respectfully disagrees with the City’s characterizations of the actions of
the Regional Council and staff throughout the RHNA process as set forth in
your letter, and, as detailed below, we specifically dispute the material
allegations in your letter.
First, the Regional Council took action on the RHNA methodology pursuant to
a properly noticed agenda, and every member of the Regional Council, in
addition, to a significant number of members of the public, had ample
opportunity to place on the record, both in writing and in person, their
relevant input for the Regional Council’s consideration. Indeed, no less than
fourteen (14) letters, one of which came from the City of Huntington Beach,
were acknowledged on the record and these were made available for public
and SCAG review prior to the Regional Council’s action, all in compliance with
applicable law.
Further, many members of the public offered oral testimony on the issue both
in support of the original staff recommendation and in support of the
alternative draft RHNA methodology that was ultimately approved after a
robust discussion among the Regional Council, with staff offering input and
answering questions as requested. Both methodologies had been presented
in the staff report that was published in the November 7th Regional Council
meeting agenda in advance of the meeting in accordance with applicable law.
Finally, members of the Regional Council were given wide opportunity to offer
input and comments during the course of the discussion and consideration of
the item. This was after President Jahn announced that he would entertain a
motion only after all comments by the Regional Council had been heard; he
made this announcement more than once to ensure that every member of the
Regional Council clearly understood the process and their opportunity and
obligation to offer input prior to the making of a motion. No less than thirteen
(13) Regional Council members did so.
SCAG also would like to address your contention that the City “was not
allowed to provide any meaningful input, or place any objections on the
record at the meeting before the vote,” and, further, that Mayor Pro Tem
Semeta’s request to speak was “categorically denied.” First, the City indeed
206
Page | 2 of 3
had an opportunity to comment, and did so in writing, as mentioned above. Huntington Beach’s letter
was one of the 14 letters received by SCAG, and it was referred to during the meeting and copies of
were made available to the Regional Council members and the public prior to the meeting. At the City’s
Regular City Council meeting on November 18, 2019, Mayor Pro Tem Semeta specifically acknowledged
that the City did have an opportunity to provide written input.
As to the assertion that Mayor Pro Tem Semeta was denied the opportunity to speak, SCAG respectfully
disagrees that she was denied such an opportunity. It was more likely the case that President Jahn did
not notice that Mayor Pro Tem Semeta had raised her nametag in an effort to be recognized to speak
(as is the custom in the Regional Council meetings, which regularly include dozens of participants). We
note that Councilmember Sean Ashton of the City of Downey, who also opposed the alternative motion
that was ultimately adopted, did make his desire to speak known and was recognized by President Jahn
even after President Jahn had announced the final six requests to speak (which did not initially include
Councilmember Ashton).
The fact that the City of Huntington Beach prepared a comment letter in advance of the Regional
Council meeting, is contrary to your assertions of a lack of proper notice. Further, as discussed above,
the alternative methodology approved by the Regional Council was described in the November 7th
Regional Council meeting agenda packet provided in advance of the meeting to all Regional Council
members. Such meeting agenda packet was released and posted in accordance with the Brown Act,
California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.
Next, the City’s contention that “The new/alternative method fails to follow applicable State law in part
by removing local input and growth forecast data” is incorrect. The methodology ultimately approved
only removed the local input and growth forecast factor from allocating half of the “existing” need (or
31% of the total regional housing need). The “projected” need portion, accounting for about 38% of the
total regional housing need, is still based on local input and growth forecast data.
Your letter also describes the state law requirements with respect to the RHNA process, citing
specifically Government Code section 65584(d). Unfortunately, your reference to four objectives in that
section appears to be outdated, as it does not include the recently-added fifth objective to affirmatively
further concepts of fair housing. Nevertheless, the Regional Council could and did consider all of those
objectives in discussing and debating the staff recommendation versus the alternative recommendation
that was ultimately approved.
Your letter also discusses the complications of complying with a statutorily-mandated regional housing
needs determination, and as the written comments from the City of Huntington Beach and others
noted, all of this is in a time where issues of sustainability, environmental, economic and social justice
and complex transportation alternatives are at play. Additionally, there is the very real challenge of
funding all of the necessary public improvements to ensure our region grows in a productive, intelligent
and fair manner.
The robust deliberation that occurred at the November 7th Regional Council meeting was an example of
democracy in action. It was preceded by more than nine months of preparatory work, as alluded to in
your letter. The regional planning process is necessarily complex and multi-faceted. That there are
competing interests and priorities is not new. It has always been a hallmark of SCAG’s work that our
members work honestly, dutifully and earnestly to fulfill SCAG’s role in the regional planning process,
207
Page | 3 of 3
including the RHNA allocation. We believe that tradition was followed here, as well, and we have gone
to great effort to be as transparent as possible from the very beginning of the RHNA process in October
2018.
Please see attached, RHNA Timeline of Key Activities and Milestones between October 2019 and
November 2019.
Finally, we note that your letter also expressed concerns about the total allocation of 1.3 million units
provided to our region by the state Department of Housing and Community Development, as well as the
series of recent housing laws signed by the Governor to address the housing crisis in our region and
across the state. While we share some of this frustration, SCAG can only do our best to work within the
constraints established by state law, as well as within the framework approved by the Regional Council.
That is exactly what we have done and what we will continue doing.
Respectfully,
Kome Ajise
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT: RHNA Timeline of Key Activities and Milestone (October 2018- November 2019)
208
RHNA Timeline of Key Activities and Milestones
October 2018-November 2019
Date Type Milestone
10/29/18 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #1: Kickoff
12/3/18 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #2: Action- Subcommittee charter
2/4/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #3: Action-subregional delegation guidelines
2/7/19 Meeting Regional Council and CEHD Meeting: Action-RHNA Subcommittee charter
3/4/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #4: Action-release of methodology surveys, discussion on RHNA methodology
3/7/19 Meeting CEHD Meeting: Action-Subregional delegation guidelines
3/27/19 Panel Convened Panel of Experts on technical issues related to regional determination
4/1/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #5: Discussion on RHNA methodology
4/4/19 Meeting Regional Council Meeting: Action-Subregional delegation guidelines
5/6/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #6: Action- regional determination package, discussion on RHNA methodology
6/3/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #7: Action- amended regional determination package, discussion on RHNA methodology
6/6/19 Meeting CEHD and Regional Council Meeting: Action – submission of regional consultation package to HCD
6/20/19 Submission Submission of regional consultation package to HCD
7/22/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #8: Action-release of proposed methodology options for public review
7/29/19 Webinar RHNA 101 Webinar
8/1/19 Meeting Release of Proposed Methodology for Public Comment (CEHD and Regional Council Action)
8/1/19-
9/1/319
Public comment
period
Public comment period on proposed RHNA methodology
8/15/19 Hearing Proposed Methodology Public Hearing #1, SCAG Los Angeles Office
8/20/19 Hearing Proposed Methodology Public Hearing #2, SCAG Los Angeles Office
8/22/19 Correspondence Receipt of regional determination from HCD
8/22/19 Hearing Proposed Methodology Public Hearing #3, Irvine City Hall
8/22/19 Hearing Proposed Methodology Public Hearing #4, SBCTA Board Room
8/29/19 Workshop Proposed Methodology Public Information Session, Santa Clarita
9/5/19 Meeting CEHD and Regional Council Meeting: Action-Objection to regional determination from HCD
9/13/19 Due date Comment deadline for proposed methodology
9/18/19 Submission Submission of objection letter of regional determination to HCD
9/25/19 Workshop Preview workshop of staff recommended draft RHNA methodology
209
10/7/19 Meeting RHNA Subcommittee Meeting #9: Action-recommendation of draft RHNA methodology
Mayor Bailey’s Substitute Motion failed in a 4-3 votes
10/15/19 Correspondence Receipt of final regional determination from HCD
10/17/19 Meeting Briefing on technical issues related to staff recommended draft RHNA methodology as part of the Technical Working
Group meeting
10/21/19 Meeting CEHD Special Meeting: Action- recommendation of draft RHNA methodology
10/21/19 Correspondence Commenter letter from SBCTA objecting to staff-recommended draft RHNA methodology due to inequitable regional
distribution
10/22/19 Correspondence Received e-mail from Mayor Sahli-Wells requesting staff presentation of Mayor Bailey’s Alternative RHNA Methodology
for the November 7, 2019 Regional Council meeting
11/1/19 Correspondence Received letter jointly signed by Mayor Bailey, Supervisor Spiegel, Mayor Navarro & EEC Member Toni Momberger
recommending an Alternative RHNA Methodology for the November 7, 2019 Regional Council meeting
11/2/19 Staff Report Staff Report posted including analysis of Alternative Methodology
11/5/19 Correspondence Commenter letter from Mayor of Los Angeles objecting to staff-recommended draft RHNA methodology including
recommendations with some overlap with Bailey’s Alternative Methodology
11/5/19 Correspondence E-mail from Kome Ajise to RC members including the letter from Mayor Bailey & the Estimator (calculator) for
Alternative Methodology
11/6/19 Staff Memo SCAG staff’s initial response provided to City of Los Angeles on its Recommended Changes to RHNA methodology
11/7/19 Meeting Regional Council Meeting: Action-Approval of Bailey’s Alternative Methodology by a 43-19 votes; approved
methodology submittal to HCD for review
11/14/19 Submission Submission of draft RHNA methodology to HCD as approved by Regional Council
210
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1397 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works
Subject:
Adopt Resolution Nos. 2020-11 and 2020-12 allowing the City Council to support the Reducing
Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of 2020 initiative as recommended by the City Council
Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC)
Statement of Issue:
On January 29, 2020, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) met to discuss pending
Federal and State legislation, in addition to regional items. The committee discussed and reviewed
The Keeping California Safe Act (Act) of 2020 which includes key components that address the
negative impacts of AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57, implementing much needed common-sense
reform to the State’s criminal justice system. The IRC recommends that the City Council support this
initiative.
The adopted City Council Manual has a section that states the City Council shall take no stand with
respect to statewide ballot propositions. In order for the City Council to support the Reducing Crime
and Keeping California Safe Act of 2020 Ballot Measure, the Council will need to approve a
resolution temporarily suspending this provision in the City Council Manual.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Recommended Action:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-11, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Temporarily Suspending the City Council Manual Section 8 Regarding Statewide Ballot Propositions;”
and,
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-12, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Supporting the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of 2020.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the resolutions, and take no position on The Reducing Crime and Keeping California
Safe Act of 2020.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™211
File #:20-1397 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Analysis:
On January 29, 2020, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) comprised of Mayor Lyn
Semeta and Council Member Patrick Brenden met to discuss pending Federal and State legislation,
in addition to regional items. The IRC discussed and reviewed the Reducing Crime and Keeping
California Safe Act of 2020 Ballot measure, and recommends that the City Council support this
initiative.
The City Council Manual has a provision that states the City Council shall take no stand, either pro or
con, with respect to any statewide ballot propositions. Therefore, if the City Council decides to
support the IRC’s recommendation, the City Council should also adopt a resolution that suspends the
City Council Manual statewide ballot provision for this one action.
The Keeping California Safe Act (Act) of 2020 includes key components that address the negative
impacts of AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57, implementing much needed common-sense reform to the
State’s criminal justice system.
ACT SYNOPSIS:
·Reclassifies certain crimes from “nonviolent” to “violent” felonies.
·Adjustments to address serial theft offenders benefiting from Prop 47, by making theft
chargeable as a felony on the third theft event.
·Adjustments to help address the negative impacts of AB 109, by requiring an individual’s entire
criminal history be considered when deciding parole, and requiring a hearing to determine if an
individual should be sent back to State prison following their third “flash hold.”
The Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of 2020 is a statewide ballot initiative that is
scheduled to be presented to California voters on November 3, 2020. The initiative is being placed
on the ballot as a result of a signature gathering effort.
Components of the proposed initiative include:
Violent Crime Definition
In November 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, which made certain prisoners available for early
parole and eventual release from state prison. Those convicted of “violent crime” were excluded
from the early release provisions of Proposition 57. Unfortunately, numerous felonies listed in the
penal code are not specifically defined as “violent felonies.” Several of these felonies are, in fact,
violent in nature but are not statutorily defined as such. Until the passage of Proposition 57 this lack
of designation made little difference. With the passage of Proposition 57, it is now necessary to
ensure that the State of California’s code clearly designates those felonies that are violent so that
such offenders are not released into the community before their full time is served. Under the
Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act of 2020, the definition of “violent felonies” will be
expanded to include many crimes already deemed serious or dangerous such as sex trafficking of
children, rape of an unconscious person, felony assault with a deadly weapon, battery on a police
officer or firefighter and felony domestic violence.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™212
File #:20-1397 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Serial Theft
Proposition 47 changed the dollar threshold for theft to be considered a felony from $450 to $950. As
a result, there has been a significant increase in serial theft and an inability of law enforcement to
effectively prosecute these crimes. The proposed initiative revises the theft threshold by adding a
felony for serial theft when a person is caught for the third time stealing with a value of $250 or more.
Parole Violations
AB 109, or Public Safety Realignment, was signed into law by the Governor in 2011. Among many
other changes, the law based parole solely on an offender’s commitment offense, resulting in the
release of inmates with serious and violent criminal histories. Moreover, parolees who repeatedly
violate the terms of their parole currently face few consequences, allowing them to remain on the
street. The proposed initiative requires the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate’s entire
criminal history when deciding parole, not just his most recent commitment offense; and requires a
mandatory hearing to determine whether parole should be revoked for any parolee who violates the
terms of his parole for the third time.
DNA Collection
Proposition 47 eliminated DNA collection for certain theft and drug crimes. The proposed initiative
will restore DNA collection from persons convicted for such offenses. Permitting collection of more
DNA samples will help identify suspects, clear the innocent and free the wrongly convicted. This
measure does not affect existing legal safeguards that protect the privacy of individuals by allowing
for the removal of their DNA profile if they are not charged with a crime, are acquitted or are found
innocent.
Environmental Status:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2020-11, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Temporarily Suspending the City Council Manual Section 8 Regarding Statewide Ballot
Propositions”
2. Resolution No. 2020-12, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Supporting the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act 2020.”
3. Handout: An Initiative for Public Safety
4. Handout: List of Current Non-Violent Crimes
5. Handout: Previous Legislation Addressing Definition of Serious/Violent Crimes
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™213
214
215
216
217
VIOLENT CRIME
Expands the list of violent crimes for which early release is not an option
Under current law, rape of an unconscious person, traffi cking a child for sex,
assault of a peace offi cer, felony domestic violence and other similar crimes are not
classifi ed as “violent felonies” — making criminals convicted of these crimes eligible
for early release
Gives victims reasonable notice of inmates’ release and the right to submit a
confi dential statement to the Board of Parole Hearings
An Initiative for Public Safety
DNA COLLECTION
Reinstates DNA collection for certain crimes that were reduced to misdemeanors as
part of Proposition 47
Multiple studies have shown that DNA collected from theft and drug crimes has
helped solve other violent crimes, including robbery, rape and murder. Since passage
of Prop. 47, cold case hits have dropped over 2,000, with more than 450 of those hits
connected to violent crimes
218
SERIAL THEFT
Revises the theft threshold by adding a felony for serial theft — when a person is
caught for the 3rd time stealing with a value of $250
Prop. 47 changed the dollar threshold for theft to be considered a felony — from
$450 to $950. As a result, there has been an explosion of serial theft and an inability
of law enforcement to prosecute these crimes effectively. Theft has increased by
12% to 25%, with losses of a billion dollars since the law was passed.
This problem won’t be solved legislatively
PAROLE VIOLATIONS
Requires the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate’s entire criminal history
when deciding parole, not just his most recent commitment offense; and requires a
mandatory hearing to determine whether parole should be revoked for any parolee
who violates the terms of his parole for the third time
AB 109 bases parole solely on an offender’s commitment offense, resulting in the
release of inmates with serious and violent criminal histories. Moreover, parolees who
repeatedly violate the terms of their parole currently face few consequences, allowing
them to remain on the street
Paid for by Keep California Safe, a Project of the California Public Safety Partnership Issues Committee
Committee major funding from
San Bernardino County Sheri ’s Employees’ Bene t Association
Funding details at www.fppc.ca.gov
219
The following crimes are not considered “violent” under current California law, allowing inmates convicted of these
crimes to be released from prison early. Our initiative stops early release by making these crimes violent.
n Human trafficking of a child
n Abducting a minor for prostitution
n Rape by intoxication
n Rape of an unconscious person
n Felony sexual penetration, sodomy, or oral
copulation when drugs are used or the victim
is unconscious
n Drive by shooting, or shooting, at an inhabited
dwelling or vehicle
n Assault with a firearm
n Felony domestic violence
n Felony assault with a deadly weapon
n Serial arson
n Solicitation to commit murder
n A ssault with caustic chemicals
n Assault by a caregiver on a child under 8 that could result
in death or coma
n Felony assault using force likely to produce great bodily injury
n False imprisonment/taking a hostage when avoiding arrest
or to use as a shield
n Assaulting a police officer with anything except a firearm
n Exploding a bomb to injure people
n Felony hate crime
n Any felony where a deadly weapon is used
n Felony use of force or threats against
a witness or victim of a crime
n Felony elder or dependent adult abuse
n Any crime requiring lifetime (290) sex offender registration
Sell a child for sex in California.
Get out of prison early.
Paid for by Keep California Safe, a Project of the California Public Safety Partnership Issues Committee
Committee major funding from
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit Association
Funding details at www.fppc.ca.gov
220
201720162015201120092007
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION ADDRESSING DEFINITION OF SERIOUS/VIOLENT CRIMES
AB 426 –
Galgiani,
Add murder for
hire and human
trafficking (D-C)
AB 303 –Spitzer,
Add DUI
Manslaughter (D-AC)
SB 440-Denham,
Add several crimes on
our list (D-C)
AB 16-Swanson,
Add human
trafficking of a child
(D-AC)
AB 60-Several,
Add Felony Battery
(D-C)
AB 1188-Pan,
Add crimes against
children including
human trafficking (D-C)
SB 1269-Galgiani,
Add human
trafficking (D-C)
SB 75-Bates,
Add human
trafficking and
assault with a deadly
weapon (D-C)
AB 27-Mel, Gonz,
Adding rape of an
unconscious person (H-C)
SB 652-Nielsen
Add felon in
possession of
firearm (D-C)
AB 67-Rod, Cerv,
Santiago
Adding human
trafficking (H-C)
SB 770-Glazer,
Add series of crimes
(H-C)
AB 197-Kiley,
Add child abduction
and lewd act (H-C)
*(H-C) Held in Committee with no hearing
*(D-C) Died in Committee due to lack of votes
*(D-AC) Died in Appropriations Committee
221
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION TO REFORM DNA COLLECTION
201720152014
AB 390-Criminal Law:
DNA evidence -
Cooper DNA (D-C)
SB 1079-DNA evidence: CODIS
(Combined DNA Index System)
Outcome Project -Glazier, Expand
list of crimes eligible for DNA
collection
AB 16-Criminal Law: DNA
evidence -Cooper DNA (H-C)
SB 781-Criminal Law: DNA
evidence -Glazier DNA (H-C)
*(H-C) Held in Committee with no hearing
*(D-C) Died in Committee due to lack of votes
*(D-AC) Died in Appropriations Committee
222
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS EPIDEMIC OF SERIAL THEFT
20172016
AB 2287-Theft:
shoplifting -Lackey,
Allows aggregation of
multiple thefts for felony
prosecution (D-C)
AB 1326-Petty Theft:
subsequent convictions -
Cooper, Allows for
prosecution of theft as
felony with prior theft
convictions (H-C)
AB 392-Conspiracy:
shoplifting -Lackey, Allows
for felony prosecution of
theft if engaged in organized
theft rings (D-C)
*(H-C) Held in Committee with no hearing
*(D-C) Died in Committee due to lack of votes
223
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1389 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Chris Slama, Director of Community Services
Subject:
Approve and authorize execution of a five (5) year License Agreement with Southern
California Edison (SCE), No. 9.3265 for public parkland located at Arevalos Park
Statement of Issue:
The City Council is being asked to approve a five (5) year renewal of the License Agreement
between the City of Huntington Beach and Southern California Edison (SCE) for use of the 2.58 acre
SCE right-of-way for Arevalos Park. The current Agreement will expire March 31, 2020.
Financial Impact:
The annual payment is budgeted in the Park Development Impact Fee Fund, Leases, Account
22845001.70300.
Recommended Action:
Approve the “License Agreement” with Southern California Edison for the use of the 2.58 acres of
property commonly known as Arevalos Park, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any
and all documents necessary to conclude this transaction.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the license agreement with Southern California Edison and discontinue the use of
this property as parkland.
Analysis:
Since 1971, the City has leased the SCE property adjacent to Pegasus School (formerly Arevalos
Elementary School) for public parkland. This property is located between the backside of the school
and the Santa Ana River just north of Adams Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street and contains
open turf areas and a tot playground. The license agreement has been renewed for successive five-
year terms since that time. The current license agreement will expire on March 31, 2020. The
proposed license agreement would commence April 1, 2020 and expire March 31, 2025.
(Attachment 1). In exchange for the use of the property, the City would pay an annual license fee
(see fee schedule below).
Term Year Due Yearly Amount Payment Due First Day of
First Year 2020 $679.42 April
Second Year 2021 $699.80 April
Third Year 2022 $720.80 April
Fourth Year 2023 $742.42 April
Fifth Year 2024 $764.69 April
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™224
File #:20-1389 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Term Year Due Yearly Amount Payment Due First Day of
First Year 2020 $679.42 April
Second Year 2021 $699.80 April
Third Year 2022 $720.80 April
Fourth Year 2023 $742.42 April
Fifth Year 2024 $764.69 April
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
1. Proposed License Agreement with Southern California Edison - Contract No. 9.2473, with
Exhibit A - Location Map of Arevalos Park.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1394 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Dahle Bulosan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Subject:
Approve and authorize execution of a Professional Services Contract with iKW Solutions Inc.
for $193,010 for Oracle/JD Edwards Tools Software Upgrade and As Needed System Support
Consulting Services
Statement of Issue:
City Council approval is requested to approve the professional services contract with iKW Solutions
Inc. for the Oracle/JD Edwards (JDE) Upgrade ($148,010) and as needed system support services
($45,000) in the amount of $193,010.
Financial Impact:
Adequate appropriation is available in FY19/20 for the JDE Upgrade in the amount of $148,010 in
equipment replacement business unit 32440202. $15,000 is budgeted in the General Fund Finance
Department business unit 10035205 in FY19/20 for year 1 for JDE as needed support services.
Support services for year 2 ($15,000) and year 3 ($15,000) will be budgeted in future years
accordingly.
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the “Professional Services Contract
Between the City of Huntington Beach and iKW Solutions Inc. for Oracle/JD Edwards Tools Software
Upgrade and As Needed System Support Consulting Services.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommendation and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
The City of Huntington Beach is currently undergoing an upgrade of its Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) software, Oracle JD Edwards (JDE), from version 9.1 to the latest release 9.2. The current
version of JDE was put in place approximately 7 years ago and has not received any major upgrades
since 2013. As a result, the current version of JDE will no longer support key functions and updates
to system tables which ensure continued functionality of the software.
The City requires consulting services to complete the upgrade of the JDE software in the following
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™248
File #:20-1394 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
The City requires consulting services to complete the upgrade of the JDE software in the following
areas:
·Address book (foundation)
·General Accounting
·Accounts Payable
·Accounts Receivable
·Procurement
·Payroll
·Human Resources
·Real Estate Management
·Budget
·Inventory as it relates to purchasing
The City has a number of third party software that integrate with JDE including the following:
·Cashiering - iNovah
·Municipal Billing - Advanced CIS
·Enterprise Land Management - Cityview (current system), Accela (implementation in progress
- estimated go live in February 2020)
·Time Keeping - Kronos
JDE consulting services in necessary to ensure continual and seamless integration with the above
software including any other systems currently linked to JDE. The planned go live date for the new
version of JDE is May 1, 2020.
The City posted Requests for Proposals for JD Edwards 9.2 Upgrade Services on PlanetBids, the
City’s bid management website. Proposals were received from the following firms:
1. Denovo
2. iKW Solutions
3. Enterprise
4. Syntax
5. Prodware
6. Nex Info
7. Smartbridge
Staff analyzed and reviewed each proposal based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to
the following: 1) responsiveness to the RFP, 2) recent experience of the firm in performing JDE
Upgrade services, and 3) the firm’s references. As a result of this comprehensive review, staff is
recommending the firm of iKW Solutions, Inc. as the most qualified firm to perform the JDE Upgrade
and As Needed System Support Consulting Services for the City.
The professional services agreement will be for a total of three years, with a total maximum payment
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™249
File #:20-1394 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
amount of $193,010 over the three-year period. The following is a summary of the cost proposal:
Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
JDE Upgrade (BU
32440202)
$148,010 $0 $0 $148,010
As Needed
Support (BU
10035205)
$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000
Total $163,010 $15,000 $15,000 $193,010
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Improve Long-Term Financial Sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and iKW Solutions Inc.
for Oracle/JD Edwards Tools Software Upgrade and As Needed System Support Consulting
Services
2. Certificate of Insurance
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1186 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Approve Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 18-002 by adopting Ordinance No. 4191 to amend
the zoning designation from CG (Commercial General) to RM (Residential Medium Density)
Approved for introduction February 3, 2020 - Vote: 7-0
Statement of Issue:
Ordinance No. 4191 approved for introduction on February 3, 2020, requires adoption.
Financial Impact:
No fiscal impact.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Ordinance No. 4191, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 2
(Section Map 2-6-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision to Rezone the Real Property
Located at 712 Utica Avenue from Commercial General (CG) to Residential Medium Density (RM)
(Zoning Map Amendment No. 2018-002).”
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may take the following alternative motion(s):
1) Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002 and direct staff to return with findings for denial.
2) Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002 and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Mark Tran, 12601 Sweetbriar Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92840
Property Owner: Van Nguyen, 1814 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™298
File #:19-1186 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Location: 712 Utica Avenue, 92648 (south side of Utica Avenue, between Florida Street and
Beach Boulevard)
Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002 represents a request to amend the existing zoning
designation from CG (Commercial General) to RM (Residential Medium Density) to be
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation pursuant to Chapter 247 -
Amendments of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
The proposed zoning map amendment is requested to facilitate the construction of a three-
unit, three-story, for-sale condominium development.
B.PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The project site is located on an approximately 9,000 sq. ft. lot located on the south side of
Utica Avenue between Florida Street and Beach Boulevard. Existing onsite is a commercial
building, which will be demolished with the construction of the proposed three-unit, three-story
condominium development. The current zoning designation on the property is CG
(Commercial General) and the General Plan land use designation is RM (Residential Medium
Density). The applicant is proposing to amend the zoning designation to be consistent with the
General Plan, which is RM with a maximum density of 15 units per acre (Attachment No. 3).
The surrounding multi-family residential properties have a zoning designation and General
Plan land use designation of RM, with the exception of the adjacent property to the east, which
also has a General Plan land use designation of RM and a zoning designation of CG;
however, a single-family residence exists on that property. The recent General Plan update
(adopted in 2017) foresaw this area to remain as RM. Therefore, the proposal to amend the
zoning map from CG to RM is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and is
consistent with the land use designation within the surrounding area.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General
Plan because the zoning map amendment will bring the zoning designation into consistency
with the General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, the new construction of three-unit,
three-story townhomes will continue the land use pattern of multi-family residential uses in the
surrounding area and assist in meeting the overall housing needs of the community. The
project supports infill development, as the project is located on an underutilized lot with a
dated and distressed commercial building that will be demolished with the construction of the
proposed three-unit, three-story townhome project. In addition, the proposed three units are
attached and compatible in proportion, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood
because similar attached multi-family units to the north, south, and west surround the site.
Lastly, the attached townhomes will provide a mix of housing types to meet the diverse
economic, social, and housing needs of the community.
C.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 12, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
project. There was one speaker who is the property owner of a single-family residence on the
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™299
File #:19-1186 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
project. There was one speaker who is the property owner of a single-family residence on the
east of the project site. The speaker indicated concerns to the proposed height and potential
shadow impacts to her existing one-story, single-family residence. The proposed building
meets the maximum height limit of 35 feet and all other zoning code development standards
such as setbacks. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended but did not require
through a condition of approval that the applicant work with the adjacent neighbor to revise the
project layout and switch the building to the west side of the lot to minimize potential shadow
impacts to the one-story, single-family residence to the east. Since the meeting, the applicant
and the adjacent neighbor met with staff and the applicant has agreed to revise the layout to
locate the building on the west side of the lot to reduce any shadow impacts to the single-
family residence. The revisions to the plans do not require further review by the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission approved the development entitlements on November 12, 2019. No
appeals of the Planning Commission’s action on the development entitlements were filed
within the 10-day appeal period that ended on November 22, 2019. The development
entitlements were conditioned so they do not become effective until the zoning map
amendment is approved and in effect.
Planning Commission Action on November 12, 2019
THE MOTION MADE BY KALMICK, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE ZONING
MAP AMENDMENT NO. 18-002 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVE
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19-028 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-041 WITH
FINDINGS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Grant, Kalmick, Garcia, Mandic, Perkins, Ray, Scandura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION PASSED
Environmental Status:
The project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15183.Section 15183 applies
to projects that are consistent with an adopted General Plan for which an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was prepared and certified and where there are no potential environment effects
peculiar to the proposed project. The project meets all criteria under Section 15183 and does not
require additional environmental review. The City’s General Plan was updated and adopted and the
EIR was certified on October 2, 2017. The General Plan update and EIR considered the type and
intensity of development, including the assignment of the RM land use designation for the project site
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™300
File #:19-1186 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
intensity of development, including the assignment of the RM land use designation for the project site
parcel and the adjacent area. The project will not result in any potential environmental impacts
peculiar to the site because the project is consistent with the development standards in the proposed
zoning designation of RM such as parking, density, and access and is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and analyzed in the certified EIR.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Findings for Approval Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002
2. Draft City Council Ordinance No. 4191 for ZMA 18-002
3. Vicinity Map
4. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
5. Project Narrative Received and Dated July 31, 2019
6. Planning Commission Notice of Action for ZMA 18-002, CUP 18-041, and TTM 19-028
7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 12, 2019
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™301
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 18-002
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the
provisions in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15183. Section
15183 applies to projects that are consistent with an adopted General Plan for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified and where there are no potential
environment effects peculiar to the proposed project. The project meets all criteria under Section
15183 and does not require additional environmental review. The City’s General Plan was
updated and adopted and the EIR was certified on October 2, 2017. The General Plan update
and EIR considered the type and intensity of development, including the assignment of the RM
land use designation for the project site parcel and the adjacent area. The project will not result
in any potential environmental impacts peculiar to the site because the project is consistent with
the development standards in the proposed zoning designation of RM such as parking, density,
and access and is consistent with the adopted General Plan and analyzed in the certified EIR.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 18-002:
Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002 to rezone the 9,000 sq. ft. lot from CG (Commercial General)
to RM (Residential Medium Density) is consistent with the goals, objectives, and land use policies
of the General Plan as identified below. The land uses in the surrounding area are consistent with
the proposed change in zoning because surrounding land uses include medium density
residential uses to the north, south, and west. The project will be constructed in an urbanized area
where there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed
development. The proposed zoning map amendment would be consistent with the following
General Plan goals, objectives and policies:
A. Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to
ensure the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the
community.
Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations
presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable
to each land use designation.
Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale,
and character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical,
and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and
residences are well maintained and protected.
302
Goal LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse
housing needs.
The project is consistent with the land use designation of RM (Medium Density) because
the project request includes a zoning map amendment to amend the zoning designation
from CG (Commercial General) to RM (Residential Medium Density) with a maximum
density of 15 units per acre. The zoning map amendment will also bring the zoning
designation into consistency with the General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, the
new construction of three-unit townhomes will continue the land use pattern of multi-family
residential uses in the surrounding area and assist in meeting the overall housing needs
of the community. The project supports infill development, as the project is located on an
underutilized lot with a dated and distressed commercial building that will be demolished
with the construction of the proposed three-unit townhome project. In addition, the
proposed three units are attached and are compatible in proportion, scale, and character
with the surrounding neighborhood because there are similar attached multi-family units
to the north, south, and west of the site. Lastly, the attached townhomes will provide a mix
of housing types to meet the diverse economic, social, and housing needs of the
community.
B. Housing Element
Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the quality and affordability of existing housing in
Huntington Beach.
Policy 1.1 Neighborhood Character: Preserve the character, scale, and quality of
established residential neighborhoods.
Goal 2: Provide adequate housing sites through appropriate land use, zoning and specific
plan designations to accommodate Huntington Beach’s share of regional housing needs.
Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development of
housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and
location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability.
Goal 3.1 Housing Diversity: Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic
segments of the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to
maintain a balanced community.
Policy 4.3 Efficient Development Processing: Explore continued improvements to the
entitlement process to streamline and coordinate the processing of permits, design review
and environmental clearance.
The project is consistent with the Housing Element because it will enhance the quality of
the existing multi-family residential neighborhood and the project is subject to the HBZSO
inclusionary ordinance that requires ten percent of the units to be dedicated as an
affordable unit or to pay an in-lieu fee. The applicant will be paying an in-lieu fee for 0.3 of
a unit, which will be used toward affordable housing needs in the community. The project
will also preserve the character, scale, and quality of the existing neighborhood because
it involves the construction of three, three-story, attached townhome units that are similar
303
to the surrounding multi-family residential units and provides a diversified mix of housing
types for the different needs of the community.
2. Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002 would only change the land use designation rather than
a general land use provision and would not affect the uses authorized in and the standards
prescribed for the proposed zoning district.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would expand
the opportunities for housing and address the needs of a growing population.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice. The zoning map amendment would provide for a compatible multi-family residential
land use. The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use
designations that are consistent with one another and would allow the property to be rightfully
developed.
304
305
306
307
308
309
VICINITY MAP
ZONING MAP AMENDMET NO. 18-002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-041/TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 18-041
UTICA TOWNHOMES
310
EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION
CG – COMMERCIAL GENERAL
RM – RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY
RH – RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY
SP 14 – BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
311
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION
CG – COMMERCIAL GENERAL
RM – RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY
RH – RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY
SP 14 – BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Jessica Bui, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 18-001/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19-
028/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-041 (UTICA TOWNHOMES)
REQUEST:
To amend the zoning designation from CG (Commercial General) to RM
(Residential Medium Density) to construct a three-unit, three-story, for-sale
condominium development with a height that exceeds 25 feet. The project
includes the subdivision of an approximately 9,000 sq. ft. lot for condominium
purposes.
LOCATION:
712 Utica Avenue, 92648 (south side of Utica Ave., between Florida St. and
Beach Blvd.)
APPLICANT:
Mark Tran, 12601 Sweetbriar Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92840
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Van Nguyen, 1814 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach land use regulations (i.e.,
General Plan land use designation, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including any specific plans
and overlay districts where applicable)?
2. Does the project proposal satisfy all the findings required for approving a Zoning Map
Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map?
3. Has the appropriate level of environmental analysis been determined?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
A) Find the proposed project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™325
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
A) Find the proposed project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
B) Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18-002 with findings (Attachment No. 1) by
approving draft City Council Ordinance No. 4191 and forward to the City Council, and approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 18-041, and Tentative Tract Map No. 19-028 with findings and conditions
of approval (Attachment No. 1)
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
A) Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-041, and
Tentative Tract Map No. 19-028 and direct staff to return with findings for denial.
B) Continue Zoning Map 19-028 and direct staff to return accordingly.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-001 is a request to amend the existing zoning designation of an
approximately 9,000 sq. ft. lot from CG (Commercial General) to RM (Residential Medium Density) to
be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation pursuant to Chapter 247 -
Amendments of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO).
Tentative Tract Map No. 19-028 represents a request for a one lot subdivision for condominium
purposes to accommodate three attached townhome units and common areas pursuant to Chapter
250 - Subdivisions of the HBZSO.
Conditional Use Permit No. 18-041 represents a request to construct a three-unit, three-story
condominium development with a height that exceeds 25 feet pursuant to Chapter 210 - Residential
Districts of the HBZSO.
Background:
The project site is located on an approximately 9,000 sq. ft. lot located on the south side of Utica
Avenue between Florida Street and Beach Boulevard. Existing onsite is a commercial building, which
will be demolished with the construction of the proposed three-unit, three-story condominium
development. The current zoning designation on the property is CG (Commercial General) and the
General Plan land use designation is RM (Residential Medium Density). The zoning ordinance and
zoning designations must be consistent with the General Plan. As such, the applicant is proposing to
amend the zoning designation to be consistent with the General Plan, which is RM with a maximum
density of 15 units per acre (Attachment No. 3).
The surrounding multi-family residential properties have a zoning designation and General Plan land
use designation of RM, with the exception of the adjacent property to the east, which also has a
General Plan land use designation of RM and a zoning designation of CG; however, a single-family
residence exists on that property. The recent General Plan update (adopted in 2017) foresaw this
area to remain as RM. Therefore, the proposal to amend the zoning map from CG to RM is
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Subject Property And Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning And Land Uses:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property:RM (Residential
Medium Density)
CG (Commercial
General)
Commercial
North of Subject
Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density); PS
(RM)
(Public/Semipublic)
(Residential Medium
Density)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
Multi-Family
Residential/
Commercial
East of Subject
Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
CG (Commercial
General)
Single-family
residence
South and West of
Subject Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™326
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property:RM (Residential
Medium Density)
CG (Commercial
General)
Commercial
North of Subject
Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density); PS
(RM)
(Public/Semipublic)
(Residential Medium
Density)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
Multi-Family
Residential/
Commercial
East of Subject
Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
CG (Commercial
General)
Single-family
residence
South and West of
Subject Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Land use Map designation on the subject property is RM (Medium Density). The
proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals, policies, and objectives of the
City’s General Plan as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure the
land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the
Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use
designation.
Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing
buildings.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and
character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and social
needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are well
maintained and protected.
Goal LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing
needs.
The project is consistent with the land use designation of RM (Medium Density) because the project
request includes a zoning map amendment to amend the zoning designation from CG (Commercial
General) to RM (Residential Medium Density) with a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The
zoning map amendment will also bring the zoning designation into consistency with the General Plan
land use designation. Furthermore, the new construction of three-unit, three-story townhomes will
continue the land use pattern of multi-family residential uses in the surrounding area and assist in
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™327
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
continue the land use pattern of multi-family residential uses in the surrounding area and assist in
meeting the overall housing needs of the community. The project supports infill development, as the
project is located on an underutilized lot with a dated and distressed commercial building that will be
demolished with the construction of the proposed three-unit, three-story townhome project. In
addition, the proposed three units are attached and compatible in proportion, scale, and character of
the surrounding neighborhood because similar attached multi-family units to the north, south, and
west surround the site. Lastly, the attached townhomes will provide a mix of housing types to meet
the diverse economic, social, and housing needs of the community.
Zoning Compliance:
The three-unit, three-story townhome project is designed under the proposed RM zoning designation
and complies with all requirements of the RM zoning district of the HBZSO. The zoning map
amendment from CG to RM and the construction of three residential units that exceed the height of
25 feet is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. A one-lot
subdivision for condominium purposes allows the property owner to sell each unit individually with
common interest in shared areas such as the common open space, landscaping, driveway, and guest
parking spaces.
The project complies with front, side, and rear setbacks, height, minimum parking requirements, and
open space (Attachment No. 9). The project is required to provide a minimum of 1769 sq. ft. of open
space in private and common areas. The code also requires ground floor units such as these to
provide 400 sq. ft. of private open space per unit with no dimension less than 10 feet for courts and
minimum six feet for balconies. Each unit has 151 sq. ft. of private open space that meets the
minimum 10 feet dimension on the ground floor. In addition, one unit has two decks on the second
floor with the minimum required dimension of six feet where one is 62 square feet and the other is 78
square feet. In total, that unit has 291 square feet. The other two units also have two decks with the
minimum required dimension of six feet on the second floor with one at 50 square feet and the other
at 78 square feet. With the 156 square feet of ground floor private open space, the total is 279 square
feet for those two units, which does not meet the minimum of 400 square feet of private open space
per unit. For common open space, the project proposes a 528 square feet common area in the rear
of the lot. In total, the project provides 1,377 square feet of open space (private and common) and is
short 392 square feet of the minimum required. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that
will require the applicant to provide the minimum private and common open space during building
plan check review, which may require minor revisions to the floor plan. See the open space
breakdown below:
Open Space Required:
a. 1,769 sq. ft. (common and private)
b. 400 sq. ft. of private open space per unit for four bedroom units
a. 400 * 3 units = 1,200 sq. ft. private open space
c. Remaining common open space minimum = 569 sq. ft.
Open Space Provided:
Common Open Space:
Rear of Lot - 528 sq. ft.
*Needs 41 sq. ft. more to comply
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™328
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
Unit A Private Open Space:
Ground Floor - 151 sq. ft.
Deck 1 - 62 sq. ft.
Deck 2 - 78 sq. ft.
Total = 291 sq. ft.
*Needs 109 sq. ft. more to comply
Unit B Private Open Space:
Ground Floor - 151 sq. ft.
Deck 1 - 50 sq. ft.
Deck 2 - 78 sq. ft.
Total = 279 sq. ft.
*Needs 121 sq. ft. more to comply
Unit C Private Open Space:
Ground Floor - 151 sq. ft.
Deck 1 - 50 sq. ft.
Deck 2 - 78 sq. ft.
Total = 279 sq. ft.
*Needs 121 sq. ft. more to comply
TOTAL PROVIDED - 1,377 sq. ft.
Access onto the site is taken from Utica Avenue onto a driveway approach that leads to side-loading,
two-car garages and open space parking. Multifamily dwellings with three or more bedrooms require
2.5 parking spaces per unit and 0.5 space per unit. With three, four-bedroom units, the project would
require 7.5 parking spaces and 1.5 guest spaces for a total of nine parking spaces. The project
proposes nine parking spaces where six are enclosed within three, separate two-car garages and
three open guest spaces in the rear of the lot. See below for a breakdown on parking:
Required Parking for Multifamily Dwellings
Three or more bedrooms = 2.5 spaces per unit, plus
Guest = 0.5 spaces per unit
Provided Parking
Three, four-bedroom units = 3 units x 2.5 spaces = 7.5 spaces required
Guest = 3 units x 0.5 spaces = 1.5 spaces required
TOTAL = 9 parking spaces required and provided on site
Affordable Housing
Projects that propose three or more units are subject to provide affordable housing per Section
230.26 of the HBZSO. A minimum of 10 percent of new residential construction are required to be
affordable housing units. In this case, the project would be required to provide 0.3 unit for affordable
housing; however, developers of residential projects consisting of 30 or fewer units can pay an in-lieu
fee instead of providing the units onsite. The applicant proposes to pay an in-lieu fee for 0.3 units to
satisfy the affordable housing requirement.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™329
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
Park and Recreation Fees
New residential developments are subject to parkland fees, per City Council Resolution No. 2012-66.
Attached dwelling units require $13,385 per unit and the applicant will be required to pay that amount
in full prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
The Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines contain guidelines specific to multi-family residential
development. The project conforms to the objectives and standards contained in the Guidelines. The
project complies with general design objectives providing high quality architectural and landscape
design in massing and scale with existing residential developments surrounding the project site.
There is no particular architectural style requirement for multi-family residential developments;
however, the focus is on developing a high quality residential environment. The project meets that
Design Guideline intent by creating visual interest and an identity that enhances the existing
neighborhood with its contemporary architectural design while maintaining a sense of harmony with
the surrounding buildings. The building also provides visual interest with varied rooflines, variation in
the wall planes, and a mix of colors and material such as smooth stucco, wood trims, wood tile, and
canopy structures. Lastly, open space is provided in the rear of the lot and provides shelter from
noise and traffic of adjacent streets and landscaping is provided in all setback areas.
Environmental Status:
The project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the CEQA
Guidelines because the project is located in an urbanized area and involves the construction of a
multi-family townhome development, not totaling more than six dwelling units on the subject site.
Coastal Status:
Not applicable.
Design Review Board:
Not applicable.
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
The Departments of Community Development, Public Works, and Fire have reviewed the project and
identified a list of code requirements (Attachment No. 8) applicable to the project.
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on October 31, 2019, and notices were
sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property,
individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department’s Notification
Matrix), and applicant. Written communications received prior to the November 12, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
September 12, 2019 November 12, 2019
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™330
File #:19-1017 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
SUMMARY:
Consistent with the RM (Medium Density) Land Use Designation of the General Plan and the
proposed RM (Residential Medium Density) zoning designation.
- Consistent with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines for multi-family residential development.
- In full compliance with the proposed RM zoning designation development standards including
parking, height, open space, and setbacks.
- The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
- The project contributes to the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing as required by
existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City’s overall housing goals.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002,
Conditional Use Permit No. 18-041, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18-19-028
2. Draft City Council Ordinance No. 4191 for ZMA 18-002
3. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
4. Vicinity Map
5. Project Narrative Received and Dated July 31, 2019
6. Site Plan, Floor Plans, 19-028 dated October 21, 2019
7. Tentative Tract Map No. 2019-028
8. Code Requirements Letter
9. Zoning Conformance Matrix
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/12/2019Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™331
CITY COUNCIL
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 18-002
Utica Townhomes
FEBRUARY 3, 2020
332
PROJECT REQUEST
Zoning Map Amendment to
change zoning from CG to RM to
construct three attached
residential units.
333
SUBJECT SITE
Surrounding Uses:
North: Multi-Family
Residential and School
South/East/West: Multi-Family
Residential
334
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RM
(Med. Density Residential)
EXISTING ZONING: CG (Commercial General)
PROPOSED ZONING: RM (consistent with
General Plan and surrounding neighborhood)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North/West/South –RM
East –CG (single-family residence) and SP 14
(Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan)
EXISTING ZONING MAP
335
PC MEETING –NOVEMBER 12, 2019
Planning Commission approved the development entitlements
(Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit)
The development entitlements are conditioned so they do not become
effective until the Zoning Map Amendment is approved and in effect.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Map
Amendment to the City Council.
336
GENERAL PLAN & ZONING COMPLIANCE
General Plan: consistent with existing RM General Plan land use
designation and goals and policies of Land Use Element.
Land Use Compatibility: consistent with the other multi-family
residential uses in the surrounding area.
Development Standards: complies with all development standards for
proposed RM zoning designation.
337
RECOMMENDATION
•Find project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15183 and
approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 18-002 with findings for
approval and adopt Ordinance No. 4191.
338
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1288 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Robert Handy, Chief of Police
Subject:
Adopt Ordinance No. 4204 repealing Chapter 10.40.125 of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code regarding vehicles marked for sale on streets, as it is no longer legally valid
Approved for introduction February 3, 2020 - Vote: 7-0
Statement of Issue:
Police Department Staff and the City Attorney’s Office reviewed Huntington Beach Municipal Code
(HBMC) section 10.40.125 in light of a Federal (United States District Court for the Central District of
California) decision and other First Amendment considerations and determined that HBMC section
10.140.125 should be repealed.
Financial Impact:
This ordinance has not been enforced for several years due to the above referenced case decision.
There is no financial impact associated with repealing this ordinance.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Ordinance No. 4204, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Repealing Chapter
10.40.125 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Sale On Vehicles Upon Streets.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
The Police Department occasionally receives citizen complaints regarding legally parked vehicles on
public roadways being marked for sale and not moving for extended periods. As it stands currently,
HBMC section 10.40.125 allows Police and Code Enforcement employees the ability to issue
citations for this violation. On October 17, 2000, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California rendered a decision in Burkow v. City of Los Angeles. In summary, the court
ruled a citizen’s display of a “For Sale” sign on a vehicle was protected commercial speech under the
U.S. Constitution and the ordinance did not directly advance public interest. The facts and
circumstances with this case are on point with the intent of our ordinance and enforcement practices.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™339
File #:19-1288 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
In light of this court case decision, we recommend the ordinance be repealed. Leaving the ordinance
in place could create confusion for our citizens as they see it in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code
and believe enforcement action is possible.
For several years, the Police Department has been acting in accordance with the Burkow v. City of
Los Angeles case. There have been no citations issued for violating the provisions of the existing
code and enforcement entities use other available codes to deter illegal parking issues, such as
enforcing the 72-hour ordinance.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance No. 4204 Repealing HBMC 10.40.125
2. Legislative Draft Repealing HBMC 10.40.125
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™340
341
342
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1302 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004, General Plan Amendment No. 19-002 by
adopting Resolution No. 2020-03, Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002 by approving for
introduction Ordinance No. 4203, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 by
adopting Resolution No. 2020-04 (Park Avenue Rezone)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration are the following items:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with
the proposed project;
2. General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the General Plan land use designation from Open
Space-Water Recreation (OS-W) to Residential Low Density (RL);
3. Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) to amend the zoning designation from Open Space-Water
Recreation - Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (OS-WR-CZ-FP2) to Residential Low
Density - Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (RL-CZ-FP2); and
4. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment to amend the City’s certified LCP pursuant to the
GPA and ZMA subject to California Coast Commission certification.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and
mitigation measures; and,
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™343
File #:20-1302 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
B) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 19-002 and adopt Resolution No. 2020-03, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment
No. 19-002” (Attachment No. 2); Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002 with findings (Attachment No.
1) and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4203, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property
Located at the Terminus of Park Avenue in Huntington Harbour from OS-WR-CZ-FP2 (Open Space-
Water Recreation - Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay) to RL-CZ-FP2 (Residential Low
Density - Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay) (Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-
002)” (Attachment No. 3); and Local Coastal Program No. 19-001 with findings (Attachment No. 1)
and adopt Resolution No. 2020-04, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 and Requesting Certification by the
California Coastal Commission” (Attachment No. 4).
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004, General Plan Amendment No. 19-002,
Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001.
2. Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004, General Plan Amendment No. 19-002,
Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 and
direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Mike Adams, P.O. Box 392, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Property Owner: Medhat Rofael, 3922 Sirius Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92649
The proposed project (Attachment No. 6) includes the following requests:
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 19-004 to analyze the potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed project;
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 19-002 to amend the General Plan land use designation
from Open Space-Water Recreation (OS-W) to Residential Low Density (RL);
Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 19-002 to amend the zoning designation from Open Space-
Water Recreation - Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (OS-WR-CZ-FP2) to Residential
Low Density - Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (RL-CZ-FP2); and
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 19-001 to amend the City’s certified LCP
pursuant to the GPA and ZMA subject to California Coast Commission certification.
B.BACKGROUND:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™344
File #:20-1302 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
The subject site is a vacant 6,179 square foot property located at the terminus of Park Avenue in
Huntington Harbour. In July 2017, the Planning Commission denied a request from the property
owner to construct a boat marina with a community dock, a two-story building with a 508 sq. ft.
marina office and public restroom on the first floor, a one-bedroom 565 sq. ft. caretaker’s unit on
the second floor, and a detached 441 sq. ft. two-car garage on the subject site. The applicant
appealed the Planning Commission’s action but subsequently requested multiple continuances of
the City Council public hearing. The 2017 appeal is still pending before the City Council. It
should be noted that a previous project, including a marina and a much larger caretaker’s unit,
was also denied by the City Council many years ago.
In 2018 the property owner and the City entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby the City
agreed to process the proposed requests for a rezone identified above at a reduced fee. In
exchange, the property owner agreed to withdraw the marina project that is on appeal to the City
Council upon final approval of the proposed rezone. The request would change the permitted
land uses on the site from water recreation (i.e. marina) to residential. No development is
proposed with this application.
C.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
On December 10, 2019 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project.
The applicant and property owner spoke and indicated that the request for a residential
designation was to provide greater compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
There were no other speakers. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
request to the City Council recognizing that previous marina projects proposed under the existing
General Plan and zoning designations presented compatibility concerns.
Planning Commission Action on December 10, 2019:
The motion was made by Grant, seconded by Perkins, to recommend to the City Council approval
of MND No. 19-004, GPA No. 19-002, ZMA No. 19-002, and LCPA No. 19-001 carried by the
following vote:
AYES: Scandura, Ray, Grant, Garcia, Perkins, Mandic
NOES: Kalmick
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION PASSED
D.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The staff report for the December 10, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing (Attachment No.
10) provides a more detailed description and comprehensive analysis of the project covering,
among others, General Plan conformance and zoning compliance.
Environmental Status:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™345
File #:20-1302 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
The staff report for the December 10, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing provides a
discussion of MND No. 19-004 including a summary of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. Suggested Findings for Approval of MND No. 19-004, ZMA No. 19-002, and LCPA No. 19-001
2. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2020-03 for GPA No. 19-002
3. Draft City Council Ordinance No. 4203 for ZMA No. 19-002
4. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2020-04 for LCPA No. 19-001
5. Vicinity Map
6. Project Narrative received and dated Feb. 21, 2019
7. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Maps
8. Existing and Proposed Zoning Maps
9. Response To Comments Draft MND No. 19-004
10. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated December 10, 2019
11. Draft MND No. 19-004 (not attached but available at
<https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/planning/environmental-
12. Chapter 210 (Residential Districts) (not attached but available at
<http://www.qcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/view.php?topic=zoning_code-21-210&showAll=1>
13. Chapter 213 (Open Space District) (not attached but available at
<http://www.qcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/view.php?topic=zoning_code-21-213&showAll=1>
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™346
Attachment No. 1.1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 19-004/
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 19-002/
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 19-001
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.
19-004:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 19-004 has been prepared in compliance with
Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised
and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the
comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the MND, General
Plan Amendment No. 19-002, Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 19-001.
2. Mitigation measures incorporated into the MND avoid or reduce the project’s effects to a
point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur.
3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the
project, as mitigated through the MND mitigation measures will have a significant effect on
the environment.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 19-002:
1. Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 19-002 to change the zoning on a 6,179 square foot
parcel from Open Space–Water Recreation – Coastal Zone Overlay – Floodplain Overlay
(OS-WR-CZ-FP2) to Residential Low Density – Coastal Zone Overlay – Floodplain Overlay
(RL-CZ-FP2) is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan as follows:
A. Land Use Element
Policy LU-2D - Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment
of incompatible land uses.
Goal LU-4 - A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical,
and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and
residences are well maintained and protected.
B. Housing Element
347
Attachment No. 1.2
Policy 2.1 – Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to
diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing
locations near services and transit that promote walkability.
Policy 3.1 – Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of
the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to maintain a
balanced community.
The proposed ZMA will give the subject site a residential zoning designation that is less
intense and more compatible with the surrounding residential area compared to the
existing designation. It will potentially allow for the construction of a single family dwelling
unit with channel access subject to approval by the City of a coastal development permit .
The vacant subject site currently does not provide a formal opportunity for public coastal
access and will continue to lack public coastal access while undeveloped. Future
residential development on the subject site that will be more compatible with th e
surrounding residential area could only occur if the ZMA were certified. Public access
requirements on site can be reviewed and addressed upon submittal of a proposed
residential development. Without the ZMA, the subject site could remain vacant and
without formal public access indefinitely due to ongoing public concerns with prior
development proposals under the existing zoning.
2. The ZMA will change the zoning on the subject site to RL-CZ-FP2 which is compatible with
the surrounding residential area. It will not change a general land use provision, the uses
authorized in, and the standards prescribed for in any zoning district.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed because the RL-CZ-FP2
designation is more compatible with the surrounding residential area than the existing OS -
WR-CZ-FP2 designation.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice because the RL-CZ-FP2 designation provides for the continuation of the residential
character of the surrounding area and reduces the potential encroachment of incompatible
land uses into an established residential area.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 19-001:
1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal
Program to reflect the land use and zoning changes proposed by General Plan Amendment
No. 19-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002 is consistent with the General Plan
designations in that they provide for the continuation of residential land use and zoning
consistent with the existing residential area surrounding the subject site .
2. The proposed change to the Local Coastal Program is in accordance with the policies,
standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage promotion of public
access and mitigating adverse impacts associated with development. The proposed GPA
348
Attachment No. 1.3
and ZMA will give the subject site a residential land use and zoning designation that is more
compatible with the surrounding residential area compared to the existing designation. It will
potentially allow for the construction of a single family dwelling unit with channel access
subject to approval by the City of a coastal development permit. Public access requirements
on site can be reviewed and addressed upon submittal of a proposed residential
development.
The Coastal Act states in Section 30214 that: It is the intent of the Legislature that the public
access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the
equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's
constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
The proposed LCPA balances the public access policies of the Coastal Act with the subject
site’s land use compatibility with the surrounding residential area. The MND identifies
mitigation measures to render any associated environmental impacts to less than significant.
3. No existing coastal access will be impacted by the LCPA. The vacant subject site currently
does not provide a formal opportunity for public coastal access and will continue to lack
public coastal access while undeveloped. Future residential development on the subject site
that will be more compatible with the surrounding residential area could only occur if the
LCPA were certified. At such time, public access requirements on site can be reviewed and
addressed. Without the LCPA, the subject site could remain vacant and without formal
public access indefinitely due to ongoing public concerns with prior development proposals
under the existing zoning.
349
350
351
352
353
354
LEGEND
RL Residential Low Density (max 7 du/ac)
RM Residential Medium Density (max 15 du/ac)
RMH Residential Medium High Density (max 25 du/ac)
RH Residential High Density (>30 du/ac)
CV Commercial Visitor
OS-W Open Space – Water Recreation
Proposed General Plan Map
OS-W
RL
Project Site
RL
RL
RM
ML
RM
ML
RH
ML
RMH
ML
RH
ML
RH
ML
CV
CV
355
356
357
358
359
360
LEGEND
RL Residential Low Density
RM Residential Medium Density
RMH Residential Medium High Density
SBR Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Residential
SBT Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Tourist
SBW Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Waterways
OS-W R Open Space – Water Recreation
Amended Zoning Map
OS-WR
RL
RL
RM
ML
RM
ML
RMH
ML
SBR
SBR
SBR
SBR
SBT
SBT
SBW
RL
361
362
363
VICINITY MAP
General Plan Amendment 19-002/Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002/Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 19-001/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004 (Park Ave Rezone)
Project Site
364
365
366
LEGEND
RL Residential Low Density (max 7 du/ac)
RM Residential Medium Density (max 15 du/ac)
RMH Residential Medium High Density (max 25 du/ac)
RH Residential High Density (>30 du/ac)
CV Commercial Visitor
OS-W Open Space – Water Recreation
Existing General Plan Map
OS-W
OS-W
Project Site
RL
RL
RM
ML
RM
ML
RMH
ML
RH
ML
RH
ML
CV
RH
ML
CV
367
LEGEND
RL Residential Low Density (max 7 du/ac)
RM Residential Medium Density (max 15 du/ac)
RMH Residential Medium High Density (max 25 du/ac)
RH Residential High Density (>30 du/ac)
CV Commercial Visitor
OS-W Open Space – Water Recreation
Proposed General Plan Map
OS-W
RL
Project Site
RL
RL
RM
ML
RM
ML
RH
ML
RMH
ML
RH
ML
RH
ML
CV
CV
368
LEGEND
RL Residential Low Density
RM Residential Medium Density
RMH Residential Medium High Density
SBR Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Residential
SBT Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Tourist
SBW Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Waterways
OS-W R Open Space – Water Recreation
Existing Zoning Map
OS-WR
OS-W R
RL
RL
RM
ML
RM
ML
RMH
ML
SBR
SBR
SBR
SBR
SBT
SBT
SBW
369
LEGEND
RL Residential Low Density
RM Residential Medium Density
RMH Residential Medium High Density
SBR Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Residential
SBT Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Tourist
SBW Sunset Beach Specific Plan - Waterways
OS-W R Open Space – Water Recreation
Proposed Zoning Map
OS-WR
RL
RL
RM
ML
RM
ML
RMH
ML
SBR
SBR
SBR
SBR
SBT
SBT
SBW
RL
370
1
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 19-004
I. This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) No. 19-004. This document contains all information available in the
public record related to General Plan Amendment No. 19-002/Zoning Map Amendment
No. 19-002/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 (Park Avenue Rezone) as of
October 15, 2019 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
This document contains four sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are
Public Participation and Review, Comments, and Responses to Comments.
The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has
used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft MND. The Comments
section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations,
and individuals as of August 16, 2019. The Response to Comments section contains
individual responses to each comment.
It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official
public record related to the Draft MND. Based on the information contained in the public
record, the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all
information related to the environmental consequences of the project.
II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW
The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and
interested groups, organizations, and individuals that Draft MND No. 19-004 had been
prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input
during the review period for the preparation of the Draft MND. The following is a list of
actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft MND.
1. An official 30-day public review period for the Draft MND was established.
It began on July 18 and ended on August 16, 2019. Public comment letters
were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through August 16, 2019.
2. Notice of the Draft MND was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on
July 18, 2019. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to
agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals.
III. COMMENTS
Copies of all written comments received as of August 16, 2019 are contained in
Appendix A of this document and all comments have been numbered. Response to
Comments for each comment, which raised an environmental issue is contained in this
document.
371
2
IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Draft MND No. 19-004 was distributed to interested groups, organizations, and
individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period
of 30 days. The public review period for the Draft MND commenced on July 18 and
expired on August 16, 2019.
Copies of all documents received as of August 16, 2019 are contained in Appendix A of
this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered.
Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental
issue.
Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft MND or do
not raise significant environmental issues. A substantive response to such comments is
not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Such comments are responded to with a “comment acknowledged” reference. This
indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their
review and consideration.
372
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS ON DRAFT MND NO. 19-004
Below is the only comment letter received, which has been bracketed to mark the individual
comments. Comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with a response.
Comments that are outside of the scope of the CEQA review will be forwarded to the decision
maker for consideration as part of the project review process.
COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT MND COMMENT PERIOD
No. Commenter/Organization Abbreviation
ORGANIZATION
1 California Coastal Commission – August 9, 2019 CCC
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
Page 1
APPENDIX B
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT MND NO. 19-004
ORGANIZATION
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC)
CCC-1 The comment describes the request and subject site. The comment does not
address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise
significant environmental issues. Comment acknowledged and will be
forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration.
CCC-2 The comment describes that CCC staff has indicated over the years that the
requested change in land use and zoning designations at the site from the higher
priority Open Space Water Recreation to the lower priority Low Density
Residential could not be supported by CCC staff due to inconsistency with the
land use policies of the Coastal Act and City’s certified land use plan. The
comment also identifies information that will be necessary to include in the
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) application that will be submitted
to the CCC. The comment does not address the completeness or adequacy of
the Draft MND and does not raise significant environmental issues. Comment
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their review
and consideration.
CCC-3 The comment states that the site will likely become at risk from sea level rise
(SLR) and explains the significant research that has been done on SLR
including projections and recommendations which are incorporated into the
2018 update of the CCC SLR Policy Guidance. It further states that new
development on the site cannot be protected by a shoreline protective device.
The comment does not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft MND
and does not raise significant environmental issues. Comment acknowledged
and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration.
CCC-4 The comment identifies relevant Coastal Act and Coastal Element policies as
well as additional information that will be required with a future LCPA
application submittal to the CCC for the rezone. The comment does not address
the completeness or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise significant
environmental issues. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the
decision makers for their review and consideration.
CCC-5 The comment lists Coastal Act and Coastal Element policies pertaining to
habitat protection as well as other requirements applicable to any future
development. The comment does not address the completeness or adequacy of
the Draft MND and does not raise significant environmental issues. Comment
394
Page 2
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their review
and consideration.
CCC-6 The comment identifies other miscellaneous information that is requested with
a future LCPA application to the CCC for the rezone. The comment does not
address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise
significant environmental issues. Comment acknowledged and will be
forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration.
CCC-7 Pages 10 through 20 of the comment letter provides some information regarding
economic viability determination, suggestions for preparing a wetland
delineation report, and suggestions for the development of mitigation and
monitoring plans for the CCC. The comment does not address the completeness
or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise significant environmental
issues. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers
for their review and consideration.
395
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) NO. 19-004, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 19-002, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA) NO. 19-002,
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT (LCPA) NO. 19-001 (PARK
AVENUE REZONE)
REQUEST:
To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project; to amend the General Plan land use designation from Open Space-
Water Recreation (OS-W) to Residential Low Density (RL); to amend the zoning
designation from Open Space-Water Recreation - Coastal Zone Overlay -
Floodplain Overlay (OS-WR-CZ-FP2) to Residential Low Density - Coastal Zone
Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (RL-CZ-FP2); and to amend the City’s Local
Coastal Program pursuant to the GPA and ZMA.
LOCATION:16926 Park Ave., 92649 (terminus of Park Ave. in Huntington Harbour
APPLICANT:Mike Adams, P.O. Box 392, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PROPERTY
OWNER:Medhat Rofael, 3922 Sirius Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92649
BUSINESS
OWNER:Not applicable
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the current Open Space-Water Recreation land use designation for the subject site
appropriate? If not, what is?
2. Are the GPA and ZMA proposed designations compatible with the surrounding area?
3. Is the GPA necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community and
consistent with other elements of the General Plan?
4. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approving an MND, ZMA, and LCPA?
5. Is the MND adequate and complete in that it has identified all significant effects of the project
and any applicable mitigation measures?
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™396
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
A) Recommend approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004 with findings (Attachment
No. 1) and mitigation measures; and
B) Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 19-002 by approving draft City Council
Resolution (Attachment No. 2), Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002 with findings (Attachment
No. 1) by approving draft City Council Ordinance (Attachment No. 3), and Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 19-001 with findings (Attachment No. 1) by approving draft City Council
Resolution (Attachment No. 4).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
A) Recommend denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004, General Plan Amendment
No. 19-002, Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19
-001.
B) Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 19-004, General Plan Amendment No. 19-002,
Zoning Map Amendment No. 19-002, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 19-001 and
direct staff accordingly.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The proposed project (Attachment No. 6) includes the following requests:
§Mitigated Negative Declaration to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with
the proposed project;
§General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Open Space-
Water Recreation (OS-W) to Residential Low Density (RL);
§Zoning Map Amendment to amend the zoning designation from Open Space-Water Recreation
- Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (OS-WR-CZ-FP2) to Residential Low Density -
Coastal Zone Overlay - Floodplain Overlay (RL-CZ-FP2); and
§Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment to amend the City’s certified LCP pursuant to the
GPA and ZMA subject to California Coast Commission certification (approval).
Background:
The subject site is a vacant 6,179 square foot property located at the terminus of Park Avenue in
Huntington Harbour. In July 2017, the Planning Commission denied a request from the property
owner to construct a boat marina with a community dock, a two-story building with a 508 sq. ft.
marina office and public restroom on the first floor, a one-bedroom 565 sq. ft. caretaker’s unit on theCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™397
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
marina office and public restroom on the first floor, a one-bedroom 565 sq. ft. caretaker’s unit on the
second floor, and a detached 441 sq. ft. two-car garage on the subject site. The applicant appealed
the Planning Commission’s action but subsequently requested multiple continuances of the City
Council public hearing. The 2017 appeal is still pending before the City Council. It should be noted
that a previous project, including a marina and a much larger caretaker’s unit, was also denied by the
City Council many years ago.
In 2018 the property owner and the City entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby the City
agreed to process the proposed requests for a rezone identified above at a reduced fee. In
exchange, the property owner agreed to withdraw the marina project that is on appeal to the City
Council upon final approval of the proposed rezone. The request would change the permitted land
uses on the site from water recreation (i.e. marina) to residential. No development is proposed with
this application.
Study Session:
The Planning Commission held a study session on the project on Nov. 12, 2019 and requested the
following information:
1. Were there any findings for denial relative to residential in the Planning Commission’s previous
action on the marina and caretaker’s unit request in 2017?
The Planning Commission’s findings for denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 13-022 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 13-014 in July 2017 pertained primarily to lack of adequate
vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and that the caretaker’s unit was not needed
based on the scope, size, and operational characteristics of the proposed marina project.
2. Would AB 68 allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and junior ADU by right on the subject
site?
An ADU and a junior ADU would be permitted. New construction would require a coastal
development permit but a public hearing is not required pursuant to Government Code Section
65852.2 which states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the
effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with
Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall
not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for
accessory dwelling units.
3. Are there any density bonus impacts on the subject site?
No, because density bonus laws pertain to property which is zoned and general planned to
allow five or more dwelling units that propose to provide affordable housing or senior citizen
housing.
4. What are the sea level rise (SLR) requirements on the subject site?
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™398
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
General Plan Goal HAZ-2 addresses coastal hazards. The policies below relate to SLR:
HAZ-2A - Promote appropriate land uses and development patterns within potential sea level
rise areas identified in the Sea Level Rise Hazard Area established in Figure HAZ-6.
HAZ-2B - Implement priority measures to reduce and mitigate sea level rise impacts to
property and infrastructure outlined in the Coastal Resiliency Program.
Figure HAZ-6 shows that Huntington Harbour, among others, is subject to potential SLR.
However, the City currently does not have an ordinance that identifies SLR development
requirements to implement the General Plan SLR goals and policies. When the City embarks
on an update to its Local Coastal Program, it is possible that the Coastal Commission will
require the City to establish development requirements that address SLR.
Additionally, Coastal Commission staff commented on the MND and stated that the site will
likely become at risk from SLR and that new development on the site cannot be protected by a
shoreline protective device. It is anticipated that the Coastal Commission will address this
issue when they review the LCPA.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Subject Property And Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning And Land Uses:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property:Open Space-Water
Recreation (OS-W)
Open Space-Water
Recreation-Coastal Zone
Overlay-Floodplain
Overlay (OS-WR-CZ-
FP2)
Vacant
North and East of
Subject Property:
OS-W OS-WR-CZ-FP2 Midway Channel
South of Subject
Property:
Residential High
Density (RH)
(uncertified)
Sunset Beach Specific
Plan - Residential (SBSP)
(uncertified)
Single and Multi-
Family Dwellings
West of Subject
Property:
OS-W, RH OS-WR-CZ-FP2, SBSP Vacant, Midway
Channel, Single and
Multi-Family Dwellings
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan states that the OS-W designation provides for water bodies used for recreational
purposes, such as boating, swimming, and water sports. Given the previous denials by the City of
variations of a proposed marina with caretaker’s unit and concerns with compatibility with the
surrounding residential area, the applicant is now proposing an RL designation on the subject
property. The RL designation provides primarily for traditional detached single-family housing. The
RL designation is found on other single family residential properties in Huntington Harbour just across
the channel from the subject site and is compatible with the surrounding residential area. The current
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™399
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
the channel from the subject site and is compatible with the surrounding residential area. The current
OS-W designation is not only less compatible with the surrounding residential area, it also does not fit
the subject property because it is not a body of water.
State law does not require precise conformity of a proposed project with the General Plan. Instead, a
proposed project is required to be in agreement or in harmony with the terms of the General Plan but
not in rigid conformity with its every detail. The requested RL land use and zoning designations are
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as follows:
A.Land Use Element
Policy LU-2D - Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
Goal LU-4 - A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and
social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences are
well maintained and protected.
B.Housing Element
Policy 2.1 - Provide site opportunities for development of housing that responds to diverse
community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location, emphasizing locations near
services and transit that promote walkability.
Policy 3.1 - Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of the
community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to maintain a balanced
community.
The proposed GPA and ZMA will give the subject site a residential land use and zoning
designation that is less intense and more compatible with the surrounding residential area
compared to the existing designation. It will potentially allow for the construction of a single family
dwelling unit with channel access subject to approval by the City of a coastal development permit.
The vacant subject site currently does not provide a formal opportunity for public coastal access
and will continue to lack public coastal access while undeveloped. Future residential
development on the subject site that will be more compatible with the surrounding residential area
could only occur if the GPA and ZMA were certified. Public access requirements on site can be
reviewed and addressed upon submittal of a proposed residential development. Without the GPA
and ZMA, the subject site could remain vacant and without formal public access indefinitely due to
ongoing public concerns with prior development proposals under the existing land use and zoning
designations.
Zoning Compliance:
Zoning Map Amendment
The applicant is proposing to amend the zoning designation from OS-WR-CZ-FP2 to RL-CZ-FP2 in
conformance with the proposed GPA. The OS-WR zoning district provides for marinas, minor
utilities, and accessory uses/structures (Attachment No. 12). The RL zoning district is compatible
with the surrounding residential area and provides for primarily residential uses (Attachment No. 11).City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™400
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
with the surrounding residential area and provides for primarily residential uses (Attachment No. 11).
If the rezone were approved, based on the size of the subject site and the existing 10 foot wide
access easement from Park Ave. to the property, the applicant could propose a single family
residence subject to approval by the City of a coastal development permit. Other uses that are
considered single family residential and permitted include, among others, residential alcohol recovery
limited and residential care limited. Other non-residential uses commonly found in residential areas
such as parks, public safety facilities, and schools, among others are also permitted in RL primarily
with a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. However, the subject site’s existing 10-
foot wide access easement would not provide adequate access by the zoning code for non-
residential uses. The subject site complies with the RL minimum building site requirement of 6,000
square feet and 60 ft. lot width.
A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed because the RL-CZ-FP2 designation is
more compatible with the surrounding residential area than the existing OS-WR-CZ-FP2 designation.
Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice
because the RL-CZ-FP2 designation provides for the continuation of the residential character of the
surrounding area and reduces the potential encroachment of incompatible land uses into an
established residential area.
Local Coastal Program Amendment
The proposed LCPA to reflect the land use and zoning changes proposed by the GPA and ZMA is
consistent with the General Plan designations in that they provide for the continuation of residential
land use and zoning consistent with the existing residential area surrounding the subject site.
The proposed change to the Local Coastal Program is in accordance with the policies, standards and
provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage promotion of public access and mitigating
adverse impacts associated with development. The proposed GPA and ZMA will give the subject site
a residential zoning designation that is more compatible with the surrounding residential area
compared to the existing designation. It will potentially allow for the construction of a single family
dwelling unit with channel access subject to approval by the City of a coastal development permit.
No existing coastal access will be impacted by the LCPA. The vacant subject site currently does not
provide a formal opportunity for public coastal access and will continue to lack public coastal access
while undeveloped. Future residential development on the subject site that will be more compatible
with the surrounding residential area could only occur if the LCPA were certified. At such time, public
access requirements on site can be reviewed and addressed. Without the LCPA, the subject site
could remain vacant and without formal public access indefinitely due to ongoing public concerns
with prior development proposals under the existing zoning.
The Coastal Act states in Section 30214 that: It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access
policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that
balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access
pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. The proposed LCPA balances the
public access policies of the Coastal Act with the subject site’s land use compatibility with the
surrounding residential area. The MND identifies mitigation measures to render any associated
environmental impacts to less than significant.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™401
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
Future development proposals on the subject site will be reviewed for compliance with the citywide
Urban Design Guidelines.
Environmental Status:
Staff has prepared an environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Subsequently, draft MND No. 19-004 was prepared with mitigation measures in the area of biological
resources pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
(HBZSO) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Draft MND No. 19-004 was available
for a 30-day public review period from July 18 to August 16, 2019 (available at
<https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/planning/environmental-
reports/environmental-report-view.cfm?ID=55>). Comments were received from the Coastal
Commission and a response has been included (Attachment No. 9).
Environmental Board Comments:
The Environmental Board was notified of the MND. However, the Environmental Board did not have
a meeting during the MND public review period due to a lack of members.
Prior to any action on the GPA, ZMA, and LCPA, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to
review and act on the MND. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the MND be
approved with findings and mitigation measures.
Coastal Status:
If approved by the City Council, the LCPA will be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for review
and certification.
Design Review Board:
Not applicable
Subdivision Committee:
Not applicable
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
Not applicable
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on Thursday, November 28, 2019 and
notices were sent to property owners of record within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property,
individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department’s Notification
Matrix), applicant, and interested parties.
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
March 26, 2019 Not applicable for legislative applications
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™402
File #:19-1123 MEETING DATE:12/10/2019
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of MND No. 19-004, GPA No. 19-002, ZMA No. 19-002, and LCPA No.
19-001 based on the following:
- The MND is adequate, complete, and has identified all significant effects of the project and
any applicable mitigation measures.
- The GPA and ZMA proposed designations provide for the continuation of the residential
character of the surrounding residential area and reduces the potential encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
- The GPA and ZMA are consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and its
goals, objectives, and policies.
- The LCPA conforms to the Coastal Act policies that encourage promotion of public access and
mitigating adverse impacts from development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Suggested Findings for Approval of MND No. 19-004, ZMA No. 19-002, and LCPA No. 19-001
2. Draft City Council Resolution for GPA No. 19-002
3. Draft City Council Ordinance for ZMA No. 19-002
4. Draft City Council Resolution for LCPA No. 19-001
5. Vicinity Map
6. Project Narrative received and dated Feb. 21, 2019
7. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Maps
8. Existing and Proposed Zoning Maps
9. Response To Comments Draft MND No. 19-004
10. Draft MND No. 19-004 (not attached but available at
<https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/planning/environmental-
11. Chapter 210 (Residential Districts) (not attached but available at
<http://www.qcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/view.php?topic=zoning_code-21-210&showAll=1>
12. Chapter 213 (Open Space District) (not attached but available at
<http://www.qcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/view.php?topic=zoning_code-21-213&showAll=1>
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/6/2019Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™403
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1393 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
City Council’s Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042
(Ellis Avenue Condos). The matter is re-agendized at the Appellant’s request.
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No.
17-042,a request to permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building
including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three
levels of subterranean parking (the “Project”) located at 8041 Ellis Avenue (the “Site”). Staff
recommended approval of the Project with suggested findings and conditions of approval to the
Planning Commission. On June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Project. The
property owner, Tahir Salim, (the “Appellant”) filed a timely appeal, per Section 248.20 of the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), of the Planning Commission’s
decision on June 20, 2019. At the August 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the Council opened the
public hearing and continued the appeal to the September 3, 2019, meeting at the Appellant’s
request. At the September 3, 2019 City Council meeting, the Council voted to deny the appeal and
upheld the Planning Commission’s decision. The Appellant, through his attorney, sent a letter to the
City Attorney’s Office requesting a re-hearing on the Project, or else he would file a lawsuit on the
previous denial. The Project is herein presented to City Council for re-hearing at the Appellant’s
request.
Financial Impact:
No fiscal impact.
Action:
The City Council may take one of the following action(s):
A) Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings
(Attachment No. 1);OR
B) Deny Without Prejudice Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™404
File #:20-1393 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
042 with findings (Attachment No. 1);OR
C) Tentatively Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042
and direct Staff to conduct environmental analysis on the new information provided in the Expert
Traffic and Fire Code/Life Safety Reports in accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines
(Attachments No. 2 and 3), and re-agendize for a future meeting.
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant:Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618
Appellant/Property Owner:Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 4740 Green River Road, Suite 304,
Corona, CA 92880
Location: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.)
A comprehensive description of the Project can be found in the May 28, 2019,Planning Commission
staff report (Attachment No. 7). The staff report and attachments include the proposed site plan, floor
plans, elevations, subdivision map, technical studies related to air quality, traffic, hydrology/water
quality, and geological/soils, and written communications regarding the project. History of the
Planning Commission’s decision and subsequent appeal by the property owner can be found in the
September 3, 2019 Request for City Council Action (Attachment No. 5).
B. BACKGROUND
On September 3, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Project.
Eleven people spoke during public comments on the Project. Seven members of the public spoke in
opposition to the Project, citing traffic issues, Site access issues, small lot size for the proposed
density, parking, and the existing supply of apartments within the City. Four members of the public
spoke in support of the Project including,the Appellant, a representative from People for Housing
OC, and two representatives from Abundant Housing LA. The Appellant spoke in support of the
Project describing the benefits of redeveloping the underutilized and dilapidated Site. The
organization representatives spoke in support of affordable ownership opportunities and expressed
dissatisfaction with the possibility that the Project would be operated as rental units.
The City Council then deliberated and expressed concerns; issues were raised regarding the
Project’s impact on Ellis Avenue traffic, shadows on adjacent properties, unsafe ingress/egress to the
Site, increased U-turns at Patterson Lane, the area of the project devoted to commercial use being
too small, and marginal public open space. Ultimately, the City Council was unable to make all of the
required findings for a CUP and denied the Project. In the denial, the City Council made findings that
the Project would result in negative impacts to health and safety because:
(1) There is unsafe vehicular ingress and egress to the Site which will result in exacerbated
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™405
File #:20-1393 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
accident rates, and
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate this adverse impact because there
is no alternative or additional access point to the Site.
The City Council also found the Project did not comply with the provisions of the base district and
other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 in that the Project does not further the vision of the
Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor
within the Five Points District of the BECSP. The Site is located within the Five Points District and the
City Council found that the Project does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because:
(1) Only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to
commercial use,
(2) There is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and
(3) The Project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP’s
vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property.
City Council Action on September 3, 2019
A motion made by Posey, seconded by Semeta, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings, carried by the following vote:
AYES: Brenden, Carr, Semeta, Peterson, Posey, Delgleize,
Hardy
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION PASSED
C. ATTORNEY SUBJECT MATER EXPERT REVIEW
The City was sued by Californians for Homeownership on October 28, 2019 in the case Californians
for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach. As part of the defense of the lawsuit, the City
Attorney’s Office retained two experts, a traffic safety expert, and a fire code and safety expert, to
review the Project as originally proposed and considered, then denied, by City Council. Initially, the
purpose of the expert retainers was to assist in providing a defense to the City in the lawsuit. The
experts, Mr. Miller and Mr. McMullen, respectively (collectively, the “Experts”), were asked to review
the entire Project as proposed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.Both
experts have confirmed they did in fact review the entire Project, including scaled plans and reports,
before rendering any findings or opinions. The scope/purpose of their review was to analyze
everything objectively and offer findings and opinions regarding the proposed project via separate
reports (collectively, the “Expert Reports”) (Attachments 2 and 3).Such reports are normally kept
confidential as “attorney work-product” and used only at a certain time in court for purposes of
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™406
File #:20-1393 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
defending a lawsuit.
In addition to the pending lawsuit, the Appellant,through his attorney, sent a letter to the City
Attorney’s Office requesting a re-hearing on the Project, or else the Appellant would file a second
lawsuit on the previous denial. To be clear, it is the position of the Appellant and Californians for
Homeownership that the Project must be approved. They requested,therefore,a second
presentation to City Council on re-hearing in hopes for approval.
When the Expert Reports were recently provided to the City Attorney’s Office, it was notable that new
material information, new material findings, new material perspectives, and new material opinions
were being offered by the Experts. With that new information in hand, and in light of the re-hearing
on the Project, the City Attorney determined that this information, which includes new findings and
opinions, could not remain “confidential.” The City Council must have before it all the information
available to make an informed decision. Keeping these reports confidential (merely for defense of
the lawsuit) and not presenting them (with the new information) to City Council would be improper.
To that end, as of the publish date of the February 18, 2020 Agenda, the City Attorney is waiving the
“attorney work-product” privilege and sharing these Expert Reports with City Council. The decision to
approve or deny the Project is ultimately at the discretion of the City Council via the consideration of
the TTM No. 18157 and CUP No. 17-042.
Environmental Status:
Should the City Council wish to consider approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that
they direct staff to conduct further environmental analysis on the new information recently received
via the Expert Reports.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Not Applicable.
Attachment(s):
1. Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157/ CUP No. 17-042
2. Traffic Expert Review by Albert Grover & Associates
3. CA Fire Code/Life Safety Expert Review by James F. McMullen
4. Appellant’s Request for the Item to be Reagendized
5. Project Plans (see Attachment No. 5 of Attachment No. 7 - May 28, 2019 PC Staff Report)
6. September 3, 2019 Request for City Council Action and Attachments
7. June 11, 2019 Planning Commission NOA of Denial
8. June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments
9. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™407
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042:
The City Council finds and determines that the project will have a negative impact to health and
safety for reasons more particularly described herein:
1. In light of the evidence in the record and the material information, findings, and opinions
offered by the Traffic Expert Report (by Mark Miller dated January 27, 2020) and Fire
Code/Life Safety Expert Report (by James McMullen dated February 10, 2020), the project
would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety due to unsafe
ingress/egress conditions caused by the project. Vehicular access is provided via a single
driveway along Ellis Avenue. Due to the proximity of the project access driveway to the Beach
and Ellis intersection, the project will require right turns only in and out of the project site. This
would prohibit motorists from exiting the project site to turn left onto Ellis Avenue. Residents
and visitors also cannot access the project site from eastbound Ellis Avenue without
continuing past the project to make a u-turn at Patterson Lane to make a right turn into the
project site. The Ellis/Patterson intersection is currently unsignalized. According to the project
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a licensed traffic engineering firm, (LLG dated April 16,
2019) the project will generate 222 additional u-turns at the Ellis/Patterson intersection. Based
on accident data provided by the Transportation Division of the Huntington Beach Public
Works Department, the Ellis/Patterson intersection has experienced an increase in traffic
accidents within the last few years, while other intersections and street segments near the
project site have had a decrease in accidents. The increase in approximately 222 u-turns at
this intersection as a result of the project will exacerbate accident rates at this intersection
causing an adverse public safety impact. The Traffic Expert Report also found that the types
of collisions at Ellis/Patterson have changed from rear-end/hit object collisions to broadside
collisions since the Elan project became operational. Furthermore, the LLG Traffic Impact
Analysis discloses that motorists entering and exiting the site may experience significant
delays during the PM peak hour due to westbound vehicular queuing along Ellis Avenue.
Traffic delays on Ellis Avenue will contribute to motorists attempting to turn left to enter and
exit the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends installation of a “STOP” sign
and signage restricting outbound movements to right turns only in an effort to improve safe
ingress and egress at the site. However, these measures are not adequate enough to improve
safety and the study also recommends additional driveway treatments to further regulate the
turn restrictions, such as the installation of raised pavement to physically prevent left turns out
of the site. This suggests that is a reasonable assumption that motorists will lose patience
and attempt left turns out of the site onto Ellis Avenue creating an unsafe condition, particularly
during the PM peak hour when the intersection is blocked by westbound traffic on Ellis Avenue
90% of the usable time, as noted by the Traffic Expert Report. Additionally, motorists may
attempt to avoid making a u-turn at the unsignalized Ellis/Patterson intersection resulting in
additional delay due to vehicular queuing on westbound Ellis Avenue. These motorists
entering the site from eastbound Ellis Avenue will attempt left turns from a through lane across
traffic into the project driveway creating unsafe conditions on both eastbound and westbound
sides of Ellis Avenue.
408
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. The site cannot
accommodate an alternative access point or an additional access point to mitigate the
negative safety impacts caused by project generated traffic. The project site does not have
access to another street or alley. The appellant proposed a raised “porkchop” design at the
driveway entrance to prevent left turns out of the project site as recommended by the Traffic
Impact Analysis. This could potentially address the adverse health and safety impact to an
uncertain degree. However, this design does not meet Fire Department access standards
and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements.
Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 401 contains minimum standards for fire
apparatus access and No. 403 has additional requirements for driveway width when there are
multiple lanes of travel with an “island divider”, like the proposed driveway with the raised
“porkchop” design. Each lane of travel must be a minimum of 14 ft. wide. Two lanes of travel
require a minimum 28 ft. wide driveway, without counting additional width required for an
“island divider”. The proposed project driveway is 24 ft. wide total. Since the proposed raised
“porkchop” design would take up a portion of the driveway width, it will result in a driveway
that is less than 24 ft. wide. Since the proposed driveway is only 24 ft. wide when there is a
28 ft. minimum width (excluding additional width required for the raised “porkchop”), there is
no feasible mitigation available for the adverse health and safety condition resulting from the
proposed “porkchop” driveway design. The raised “porkchop” design would impede Fire
Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact
caused by the project. Therefore, insufficient access to the project site and project generated
traffic will have a direct adverse impact to health and safety which cannot be mitigated.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
The City Council finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in
Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein:
1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in
that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the
General Plan and BECSP and would result in a significant health and safety impact as
determined by the Traffic Expert Report (by Mark Miller dated January 27, 2020) and Fire
Code/Life Safety Expert Report (by James McMullen dated February 10, 2020). More
particular detail and analysis is contained below.
2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of
development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with
the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre
parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and
intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and
proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. According to the material
information contained within the Expert Reports, the project will result in significant health and
safety impacts and will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will
be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd.
409
3. Approval of the project would result in a development that is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of
approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an
aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the
goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to
ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the
community.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale
and character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents,
employees, and visitors.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the
Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city
attractions.
Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation
management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources.
Policy CIRC-1F: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to
achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to
adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project.
Policy CIRC – 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to
consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth,
efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with
the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project
is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding
land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story
mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story
commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments. Additionally, the Expert
Reports concluded that there are significant project related health and safety impacts and
therefore, the development would not be consistent with Circulation Element policies.
410
The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to
the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately
five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is
oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west.
Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the
BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the
proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with
the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense
for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor
envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%)
of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use.
The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along
the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand
the existing bikeways. Furthermore, as noted in the Expert Reports, ingress and egress
to the project site generates conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no
access or connectivity to the project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access
is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will
be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the
project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to
congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the
project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln.
to make a u-turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally,
even though motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis
Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and
conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042:
The City Council finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings,
contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting
of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions
of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific
condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the
project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP,
which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP.
The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant
commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage
of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress
to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to
the BECSP’s vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private
property.
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
PASSENGER CAR / FIRE TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATEELLIS AVENUE CONDOS420
Mark H. Miller, PE, TE, PTOE
Executive Vice President
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS
211 Imperial Highway, Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835
714-992-2990
Mr. Miller is a co‐founder of Albert Grover & Associates, Inc. with over forty
years of extensive experience in Traffic and Transportation Engineering in
both governmental and private sectors. Throughout his career, he has
worked on many projects including ITS, signal interconnect and coordination
plans, CCTV installations, traffic signal systems, and street lighting. He has
also developed and implemented design standards, and Plans, Specifications
& Cost Estimates (PS&E) for traffic signals, interconnect communications, and
CCTV projects. He has hands‐on experience programming all models of traffic
signal controllers and has developed numerous traffic signal coordination and
timing plans for a wide variety of central system and local controller
software.
Having served with multiple municipal entities, including the Cities of
Pasadena, Pomona, San Dimas, and Fullerton, as well as the State of Illinois,
Mr. Miller knows what it takes to get design plans and studies approved,
projects completed, and invoices paid. As Assistant Traffic Engineer in the City
of Pasadena, he prepared and reviewed major transportation studies,
including the Rose Bowl/Rose Parade major event traffic studies, and
developed an accident recording system for the City. As City Traffic Engineer
for the City of Pomona, he was responsible for a multimillion‐dollar
Operations and Capital Improvement budget, managing 14 subordinates in
the Traffic Engineering Division.
As a senior, tenured Traffic/Transportation Engineer, Mr. Miller provides on‐
call, as‐needed Traffic Engineering services to the Cities of Montclair, Cerritos,
and Laguna Beach, and is presently serving as the Contract City Traffic
Engineer for the Cities of Fullerton and San Dimas. In this capacity, he gives
general traffic engineering guidance, makes presentations to Planning and
Traffic Commissions and City Councils, checks construction plans, and reviews
traffic studies and General Plan studies. He also advises the determination of
projects for Capital Improvement Programs (CIP).
Mr. Miller also serves as an Expert Witness, conducting investigative review,
providing professional advice, and speaking in the defense of claims and legal
actions for a number of governmental agencies.
On top of his significant professional experience, Mr. Miller has long been
involved in several professional associations, sharing his depth of knowledge
with those both outside of and newly entering the field of traffic engineering.
While serving as Chairman of the City Traffic Engineers Association (CTE), he
conducted workshops throughout Southern California to educate Traffic
Commission and Planning Commission members regarding pertinent traffic
and safety issues.
As a former President of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and
current member, he mentors several local student chapters, including that at
the Fullerton campus of the California State University. He also regularly
attends and speaks at workshops and conferences, presenting on innovative
and informative topics in the industry.
EDUCATION
California Polytechnic University
Pomona, California
BS Civil/Traffic Engineering, 1974
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois
Traffic & Transportation Engineering
Highway Capacity Workshop
Institute of Transportation Studies
Safety Design and Operational Practices
for Streets and Highways
Traffic Signal Equipment & Operations
Urban Street Design
Public Works Inspections
Legal Aspects and Liabilities
Risk Management & Traffic Safety
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
CA Registered Civil Engineer – CE #40956
CA Registered Traffic Engineer – TE #1575
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer
– PTOE #233
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
American Public Works Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
City Traffic Engineers Association
(former Chairman)
Institute of Transportation Engineers
(former President)
Orange County Traffic Engineering Council
American League of Cyclists
421
Mark H. Miller, PE, TE, PTOE
Page 2
Relevant Experience
Signal Interconnect Analysis, Design and Coordination: Mr. Miller performed these services for the Cities of
Bakersfield, Cerritos, Chino, Colton, La Habra, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Montclair, Palm Springs, Pomona, Rialto, San
Bernardino, Santa Clarita, Temecula, and Upland.
Multijurisdictional Traffic Signal Synchronization SCAQMD and Orange County Growth Management Area No. 6
Multiple Traffic Signal Design, CCTV, Striping & Street Light Design projects for California Cities, Counties, and State
entities.
Montclair Plaza Traffic Operations Study: Mr. Miller was project leader for this large redevelopment project in the
City of Montclair.
Roadway Signal Improvements: Cities of Cerritos, Chino, Claremont, Cypress, Ontario, and Upland.
School Safety Studies and Development of Safe Route to School Programs: Mr. Miller led the AGA team on
important safety studies in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Huntington Beach
Expert Witness: Mr. Miller is highly qualified and performs the duties of an Expert Witness for Cities throughout Los
Angeles and Orange Counties.
Citywide Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey: Mr. Miller has provided consultation for over 50 different
municipalities in Southern California
City Contract Traffic Engineer: Mr. Miller serves on behalf of AGA for Fullerton, Montclair and San Dimas
School Safety Projects: Mr. Miller puts his expertise to work for school districts in Fullerton, Huntington Beach, San
Marino, Pomona and Diamond Bar.
Identification of High Accident Locations: With years of experience in traffic and transportation engineering, Mr.
Miller has helped several municipalities to enhance safety on busy streets and intersections.
Computerized Traffic Accident Record System: Mr. Miller developed the first of such systems during his tenure with
the City of Pasadena.
Papers/Presentations
“Three Year Experience with Flashing Yellow Arrow Display” Presented at ITE Annual Conference, Anaheim,
California
“Strategies to Recapture Lost Arterial Traffic Carrying Capacities” Presented at ITE Annual Conference, Rapid City,
South Dakota
“Effectively Slowing Drivers – Speed Feedback Signs” Presented at ITE District 6 Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii
“School Area Traffic Safety” Presented at City Traffic Engineers’ Traffic Commissioners Workshop
“Minimize Delay Maximize Progression with Protected Permissive Lead/Lag Phasing” Presented at ITE Inland
Empire Section Technical Workshop
“Microwave Traffic Signal Interconnect—A Viable Alternative to Land Lines” Presented at ITE District 6 Annual
Meeting, Portland Oregon
“Quantifications of Air Quality Benefits Achieved Through Traffic Signal Coordination” Presented at ITE District 6
Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah
“A Successful Multijurisdictional Traffic Signal Coordination Project” Presented at ITE Annual Conference, Dana
Point, California
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-910 MEETING DATE:9/3/2019
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Dave Kiff, Interim City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Public Hearing continued Open from August 19, 2019 to consider the Appeal of Planning
Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042
(Ellis Avenue Condos)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No.
17-042,a request to permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use building
including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of commercial space and three
levels of subterranean parking located at 8041 Ellis Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the
project with suggested findings and conditions of approval to the Planning Commission. On June 11,
2019, the Planning Commission voted to deny the project. The property owner, Tahir Salim, filed a
timely appeal, per Section 248.20 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
(HBZSO), of the Planning Commission’s decision on June 20, 2019. Per Section 248.20(D) “De
Novo Hearing”, “The reviewing body shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The original applicant
has the burden of proof. The reviewing body may act upon the application, either granting it,
conditionally granting it or denying it, irrespective of the precise grounds or scope of the appeal. In
addition to considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the
reviewing body shall consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous
hearings from which the appeal is taken.” At the August 19, 2019,City Council meeting, the Council
opened the public hearing and continued the appeal to the September 3, 2019,meeting at the
property owner’s request.
Financial Impact:
No fiscal impact.
Action:
The City Council may take one of the following action(s):
A) Uphold the Planning Commission’s Action and Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Attachment No. 1);OR
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 9/4/2019Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™442
File #:19-910 MEETING DATE:9/3/2019
B) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457 and approve Tentative Tract
Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings and conditions of approval
(Attachment No. 2).
Alternative Action:
A) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct
staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant:Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618
Appellant/Property Owner:Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 4740 Green River Road, Suite 304,
Corona, CA 92880
Location: 8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson Ln.)
A comprehensive description of the proposed project as well as a General Plan and Zoning
conformance analysis can be found in the May 28, 2019,Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment No. 3). The staff report and attachments include the proposed site plan, floor plans,
elevations, subdivision map, technical studies related to air quality, traffic, hydrology/water quality,
and geological/soils, and written communications regarding the project.
B. BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project.
Staff had recommended approval with reasons noted in Attachment No. 2. The property owner
spoke in support of the project describing the benefits of redeveloping the underutilized and
dilapidated site. Two members of the public spoke in opposition due to site access issues, small lot
size for the proposed density, parking, traffic, and the existing supply of apartments within the City.
The Planning Commission then deliberated and expressed concerns; issues were raised regarding
the proposed project’s impact on Ellis Avenue traffic, shadows on adjacent properties, unsafe
ingress/egress to the project site, increased U-turns at Patterson Lane, the area of the project
devoted to commercial use being too small, and marginal public open space. Ultimately, the
Planning Commission continued the public hearing and directed staff to return with suggested
findings for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 11, 2019. A full analysis of the
required findings for both the proposed subdivision map and the proposed CUP is contained in the
June 11, 2019, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 5).
At the June 11 meeting, only one speaker,representing the applicant/property owner,spoke in favor
of the project.After deliberations, the Planning Commission denied the project, finding that the
subdivision design is not consistent with the General Plan or the Beach and Edinger Corridors
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 9/4/2019Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™443
File #:19-910 MEETING DATE:9/3/2019
subdivision design is not consistent with the General Plan or the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan (BECSP) in that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies
contained within the General Plan and BECSP (Attachment No. 6).
The Planning Commission also found that development of the proposed project would result in a site
that is not physically suitable for the type of development in that the site will not function as an
integrated development compatible with the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a
single long and narrow 0.95 acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the
proposed mass, bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not
complement the scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project
will generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Avenue and there will be no connectivity for
bicyclists to continue onto Beach Boulevard.
Additionally, the Planning Commission found that approval of the project would result in a site that is
not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the proposed project results in
a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at
an aggregate density of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The Planning Commission was unable to make all of the required findings for a CUP, contained in
Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, and denied the project. The Planning Commission found the
project did not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles
20 through 25 in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood
Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District
of the BECSP. The proposed project site is located within the Five Points District and the Planning
Commission found that the project does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because:
(1) Only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to
commercial use,
(2) There is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and
(3) The project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP’s
vision of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property.
Planning Commission Action on June 11, 2019
A motion was made by Grant, seconded by Kalmick, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with findings carried by the following vote:
AYES: Grant, Kalmick, Mandic, Perkins, Ray, Scandura
NOES: Garcia
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION PASSED
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 9/4/2019Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™444
File #:19-910 MEETING DATE:9/3/2019
C. APPEAL:
On June 20, 2019, the property owner, Tahir Salim, appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of
Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 (Attachment No. 7). The
appeal letter included the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission’s concerns about the project may instead become conditions of
approval.
2. The Planning Commission denied the project for subjective reasons even though the project
complied with the applicable development standards of SP14.
3. The project complies with the land use goals and policies including density, consolidation of
parcels, and provides a range of housing to meet the needs of the City.
The applicant’s appeal also includes additional information for City Council consideration to address
the Planning Commission’s concerns related to project design and access. The applicant provided
traffic control measures for right turn exit only, additional shadow analysis, and letters of support.
The applicant requests the City Council consider the project and the supplemental information in
order to achieve a project design that complies with the applicable General Plan policies and required
findings. However, the revised traffic control measures do not meet Fire Department access
standards and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements.
More importantly, the raised median design would impede Fire Department access to the site
resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact caused by the project.
D. CONTINUANCE:
At the August 19, 2019,City Council meeting, the public hearing was opened. Nine members of the
public spoke during public comments. Seven people spoke in opposition of the project, citing
concerns related to traffic safety and congestion, parking, conflicts with the Elan project, the intensity
of development on the site, insignificant commercial area, the existing supply of apartments in the
City, and trucks and noise on Ellis Ave. Two members of the public, one being the property owner,
spoke in favor of the project. The property owner discussed the proposed improvements to the
project site and the need for additional housing within the City. The other public speaker referenced
the Housing Accountability Act and the need for the City Council to make objective and specific
findings for denial related to health and safety.
City Council Action on August 19, 2019
A motion, made by Posey, seconded by Hardy, to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 to the September 3, 2019, meeting with the public hearing
open, carried by the following vote:
AYES: Brenden, Carr, Semeta, Peterson, Posey, Hardy
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Delgleize
Environmental Status:
Pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457, the proposed
project is covered under the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan adopted Program EIR No. 08
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 9/4/2019Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™445
File #:19-910 MEETING DATE:9/3/2019
project is covered under the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan adopted Program EIR No. 08
-008. Implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse
environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157/ CUP No. 17-042
2. Findings and Conditions of Approval for Approval of TTM No. 18157/ CUP No. 17-042 (as
presented to PC on 5/28/19)
3. Project Plans (see Attachment No. 5 of Attachment No. 4 - May 28, 2019 PC Staff Report)
4. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Suggested Findings for Approval and
Attachments
5. June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report with Suggested Findings for Denial and
Attachments
6. Notice of Action for TTM No. 18157/CUP No. 17-042 with Findings for Denial dated June 12,
2019
7. Appeal of Planning Commission Project Denial received June 20, 2019
8. Public Comments Regarding Appeal of Planning Commission Denial
9. Appellant’s Request for Continuance received and dated August 6, 2019
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 9/4/2019Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™446
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 18157 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042:
The City Council finds and determines that the project will have a negative impact to health and
safety for reasons more particularly described herein:
1. In light of the evidence in the record, the project would have a specific, adverse impact on
public health and safety due to unsafe ingress/egress conditions caused by the project.
Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis Avenue. Due to the proximity
of the project access driveway to the Beach and Ellis intersection, the project will require right
turns only in and out of the project site. This would prohibit motorists from exiting the project
site to turn left onto Ellis Avenue. Residents and visitors also cannot access the project site
from eastbound Ellis Avenue without continuing past the project to make a u-turn at Patterson
Lane to make a right turn into the project site. The Ellis/Patterson intersection is currently
unsignalized. According to the project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a licensed traffic
engineering firm, the project will generate 222 additional u-turns at the Ellis/Patterson
intersection. Based on accident data provided by the Transportation Division of the
Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the Ellis/Patterson intersection has experienced
an increase in traffic accidents within the last few years, while other intersections and street
segments near the project site have had a decrease in accidents . The increase in
approximately 222 u-turns at this intersection as a result of the project will exacerbate accident
rates at this intersection causing an adverse public safety impact. Furthermore, the Traffic
Impact Analysis discloses that motorists entering and exiting the site may experience
significant delays during the PM peak hour due to westbound vehicular queuing along Ellis
Avenue. Traffic delays on Ellis Avenue will contribute to motorists attempting to turn left to
enter and exit the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends installation of a
“STOP” sign and signage restricting outbound movements to right turns only in an effort to
improve safe ingress and egress at the site. However, these measures are not adequate
enough to improve safety and the study also recommends additional driveway treatments to
further regulate the turn restrictions, such as the installation of raised pavement to physically
prevent left turns out of the site. This suggests that is a reasonable assumption that motorists
will lose patience and attempt left turns out of the site onto Ellis Avenue creating an unsafe
condition, particularly during the PM peak hour when there is a long vehicular queue of traffic
on Ellis Avenue in front of the project driveway. Additionally, motorists may attempt to avoid
having to make a u-turn at the unsignalized Ellis/Patterson intersection resulting in additional
delay due to vehicular queuing on westbound Ellis Avenue. These motorists entering the site
from eastbound Ellis Avenue will attempt left turns from a through lane across traffic into the
project driveway creating unsafe conditions on both eastbound and westbound sides of Ellis
Avenue.
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the adverse impact. The site cannot
accommodate an alternative access point or an additional access point to mitigate the
negative safety impacts caused by project generated traffic. The project site does not have
access to another street or alley. The appellant proposed a raised “porkchop” design at the
447
driveway entrance to prevent left turns out of the project site as recommended by the Traffic
Impact Analysis. This could potentially address the adverse health and safety impact to a n
uncertain degree. However, this design does not meet Fire Department access standards
and would result in the project failing to comply with all applicable code requirements.
Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 401 contains minimum standards for fire
apparatus access and No. 403 has additional requirements for driveway width when there are
multiple lanes of travel with an “island divider”, like the proposed driveway with the raised
“porkchop” design. Each lane of travel must be a minimum of 14 ft. wide. Two lanes of travel
require a minimum 28 ft. wide driveway, without counting additional width required for an
“island divider”. The proposed project driveway is 24 ft. wide total. Since the proposed raised
“porkchop” design would take up a portion of the driveway width, it will result in a driveway
that is less than 24 ft. wide. Since the proposed driveway is only 24 ft. wide when there is a
28 ft. minimum width (excluding additional width required for the raised “porkchop”), there is
no feasible mitigation available for the adverse health and safety condition resulting from the
proposed “porkchop” driveway design. The raised “porkchop” design would impede Fire
Department access to the site resulting in an additional adverse health and safety impact
caused by the project. Therefore, insufficient access to the project site and project generated
traffic will have a direct adverse impact to health and safety which cannot be mitigated.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
The City Council finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in
Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein:
1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in
that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the
General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below.
2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of
development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with
the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre
parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and
intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and
proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts
with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to continue
onto Beach Blvd.
3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50
dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density
of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the
goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows:
Land Use Element
448
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to
ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the
community.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale
and character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents,
employees, and visitors.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the
Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city
attractions.
Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation
management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources.
Policy CIRC-1F: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to
achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to
adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project.
Policy CIRC – 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to
consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth,
efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent
with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill
project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character w ith the
surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed
four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story
commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments.
The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to
the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately
five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is
oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west.
Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the
BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the
proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with
the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense
for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor
envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%)
of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use.
449
The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along
the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand
the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates
conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the
project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single
driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn
left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound
Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow
roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from
eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a u-turn
on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though
motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists
who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to
frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042:
The City Council finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required findings,
contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described below:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting
of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with the provisions
of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific
condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located in that the
project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the BECSP,
which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the BECSP.
The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant
commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage
of the project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress
to the site, and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to
the BECSP’s vision of walkability and pedestrian connections betw een public and private
property.
450
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the
environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457,
because the project is a mixed-use development that conforms with the Beach and Edinger
Corridors Specific Plan for which Program EIR No. 08-008 was adopted and implementation of
the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental
impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Compliance with all
applicable mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan will be required of the project. In
light of the whole record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines are present and, therefore, no EIR or MND is required.
The Project, located on the north side of Ellis Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Patterson
Lane, consists of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences with on-
site public and private open space, a three level subterranean parking structure and 891 square
feet of commercial space. The development site is located within the Town Center
Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) area. The
City certified Program EIR No. 08-008 on December 8, 2009 and adopted the BECSP on March
1, 2010. In 2015, the City Council amended the BECSP to reduce the Maximum Amount of
New Development to 2,100 total new dwelling units including 725 units on Beach Boulevard.
There are 200 undeveloped units remaining within the MAND on Beach Boulevard. The 48
units contemplated by the project is within the total new dwelling units permitted on Beach
Boulevard under the approved BECSP. The project conforms to all standards and regulations
of the BECSP development code. Accordingly, no changes requiring revision of the previously
certified Program EIR are proposed as part of the project, nor have any circumstances changed
requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR. In addition, no new information
identifies that implementation of the BECSP, including the project, will have significant effects
that were not discussed in the previously certified Program EIR or that the significant effects
identified in the certified Program EIR will be substantially more severe than determined in the
Program EIR. Nor is there new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives not
previously adopted would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for the consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre
parcel is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on
the subject property. The project complies with all applicable code provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Beach and
Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The project will result in the demolition of an existing
commercial building, one dwelling unit, and a portion of a former car wash and facilitate the
development of a mixed-use building permitted by code. The proposed subdivision is
consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that
govern new subdivisions and residential development.
451
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development in that the project site
is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation,
and drainage perspective. The site is located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan, which permits mixed-use buildings and residential uses within close proximity
of commercial uses. The specific plan is a form-based code that does not rely on density to
limit development, but rather the building form to create an attractive public experience
appealing to pedestrians. By merging the three existing lots into one, the site will function
as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the growing urban Beach
Boulevard corridor.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health
problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat because the site has been previously used as a car wash, one
dwelling unit, and a convenience store. The site does not contain any significant habitat for
wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of
the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan will ensure that the subdivision will not
significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The
project will comply with applicable mitigation measures pursuant to Program EIR No. 08-
008.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. Vehicular
access is provided via a driveway along Ellis Avenue. The subdivision will provide all
necessary street, sidewalk, and utility easements to serve the new subdivision. The project
will dedicate four feet of land to widen the existing sidewalk (public right-of-way) along Ellis
Avenue. The project will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing
easements.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-
042:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting
of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site
improvements will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in
the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood
because as conditioned, the project will result in less than significant impacts related to
traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences. Existing multi-family
residences adjacent to the east will be buffered from the project by an approximately 33 ft. 7
in. setback on the east side of the project site consisting of landscaping and a driveway.
Residents of the project and the general public, including nearby residents, will benefit from
the new commercial portion of the building and the public plaza. Based upon the conditions
of approval and BECSP mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts onto adjacent properties in that the project complies with setbacks, onsite
parking requirements, and allowable building height. The project is a four-story building that
is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale
pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP. The proposed mixed-use
development will be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and
commercial uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. With the conditions of
452
approval imposed, the project’s grading and drainage pattern will result in compatible
finished grades between adjacent properties.
2. The proposed project will comply with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the
Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25
of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) because the project
complies with all other setback standards, building height, top and base architectural
element requirements, and parking.
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently M-sp
(Mixed Use – Specific Plan Overlay). Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the
development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of
retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements is consistent with this
designation and the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is
coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall
goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use
designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and
use standards applicable to each land use designation.
Policy LU-1B: Ensure new development supports the protection and
maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive
reuse of existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible
proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding
encroachment of incompatible land uses.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent
with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods
and city attractions.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic,
physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood
character and residences are well maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with
diverse housing needs.
Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit.
453
Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees
to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services
provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
The proposed development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider
walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public
experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a
plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced
landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of
the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major façade offsets, and
façade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street
frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at
entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The façade skyline is then capped with
parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will
provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity
of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use.
By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur
between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP.
Housing Element
Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development
of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types,
cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote
walkability.
Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing
and encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both
horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations.
Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate
the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach
and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability: Incorporate transit and
other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of
new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit
stops.
The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 would
ensure that the project is developed in accordance with the proposed project
narrative and guarantee that the project provides 5 onsite affordable housing
454
units. The project represents new housing in the City that will help to fulfill the
City’s share of the regional housing need. The proposed project would
accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household
types. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for
affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site
affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing
requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different
activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for
many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and
public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the
need for affordable housing for this segment of the population.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit
and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase
ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions.
Goal CIRC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike
lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-
day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities.
Policy CIRC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate
with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided
for the infrastructure.
The proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing
development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with
new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare.
Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements
through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is
serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave.
and also provides bicycle parking in the subterranean parking structure to
accommodate alternative methods of transportation.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for consolidation of three existing parcels into a one-lot
subdivision for a mixed-use 48 unit residential and 891 square feet commercial development
received and dated April 23, 2019, shall be the approved layout, including the following:
a. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site’s westerly property line) for
Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the
proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to
eliminate any encroachments into said easement.
b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject
site’s westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be
455
quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the
proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said
easement.
2. The Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 shall not be approved by the City Council
until Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 is approved and in effect.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and at least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the
applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants
of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The
notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated
timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone
number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
4. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final
Tract Map (HBZSO 230.84 (A) & 253.10 (K)) (PW):
a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project
frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP)
5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the
Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) shall be submitted to the Departments
of Community Development and Economic Development identifying three on-site units for-
sale as affordable for persons and families of moderate income and two on-site units for-
sale as affordable for persons and families of low income pursuant to Section 230.14 of the
HBZSO. The AHA shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable for persons and
families of low income in the event the project is operated as rental apartment units. The
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council and
shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the tract. The Agreement shall comply with HBZSO Sections 230.14 and
230.26 and include:
i. A detailed description of the type, size and location of the five affordable housing for-
sale units on-site. The mix of designated affordable one bedroom and two bedroom
units shall be determined in the Agreement.
ii. There shall be three on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of
moderate income (up to 120% of the Orange County median income). There shall
be two on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of low income (up
to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income
is adjusted for appropriate household size.
iii. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, the Agreement shall
identify five on-site units for rent as affordable to persons and families of low income
(up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median
income is adjusted for appropriate household size.
iv. Continuous affordability provisions for a period of 45 years (for-sale units) and 55
years (rental units). Any required for-sale affordable units shall be owner-occupied
(not rented or leased).
456
v. Provisions for the affordable units to be constructed prior to or concurrent with the
primary project. Phasing and availability of the affordable units shall be concurrent
with final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit(s), or
contingent upon evidence of the applicant’s reasonable progress towards attainment
of completion of the affordable units.
6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the
Final Map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and
approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify:
a. The common driveway access easements
b. Maintenance of all walls, common landscape areas, and refuse management by
the Homeowners' Association
c. Management of the BMPs per the approved WQMP by the Homeowners'
Association
d. Management of the revised Parking Management Plan pursuant to CUP No. 17-
042 Condition No. 2 to ensure the ongoing control and availability of on-site
parking.
The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO
Section 253.12.H)
7. Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 conditions of approval.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-
042:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 23, 2019 shall be the
conceptually approved design with the following modifications:
a. Depict the controlled access entry gate to the subterranean parking garage
discussed in the Parking Management Plan.
b. The proposed 10 ft. high perimeter block wall shall be revised to a maximum of 8 ft.
high, including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall in accordance with Condition of Approval
No. 6.a.
2. The Parking Management Plan dated April 22, 2019 shall be revised to include the
following:
a. Required parking shall be assigned to and reserved for each unit. Each unit shall be
assigned two reserved parking spaces.
b. The assigned residential parking spaces shall be provided with the rental of a
dwelling unit without any additional cost. (HBZSO 231.18 (D)(2))
3. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with
Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Ellis Ave. Condos.
4. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting
the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading
plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department.
457
Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with
adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common
property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the
applicant shall construct up to an eight (8’) foot tall wall (including up to 2 ft. of retaining
wall) located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum
separation from the property line. The plans shall include some mechanism to close and
secure any gaps. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted
identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Plans shall
depict any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common
walls and sidewalls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties.
The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage.
5. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide
notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot
radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general
description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and
completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the
grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department.
6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed:
a. The proposed drainage pattern and system shall be reevaluated to reduce potential
grading impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and west by
incorporating localized collection points and result in a maximum two ft. grade
differential and maximum two ft. high retaining wall. The retaining wall may be
topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall.
b. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site’s westerly property line) for
Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the
proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate
any encroachments into said easement. (PW)
c. The existing 20-foot easement over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site’s
westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to
eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building. (PW)
d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Division to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for
employees, customers and contractors during the project’s construction phase and
that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The
property owner/developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the
Department of Public Works.
e. All design and construction shall be per the City Standard codes and street
configuration and specifications of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
The frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the “Neighborhood Streets”
configuration.
458
f. A lighting plan depicting the boulevard-scale street lighting and pedestrian-scale
street lighting along Ellis Ave. shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Planning Division and Public Works
Department.
7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first
three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits
(architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be
referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be
12 point.
b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Community
Development Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the
Fire Department.
c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s).
d. One set of project plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 and one 8 ½ inch by 11
inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette,
revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be
submitted for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning
Division.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. The applicant shall submit plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 to Republic
Services for review. Proof of Republic Services approval shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department.
b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to
Condition No. 1 for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the
Community Development Department.
c. A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The
Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following:
i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type;
ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale;
iii. Fire hydrant locations, public and private;
iv. FDC locations;
v. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving;
vi. FACP locations;
vii. Knox box and knox switch locations;
viii. Gate locations, and opticoms if required;
459
ix. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and
circles/cul-dee-sacs;
x. Fire lane signage and striping.
xi. The conceptual Alternative Materials and Methods Strategy shall be finalized
to demonstrate compliance with exterior hose pull distance requirements.
(FD)
9. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the following shall be completed:
a. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public
Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for
right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised
curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84)
b. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the
continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting,
furniture and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public
right-of-way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as
enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm
replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the
development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the
property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. (PW)
c. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project’s Ellis Avenue frontage
shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial
distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of
the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited
to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If require, easements shall be
quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies.
(PW)
10. The use shall comply with the following:
a. All ground floor entry points to residences shall be monitored by secured FOB type
entries. (PD)
11. The developer or developer’s representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy
of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval.
12. CUP No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of
the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a
written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days
prior to the expiration date.
13. Incorporating sustainable or “green” building practices into the design of the proposed
structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building
practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program
460
certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19) or Build It Green’s
Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/green-building-
guidelines-rating).
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different
from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney’s fees and
costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any
approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council,
Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense
thereof.
461
462
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE.
CONDOS)
REQUEST:
To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use
building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of
commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project
exempt from CEQA.
LOCATION:
8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson
Ln.)
APPLICANT:
Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA
92882
BUSINESS
OWNER:
N/A
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach’s adopted land use
regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger
Corridors Specific Plan)?
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 1 of 17
powered by Legistar™463
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
Conditional Use Permit?
3. Has the appropriate level of environmental analysis appropriately identified all environmental
impacts with appropriate mitigation?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457.
B) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with
suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
A) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct
staff to return with findings for denial.
B) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04 and direct staff
accordingly.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The project site is approximately 0.95 acres and consists of three parcels with two existing buildings -
a liquor store and a residence. The existing buildings will be demolished in order to construct the
proposed four-story building with three levels of subterranean parking. The north side of the project
site was formerly utilized as part of the Metro Car Wash located at 18400 Beach Boulevard. Metro
Car Wash has ceased operations and the owner of 18400 Beach Boulevard is currently constructing
a new car wash on the property. The proposed condominium project and new car wash do not have
any overlapping elements and are entirely separate projects.
According to the Applicant’s narrative (Attachment No. 3), the project owner intends for the units to
be sold to individual buyers as condominiums so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building
maintenance, regular up-keep, and cleaning will be handled by the HOA management team via
contracts with local services. The project owner proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in
order to comply with the Affordable Housing requirement. In the event the project is operated as
rental apartment units, five on-site units will be designated as rentals affordable to low income
households.
Background:
1.In 2010, the City adopted the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14). The goal of
SP14 was to transform the current development of commercial strip centers lined with surface
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 2 of 17
powered by Legistar™464
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
SP14 was to transform the current development of commercial strip centers lined with surface
parking lots and generally low-rise commercial buildings to a pattern of centers and segments
characterized with clusters of shops and activity of varying intensity. These new active areas
would include a mix of residential, offices, and commercial uses oriented to alternative modes
of transportation including walking and bicycling. Along the Beach Boulevard corridor near
Ellis Avenue, the development of a “Town-Center Neighborhood” segment would feature the
City’s widest range of contemporary housing types and possibly a wide mixture of uses.
2. In 2015, the City Council amended SP14 to decrease the total number of residential units
allowed from 4,500 to 2,100, increase setbacks, increase minimum parking standards, require
upper story setbacks, require a commercial component in all residential buildings, and permit
residential subject to approval of a CUP. Other amendments related to auto dealers and civic
and cultural uses were also approved. Out of the 2,100 Maximum Amount of New
Development (MAND) units currently permitted, approximately 1,900 have been constructed
leaving a balance of 200 units.
Study Session:
The Planning Commission held a Study Session on May 14, 2019 and discussed the following
issues:
General
Solar panels on adjacent properties
The Planning Commission discussed the potential impact of the project on adjacent properties to the
east that have rooftop solar panels. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis exhibit
(Attachment No. 6). Per the exhibit, the adjacent buildings to the east may experience
shade/shadow beginning at approximately 6:00 PM during the summer months, approximately 4:00
PM during the fall months, and approximately 3:30 PM during the winter months.
Distance of the project site from the intersection
The proposed project site is approximately 96 ft. from the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave.
Pets
At this time, the applicant has not provided information regarding pets at the property.
Comparable projects
The Planning Commission requested a list of comparable projects. Staff has prepared an exhibit of
comparable completed projects within SP14 (Attachment No. 7).
Revised site plan for clarity
The Planning Commission requested a revised site plan exhibit which removes the utilities and other
layers in order to depict the property lines, setbacks, etc. more clearly. The applicant has prepared a
revised site plan to fulfill this request (Attachment No. 8).
Environmental
Artifacts on the project site
Since the project site has been previously disturbed and developed, it is not likely that construction of
the proposed project will result in discovery of cultural resources. Program Environmental Impact
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 3 of 17
powered by Legistar™465
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
the proposed project will result in discovery of cultural resources. Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) No. 08-008 for BECSP included a Cultural and Paleontological Resources survey of the
entire SP14 area. Two archeological sites were identified within the SP14 area and are labeled as
CA-ORA-296 and CA-ORA-358. CA-ORA-296 is located on the west side of Newland Ave. between
Slater Ave. and Talbert Ave. CA-ORA-358 is located on the corner of Indianapolis Ave. and Beach
Blvd. Neither of these sites are within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Although there
are no archeological sites near the project, the project will comply with BECSP MM 4.4 regarding
Cultural and Paleontological Resources. For example, in the event that native soil is disturbed, an
archeology professional will be retained to determine if a substantial adverse change would occur to
an archeological resource.
Acoustic study
The Planning Commission asked why the Acoustic Study is not required to be submitted prior to
project approval. The BECSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes Mitigation
Measure 4.9-5 which requires an acoustic study to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
The acoustic study will present an analysis of the potential noise impacts of the surrounding
environment on exterior (ex: patios and balconies) and interior components of the proposed project.
MM 4.9-5 includes a provision that requires final project design to incorporate special design
measures in the construction of the proposed residential units, if necessary.
Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14)
Zoning Pre-2010
Prior to the 2010 adoption of SP14, the property had a General Plan Land Use designation of CG -
F2 - d (Commercial General - Flood Overlay - design overlay) and a Zoning designation of CG
(General Commercial).
Did SP14 envision narrow lot development or unconsolidated development?
SP14 divides the Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. corridors into five general areas or segments. The
overall vision for SP14 is to develop primarily residential and neighborhood retail uses in the southern
portion of Beach Boulevard, transitioning to mixed uses in the middle segment of Beach Boulevard,
then to a more dense “town center” adjacent to and at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and
Edinger Avenue, and extending along Edinger Avenue. Geographically, the intention is to intensify
land uses as one travels north along Beach Boulevard from the southern boundary of the SP area.
The project site is within the Five Points district of SP14, which is envisioned to enable investment in
a visible, mixed-use cluster at this central location. SP14 discusses infill development on
underutilized properties responding to the broad framework of the Specific Plan which will contribute
to an emerging pattern of coherent arrangements of buildings, streets, and blocks. Although it might
be ideal for clusters of small properties to consolidate and propose a unified project, it is not always
possible due to market conditions and the interests of individual property owners. This is
contemplated in the SP14 Development Concept which states that the common purpose of
development within the Specific Plan is the realization of a vision of the future that is sufficiently
specific to meet the revitalization goals, yet loose enough to respond to opportunities and changes in
the marketplace that will inevitably arise.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 4 of 17
powered by Legistar™466
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Traffic Impacts, Traffic Improvements, and Grading
Required Dedications
The Public Works Department has indicated that the only dedication the project requires is a four foot
dedication along Ellis Ave.
Traffic Mitigation
The Public Works Department has indicated that payment of fair share traffic fees and
implementation of a right in, right out only driveway along with on-street striping and driveway
improvements to supplement the right in/out only movements are the required traffic mitigations. The
project does not result in other traffic related impacts requiring mitigation.
Also, the Planning Commission requested information regarding Level of Service (LOS) in the project
vicinity. LOS is a method of describing the delays experienced by drivers at a particular intersection
or roadway. If a project is determined to create a significant traffic delay, it may impact and
downgrade the LOS rating. The Traffic Impact Analysis finds that the proposed project driveway is
forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2020 traffic
conditions. LOS B is defined as 0.61 - 0.70 seconds of delay and is described as a very good traffic
condition with short delays. It must be noted that although the level of service calculation indicates
LOS B operations at the project driveway, residents of the project may experience delays
entering/exiting the project site due to vehicle queueing on Ellis Ave. The Public Works Department
has prepared a summary of volume to capacity ratio at AM/PM Peak Hours in the project vicinity
(Attachment No. 11).
Will payment of fees at “full buildout” of SP14 cover all needs for traffic?
The Public Works Department has indicated that collection of the fair share payment is sufficient to
mitigate all the identified intersection improvements of the Specific Plan.
Description of all traffic requirements for the project
The Public Works Department has indicated that the following items are required related to traffic and
street improvements: BECSP EIR Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measures (by payment of fair
share traffic impact fees), BECSP Streetscape Improvement Development Standards (four ft.
dedication), CP Circulation Element and PW standards (with implementation of right in/out driveway,
on-street striping, and driveway improvements).
North side grading
The preliminary grading plan (Attachment No. 12) depicts the subject site with a grade of
approximately 6.6 ft. for drainage purposes with a 6.6 ft. high retaining wall. The six ft. grade is
proposed as the highest point with a gradual reduction in grade to approximately three to four ft. near
the subterranean garage entrance. Staff recommends a condition of approval (Attachment No. 1) to
require the proposed drainage pattern and system to be revised prior to issuance of a grading permit
to reduce retaining wall and grade differential impacts to adjacent properties to the north, east, and
west. Staff recommends a maximum two ft. retaining wall may be constructed and topped with a
maximum six ft. high block wall.
What (if any) grading or construction activities can occur outside of 10 AM - 4 PM? What time can
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 5 of 17
powered by Legistar™467
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
they start grading?
Public Works Code Requirements for the project limit the hours of hauling trucks at the site from 8:00
A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday - Friday only. The BECSP Mitigation Measures limit high noise-producing
activities to the hours of 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Fire Access
Ladder pads
Per the Huntington Beach Fire Department, all bedroom windows are required to be accessible from
ground ladders. The applicant has provided HBFD with plans that show the ladder pads for ground
ladder access to egress windows.
Elan
Statistics on increased accidents due to Elan
The Public Works Department has provided information regarding accident rates at three
intersections in the project vicinity three years prior to occupancy of the Elan building and three years
after the occupancy of the Elan building (Attachment No. 9). The analysis concludes that accidents
after the occupancy of Elan have decreased compared to the rate of accidents prior to the occupancy
of Elan.
Comparison of the proposed project to Elan
On May 15, 2012 the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 12-001 (Elan) to develop
a mixed use project consisting of 274 residential units including six live-work units, 8,500 square feet
of commercial space, an internal 430 space parking garage and 54,546 sf of private and public open
space on a 2.74 acre site. The Planning Commission requested a comparison chart of the proposed
project to Elan. It must be noted that Elan was approved prior to the 2015 BECSP Amendments
which included the following revisions to topics relevant to Elan and the proposed project:
·Reduce the residential Maximum Amount of Net New Development (MAND) from 4,500 units
to 2,100 units
·Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all residential and mixed use
(residential/commercial) projects
·Increase the residential parking requirements
·Increase front yard setbacks on all public streets
·Limit maximum building height to four stories
·Create an upper-story setback above the third floor
·Require all residential projects to include retail/commercial uses at the street level
Provision Elan Proposed Project
Number of Units 274 48
Density 100 units per acre 50 units per acre
Height Ellis Ave.: ranges from 4-6 stories
4th story: 43 ft. high 6th story: 63 ft.
6 in. high
4 stories 46 ft. to the highest point
Setbacks Ellis Ave.: 0 ft. 2 in.Ellis Ave.: 30 ft. Upper story
setback: 11 ft. 1 in. setback along
front and sides of building for a
depth of 101 ft. 10 in. on the 4th
floor
Parking 1-2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 6 of 17
powered by Legistar™468
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Elan Proposed ProjectNumber of Units 274 48
Density 100 units per acre 50 units per acre
Height Ellis Ave.: ranges from 4-6 stories
4th story: 43 ft. high 6th story: 63 ft.
6 in. high
4 stories 46 ft. to the highest point
Setbacks Ellis Ave.: 0 ft. 2 in.Ellis Ave.: 30 ft. Upper story
setback: 11 ft. 1 in. setback along
front and sides of building for a
depth of 101 ft. 10 in. on the 4th
floor
Parking 1-2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit
The Planning Commission also asked for information regarding trip generation rates for the proposed
project compared to Elan. The Public Works Department has prepared a trip generation analysis
comparison for both projects (Attachment No. 10).
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Subject Property And Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning And Land Uses:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property:M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Convenience store
and one residence
North of Subject
Property:
M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Hotel and commercial
shopping center
East of Subject
Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
Multi-family housing
South of Subject
Property:
M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Mixed-use retail and
multi-family housing
(Elan)
West of Subject
Property:
M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Drive-through
restaurant and car
wash (under
construction)
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Mixed Use - Specific Plan
Overlay. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the
City’s General Plan as follows:
A. Land Use Element
Goal LU-1:New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure
that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A:Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented
in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land
use designation.
Policy LU-1B:Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of
environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C:Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 7 of 17
powered by Legistar™469
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Policy LU-1C:Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D:Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and
character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2D:Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
Policy LU-3A:Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land
Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions.
Goal LU-4:A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and
social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences
are well maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4A:Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse
housing needs.
Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit.
Goal LU-13:The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a
high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13A:Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to
accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific
Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space
areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open
space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with
enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the
building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major façade offsets, and façade composition
changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along
the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The façade
skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use
development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of
new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of
land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision
and viability of the BECSP.
B. Housing Element
Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices:Provide site opportunities for development of housing
that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location,
emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability.
Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use:Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and
encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal andCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 8 of 17
powered by Legistar™470
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and
vertical mixed-use configurations.
Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan:Encourage and facilitate the provision
of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan.
Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability:Incorporate transit and other
transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development,
particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops.
The project includes six one-bedroom units and forty-two two-bedroom units that would
accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. The units
range from 645 - 880 sf. The proposed project will help to fulfill the City’s share of the regional
housing need by providing smaller dwelling units which will be more financially attainable by virtue of
size. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing.
The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with
the affordable housing requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to
different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many
households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete
their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment
of the population.
C.Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-3a:Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of
employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with
a focus on first/last mile solutions.
Goal CIRC-6:Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes,
equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-day required activities
in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities.
Policy CIRC-6(C):Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with
pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the
infrastructure.
Although the site is relatively narrow, the proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and
existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new
landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is
improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and
wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd.
and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the underground parking structure to
accommodate alternative methods of transportation.
Zoning Compliance:
The proposed project is located within Specific Plan No. 14 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific
Plan and complies with the requirements of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment. The purpose
of the BECSP is to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality ofCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 9 of 17
powered by Legistar™471
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
of the BECSP is to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of
the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. Future development would transform existing
commercial strips, which are predominantly lined with large expanses of pavement or
underperforming uses, to a pattern of centers and segments generating increased activity and
greater interaction between developments. As previously mentioned, the project site is located in the
Town Center Neighborhood segment of the Five Points District within the BECSP. The Five Points
District is designated as a potential City center characterized by convenience and urban vitality.
Development within the Town Center Neighborhood segment is encouraged to be revitalized through
infill development on underutilized properties. This segment is envisioned to have greater
development intensity than surrounding segments, including new apartments or condominiums with
shopfronts and parking areas screened from view. Development is to be more compact in this
segment in order to provide the activity expected in a vibrant urban district.
The table below shows an overview of the project’s conformance to the significant development
standards of the BECSP. In addition, a list of City Code Requirements of the applicable provisions of
the BECSP and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal
Code has been provided to the applicant and attached to this report (Attachment No. 19) for
informational purposes only.
Provision Town Center
Neighborhood
Proposed Project
2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residential
Commercial
42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1
one bedroom units 891 sf
commercial retail
2.2.2 Special Retail
Configuration
n/a n/a
2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of the
proposed 48 units 4.8 units
required
5 affordable units to be
constructed on-site
2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 stories
Ground floor retail - 14 ft.
min. floor to ceiling
Adjacent to housing
4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling
45° slope complies
2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max
2.3.4 Special Building
Length
Limited mid-block building -
max. 80 ft.
54 ft.
2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to
3L:1H
Complies with massing
range
2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to Ellis
Ave.
2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types including
shopfront, corner entry,
common lobby, etc.
Ellis Ave. elevation:
Shopfront - 24 ft. long
Internal elevation: Common
Lobby Entry
2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.
Upper story setback - 10 ft.
along front and sides of a
building for a depth of
minimum 100 ft. for
structures above the 3rd floor
30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.
setback for a depth of 101 ft.
10 in.
2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows
- 10 ft.
West side: 10 ft. East side:
33 ft. 7 in.
2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.
2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a
2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a
2.4.8 Space Between
Buildings
n/a n/a
2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a
2.5.1 Improvements to
Existing Streets
Neighborhood Streets
required - 12 ft. total
including 6 ft. wide planter
and 6 ft. wide sidewalk
12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter
6 ft. wide sidewalk
2.5.2 Provision of New
Streets
n/a n/a
2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a
2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a
2.5.5 Required East-West
Street Connection
n/a n/a
2.5.6 Residential
Transition-Boundary
Street
n/a n/a
2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a
2.6.1 Provision of Public
Open Space
Residential - min.50 sf. per
unit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.
50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.
2,444.5 sf. required
2,703 sf.
2.6.2 Special Public Open
Space
n/a n/a
2.6.3 Provision of Private
Open Space
Residential - 60 sf. per unit
x 48 total units = 2,880 sf.
4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =
2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281
sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor
units excluded from private
open space calculation due
to noncompliant porch type)
2.6.4 Public Open Space
Types
Provide either: Park, Linear
Green, Square, Plaza, Mid-
Block Green, Courtyard
Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or
Pocket Park/Playground
Plaza
2.6.5 Private Open Space
Types
Provide either: Courtyard,
Private Yard, Rooftop Deck
or Garden, or Balcony
1st floor units - noncompliant
porch (excluded from private
open space calculations) 2
nd - 4th floor units - balconies
4th floor - rooftop deck
2.6.6 Stormwater
Management
Best Management Practices
required
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.7 Stormwater BMP
Types
Source Control BMPs, Site
Design BMPs, Treatment
Control BMPs
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.8 Open Space
Landscaping
Required Public plaza furniture
Decorative stamped
concrete paving treatment
2.6.9 Setback Area
Landscaping Types
Perimeter Block Setback
Area -Sidewalk extension
required with Shopfront:
paving material consistent
with the public right-of-way
Interior Block Setback Area -
Groundcover required: cover
side and rear yard areas
with landscaping or other
pervious surfaces
Sidewalk extension
provided : decorative
stamped concrete paving to
provide continuity
w/sidewalk Side and rear
yards landscaped with
shrubs, trees, and
groundcover
2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12
required) 2 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84
required) Guest = 0.5 min/1
units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12
spaces provided 2 bedroom
= 84 spaces provided Guest
= 24 spaces provided Retail
= 5 spaces provided Total:
125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 10 of 17
powered by Legistar™472
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Town CenterNeighborhood Proposed Project2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residentialCommercial 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1one bedroom units 891 sfcommercial retail2.2.2 Special RetailConfiguration n/a n/a2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of theproposed 48 units 4.8 unitsrequired 5 affordable units to beconstructed on-site2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 storiesGround floor retail - 14 ft.min. floor to ceilingAdjacent to housing 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling45° slope complies2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max2.3.4 Special BuildingLength Limited mid-block building -max. 80 ft.54 ft.2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to
3L:1H
Complies with massing
range
2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to Ellis
Ave.
2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types including
shopfront, corner entry,
common lobby, etc.
Ellis Ave. elevation:
Shopfront - 24 ft. long
Internal elevation: Common
Lobby Entry
2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.
Upper story setback - 10 ft.
along front and sides of a
building for a depth of
minimum 100 ft. for
structures above the 3rd floor
30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.
setback for a depth of 101 ft.
10 in.
2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows
- 10 ft.
West side: 10 ft. East side:
33 ft. 7 in.
2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.
2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a
2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a
2.4.8 Space Between
Buildings
n/a n/a
2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a
2.5.1 Improvements to
Existing Streets
Neighborhood Streets
required - 12 ft. total
including 6 ft. wide planter
and 6 ft. wide sidewalk
12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter
6 ft. wide sidewalk
2.5.2 Provision of New
Streets
n/a n/a
2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a
2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a
2.5.5 Required East-West
Street Connection
n/a n/a
2.5.6 Residential
Transition-Boundary
Street
n/a n/a
2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a
2.6.1 Provision of Public
Open Space
Residential - min.50 sf. per
unit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.
50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.
2,444.5 sf. required
2,703 sf.
2.6.2 Special Public Open
Space
n/a n/a
2.6.3 Provision of Private
Open Space
Residential - 60 sf. per unit
x 48 total units = 2,880 sf.
4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =
2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281
sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor
units excluded from private
open space calculation due
to noncompliant porch type)
2.6.4 Public Open Space
Types
Provide either: Park, Linear
Green, Square, Plaza, Mid-
Block Green, Courtyard
Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or
Pocket Park/Playground
Plaza
2.6.5 Private Open Space
Types
Provide either: Courtyard,
Private Yard, Rooftop Deck
or Garden, or Balcony
1st floor units - noncompliant
porch (excluded from private
open space calculations) 2
nd - 4th floor units - balconies
4th floor - rooftop deck
2.6.6 Stormwater
Management
Best Management Practices
required
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.7 Stormwater BMP
Types
Source Control BMPs, Site
Design BMPs, Treatment
Control BMPs
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.8 Open Space
Landscaping
Required Public plaza furniture
Decorative stamped
concrete paving treatment
2.6.9 Setback Area
Landscaping Types
Perimeter Block Setback
Area -Sidewalk extension
required with Shopfront:
paving material consistent
with the public right-of-way
Interior Block Setback Area -
Groundcover required: cover
side and rear yard areas
with landscaping or other
pervious surfaces
Sidewalk extension
provided : decorative
stamped concrete paving to
provide continuity
w/sidewalk Side and rear
yards landscaped with
shrubs, trees, and
groundcover
2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12
required) 2 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84
required) Guest = 0.5 min/1
units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12
spaces provided 2 bedroom
= 84 spaces provided Guest
= 24 spaces provided Retail
= 5 spaces provided Total:
125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 11 of 17
powered by Legistar™473
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Town CenterNeighborhood Proposed Project2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residentialCommercial 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1one bedroom units 891 sfcommercial retail2.2.2 Special RetailConfiguration n/a n/a2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of theproposed 48 units 4.8 unitsrequired 5 affordable units to beconstructed on-site2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 storiesGround floor retail - 14 ft.min. floor to ceilingAdjacent to housing 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling45° slope complies2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max2.3.4 Special BuildingLength Limited mid-block building -max. 80 ft.54 ft.2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to3L:1H Complies with massingrange2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to EllisAve.2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types includingshopfront, corner entry,common lobby, etc.Ellis Ave. elevation:Shopfront - 24 ft. longInternal elevation: CommonLobby Entry2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.Upper story setback - 10 ft.along front and sides of abuilding for a depth ofminimum 100 ft. forstructures above the 3rd floor 30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.setback for a depth of 101 ft.10 in.2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows- 10 ft.West side: 10 ft. East side:33 ft. 7 in.2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a2.4.8 Space BetweenBuildings n/a n/a2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a2.5.1 Improvements toExisting Streets Neighborhood Streetsrequired - 12 ft. totalincluding 6 ft. wide planterand 6 ft. wide sidewalk 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter6 ft. wide sidewalk2.5.2 Provision of NewStreets n/a n/a2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a2.5.5 Required East-WestStreet Connection n/a n/a2.5.6 ResidentialTransition-BoundaryStreet n/a n/a2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a2.6.1 Provision of PublicOpen Space Residential - min.50 sf. perunit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.
2,444.5 sf. required
2,703 sf.
2.6.2 Special Public Open
Space
n/a n/a
2.6.3 Provision of Private
Open Space
Residential - 60 sf. per unit
x 48 total units = 2,880 sf.
4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =
2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281
sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor
units excluded from private
open space calculation due
to noncompliant porch type)
2.6.4 Public Open Space
Types
Provide either: Park, Linear
Green, Square, Plaza, Mid-
Block Green, Courtyard
Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or
Pocket Park/Playground
Plaza
2.6.5 Private Open Space
Types
Provide either: Courtyard,
Private Yard, Rooftop Deck
or Garden, or Balcony
1st floor units - noncompliant
porch (excluded from private
open space calculations) 2
nd - 4th floor units - balconies
4th floor - rooftop deck
2.6.6 Stormwater
Management
Best Management Practices
required
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.7 Stormwater BMP
Types
Source Control BMPs, Site
Design BMPs, Treatment
Control BMPs
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.8 Open Space
Landscaping
Required Public plaza furniture
Decorative stamped
concrete paving treatment
2.6.9 Setback Area
Landscaping Types
Perimeter Block Setback
Area -Sidewalk extension
required with Shopfront:
paving material consistent
with the public right-of-way
Interior Block Setback Area -
Groundcover required: cover
side and rear yard areas
with landscaping or other
pervious surfaces
Sidewalk extension
provided : decorative
stamped concrete paving to
provide continuity
w/sidewalk Side and rear
yards landscaped with
shrubs, trees, and
groundcover
2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12
required) 2 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84
required) Guest = 0.5 min/1
units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12
spaces provided 2 bedroom
= 84 spaces provided Guest
= 24 spaces provided Retail
= 5 spaces provided Total:
125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 12 of 17
powered by Legistar™474
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Town CenterNeighborhood Proposed Project2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residentialCommercial 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1one bedroom units 891 sfcommercial retail2.2.2 Special RetailConfiguration n/a n/a2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of theproposed 48 units 4.8 unitsrequired 5 affordable units to beconstructed on-site2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 storiesGround floor retail - 14 ft.min. floor to ceilingAdjacent to housing 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling45° slope complies2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max2.3.4 Special BuildingLength Limited mid-block building -max. 80 ft.54 ft.2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to3L:1H Complies with massingrange2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to EllisAve.2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types includingshopfront, corner entry,common lobby, etc.Ellis Ave. elevation:Shopfront - 24 ft. longInternal elevation: CommonLobby Entry2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.Upper story setback - 10 ft.along front and sides of abuilding for a depth ofminimum 100 ft. forstructures above the 3rd floor 30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.setback for a depth of 101 ft.10 in.2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows- 10 ft.West side: 10 ft. East side:33 ft. 7 in.2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a2.4.8 Space BetweenBuildings n/a n/a2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a2.5.1 Improvements toExisting Streets Neighborhood Streetsrequired - 12 ft. totalincluding 6 ft. wide planterand 6 ft. wide sidewalk 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter6 ft. wide sidewalk2.5.2 Provision of NewStreets n/a n/a2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a2.5.5 Required East-WestStreet Connection n/a n/a2.5.6 ResidentialTransition-BoundaryStreet n/a n/a2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a2.6.1 Provision of PublicOpen Space Residential - min.50 sf. perunit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.2,444.5 sf. required 2,703 sf.2.6.2 Special Public OpenSpace n/a n/a2.6.3 Provision of PrivateOpen Space Residential - 60 sf. per unitx 48 total units = 2,880 sf.4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floorunits excluded from privateopen space calculation dueto noncompliant porch type)2.6.4 Public Open SpaceTypes Provide either: Park, LinearGreen, Square, Plaza, Mid-Block Green, CourtyardPlaza, Passage/Paseo, orPocket Park/Playground Plaza2.6.5 Private Open SpaceTypes Provide either: Courtyard,Private Yard, Rooftop Deckor Garden, or Balcony 1st floor units - noncompliantporch (excluded from privateopen space calculations) 2nd - 4th floor units - balconies4th floor - rooftop deck2.6.6 StormwaterManagement Best Management Practicesrequired Provided - WQMP requiredto ensure compliance2.6.7 Stormwater BMPTypes Source Control BMPs, SiteDesign BMPs, TreatmentControl BMPs Provided - WQMP requiredto ensure compliance2.6.8 Open SpaceLandscaping Required Public plaza furnitureDecorative stampedconcrete paving treatment2.6.9 Setback AreaLandscaping Types Perimeter Block SetbackArea -Sidewalk extensionrequired with Shopfront:paving material consistentwith the public right-of-wayInterior Block Setback Area -Groundcover required: coverside and rear yard areaswith landscaping or otherpervious surfaces Sidewalk extensionprovided : decorativestamped concrete paving toprovide continuityw/sidewalk Side and rearyards landscaped withshrubs, trees, andgroundcover2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12required) 2 bedroom @ 2min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84required) Guest = 0.5 min/1units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12spaces provided 2 bedroom= 84 spaces provided Guest= 24 spaces provided Retail= 5 spaces provided Total:125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
BECSP Conformance
The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Town Center Neighborhood segment of the
BECSP as stated above and overall objective of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach
Boulevard corridor by providing 48 residential units to support the commercial opportunities existing
and anticipated in the vicinity. The project also includes 891 sf. of commercial space to serve
residents of the project and nearby neighborhoods. The project site is also within close proximity to
other key developments including Five Points Plaza and Elan, which provide the commercial and
public services that the proposed development will support. The urban environment will further form
when there is sufficient supporting residential uses to accommodate the growing commercial uses.
Alternate modes of travel such as walking and bicycling become more appealing when enhanced
larger walkways are provided and integrated between developments. Proposed site improvements
will provide wider pedestrian sidewalks throughout the project and an open public plaza. As
discussed under the Zoning Conformance section of this report, the project complies with the BECSP
development code and does not include any requests to deviate from the development standards.
Adequate emergency access is provided in and around the site with the driveway from Ellis Ave.,
also functioning as the fire lane. Sufficient parking (exceeds code requirements) for the residential
and commercial portion of the project is incorporated in a subterranean parking structure which
supports the BECSP vision for quality urban spaces.
The project is within the allowable MAND in the BECSP. As of the 2015 BECSP amendment, the
Beach Boulevard corridor has 525 dwelling units approved of which 325 dwelling units have been
constructed. There is a remaining capacity of 200 units in the Beach Boulevard corridor. The Beach
Boulevard corridor also has a MAND of 532,000 sf. for retail development. The proposed project
includes 891 sf. of retail space and 48 dwelling units, which do not exceed the Beach Boulevard
corridor MAND.
Building Massing and Scale
The BECSP relies on massing and scale to dictate the desired building form and interaction with the
public experience. As the building expands horizontally, the height of the building is vertically
proportioned for orientation to the pedestrian environment. The flat plane of the façade is then
separated into volumes accented with insets, offsets, notches, material and colors changes. For the
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 13 of 17
powered by Legistar™475
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
separated into volumes accented with insets, offsets, notches, material and colors changes. For the
proposed design, the building facades incorporate a variety of attractive elements. The dominant
treatment along the exterior base involves brick veneer as well as the placement of metal trellises
and canopies on the ground floor building entrances. The top element of the facades applies
cornices and varied rooflines. Inset balconies and intermittent setbacks combine with rich
landscaping to beautify the street frontages creating an inviting pedestrian and public space.
The maximum allowable height for the subject site is four stories. The proposed building is four
stories high and 46 ft. tall at the highest point of the building cornice. As seen along the Ellis Ave.
frontage, the height is articulated from the pedestrian scale featuring a 20 ft. high retail portion of the
building and a notch at the residential entrance. The facades facing Beach Blvd. (west) and
Patterson Ln. (east) are further articulated with the addition of metal trellises and open railings on
third and fourth floor balconies. The pedestrian bridge provides architectural relief and reduces
visual massing via transmission of light and air through the building frontage.
Land Use Compatibility
The proposed four-story mixed-use development is compatible with existing and anticipated land
uses in the immediate vicinity. This includes the mixed-use Elan building which ranges in height from
4-6 stories on Ellis Ave. and is also composed of a mixture of commercial and residential land uses.
The project will be served by the existing commercial uses to the north, west, and south (Elan) of the
project site. Existing multi-family residential uses are located east of the site and existing single
family residential uses are located further east, beyond Patterson Ln. The project will not significantly
impact existing residential uses because the proposed building is located approximately 260 feet
away from the nearest single family residential building. Existing multi-family residences are buffered
from the proposed commercial use through perimeter setback areas of landscaping, sidewalks, and a
driveway. Interior noise would be minimized through noise attenuation features. Development of the
site would enhance the visual image of the Beach Boulevard corridor and expand the vision of the
specific plan.
Site Layout & Circulation
Access
Vehicular access to the project site is proposed via one primary entry point on Ellis Avenue. There
are no improvements necessary to the existing street or medians to accommodate vehicular access
to the project site. The driveway on Ellis Ave. is designed with two-way travel lanes which provide
entrance into the subterranean parking structure.
The project will enhance the pedestrian experience on Ellis Ave. by dedicating four ft. of property to
provide a 12 ft. wide public right-of-way. Pedestrian access to the project site will feature a six ft.
wide planter along the street frontage which buffers the adjacent six ft. wide sidewalk. The sidewalk
along Ellis Ave. is also adjacent to the proposed public plaza. The building is oriented towards the
street which connects the sidewalk to the shopfront retail entrance and the common lobby residential
entrance along Ellis Ave. Interior corridors connect the residential units to the parking garage and
roof deck via stairs/elevators. The sidewalk connects to a pathway which provides access to the
ground floor residential entrance and pedestrian security gates. The security gates will enclose the
residential area from the public open space through controlled access scan cards.
The project’s access points have been designed to comply with the requirements of the BECSP andCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 14 of 17
powered by Legistar™476
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
The project’s access points have been designed to comply with the requirements of the BECSP and
respond to the Fire Department’s request for emergency access. The site includes a fire truck
turnabout and marked fire lanes. The project has proposed an Alternate Means & Methods (AM&M)
strategy to satisfy exterior hose pull distance requirements. The AM&M has been reviewed and
conceptually approved by the HBFD.
Open Space
The 2,703 sf. public open space plaza is accessible via the public sidewalk on Ellis Ave. and visible
along the street frontage. The plaza includes seating areas for public use and decorative stamped
concrete pathways which encourages public use from the sidewalk. The inclusion of these
improvements creates an inviting pedestrian experience for both visitors and residents.
The project proposes porches as private open space for the ground floor residential units. Although
each of the ground floor residents will benefit from the enjoyment of open space accessible directly
from their unit, the porch type private open space is noncompliant with the Town Center
Neighborhood segment of BECSP. For this reason, the ground floor porches are excluded from
private open space calculations for the project. All residents will have access to the fourth floor roof
deck common area. Units on the fourth floor also have private balconies which are separate from the
common area.
Parking
The 2015 amendments to the BECSP increased the parking ratio requirements from the original
2010 adoption of the BECSP. The proposed project meets and exceeds the minimum amount of
required vehicle parking based on the current BECSP. A total of 125 parking spaces are required for
the project and a total of 128 parking spaces are provided. The project provides 120 parking spaces
for residences, including 24 spaces reserved for guests, and 5 spaces reserved for the retail tenant.
The subterranean parking structure will provide access to all 128 parking spaces. According to the
Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. 13), the parking garage will remain open between the
hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM and require a scan card for gate access outside these hours.
Affordable Housing
As required per the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) and Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 230.26 - Affordable Housing, 10% of the
proposed units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. Thus, 4.8 of the
proposed 48 units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. The applicant
proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in order to comply with the Affordable Housing
requirement. Three of the affordable units will be made available to moderate income households
and two affordable units will be available to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section
230.26(B)(3). In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, five on-site units will be
designated as rentals affordable to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section 230.26(B)
(2). In addition, there are requirements for a 45-year affordability period (for-sale units) and 55-year
affordability period (rental units) and the timing for which the affordable units shall be constructed.
The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 stipulates these
requirements to be recorded in an Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council.
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. ACity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 15 of 17
powered by Legistar™477
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. A
detailed discussion of the project’s design is provided in the Analysis section of this staff report.
Environmental Status:
On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission certified Program Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) No. 08-008 for the proposed Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. EIR No. 08-008
concluded that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of
impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation,
transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems, which would remain significant and
unavoidable. The Planning Commission certified EIR No. 08-008 as adequate and complete with
modified mitigation measures, findings of fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to action on the GPA, ZMA,
and ZTA on March 1, 2010.
The project applicant has completed Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary
Hydrology Report/WQMP, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and a Geotechnical
Investigation (Attachments No. 17) to ensure the project will comply with the BECSP Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program. All potentially significant effects of the project have been analyzed
pursuant to the BECSP Program EIR and can be mitigated pursuant to applicable mitigation
measures adopted for the BECSP Program EIR (Attachment No. 15). Therefore, pursuant to Section
15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is covered under the program EIR and no
further environmental analysis is required.
Coastal Status:
Not Applicable.
Design Review Board:
Not Applicable.
Subdivision Committee:
Not Applicable.
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building, Economic Development, and Police have reviewed
the proposed development project. Recommended conditions from the Departments of Public
Works, Fire, Building and Police are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval and code
requirements have also been identified.
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on May 16, 2019, and notices were sent
to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property,
individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department’s Notification
Matrix), and applicant. Written communications received prior to the May 28, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration (Attachment
No. 16).
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
April 1, 2019 June 1, 2019City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 16 of 17
powered by Legistar™478
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
April 1, 2019 June 1, 2019
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the
following:
- Consistent with the M-sp (Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay) Land Use Designation of the
General Plan and the SP 14 - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan zoning designation.
- Implements the objectives of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach Boulevard
corridor.
- Provides a mixed-use development that is consistent with the BECSP development code and
compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land uses.
- Creates an environment that supports pedestrian and bicycle activity and increases housing.
- The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
- The project contributes to the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing as required by
existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City’s overall housing goals.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Narrative received and dated May 1, 2019
4. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 received March 7, 2019
5. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations received April 23, 2019
6. Shadow Analysis
7. BECSP Completed Comparable Projects
8. Site Plan Revised for Clarity
9. Accident Rates in the Project Vicinity
10. Proposed Project and Elan Trip Generation Comparison
11. Summary of Volume/Capacity Ratio in Project Vicinity
12. Preliminary Grading Plan
13. Parking Management Plan received and dated April 22, 2019
14. Sustainability Narrative received and dated September 21, 2018
15. BECSP Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
16. Email Public Comment Received May 17, 2019
17. Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Draft Water
Quality Management Plan, Phase 1 ESA, Geotech Investigation (not attached - see May 14, 2019
PC Study Session Staff Report)
18. Republic Will-Service Letter
19.Code Requirements Letter
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 17 of 17
powered by Legistar™479
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the
environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457,
because the project is a mixed-use development that conforms with the Beach and Edinger
Corridors Specific Plan for which Program EIR No. 08-008 was adopted and implementation of
the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental
impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Compliance with all
applicable mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan will be required of the project. In
light of the whole record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines are present and, therefore, no EIR or MND is required.
The Project, located on the north side of Ellis Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Patterson
Lane, consists of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences with on-
site public and private open space, a three level subterranean parking structure and 891 square
feet of commercial space. The development site is located within the Town Center
Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) area. The
City certified Program EIR No. 08-008 on December 8, 2009 and adopted the BECSP on March
1, 2010. In 2015, the City Council amended the BECSP to reduce the Maximum Amount of
New Development to 2,100 total new dwelling units including 725 units on Beach Boulevard.
There are 200 undeveloped units remaining within the MAND on Beach Boulevard. The 48
units contemplated by the project is within the total new dwelling units permitted on Beach
Boulevard under the approved BECSP. The project conforms to all standards and regulations
of the BECSP development code. Accordingly, no changes requiring revision of the previously
certified Program EIR are proposed as part of the project, nor have any circumstances changed
requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR. In addition, no new information
identifies that implementation of the BECSP, including the project, will have significant effects
that were not discussed in the previously certified Program EIR or that the significant effects
identified in the certified Program EIR will be substantially more severe than determined in the
Program EIR. Nor is there new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives not
previously adopted would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for the consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre
parcel is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on
the subject property. The project complies with all applicable code provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Beach and
Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The project will result in the demolition of an existing
commercial building, one dwelling unit, and a portion of a former car wash and facilitate the
development of a mixed-use building permitted by code. The proposed subdivision is
consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that
govern new subdivisions and residential development.
480
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development in that the project site
is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation,
and drainage perspective. The site is located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan, which permits mixed-use buildings and residential uses within close proximity
of commercial uses. The specific plan is a form-based code that does not rely on density to
limit development, but rather the building form to create an attractive public experience
appealing to pedestrians. By merging the three existing lots into one, the site will function
as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the growing urban Beach
Boulevard corridor.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health
problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat because the site has been previously used as a car wash, one
dwelling unit, and a convenience store. The site does not contain any significant habitat for
wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of
the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan will ensure that the subdivision will not
significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The
project will comply with applicable mitigation measures pursuant to Program EIR No. 08-
008.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. Vehicular
access is provided via a driveway along Ellis Avenue. The subdivision will provide all
necessary street, sidewalk, and utility easements to serve the new subdivision. The project
will dedicate four feet of land to widen the existing sidewalk (public right-of-way) along Ellis
Avenue. The project will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing
easements.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-
042:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting
of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site
improvements will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in
the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood
because as conditioned, the project will result in less than significant impacts related to
traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences. Existing multi-family
residences adjacent to the east will be buffered from the project by an approximately 33 ft. 7
in. setback on the east side of the project site consisting of landscaping and a driveway.
Residents of the project and the general public, including nearby residents, will benefit from
the new commercial portion of the building and the public plaza. Based upon the conditions
of approval and BECSP mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts onto adjacent properties in that the project complies with setbacks, onsite
parking requirements, and allowable building height. The project is a four-story building that
is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale
pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP. The proposed mixed-use
development will be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and
commercial uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. With the conditions of
481
approval imposed, the project’s grading and drainage pattern will result in compatible
finished grades between adjacent properties.
2. The proposed project will comply with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the
Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25
of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) because the project
complies with all other setback standards, building height, top and base architectural
element requirements, and parking.
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently M-sp
(Mixed Use – Specific Plan Overlay). Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the
development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of
retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements is consistent with this
designation and the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is
coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall
goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use
designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and
use standards applicable to each land use designation.
Policy LU-1B: Ensure new development supports the protection and
maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive
reuse of existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible
proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding
encroachment of incompatible land uses.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent
with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods
and city attractions.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic,
physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood
character and residences are well maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with
diverse housing needs.
Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit.
482
Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees
to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services
provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
The proposed development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider
walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public
experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a
plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced
landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of
the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major façade offsets, and
façade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street
frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at
entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The façade skyline is then capped with
parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will
provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity
of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use.
By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur
between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP.
Housing Element
Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development
of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types,
cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote
walkability.
Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing
and encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both
horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations.
Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate
the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach
and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability: Incorporate transit and
other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of
new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit
stops.
The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 would
ensure that the project is developed in accordance with the proposed project
narrative and guarantee that the project provides 5 onsite affordable housing
483
units. The project represents new housing in the City that will help to fulfill the
City’s share of the regional housing need. The proposed project would
accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household
types. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for
affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site
affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing
requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different
activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for
many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and
public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the
need for affordable housing for this segment of the population.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit
and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase
ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions.
Goal CIRC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike
lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-
day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities.
Policy CIRC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate
with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided
for the infrastructure.
The proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing
development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with
new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare.
Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements
through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is
serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave.
and also provides bicycle parking in the subterranean parking structure to
accommodate alternative methods of transportation.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for consolidation of three existing parcels into a one-lot
subdivision for a mixed-use 48 unit residential and 891 square feet commercial development
received and dated April 23, 2019, shall be the approved layout, including the following:
a. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site’s westerly property line) for
Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the
proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to
eliminate any encroachments into said easement.
b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject
site’s westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be
484
quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the
proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said
easement.
2. The Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 shall not be approved by the City Council
until Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 is approved and in effect.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and at least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the
applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants
of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The
notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated
timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone
number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
4. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final
Tract Map (HBZSO 230.84 (A) & 253.10 (K)) (PW):
a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project
frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP)
5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the
Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) shall be submitted to the Departments
of Community Development and Economic Development identifying three on-site units for-
sale as affordable for persons and families of moderate income and two on-site units for-
sale as affordable for persons and families of low income pursuant to Section 230.14 of the
HBZSO. The AHA shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable for persons and
families of low income in the event the project is operated as rental apartment units. The
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council and
shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the tract. The Agreement shall comply with HBZSO Sections 230.14 and
230.26 and include:
i. A detailed description of the type, size and location of the five affordable housing for-
sale units on-site. The mix of designated affordable one bedroom and two bedroom
units shall be determined in the Agreement.
ii. There shall be three on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of
moderate income (up to 120% of the Orange County median income). There shall
be two on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of low income (up
to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income
is adjusted for appropriate household size.
iii. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, the Agreement shall
identify five on-site units for rent as affordable to persons and families of low income
(up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median
income is adjusted for appropriate household size.
iv. Continuous affordability provisions for a period of 45 years (for-sale units) and 55
years (rental units). Any required for-sale affordable units shall be owner-occupied
(not rented or leased).
485
v. Provisions for the affordable units to be constructed prior to or concurrent with the
primary project. Phasing and availability of the affordable units shall be concurrent
with final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit(s), or
contingent upon evidence of the applicant’s reasonable progress towards attainment
of completion of the affordable units.
6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the
Final Map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and
approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify:
a. The common driveway access easements
b. Maintenance of all walls, common landscape areas, and refuse management by
the Homeowners' Association
c. Management of the BMPs per the approved WQMP by the Homeowners'
Association
d. Management of the revised Parking Management Plan pursuant to CUP No. 17-
042 Condition No. 2 to ensure the ongoing control and availability of on-site
parking.
The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO
Section 253.12.H)
7. Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 conditions of approval.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-
042:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 23, 2019 shall be the
conceptually approved design with the following modifications:
a. Depict the controlled access entry gate to the subterranean parking garage
discussed in the Parking Management Plan.
b. The proposed 10 ft. high perimeter block wall shall be revised to a maximum of 8 ft.
high, including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall in accordance with Condition of Approval
No. 6.a.
2. The Parking Management Plan dated April 22, 2019 shall be revised to include the
following:
a. Required parking shall be assigned to and reserved for each unit. Each unit shall be
assigned two reserved parking spaces.
b. The assigned residential parking spaces shall be provided with the rental of a
dwelling unit without any additional cost. (HBZSO 231.18 (D)(2))
3. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with
Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Ellis Ave. Condos.
4. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting
the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading
plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department.
486
Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with
adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common
property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the
applicant shall construct up to an eight (8’) foot tall wall (including up to 2 ft. of retaining
wall) located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum
separation from the property line. The plans shall include some mechanism to close and
secure any gaps. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted
identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Plans shall
depict any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common
walls and sidewalls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties.
The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage.
5. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide
notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot
radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general
description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and
completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the
grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department.
6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed:
a. The proposed drainage pattern and system shall be reevaluated to reduce potential
grading impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and west by
incorporating localized collection points and result in a maximum two ft. grade
differential and maximum two ft. high retaining wall. The retaining wall may be
topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall.
b. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site’s westerly property line) for
Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the
proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate
any encroachments into said easement. (PW)
c. The existing 20-foot easement over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site’s
westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to
eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building. (PW)
d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Division to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for
employees, customers and contractors during the project’s construction phase and
that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The
property owner/developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the
Department of Public Works.
e. All design and construction shall be per the City Standard codes and street
configuration and specifications of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
The frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the “Neighborhood Streets”
configuration.
487
f. A lighting plan depicting the boulevard-scale street lighting and pedestrian-scale
street lighting along Ellis Ave. shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Planning Division and Public Works
Department.
7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first
three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits
(architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be
referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be
12 point.
b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Community
Development Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the
Fire Department.
c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s).
d. One set of project plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 and one 8 ½ inch by 11
inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette,
revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be
submitted for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning
Division.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. The applicant shall submit plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 to Republic
Services for review. Proof of Republic Services approval shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department.
b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to
Condition No. 1 for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the
Community Development Department.
c. A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The
Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following:
i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type;
ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale;
iii. Fire hydrant locations, public and private;
iv. FDC locations;
v. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving;
vi. FACP locations;
vii. Knox box and knox switch locations;
viii. Gate locations, and opticoms if required;
488
ix. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and
circles/cul-dee-sacs;
x. Fire lane signage and striping.
xi. The conceptual Alternative Materials and Methods Strategy shall be finalized
to demonstrate compliance with exterior hose pull distance requirements.
(FD)
9. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the following shall be completed:
a. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public
Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for
right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised
curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84)
b. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the
continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting,
furniture and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public
right-of-way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as
enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm
replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the
development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the
property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. (PW)
c. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project’s Ellis Avenue frontage
shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial
distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of
the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited
to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If require, easements shall be
quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies.
(PW)
10. The use shall comply with the following:
a. All ground floor entry points to residences shall be monitored by secured FOB type
entries. (PD)
11. The developer or developer’s representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy
of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval.
12. CUP No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of
the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a
written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days
prior to the expiration date.
13. Incorporating sustainable or “green” building practices into the design of the proposed
structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building
practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program
489
certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19) or Build It Green’s
Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/green-building-
guidelines-rating).
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different
from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney’s fees and
costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any
approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council,
Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense
thereof.
490
VICINITY MAP
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-004/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001
(ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS)
491
May 1, 2019
City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department
2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach
MCG Project No. 17.359.05
To whom it may concern:
Our client, THDT Investment, Inc. is proposing to redevelop 3-existing lots (totaling
approximately 41,200 s.f.) near the north-east corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard
within the Huntington Beach - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The new
development will demolish the existing liquor store at 8041 Ellis Avenue, the single
family residence behind the liquor store and part of the lot adjacent to the Metro car wash
at 18400 Beach Boulevard to build a new four story mixed use building with an
approximately 891 s.f. retail use on the ground floor along Ellis Avenue and a combination
of single and two bedroom condominium units throughout the remainder of the
approximately 79,000 s.f. building. The proposed unit mix would be 42- 2 bedroom units -
approximately 880 s.f. ea. and 6 single bedroom units - approximately 645 s.f. ea. for a
total of 48 units overall. The City of Huntington Beach Business Development staff
provided the total number of required affordable housing units to be 4.8. The developer is
seeking to provide 5-affordable units overall. Parking to serve the development will
consist of three sub-grade levels for a total of 128 parking stalls. The intention is for the
units to be sold to individual buyers so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building
maintenance and regular up-keep and cleaning will be handled by the owners
management team via contracts with local services.
This new development will be an enhancement to the community by adding a modern
environmentally friendly & small scale mixed use complex with unit pricing sized to suit
the average consumer. The location allows owners to visit amenities such as Helme Park,
medical, dental and eye care centers as well as local markets all within a short walking
distance. Public transportation is close by as well via the existing bus stop on Beach
Boulevard in front of the Metro Car Wash. Owners on the upper floors of the south and
west side units will be afforded serene ocean views and breezes to help enhance their
lifestyles.
R E G A R D I N G
492
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach
May 1, 2019
Page 2
Yours truly,
MCG ARCHITECTURE
Jeff Herbst, Project Director
XXX:xx
Enclosures
C C
493
N00°18'18"E 422.00'
N00°18'18"E 422.00'N89°19'34"W 98.56'N89°19'34"W 98.56'LOT LINE TOBE REMOVEDLOT LINE TOBE REMOVED20'
40'88'PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EX. BUILDING TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDING TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDING TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDINGS TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDING TO
BE REMOVED3 4520'20'2'33'16'26'24-FOOTDEDICATIONTO BEQUITCLAIMEDTO BEQUITCLAIMEDTO BEQUITCLAIMEDASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S):157-341-004, 157-341-007, 157-341-0081. PREPARED: OCTOBER 20182. PROPOSED PROPERTY USE: MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOS; 2 LEVELS OFPARKING BELOW GROUND; BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR CONSISTENTTHROUGHOUT; 1 COMMON ROOF.3. GENERAL PLAN: M-SP-D MIXED USEZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN 144. PROPOSED ZONING: MIXED USE5. PROPERTY ACREAGE: 0.95 AC6. EXISTING BUILDINGS ONSITE TO BE REMOVED7. FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: 06059C0253J, FLOOD ZONE X8. TOPOGRAPHY BY FIELD SURVEY SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.NOT TO SCALEVICINITY MAPPROJECTSITEENGINEER:OWNER/DEVELOPER:EASEMENT NOTES:AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF A.W. FULLER AND NELLIEFULLER, RECORED SEPTEMBER 27, 1922, IN BOOK 437 OF DEEDS, PAGE 269. (OFFSITE DOESNOT AFFECT PROPERTY )AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1957 IN BOOK 4101, PAGE 501 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTEDHEREON/TO BE QUITCLAIMED)4321AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,RECORDED JUNE 23, 1971 IN BOOK 9689, PAGE 78 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTED HEREON)AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF PARCEL 2 OF A PARCELMAP RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1971, IN BOOK 38, PAGE 16, RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 1971 INBOOK 9905, PAGE 184 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTED HEREON/TO BE QUITCLAIMED)(951) 893-1900OC DEVELOPMENT, LLCCORONA, CA 928821307 W 6TH STREET, STE 202TAHIR SALIMLEGAL DESCRIPTION:PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 39, PAGE(S) 2, OF PARCELMAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA.PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 38, PAGE(S) 16, OF PARCEL MAPS,RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.LOT1AREA0.95 ACNUMBERED LOTS:WIDTH115'DEPTH422'GENERAL NOTES:L
O
T
1
5AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF PARCEL 1 OF A PARCELMAP RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 1971, IN BOOK 39, PAGE 2. (PLOTTED HEREON/TO BEQUITCLAIMED)KWC ENGINEERS1880 COMPTON AVENUE, SUITE 100CORONA, CA 92881-3370(951) 734-2130CONTACT: BRANDON BARNETT, P.E.494
ELLIS AVE
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'SIDEWALK
EXISTINGJACK-IN-THE-BOXEXISTING CAR WASH BUILDINGEXISTING CAR WASH TUNNELCAR WASH DRIVE THRU STACKINGEXISTING LANDSCAPINGDEMOLISHVACUUM CANOPYDEMOLISHEXISTING SHRUBS(E) DRIVE (E) DRIVEDEMOLISHEXISTING CURBS(E) DRIVE(E) DRIVE(E) DRIVE
EXISTING RESDIENCETO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING LIQUORSTORE TO BEDEMOLISHEDADJACENT RESIDENTIAL - NOT A PARTADJACENT RESIDENTIAL - NOT A PARTDEMOLISHEXISTING WALLDEMOLISHEXISTING TREEDEMOLISHEXISTING SHRUBSDEMOLISHEXISTING TREEDEMOLISHEXISTING TREESDEMOLISHEXISTING TREEBEACH BLVD.221'-4"R26'
-0
"
14'-11"R14'-0"12'-0"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0108/24/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0EXISTING/DEMOSITE PLANScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'12/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSA-103/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS495
HALLWAYHALLWAYPROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'A.1B.1C.1D.1E.1F.1F.4G.1H.127'-4"37'-3"37'-3"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"37'-6"37'-3"176'-7"ABCDEFGHI38'-6"27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"37'-6"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"371'-1"10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.31'-0"I.137'-6"112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGEOPEN14' RETAILCEILINGBELOWUNIT 2MUNIT 2NUNIT 2LUNIT 2BUNIT 2CUNIT 2FUNIT 2GUNIT 2JUNIT 2KUNIT 2PUNIT 2DUNIT 2HUNIT 2APROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"J37'-6"54'-0"12424'-0"24'-0"6'-0"11'-0"372'-0"9'-3"STAIRSELEV.LOBBY9'-6"FITNESSROOMTRASH
UNIT 2EPLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATHJ(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORGAS GAS
UNIT 1HUNIT 1JHALLWAYHALLWAY24'-0" WIDE DRIVEWAYSIDEWALKELLIS AVE
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"SIDEWALK
UNIT 1CUNIT 1LUNIT 1MA.1B.1C.1D.1E.1F.1F.4G.1H.127'-4"37'-3"37'-3"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"37'-6"37'-3"4'-0"31'-0"176'-7"54'-0"12424'-0"24'-0"6'-0"24'-0"5'-0"11'-0"ABCDEFGHI38'-6"27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"37'-6"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"16'-3"371'-1"MULTI PURPOSE ROOMMULTI PURPOSE ROOM33'-7"
23'-10"5'-0"4'-0"4'-7"
10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.33SCREENED AREA FORCONDENSORS,METERS & BACKFLOWSNEW DRIVE APPROACH -SEE CIVIL PLANS8" WATER LINE4" WATER LINE 8" SEWER LINE6" GAS LINE
WALL MOUNTED LEDSITE LIGHTING - 9'HIGHUNIT 1E15'-7"1'-0"I.137'-6"9'-3"112'-3"370'-1"UNIT 1APLAZAPublic Space2,703 S.F.Common Lobby Type Private Frontage6'-9"5'-3"SIDEWALK(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'DEDICATION
UNIT 1KUNIT 1GUNIT 1FRetail Space±891 SFREFUSE/RECYCLE ROOMJ37'-6"38'-6"A1'-0"72'-0"UTILITY AREASTAIRSELEV.LOBBY9'-6"SEELANDSCAPEPLANS FORDESIGNGASGASGASPROPOSED WATER,SEWER & GAS LINESPROPOSED ELECSERVICEEXISTING POWERPOLE4'-10"ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORSHALL BE RECESSED AMIN. OF 12" FROM FACEOF WALL12"R32'-0"6'-0"PLNTRR36'-0"TRASH
5'-0"10' HIGH CMU WALL6' HIGHSCREENWALLGAS METERS(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'26'-0"12'-14' HIGHDECORATIVEST. LIGHT, TYP.TO MATCH (E)FIXTURESACROSSELLIS AVE.FIRE STAND PIPETO BE USED IN LIEUOF HOSE PULLREQUIREMENT -ALTERNATIVEMEANS/METHOD PERFIRE CODE SEC. 104.9NO PARKING ALLOWEDALONG FIRE CURB, TYP.Common Lobby Type
Private Frontage
DECORATIVECONCRETE AT GRADE30' SETBACK LINE(N) FIREHYDRANTRAMP DOWN(NO FIRE TRUCKACCESS DOWN RAMP)FIRE TRUCKTURNABOUTLADDER PADLOCATION ATRESCUE OPENINGS6'-7"
MIN.JUNIT 1BUNIT 1DAANO PARKINGALLOWED ALONGFIRE CURB, TYP.150'150'150'R5
0
'
-
0
"R150'-0"TYPICAL FIRE HOSE MAXIIMUM DISTANCE OF 150'3'-0"PROPOSED RAMP & STAIRACCESS W/42" HIGH MAX.RAILINGS+0.0'+2.0'+0.0'+1.4'+2.0'23'-5"NEW RAILINGS 42" MAX.ABOVE FINISHED GRADENOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0104/02/2019MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCSTREET LEVELSITE SUMMARYLAND:41,210 S.F. 0.955 ACOCCUPANCY:R-2/MSTREET LEVEL12 UNITS2ND TO 3RD LEVEL29 UNITSROOF DECK LEVEL 7 UNITS48 UNITSNUMBER OF UNITS STREET LEVEL15,578 SFFLOOR AREA:SECOND LEVEL17,470 SFTHIRD LEVEL17,470 SFROOF DECK LEVEL 6,810 SFTOTAL FLOOR AREA57,328 SFTOTAL PARKING AREA64,296 SFPARKING AREA:2 ND FLOOR PLANPARKING LEVEL 1 26,751 SFPARKING LEVEL 2HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0SITE PLAN &FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANSScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'APN:157-341-04, 07 & 08ZONING:BEACH-EDINGER SPECIFIC PLAN - SP-14OWNERTHDT INVESTMENTS1307 W. 6TH ST. #202CORONA, CA 92882951.543.8665SALIMTHEONE@YAHOO.COMAPPLICANTMCG ARCHITECTURE/JEFF HERBST111 PACIFICA, #280IRVINE, CA 92618949.553.1117JHERBST@MCGARCHITECTURE.COMLEGAL DESCRIPTIONTRACT 7157, IN BOOK 157, PAGE 34 OF ORANGECOUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE.TOTAL UNITS* AHU = AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. 4.8- UNITSREQUIRED. DEVELOPER WILL BE PROVIDING 5UNITS.PARKING LEVEL 310,794 SF26,751 SFA-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE:III-ABUILDING:66,511 S.F.03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS04/16/19 CITY COMMENTS REVISION04/2919 REVISED # OF AHU'S05/01/19 REVISED AHU'S TO 5 TOTAL496
HALLWAYPROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'A.1B.1C.1D.1E.1F.1F.4G.1H.127'-4"37'-3"37'-3"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"37'-6"37'-3"176'-7"ABCDEFGHI37'-6"27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"37'-6"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"370'-1"10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.3I.137'-6"112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGETRASH
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"J37'-6"54'-0"24'-0"24'-0"6'-0"11'-0"UNIT 3CUNIT 3GUNIT 3HUNIT 3JUNIT 3KUNIT 3LUNIT 3MUNIT 3DUNIT 3EUNIT 3FUNIT 3NUNIT 3PUNIT 3QUNIT 3BUNIT 3A72'-0"J9'-3"ELEV.LOBBYSTAIRS9'-6"PLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATH(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORPROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 418'-0"B.1F.4H.137'-3"37'-6"37'-3"AFH37'-6"37'-6"370'-1"I.1112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGEJ37'-6"6'-0"UNIT 4BUNIT 4GUNIT 4E72'-0"I.1A.1C.1D.1E.1F.1G.137'-3"27'-4"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"176'-7"BCDEGI27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.337'-6"TRASH
STAIRS11'-1"
*
54'-0"24'-0"24'-0"11'-0"* = UPPER STORY SETBACK PER SP14 SECT. 2.4.3.UNIT 4AUNIT 4CUNIT 4FUNIT 4D9'-3"ELEV.LOBBY10'-0"
*PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKROOF 6'-0"7'-0"9'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0"5'-0"
15'-6"
15'-6"10'-0"LOWER ROOF - 100' SETBACKAREA FOR 4TH FLOORPLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATHROOF DECK HOURSTO BE 8 AM TO 10 PMFOR NON-4TH FLOORTENANTS(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/27/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCROOF DECK3RD FLOOR PLANHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0THIRD FLOOR PLANAND ROOF PLANScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'A-306/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS497
PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 418'-0"B.1F.4H.137'-3"37'-6"37'-3"AFH37'-6"37'-6"370'-1"I.1112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGEJ37'-6"1426'-0"72'-0"I.1A.1C.1D.1E.1F.1G.137'-3"27'-4"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"176'-7"BCDEGI27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"10'-0"F.2F.337'-6"TRASH
54'-0"24'-0"24'-0"311'-0"9'-3"10'-0"
*PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKLOWER ROOF 6'-0"9'-0"
9'-0"15'-6"
15'-6"10'-0"(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PLUMBING/HVACVENT THRU ROOFUNIT HVAC SYSTEMS TO BESPLIT TYPE SYSTEMS WITH FAUIN ATTIC AND CONDENSORSGROUND MOUNTEDNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/27/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCROOF ROOF PLANHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0ROOF PLANScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'A-406/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS498
PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'RAMP DOWNPROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"147RAMP UP9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"19'-0"9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"
14'-7"22'-2"PRIVATE STORAGEDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY22'-9"2'-2"10"10"159'-2"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"112'-3"10%10% 6'-3"A.1F.1F.4I.19'-0"5'-0"26'-2"BENCHBENCHLOBBYSTO.ELECTROOMF.2F.3212'-0"18"25' TURN RADIUS -TYP.RAMP DOWN
5% ELEV. LOBBY4-BIKE RACKS - 2BIKES PER RACK11CLEANAIRCLEANAIR17'-5"12'-10"GUEST PARKING (12 STALLS)GUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTSTORAGE ROOMDOORS TO BEEQUIPPED W/VISIONPANELS (TYP.)5'-0"91'-5"
5'-0"
14'-6"18'-5"58'-6"
(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE 2'-2"68'-8"27'-9"
5'-0"
10% 5% 5% 5% RAMP DOWN
5%
24'-0"5'-0"
15'-10"5'-0"65'-5"5'-0"27'-4"27'-4"5% 10%
32'-9"22'-2"CCBBRAMP DOWNPROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"147RAMP UP9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"19'-0"9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"PRIVATE STORAGEDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY22'-9"2'-2"10"10"159'-2"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"112'-3"6'-3"A.1F.1F.4I.19'-0"5'-0"26'-2"BENCHBENCHLOBBYSTO.ELECTROOM2'-2"68'-8"27'-9"F.2F.3212'-0"18"25' TURN RADIUS -TYP.RAMP DOWN ELEV. LOBBY4-BIKE RACKS - 2BIKES PER RACK11CLEANAIRCLEANAIR17'-5"12'-10"GUEST PARKING (12 STALLS)GUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTRETAIL PARKING (5 STALLS)STORAGE ROOMDOORS TO BEEQUIPPED W/VISIONPANELS (TYP.)5'-0"91'-5"
5'-0"
14'-6"18'-5"58'-6"
(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
C14'-7"22'-2"10%10% 5'-0"5% 5% RAMP DOWN
5%
24'-0"5'-0"
5% 10%
32'-9"22'-2"5'-0"5'-10"5'-0"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0111/20/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0Parking LevelsScheme EScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'P1 PARKING LEVEL - 53 STALLSP2 PARKING LEVEL - 53 STALLSA-512/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS499
PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"11RAMP UP9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"
19'-0"+/- 23'-6"DRIVEWAY30'-5"6'-9"112'-3"10% MAX.6'-3"F.4I.19'-0"26'-2"F.3ELEV. LOBBY11CLEANAIRCLEANAIR5'-0"91'-5"
14'-6"18'-5"58'-6"9'-0"(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE(E) PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'AA149'-5"5'-0"22'-2"43'-0"3'-0"5'-0"RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ABOVERAMP10% MAX.PLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLFIRST FLOOR0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLPL5'-0"14'-7"5%10%5%-30'-0"-29'-9"-28'-4"-28'-1"5'-0"27'-4"27'-4"5'-0"65'-4"5%10%5%-28'-1"-27'-10"-21'-4"-21'-1"-18'-1"-17'-10"-11'-4"-11'-1"-8'-1"-7'-10"-0'-3"±0'-0"PARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLFIRST FLOOR0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFL22'-2"5'-0"5'-10"5'-0"5'-0"PL-21'-1"-20'-10"-20'-3"-20'-0"-11'-1"-10'-10"-10'-3"-10'-0"RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ABOVEPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLFIRST FLOOR0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLPL
±0'-0"5%10%5%NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0111/20/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0Parking LevelsScheme EScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'P3 PARKING LEVEL - 22 STALLSA-612/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSSECTION A-A11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTSSECTION B-BSECTION C-C03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS500
501
2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLELLIS AVENUEPL
PLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLSTREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLFRONTYARD SETBACKROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)B.O. RETAIL CEILING14'-0" FFL2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLELLIS AVENUEPL
PL
STREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)(RETAIL CEILING - SEE SHEET A-1)LADDER LOCATION ATRESCUE OPENINGS2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLDRIVEWAYPLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLSTREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPL 135°PARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLRETAILENTRANCEROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)20'-0"10'-0"
ADJACENT BLDGB.O. RETAIL CEILING14'-0" FFLDUAL KNOX BOX FORFIRE AND POLICE10'-0"2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLPL
PARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLSTREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPL
135°PARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)(RETAIL CEILING - SEE SHEET A-1)20'-0"10'-0"
ADJACENT BLDG
2"4"CALCULATION AREA - 100%OPEN AREA - 33%RETAILENTRANCECALCULATED AREA 2068 SF (100%)135 SF45 SF18 SF54 SF108 SF98 SFGLAZING AREA 458 SF (22.1%)15'-0"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA17.359.0108/22/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSScheme EScale : 1/16" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'EAST ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEA-7RAILING DETAILN.T.S.SOUTH ELEVATIONGLAZING AREA DIAGRAM09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS04/16/19 CITY COMMENTS REVISION502
135°RETAILENTRANCEB.O. RETAIL CEILING14'-0" FFLDUAL KNOX BOX FOR10'-0"30' SETBACK LINENOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA17.359.0108/22/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0BUILDING OFFSET/NOTCHES STUDYScheme EScale : 1/16" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'EAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEA-806/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC168'-4"16'-3"(100% HORISONTAL FACE SEGMENT)(10% OFFSET)5'-7"5'-0"9'-10"3'PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN (NOTCH)(NOTCH)11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS503
RESULTING BUILDING ELEVATIONHEIGHT (±46'-0")LENGTH (±54'-0")BUILDING ENVELOPEPRIMARY VOLUMESINTRODUCE OTHER SUB VOLUMESBUILDING MASSING PROPORTION 11'-0"46'-0"
34'-0"
23'-0"11'-0"14'-0"34'-0"12'-0"54'-0"29'-0"40'-0"RETAILENTRANCEHEIGHT (±46'-0")LENGTH (±372'-0")BUILDING ENVELOPEPRIMARY VOLUMES173'-0"46'-0"
33'-0"114'-0"RATIO = 1:5RATIO = 1:3.5PASEO145'-0"RATIO = 2.7:1
103'-0"RATIO = 2.7:1 RATIO = 1:3RATIO = 1:2.217'-0"17'-0"RESULTING BUILDING ELEVATIONINTRODUCE OTHER SUB VOLUMES33'-6"10'-6"27'-9"139'-8"98'-1"96'-0"9'-10"23'-6"36'-4"31'-7"16'-2"16'-2"7'-7"28'-7"16'-2"12'-8"12'-8"10'-6"7'-7"30'-10"
30'-10"30'-10"
34'-6"
34'-6"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA17.359.0108/22/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEA-1012/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSBUILDING MASSING PROPORTIONSScheme EN.T.S.11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS504
ELLIS AVE PLAZA: Public Space2,703 S.F.(SEE LANDSCAPEPLANS FOR DESIGN)69'-7"30'-0"48'-3"UNIT 1APLAZAPublic Space2,703 S.F.Common Lobby Type Private Frontage(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'UNIT 1F(AHU)Retail Space±891 SF9'-6"(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE3'-0"4'-8"13'-0"PRIVATEBALCONYSPACE - 61 S.F.LIVING ROOMBEDROOMKITCHENBATH ROOM27'-1"16'-7"10'-1"3'-7"15'-5"2'-9"5'-0"9'-7"9'-0"23'-3"10'-7"PRIVATEBALCONYSPACE - 60 S.F.5'-8"6'-6"5'-2"PRIVATEBALCONYSPACE - 33 S.F.23'-1"
5'-6"9'-11"2'-9"5'-0"36'-10"3'-7"16'-2"9'-7"3'-0"5'-0"BEDROOMBEDROOMBATH ROOMBATH ROOMKITCHENLIVING ROOMJGROOF DECKPRIVATE OPEN SPACE1,773 S.F.FBTRASH PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKPRIVATE OPEN SPACE1,508 S.F.NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/31/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0PUBLIC &PRIVATE SPACE PLANSScale : 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'A-1112/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTSPUBLIC OPEN SPACETYPICAL PRIVATE SPACE - SINGLE BEDROOM UNITTYPICAL PRIVATE SPACE - TWO BEDROOM UNIT06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSPUBLIC OPEN SPACE CALCULATION:50 SF X 48 UNITS = 2,400 SF REQUIRED891 SF RETAIL / 1,000 SF = 0.891 X 50 SF = 44.55 SF REQUIRED = 2,445.55 SF REQUIRED TOTAL OF 2,703 SF PROVIDEDPRIVATE SPACE CALCULATION:60 SF PER UNIT X 48 UNITS = 2,880 SF REQUIRED61 SF PER 1 BEDROOM X 4 UNITS = 244 SF PROVIDED93 SF PER 2 BEDROOM X 42 UNITS = 3,306 SF PROVIDEDROOF DECK PRIVATE OPEN SPACE = 3,281 SF PROVIDED TOTAL OF 6,831 SF PROVIDEDFIRST FLOOR UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CALCULATION.ROOF DECK SPACE TO BE USED IN LIEU OF FIRST FLOOR SPACEBEING NON-COMPLIANT.11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTSROOF DECK PRIVATE OPEN SPACE03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS505
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/31/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0ZONINGCONFORMANCE MATRIXScale : NONE10' 20' 40'ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIXSUBJECTCODE SECTIONREQUIREDPROPOSEDBUILDING USE TYPES2.2.1RETAIL/COMMERCIAL AT GROUND LEVELRETAIL PROVIDEDAFFORDABLE HOUSING 2.2.3MINIMUM 10% OF UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS5 UNITS PROVIDEDBUILDING MASSING2.3.5MASSING TO BE 1L:3H OR 3L:1HSEE PLANS FOR NOTCH, OFFSET AND ELEVATIONS FORMASSING MODELPARKING2.7.1.13125128LANDSCAPING232.08008% MIN.22%BUILDING HEIGHT 2:03:01 AMMIN. 2 STORY/MAX. 4 STORY4-STORIESPRIVATE FRONTAGETYPES2.4.2PROVIDE TYPE OF FRONTAGECOMMON LOBBYSETBACKS2.4.3 FRONT30'-0"30'-0"2.4.3 UPPERSTORY10' MIN.10'-0"2.4.4 SIDE10'-0" W/WINDOWS10'-0"2.4.5 REAR10'-0"10'-0"FRONTAGE2.4.790% MAX.54.79%IMPROVEMENTS TOEXISTING STREETS2.5.1PROVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS DESIGNSEE SITE/GROUND LEVEL PLANOPEN SPACE2.6.150 S.F./UNIT - 2,400 S.F.PLAZA = 2, 703 S.F.PRIVATE OPEN SPACE2.6.360 S.F./UNIT - 2,880 S.F.6,831 S.F.PUBLIC OPEN SPACETYPE2.6.4PROVIDE TYPE OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACEPLAZA - SEE STREET/GROUND LEVEL PLANPRIVATE OPEN SPACETYPES2.6.5PROVIDE TYPE OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PRIVATE YARD - SEE PLANSOPEN SPACELANDSCAPING2.6.8PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING LANDSCAPINGSEE LANDSCAPE PLANSSETBACK AREALANDSCAPING2.6.9PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING LANDSCAPINGSEE LANDSCAPE PLANSPARKING SPACEDIMENSIONSHBZSO 231.14 STALL STRIPING TO BE AS DEPICTED IN DIAGRAM "A"SEE PARKING LEVEL PLANSPARKING DESIGNSTANDARDSHBZSO 231.18 PROVIDE VEHICLE TURNAROUND SPACE AT DEAD END AISLESSEE PARKING LEVEL PLANS - 3' WIDE X 25' LONG SPACEPROVIDEDBICYCLE PARKING HBZSO 231.20ONE BIKE RACK PER 4 UNITS AND ONE FOR EVERY 25 PARKINGSTALLS - 3 MINIMUM20 PROVIDED - SEE PARKING PLANS.GENERAL PARKING2.7.3DRIVEWAYS TO BE SETBACK 5' MIN. FROM ADJOININGPROPERTY.SEE STREET/GROUND LEVEL PLAN.PARKING DESIGNSTANDARDHBZSO 231.18 PROVIDE MIN. 25' TURN RADIUS FOR DRIVEWAYS INTO GARAGE TURN RADIUS ADDED TO PARKING LEVEL PLANSFACADE HEIGHTARTICULATION2.8.1INCORPORATE ARTICULATION INTO BASE AND TOP ELEMENTSWINDOW/STOREFRONTS & PLASTER REVEALS AT BASEPROVIDE PEDESTRIAN SCALE. CORNICE PROVIDES TOPARTICULATION.ARCHITECTURALELEMENTSREGULATIONS2.8.2PROVIDE INFO REGARDING FACADE COMPOSITION,ENTRANCES, ROOF EQUIPMENT AND SCREENING.FACADE REVISED TO ADD GLAZING FOR MIN. 20% COMPLIANCE,REVISED SOUTH ELEVATION TO REFLECT RETAIL MAIN ENTRY,MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE WITHIN ATTIC SPACES NOTROOF MOUNTED - ONLY VENT FANS/PLUMBING VENTS ON ROOFWHICH WILL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW.ARCHITECTURALELEMENTSREGULATIONS2.8.2TRASH/RECYCLE ENCLOSURESTRASH/RECYCLE ROOM ADDED ON MAIN FLOOR WITHOVERHEAD DOOR FOR BIN DUMPING AND CHUTE PROVIDEDFOR RESIDENTSREFUSE STORAGEAREASHBZSO 230.78REFUSE STORAGE AREASTRASH/RECYCLE ROOM ADDED ON MAIN FLOOR WITHOVERHEAD DOOR FOR BIN DUMPINGSCREENING OFMECHANICALEQUIPMENTHBZSO 230.76UTILITY METERS & BACKFLOW DEVICES 2" OR SMALLER SHALLBE SETBACK 5' MIN. FROM PROPERTY LINE, OR 10' FOR DEVICESLARGER THAN 2" AND SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW.ADDED NOTE/LOCATION ON GROUND FLOOR PLAN ANDLANDSCAPE SCREENING ADDED ON LANDSCAPE PLANS.12/20/17 ADDED THIS SHEET06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSA-12506
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"
LANDCADD 1987
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to
adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and
Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of
any kind are given or implied by the Architect.
DATE:
MCG JOB #:
REVISIONSDATE
ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
N13.177.01
02/28/2019
MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC
0
PRELIMINARY PLAN
Scale : 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32'
STREET LEVEL
Add public open space per City Requirement8-20-14
Only-Apt to Condo name change/Client request10-22-14
DECORATIVE ENTRY
CONCRETE PAVING
RAISED ROUND
CONCRETE
PLANTERS WITH
PALM PLANTINGS
ELLIS AVENUESite plan changes1-5-18
UTILITIES SCREENING SHRUBS
PUBLIC PLAZA FURNITURE
PUBLIC
PLAZA
POTTED PATIO
PLANTS
Wa! JOB #:14037
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
BECSP Residential Projects – Completed 5/2019
1. Name: Avalon (3.8 acres/mixed use)
Address: 7302-7400 Center Avenue
# Units: 378 units
2. Name: Boardwalk (12.5 acres/mixed use)
Address: 7441 Edinger Ave.
# Units: 487 units
3. Name: Luce (8.5 acres/MFR)
Address: 7262, 7266, 7280 Edinger Ave.
16001, 17091 Gothard Street
# Units: 510 units
4. Name: Oceana (2 acres/MFR)
Address: 18151 Beach Blvd.
# Units: 78 units
5. Name: Elan (2.7 acres/mixed use)
Address: 18502, 18508-18552 Beach Blvd.
# Units: 274 units
6. Name: Beach & Ocean (3.2 acres/MFR)
Address: 19891 Beach Blvd.
# Units: 173 units
Total Residential Units – 1,900
NTS
515
HALLWAYHALLWAYPROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'BRIDGEOPEN14' RETAILCEILINGBELOWUNIT 2MUNIT 2NUNIT 2LUNIT 2BUNIT 2CUNIT 2FUNIT 2GUNIT 2JUNIT 2KUNIT 2PUNIT 2DUNIT 2HUNIT 2APROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"STAIRSELEV.LOBBYFITNESSROOMTRASH
UNIT 2EPLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATH(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORUNIT 1HUNIT 1JHALLWAYHALLWAY24'-0" WIDE DRIVEWAYSIDEWALKELLIS AVE
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"SIDEWALK
UNIT 1CUNIT 1LUNIT 1MMULTI PURPOSE ROOMMULTI PURPOSE ROOMSCREENED AREA FORCONDENSORS,METERS & BACKFLOWSNEW DRIVE APPROACH -SEE CIVIL PLANSWALL MOUNTED LEDSITE LIGHTING - 9'HIGHUNIT 1EUNIT 1APLAZAPublic Space2,703 S.F.Common Lobby Type Private FrontageSIDEWALK(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'DEDICATION
UNIT 1KUNIT 1GUNIT 1FRetail Space±891 SFREFUSE/RECYCLE ROOMUTILITY AREASTAIRSELEV.LOBBYSEELANDSCAPEPLANS FORDESIGNROLL-UP GARAGE DOORSHALL BE RECESSED AMIN. OF 12" FROM FACEOF WALLTRASH
10' HIGH CMU WALL6' HIGHSCREENWALLGAS METERS(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'12'-14' HIGHDECORATIVEST. LIGHT, TYP.TO MATCH (E)FIXTURESACROSSELLIS AVE.FIRE STAND PIPETO BE USED IN LIEUOF HOSE PULLREQUIREMENT -ALTERNATIVEMEANS/METHOD PERFIRE CODE SEC. 104.9NO PARKING ALLOWEDALONG FIRE CURB, TYP.Common Lobby Type
Private Frontage
DECORATIVECONCRETE AT GRADE30' SETBACK LINE(N) FIREHYDRANTRAMP DOWN(NO FIRE TRUCKACCESS DOWN RAMP)FIRE TRUCKTURNABOUTLADDER PADLOCATION ATRESCUE OPENINGSUNIT 1BUNIT 1DAANO PARKINGALLOWED ALONGFIRE CURB, TYP.150'150'150'TYPICAL FIRE HOSE MAXIIMUM DISTANCE OF 150'PROPOSED RAMP & STAIRACCESS W/42" HIGH MAX.RAILINGS+0.0'+2.0'+0.0'+1.4'+2.0'NEW RAILINGS 42" MAX.ABOVE FINISHED GRADENOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0104/02/2019MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCSTREET LEVELSITE SUMMARYLAND:41,210 S.F. 0.955 ACOCCUPANCY:R-2/MSTREET LEVEL12 UNITS2ND TO 3RD LEVEL29 UNITSROOF DECK LEVEL 7 UNITS48 UNITSNUMBER OF UNITS STREET LEVEL15,578 SFFLOOR AREA:SECOND LEVEL17,470 SFTHIRD LEVEL17,470 SFROOF DECK LEVEL 6,810 SFTOTAL FLOOR AREA57,328 SFTOTAL PARKING AREA64,296 SFPARKING AREA:2 ND FLOOR PLANPARKING LEVEL 1 26,751 SFPARKING LEVEL 2HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0SITE PLAN &FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANSScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'APN:157-341-04, 07 & 08ZONING:BEACH-EDINGER SPECIFIC PLAN - SP-14OWNERTHDT INVESTMENTS1307 W. 6TH ST. #202CORONA, CA 92882951.543.8665SALIMTHEONE@YAHOO.COMAPPLICANTMCG ARCHITECTURE/JEFF HERBST111 PACIFICA, #280IRVINE, CA 92618949.553.1117JHERBST@MCGARCHITECTURE.COMLEGAL DESCRIPTIONTRACT 7157, IN BOOK 157, PAGE 34 OF ORANGECOUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE.TOTAL UNITS* AHU = AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. 4.8- UNITSREQUIRED. DEVELOPER WILL BE PROVIDING 5UNITS.PARKING LEVEL 310,794 SF26,751 SFA-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE:III-ABUILDING:66,511 S.F.03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS04/16/19 CITY COMMENTS REVISION04/2919 REVISED # OF AHU'S05/01/19 REVISED AHU'S TO 5 TOTAL516
Accident Rates Before and After Elan
Development
Location
Accident Rate
Before
Accident Rate
After
Elan Development Elan Development
Beach Blvd/Ellis Ave* 0.68 0.62
Ellis Ave/Patterson Ln* 0.11 0.15
Beach Blvd (Ellis Ave - Graziadio Dr)** 7.5 6.4
Ellis Ave (Beach Blvd - Goodwin Ln)** 12.7 12.4
*intersection accident rate per million entering
vehicles
**street segment accident rate per million
vehicle miles traveled
Before rates calculated based on 3 years of data prior to
development
After rates calculated based on 3 years of data after development
517
Project Trip Generation Compared to Elan Development Ellis Condo Project Trip Generation: Elan Development Trip Generation: Daily Trips - 351 Daily Trips - 1,822 AM Peak Hour Trips - 22 AM Peak Hour Trips - 140 PM Peak Hour Trip - 27 PM Peak Hour Trip - 169 518
Intersection
Level-of-
Service (LOS)
Analysis*
Intersection
Existing
AM Peak
Hour LOS*
Existing PM
Peak Hour
LOS*
Acceptable
LOS per City
Policy
Volume/Capacity Ratio
Remaining at Acceptable
LOS (D) with Project (AM
Peak Hour/ PM Peak Hour)
Beach Boulevard /
Talbert Avenue B D D 0.31 / 0.10
Beach Boulevard /
Garfield Avenue B C D 0.25 / 0.18
Beach Boulevard /
Ellis Avenue A B D 0.37 / 0.29
* Intersection
Capacity
Utilization
Methodology (ICU)
519
℄
520
521
522
523
524
Ellis Condos525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
1
Aube, Nicolle
From:Pamela Mccay <pmccay85@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 2:19 PM
To:Aube, Nicolle
Subject:Ellis Ave Condos
Hi Nicolle,
I will unfortunately not be able to make it to the city council meeting as I am a nightshift RN and work that
night. I'm hoping that my email is as sufficient at voicing my concerns for this complex.
I am born and raised in Huntington Beach and I currently live at 18311 Patterson Ave, #2.This is my third time
living on this street in the last ten years and I have currently been in my apartment for 4 years. My
neighborhood, which is directly behind this proposed site, already has horrendous parking due to the entire
neighborhood being fourplexes. We have been having a problem with Elan parking on our street because they
do not want to pay for the monthly parking fee to park there on top of their astronomical rent. I have actually
spoken to residents while they park in front of my house. They also told me that they tell their guest to park on
our street as well. We see people every day walking to and from their cars and Elan. (And no, they are not using
the crosswalk on beach) I have been petitioning to get our neighborhood permit parking and all of the residents
are in favor of this. On top of the terrible parking, getting in and out of the neighborhood is horrendous. I can't
even come out on my own street because the traffic is often backed up all the way to the next exit. Sometimes I
can't even get out on that street (Goodwin). This intersection is already a dangerous area and I was almost t-
boned coming into my tract on Monday morning on my way home from work. Adding even more traffic and
congestion to this intersection will be a disservice to the city and increase the amount of accidents that already
occur here. I personally know someone who was side swiped due to someone making a left turn out of the
DK/jack in the box parking lot, which is I'm sure the proposed driveway for this complex.
I know these complexes are all about making money for the developers, who have already greased the palms of
numerous council members to push this through. Our residents do not want this! Most of these complexes have
rent so high that most people can't even afford it.
I really hope this email helps keep this eye sore off this corner and keep traffic and accidents to a minimum and
safety as the highest priority.
Thank you for your time,
Pamela McCay, BSN, RN
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE.
CONDOS)
REQUEST:
To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use
building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of
commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project
exempt from CEQA.
LOCATION:
8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson
Ln.)
APPLICANT:
Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA
92882
BUSINESS
OWNER:
N/A
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach’s adopted land use
regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™587
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
Corridors Specific Plan)?
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
Conditional Use Permit?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
A) Consider the suggested findings for denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 17-042 as directed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2019.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Background:
On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the project
proposal to consolidate three parcels for a one-lot condominium map and development of a 48 unit
mixed-use project as described in the May 28, 2019 staff report (Attachment No. 2). The requested
permits to allow such development included 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and 2) Conditional
Use Permit No. 17-042. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered public
testimony, deliberated on the project and expressed concerns related to the required findings, and
directed staff to return with suggested findings for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2019 (Attachment No. 1).
Tentative Tract Map:
Per Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 251.08(F), the Planning
Commission shall deny approval of a tentative subdivision map if it determines that approval will
result in any of the conditions as described in Government Code Section 66474. The conditions
described in Government Code Section 66474 are as follows:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed
concerns relating to conditions (b), (c), and (d) listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission
expressed concerns that approval of the project would result in the following conditions for the
reasons specified:
·Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™588
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
·Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in
that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the
General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below.
·Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of
development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with
the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95
acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass,
bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the
scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will
generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for
bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd.
·Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50
dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density
of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project does not further the following General Plan and BECSP goals and policies:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1:New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure
that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1D:Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and
character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-3:Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents,
employees, and visitors.
Policy LU-3A:Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land
Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions.
Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-1c:Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management
provides the highest level of safety, service and resources.
Policy CIRC-1F:Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve
stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent
land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project.
Policy CIRC - 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to
consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth,
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™589
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the
above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not
compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land
uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use
development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-
story multi-family residential developments.
The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the
pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five
percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to
the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project
architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent
properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and
height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the
0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project
does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District
because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is
allocated to commercial use.
The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the
Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the
existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with
the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from
Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis
Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from
the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to
turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and
visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue
past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient
vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project
via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create
vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave.
Per Section 251.08(F) of the HBZSO if the Planning Commission determines that any of the
conditions listed in Government Code Section 66474 (and listed in this staff report for reference)
would result as a consequence of approval of the project, the Planning Commission shall deny
approval of the tentative subdivision map. These findings are reflected in Attachment No. 1.
Conditional Use Permit:
Per HBZSO Section 241.10, related to required findings for conditional use permits and variances,
subsection C requires the Planning Commission to deny a conditional use permit if it cannot make all
of the required findings under subsection A, which are as follows:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the
general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the
property and improvements in the neighborhood.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™590
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan.
3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable
provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in
the district in which it would be located.
After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed
concerns relating to finding 3 listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission expressed
concerns that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of
the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the
BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant
commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the
project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site,
and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP’s vision
of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property.
Per Section 241.10, subsection C of the HBZSO, if the Planning Commission cannot make all of the
required findings under subsection A (listed in this staff report for reference) the Planning
Commission is required to deny the conditional use permit. These findings are reflected in
Attachment No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157 and CUP No. 17-042
2. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™591
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
The Planning Commission finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in
Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein:
1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in
that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies conta ined within the
General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below.
2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of
development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with
the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre
parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and
intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and
proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts
with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to
continue onto Beach Blvd.
3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50
dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density
of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the
goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to
ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the
community.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale
and character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents,
employees, and visitors.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the
Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city
attractions.
Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users.
592
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation
management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources.
Policy CIRC-1F: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to
achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to
adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project.
Policy CIRC – 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to
consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth,
efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent
with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill
project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the
surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed
four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story
commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments.
The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to
the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately
five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is
oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west.
Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the
BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the
proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with
the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense
for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor
envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%)
of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use.
The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along
the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand
the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates
conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to t he
project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single
driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn
left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the proj ect site from
eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and
narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from
eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-
Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though
motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists
who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to
frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave.
593
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042:
The Planning Commission finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required
findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described
below:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building
consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with
the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25
and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would
be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood
Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five
Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points
District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half
percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use,
there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes
marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP’s vision of walkability
and pedestrian connections between public and private property
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
1
Aube, Nicolle
From:James, Jane
Sent:Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:11 PM
To:Luna-Reynosa, Ursula; Villasenor, Jennifer; Aube, Nicolle
Subject:FW: 🆕MyHB-#175843 City Council [06637]
FYI
Jane James | Planning Manager
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Community Development
714.536.5596 | jjames@surfcity‐hb.org
From: Esparza, Patty <PEsparza@surfcity‐hb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 12:58 PM
To: James, Jane <jjames@surfcity‐hb.org>
Subject: FW: 🆕 MyHB‐#175843 City Council [06637]
Communication received on the Ellis Ave. condo project being appealed.
Patty Esparza, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536‐5260
From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 11:10 AM
To: Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity‐hb.org>; Switzer, Donna <Donna.Switzer@surfcity‐hb.org>; Esparza,
Patty <PEsparza@surfcity‐hb.org>
Subject: 🆕 MyHB‐#175843 City Council [06637]
MyHB
Issue Type/Subtype Changed - #175843
Workorder #175843 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda & Public Hearing Comments and subtype City Council Meeting.
Status
Change issue type
Work Order
#175843
Issue Type
City Council
628
2
Subtype
All Council Members
Staff Member(s)
Robin Estanislau,Donna Switzer,Patty Esparza
Notes
Mayor and City Council Members, I am urging you to deny the appeal of the Developers of Ellis Ave. Condos. Your Planning
Commission denied their request to build these condos after a lengthy discussion of the many reasons this building is not a
good fit nor intended to fit with the BECP. I am sure you are aware of the many issues why the Planning Commission denied
their request. Issues such as entry and exit of the apartments, the shade study which the developers presented was found to
be completely flawed, the "coffee shop" which does not fit with the intent of the BECP, just too big of a building for such a
small narrow space. I could go on, but I think you are all aware of how this project is NOT a good fit for this area. In the event
you have not driven down Ellis in the morning or afternoon, give it a try during "rush hour". Quite often westbound traffic is
backed up to Goodwin Ln and sometimes as far back as Chapel Ln. To throw in an apartment entrance and exit on Ellis would
do nothing but increase this traffic and subject the area to more accidents by people trying to make a U turn on Ellis to come
back and make the "right turn only" entrance into this proposed building. As a long time resident of Huntington Beach, this is
not a good idea. As I mentioned earlier, your Planning Commission denied the project by a 6-1 vote. I am asking you to deny
the Developers appeal of this project. Thank you, Steve Farnsworth 18401 Goodwin Ln. Huntington Beach CA 92646
View the Report
Reporter Name
Steve Farnsworth
Email
hazmn54@gmail.com
Phone
714-975-1038
Report Submitted
JUL 23, 2019 - 5:01 PM
Please do not change subject line when responding.
629
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
1260 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103
hi@carlaef.org
7/19/2019
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Robin Estanislau, City Clerk, Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org; Erik Peterson,
Mayor, erik.peterson@surfcity-hb.org; Lyn Semeta, Mayor Pro Tempore,
Lyn.Semeta@surfcity-hb.org; Patrick Brenden, Council Member,
Patrick.Brenden@surfcity-hb.org; Kim Carr, Council Member,
Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org; Barbara Delgleize, Council Member,
barbara.delgleize@surfcity-hb.org; Jill Hardy, Council Member,
jill.hardy@surfcity-hb.org; Mike Posey, Council Member,
mike.posey@surfcity-hb.org;
Via Email
Re: 8041 Ellis Avenue
Case No. 19-545
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members,
The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this
letter to inform you that the Huntington Beach City Council has an obligation to abide
by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal,
including the Housing Accountability Act.
California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits
localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the
locality’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan at the time the application was deemed
complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing
development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section
is copied below:
(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable,
objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design
review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's
application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to
disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding
630
the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by
substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved
or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower
density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the
disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the
project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
The Applicant proposes to construct a 48-unit, 4-story mixed use building on a 0.95
acre site within the Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (SP 14).
The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant,
therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to
the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health
and safety, as described above.
In their denial of the project, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission failed to
provide objective criteria that the project violates. Instead the Planning Commission
made subjective assertions about the project’s conformity with the Specific Plan (SP
14) that do not constitute valid conditions for denial and contradict the actual content
of the Specific Plan.
CaRLA is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission is to restore a legal
environment in which California builds housing equal to its needs, which we pursue
through public impact litigation and providing educational programs to California city
officials and their staff.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Co-Executive Director
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org
1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
631
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org
1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
632
633
634
635
1
Aube, Nicolle
From:Tahir Salim <salimtheone@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 06, 2019 2:53 PM
To:Aube, Nicolle
Cc:Scott Yorkison
Subject:Continuance of the meeting
Nicole,
Based on our conversation regarding 2 members being absent on the 19th, please move my hearing date to the
September 3rd. Please confirm my email.
Thanks
Tahir
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE.
CONDOS)
REQUEST:
To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use
building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of
commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project
exempt from CEQA.
LOCATION:
8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson
Ln.)
APPLICANT:
Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA
92882
BUSINESS
OWNER:
N/A
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach’s adopted land use
regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™678
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
Corridors Specific Plan)?
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
Conditional Use Permit?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
A) Consider the suggested findings for denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 17-042 as directed by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2019.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Background:
On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the project
proposal to consolidate three parcels for a one-lot condominium map and development of a 48 unit
mixed-use project as described in the May 28, 2019 staff report (Attachment No. 2). The requested
permits to allow such development included 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and 2) Conditional
Use Permit No. 17-042. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered public
testimony, deliberated on the project and expressed concerns related to the required findings, and
directed staff to return with suggested findings for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2019 (Attachment No. 1).
Tentative Tract Map:
Per Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 251.08(F), the Planning
Commission shall deny approval of a tentative subdivision map if it determines that approval will
result in any of the conditions as described in Government Code Section 66474. The conditions
described in Government Code Section 66474 are as follows:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed
concerns relating to conditions (b), (c), and (d) listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission
expressed concerns that approval of the project would result in the following conditions for the
reasons specified:
·Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™679
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
·Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in
that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies contained within the
General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below.
·Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of
development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with
the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95
acre parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass,
bulk, and intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the
scale and proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will
generate conflicts with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for
bicyclists to continue onto Beach Blvd.
·Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50
dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density
of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project does not further the following General Plan and BECSP goals and policies:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1:New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure
that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1D:Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and
character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-3:Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents,
employees, and visitors.
Policy LU-3A:Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land
Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions.
Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-1c:Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management
provides the highest level of safety, service and resources.
Policy CIRC-1F:Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve
stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent
land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project.
Policy CIRC - 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to
consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth,
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™680
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent with the
above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill project is not
compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the surrounding land
uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed four story mixed use
development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story commercial and two-
story multi-family residential developments.
The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to the
pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately five
percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is oriented to
the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west. Further, the project
architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the BECSP. The adjacent
properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the proposed project. The length and
height of the proposed building is not compatible with the long, narrow characteristics of the
0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense for the available land area. The project
does not support the vibrant commercial corridor envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District
because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is
allocated to commercial use.
The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along the
Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand the
existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates conflicts with
the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to the project site from
Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single driveway along Ellis
Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn left onto Ellis Ave. from
the driveway and motorists entering the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to
turn left into the project site due to congestion and narrow roadway widths. Residents and
visitors cannot directly access the project site from eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue
past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient
vehicular movements. Additionally, even though motorists will be required to exit the project
via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists who do not abide by this restriction may create
vehicular hazards and conflicts due to frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave.
Per Section 251.08(F) of the HBZSO if the Planning Commission determines that any of the
conditions listed in Government Code Section 66474 (and listed in this staff report for reference)
would result as a consequence of approval of the project, the Planning Commission shall deny
approval of the tentative subdivision map. These findings are reflected in Attachment No. 1.
Conditional Use Permit:
Per HBZSO Section 241.10, related to required findings for conditional use permits and variances,
subsection C requires the Planning Commission to deny a conditional use permit if it cannot make all
of the required findings under subsection A, which are as follows:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the
general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the
property and improvements in the neighborhood.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™681
File #:19-666 MEETING DATE:6/11/2019
2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan.
3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable
provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in
the district in which it would be located.
After considering public testimony the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed
concerns relating to finding 3 listed above. In particular, the Planning Commission expressed
concerns that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of
the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five Points District of the
BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points District and does not further a vibrant
commercial corridor because only one and a half percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the
project is allocated to commercial use, there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site,
and the project proposes marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP’s vision
of walkability and pedestrian connections between public and private property.
Per Section 241.10, subsection C of the HBZSO, if the Planning Commission cannot make all of the
required findings under subsection A (listed in this staff report for reference) the Planning
Commission is required to deny the conditional use permit. These findings are reflected in
Attachment No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings for Denial of TTM No. 18157 and CUP No. 17-042
2. May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 6/6/2019Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™682
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
The Planning Commission finds and determines that certain conditions (b), (c) and (d) listed in
Government Code Section 66474 would result as a consequence of approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 18157, for reasons more particularly described herein:
1. Approval of the project would result in a design of the proposed subdivision that is not
consistent with the General Plan and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) in
that the project design fails to further a number of goals and policies conta ined within the
General Plan and BECSP. More particular detail and analysis is contained below.
2. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the type of
development in that the site will not function as an integrated development compatible with
the vision of the BECSP by merging three existing lots into a single long and narrow 0.95 acre
parcel. The long and narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the proposed mass, bulk, and
intensity of the proposed four story mixed use project and does not complement the scale and
proportion of surrounding one and two-story developments. The project will generate conflicts
with vehicular circulation on Ellis Ave. and there will be no connectivity for bicyclists to
continue onto Beach Blvd.
3. Approval of the project would result in a site that is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of development in that the proposed project results in a density of approximately 50
dwelling units per acre while the adjacent residential property is built at an aggregate density
of 13 dwelling units per acre.
The design and improvement of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 does not further the
goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to
ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the
community.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale
and character to complement adjoining uses.
Goal LU-3: Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents,
employees, and visitors.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the
Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city
attractions.
Policy LU-3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and safe for users.
683
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation
management provides the highest level of safety, service and resources.
Policy CIRC-1F: Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to
achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to
adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project.
Policy CIRC – 1G: Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to
consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth,
efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The proposed lot consolidation, subdivision, design and improvement is not consistent
with the above goals and policies of the General Plan or the BECSP because the infill
project is not compatible in density, intensity, proportion, scale, and character with the
surrounding land uses and does not complement the adjoining uses in that the proposed
four story mixed use development is significantly more intense than the adjacent one-story
commercial and two-story multi-family residential developments.
The BECSP encourages buildings to orient towards streets and provide enhancements to
the pedestrian and public experience. However, in the proposed project, approximately
five percent of the building length is oriented towards Ellis Ave. while the remainder is
oriented to the established residences to the east and commercial uses to the west.
Further, the project architectural design and scale is not compatible with the vision of the
BECSP. The adjacent properties will be impacted by the height and massing of the
proposed project. The length and height of the proposed building is not compatible with
the long, narrow characteristics of the 0.95 acre site because it is too bulky and too intense
for the available land area. The project does not support the vibrant commercial corridor
envisioned in the BECSP Five Points District because only one and a half percent (1.5%)
of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use.
The proposed project does not create continuity with new and existing development along
the Beach Boulevard corridor because the project does not propose to augment or expand
the existing bikeways. Furthermore, ingress and egress to the project site generates
conflicts with the flow of traffic on Ellis Ave. There is no access or connectivity to t he
project site from Beach Blvd and insufficient vehicular access is provided via a single
driveway along Ellis Avenue. Motorists exiting the project site will be unable to safely turn
left onto Ellis Ave. from the driveway and motorists entering the proj ect site from
eastbound Ellis Ave. will be unable to turn left into the project site due to congestion and
narrow roadway widths. Residents and visitors cannot directly access the project site from
eastbound Ellis Ave. and must continue past the project to Patterson Ln. to make a U-
Turn on Ellis Ave., resulting in inefficient vehicular movements. Additionally, even though
motorists will be required to exit the project via a right hand turn onto Ellis Ave., motorists
who do not abide by this restriction may create vehicular hazards and conflicts due to
frequent congestion and queuing on Ellis Ave.
684
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042:
The Planning Commission finds and determines that it is unable to make all of the required
findings, contained in Section 241.10(A) of the HBZSO, for reasons more particularly described
below:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building
consisting of 48 condominium residences and 891 sf. of retail space will not comply with
the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25
and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would
be located in that the project does not further the vision of the Town Center Neighborhood
Segment of the BECSP, which envisions a vibrant commercial corridor within the Five
Points District of the BECSP. The proposed project is located within the Five Points
District and does not further a vibrant commercial corridor because only one and a half
percent (1.5%) of the total square footage of the project is allocated to commercial use,
there is insufficient vehicular ingress and egress to the site, and the project proposes
marginal public open space that does not contribute to the BECSP’s vision of walkability
and pedestrian connections between public and private property
685
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Nicolle Aube, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042 (ELLIS AVE.
CONDOS)
REQUEST:
To permit a one-lot subdivision and development of a four-story mixed-use
building including 48 new condominium residences with 891 square feet of
commercial space and three levels of subterranean parking and find the project
exempt from CEQA.
LOCATION:
8041 Ellis Avenue (North side of Ellis Ave., between Beach Blvd. and Patterson
Ln.)
APPLICANT:
Jeff Herbst, MCG Architecture, 111 Pacifica, Suite 280, Irvine, CA 92618
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Tahir Salim, THDT Investment, Inc., 1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202, Corona, CA
92882
BUSINESS
OWNER:
N/A
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach’s adopted land use
regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Beach and Edinger
Corridors Specific Plan)?
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 1 of 17
powered by Legistar™686
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
Conditional Use Permit?
3. Has the appropriate level of environmental analysis appropriately identified all environmental
impacts with appropriate mitigation?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457.
B) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 with
suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
A) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 and direct
staff to return with findings for denial.
B) Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-04 and direct staff
accordingly.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The project site is approximately 0.95 acres and consists of three parcels with two existing buildings -
a liquor store and a residence. The existing buildings will be demolished in order to construct the
proposed four-story building with three levels of subterranean parking. The north side of the project
site was formerly utilized as part of the Metro Car Wash located at 18400 Beach Boulevard. Metro
Car Wash has ceased operations and the owner of 18400 Beach Boulevard is currently constructing
a new car wash on the property. The proposed condominium project and new car wash do not have
any overlapping elements and are entirely separate projects.
According to the Applicant’s narrative (Attachment No. 3), the project owner intends for the units to
be sold to individual buyers as condominiums so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building
maintenance, regular up-keep, and cleaning will be handled by the HOA management team via
contracts with local services. The project owner proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in
order to comply with the Affordable Housing requirement. In the event the project is operated as
rental apartment units, five on-site units will be designated as rentals affordable to low income
households.
Background:
1.In 2010, the City adopted the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14). The goal of
SP14 was to transform the current development of commercial strip centers lined with surface
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 2 of 17
powered by Legistar™687
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
SP14 was to transform the current development of commercial strip centers lined with surface
parking lots and generally low-rise commercial buildings to a pattern of centers and segments
characterized with clusters of shops and activity of varying intensity. These new active areas
would include a mix of residential, offices, and commercial uses oriented to alternative modes
of transportation including walking and bicycling. Along the Beach Boulevard corridor near
Ellis Avenue, the development of a “Town-Center Neighborhood” segment would feature the
City’s widest range of contemporary housing types and possibly a wide mixture of uses.
2. In 2015, the City Council amended SP14 to decrease the total number of residential units
allowed from 4,500 to 2,100, increase setbacks, increase minimum parking standards, require
upper story setbacks, require a commercial component in all residential buildings, and permit
residential subject to approval of a CUP. Other amendments related to auto dealers and civic
and cultural uses were also approved. Out of the 2,100 Maximum Amount of New
Development (MAND) units currently permitted, approximately 1,900 have been constructed
leaving a balance of 200 units.
Study Session:
The Planning Commission held a Study Session on May 14, 2019 and discussed the following
issues:
General
Solar panels on adjacent properties
The Planning Commission discussed the potential impact of the project on adjacent properties to the
east that have rooftop solar panels. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis exhibit
(Attachment No. 6). Per the exhibit, the adjacent buildings to the east may experience
shade/shadow beginning at approximately 6:00 PM during the summer months, approximately 4:00
PM during the fall months, and approximately 3:30 PM during the winter months.
Distance of the project site from the intersection
The proposed project site is approximately 96 ft. from the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave.
Pets
At this time, the applicant has not provided information regarding pets at the property.
Comparable projects
The Planning Commission requested a list of comparable projects. Staff has prepared an exhibit of
comparable completed projects within SP14 (Attachment No. 7).
Revised site plan for clarity
The Planning Commission requested a revised site plan exhibit which removes the utilities and other
layers in order to depict the property lines, setbacks, etc. more clearly. The applicant has prepared a
revised site plan to fulfill this request (Attachment No. 8).
Environmental
Artifacts on the project site
Since the project site has been previously disturbed and developed, it is not likely that construction of
the proposed project will result in discovery of cultural resources. Program Environmental Impact
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 3 of 17
powered by Legistar™688
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
the proposed project will result in discovery of cultural resources. Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) No. 08-008 for BECSP included a Cultural and Paleontological Resources survey of the
entire SP14 area. Two archeological sites were identified within the SP14 area and are labeled as
CA-ORA-296 and CA-ORA-358. CA-ORA-296 is located on the west side of Newland Ave. between
Slater Ave. and Talbert Ave. CA-ORA-358 is located on the corner of Indianapolis Ave. and Beach
Blvd. Neither of these sites are within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Although there
are no archeological sites near the project, the project will comply with BECSP MM 4.4 regarding
Cultural and Paleontological Resources. For example, in the event that native soil is disturbed, an
archeology professional will be retained to determine if a substantial adverse change would occur to
an archeological resource.
Acoustic study
The Planning Commission asked why the Acoustic Study is not required to be submitted prior to
project approval. The BECSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes Mitigation
Measure 4.9-5 which requires an acoustic study to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
The acoustic study will present an analysis of the potential noise impacts of the surrounding
environment on exterior (ex: patios and balconies) and interior components of the proposed project.
MM 4.9-5 includes a provision that requires final project design to incorporate special design
measures in the construction of the proposed residential units, if necessary.
Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14)
Zoning Pre-2010
Prior to the 2010 adoption of SP14, the property had a General Plan Land Use designation of CG -
F2 - d (Commercial General - Flood Overlay - design overlay) and a Zoning designation of CG
(General Commercial).
Did SP14 envision narrow lot development or unconsolidated development?
SP14 divides the Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. corridors into five general areas or segments. The
overall vision for SP14 is to develop primarily residential and neighborhood retail uses in the southern
portion of Beach Boulevard, transitioning to mixed uses in the middle segment of Beach Boulevard,
then to a more dense “town center” adjacent to and at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and
Edinger Avenue, and extending along Edinger Avenue. Geographically, the intention is to intensify
land uses as one travels north along Beach Boulevard from the southern boundary of the SP area.
The project site is within the Five Points district of SP14, which is envisioned to enable investment in
a visible, mixed-use cluster at this central location. SP14 discusses infill development on
underutilized properties responding to the broad framework of the Specific Plan which will contribute
to an emerging pattern of coherent arrangements of buildings, streets, and blocks. Although it might
be ideal for clusters of small properties to consolidate and propose a unified project, it is not always
possible due to market conditions and the interests of individual property owners. This is
contemplated in the SP14 Development Concept which states that the common purpose of
development within the Specific Plan is the realization of a vision of the future that is sufficiently
specific to meet the revitalization goals, yet loose enough to respond to opportunities and changes in
the marketplace that will inevitably arise.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 4 of 17
powered by Legistar™689
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Traffic Impacts, Traffic Improvements, and Grading
Required Dedications
The Public Works Department has indicated that the only dedication the project requires is a four foot
dedication along Ellis Ave.
Traffic Mitigation
The Public Works Department has indicated that payment of fair share traffic fees and
implementation of a right in, right out only driveway along with on-street striping and driveway
improvements to supplement the right in/out only movements are the required traffic mitigations. The
project does not result in other traffic related impacts requiring mitigation.
Also, the Planning Commission requested information regarding Level of Service (LOS) in the project
vicinity. LOS is a method of describing the delays experienced by drivers at a particular intersection
or roadway. If a project is determined to create a significant traffic delay, it may impact and
downgrade the LOS rating. The Traffic Impact Analysis finds that the proposed project driveway is
forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2020 traffic
conditions. LOS B is defined as 0.61 - 0.70 seconds of delay and is described as a very good traffic
condition with short delays. It must be noted that although the level of service calculation indicates
LOS B operations at the project driveway, residents of the project may experience delays
entering/exiting the project site due to vehicle queueing on Ellis Ave. The Public Works Department
has prepared a summary of volume to capacity ratio at AM/PM Peak Hours in the project vicinity
(Attachment No. 11).
Will payment of fees at “full buildout” of SP14 cover all needs for traffic?
The Public Works Department has indicated that collection of the fair share payment is sufficient to
mitigate all the identified intersection improvements of the Specific Plan.
Description of all traffic requirements for the project
The Public Works Department has indicated that the following items are required related to traffic and
street improvements: BECSP EIR Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measures (by payment of fair
share traffic impact fees), BECSP Streetscape Improvement Development Standards (four ft.
dedication), CP Circulation Element and PW standards (with implementation of right in/out driveway,
on-street striping, and driveway improvements).
North side grading
The preliminary grading plan (Attachment No. 12) depicts the subject site with a grade of
approximately 6.6 ft. for drainage purposes with a 6.6 ft. high retaining wall. The six ft. grade is
proposed as the highest point with a gradual reduction in grade to approximately three to four ft. near
the subterranean garage entrance. Staff recommends a condition of approval (Attachment No. 1) to
require the proposed drainage pattern and system to be revised prior to issuance of a grading permit
to reduce retaining wall and grade differential impacts to adjacent properties to the north, east, and
west. Staff recommends a maximum two ft. retaining wall may be constructed and topped with a
maximum six ft. high block wall.
What (if any) grading or construction activities can occur outside of 10 AM - 4 PM? What time can
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 5 of 17
powered by Legistar™690
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
they start grading?
Public Works Code Requirements for the project limit the hours of hauling trucks at the site from 8:00
A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday - Friday only. The BECSP Mitigation Measures limit high noise-producing
activities to the hours of 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Fire Access
Ladder pads
Per the Huntington Beach Fire Department, all bedroom windows are required to be accessible from
ground ladders. The applicant has provided HBFD with plans that show the ladder pads for ground
ladder access to egress windows.
Elan
Statistics on increased accidents due to Elan
The Public Works Department has provided information regarding accident rates at three
intersections in the project vicinity three years prior to occupancy of the Elan building and three years
after the occupancy of the Elan building (Attachment No. 9). The analysis concludes that accidents
after the occupancy of Elan have decreased compared to the rate of accidents prior to the occupancy
of Elan.
Comparison of the proposed project to Elan
On May 15, 2012 the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 12-001 (Elan) to develop
a mixed use project consisting of 274 residential units including six live-work units, 8,500 square feet
of commercial space, an internal 430 space parking garage and 54,546 sf of private and public open
space on a 2.74 acre site. The Planning Commission requested a comparison chart of the proposed
project to Elan. It must be noted that Elan was approved prior to the 2015 BECSP Amendments
which included the following revisions to topics relevant to Elan and the proposed project:
·Reduce the residential Maximum Amount of Net New Development (MAND) from 4,500 units
to 2,100 units
·Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all residential and mixed use
(residential/commercial) projects
·Increase the residential parking requirements
·Increase front yard setbacks on all public streets
·Limit maximum building height to four stories
·Create an upper-story setback above the third floor
·Require all residential projects to include retail/commercial uses at the street level
Provision Elan Proposed Project
Number of Units 274 48
Density 100 units per acre 50 units per acre
Height Ellis Ave.: ranges from 4-6 stories
4th story: 43 ft. high 6th story: 63 ft.
6 in. high
4 stories 46 ft. to the highest point
Setbacks Ellis Ave.: 0 ft. 2 in.Ellis Ave.: 30 ft. Upper story
setback: 11 ft. 1 in. setback along
front and sides of building for a
depth of 101 ft. 10 in. on the 4th
floor
Parking 1-2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 6 of 17
powered by Legistar™691
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Elan Proposed ProjectNumber of Units 274 48
Density 100 units per acre 50 units per acre
Height Ellis Ave.: ranges from 4-6 stories
4th story: 43 ft. high 6th story: 63 ft.
6 in. high
4 stories 46 ft. to the highest point
Setbacks Ellis Ave.: 0 ft. 2 in.Ellis Ave.: 30 ft. Upper story
setback: 11 ft. 1 in. setback along
front and sides of building for a
depth of 101 ft. 10 in. on the 4th
floor
Parking 1-2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit
The Planning Commission also asked for information regarding trip generation rates for the proposed
project compared to Elan. The Public Works Department has prepared a trip generation analysis
comparison for both projects (Attachment No. 10).
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Subject Property And Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning And Land Uses:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property:M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Convenience store
and one residence
North of Subject
Property:
M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Hotel and commercial
shopping center
East of Subject
Property:
RM (Residential
Medium Density)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
Multi-family housing
South of Subject
Property:
M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Mixed-use retail and
multi-family housing
(Elan)
West of Subject
Property:
M-sp (Mixed-Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP14 (Beach Edinger
Corridor Specific Plan)
Drive-through
restaurant and car
wash (under
construction)
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Mixed Use - Specific Plan
Overlay. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the
City’s General Plan as follows:
A.Land Use Element
Goal LU-1:New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure
that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A:Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented
in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land
use designation.
Policy LU-1B:Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of
environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C:Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 7 of 17
powered by Legistar™692
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Policy LU-1C:Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D:Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and
character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2D:Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
Policy LU-3A:Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land
Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions.
Goal LU-4:A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic, physical, and
social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood character and residences
are well maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4A:Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse
housing needs.
Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit.
Goal LU-13:The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a
high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13A:Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to
accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific
Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider walkways, and large open space
areas to enhance the pedestrian and public experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open
space will be provided in a plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with
enhanced landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of the
building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major façade offsets, and façade composition
changes to break up the massing of the building at street frontages. Brick veneer is applied along
the base of the building with canopies at entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The façade
skyline is then capped with parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use
development will provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity of
new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use. By permitting a mix of
land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur between developments and further the vision
and viability of the BECSP.
B.Housing Element
Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices:Provide site opportunities for development of housing
that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types, cost and location,
emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote walkability.
Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use:Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing and
encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal andCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 8 of 17
powered by Legistar™693
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both horizontal and
vertical mixed-use configurations.
Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan:Encourage and facilitate the provision
of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan.
Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability:Incorporate transit and other
transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of new development,
particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit stops.
The project includes six one-bedroom units and forty-two two-bedroom units that would
accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household types. The units
range from 645 - 880 sf. The proposed project will help to fulfill the City’s share of the regional
housing need by providing smaller dwelling units which will be more financially attainable by virtue of
size. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for affordable housing.
The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site affordable housing units in order to comply with
the affordable housing requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to
different activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for many
households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit to complete
their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the need for affordable housing for this segment
of the population.
C.Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-3a:Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit and areas of
employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase ridership and active mobility, with
a focus on first/last mile solutions.
Goal CIRC-6:Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes,
equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-day required activities
in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities.
Policy CIRC-6(C):Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate with
pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided for the
infrastructure.
Although the site is relatively narrow, the proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and
existing development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with new
landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare. Pedestrian connectivity is
improved with landscaping and architectural elements through the proposed public open space and
wider sidewalks. The project is serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd.
and Ellis Ave. and also provides bicycle parking in the underground parking structure to
accommodate alternative methods of transportation.
Zoning Compliance:
The proposed project is located within Specific Plan No. 14 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific
Plan and complies with the requirements of the Town Center Neighborhood Segment. The purpose
of the BECSP is to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality ofCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 9 of 17
powered by Legistar™694
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
of the BECSP is to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of
the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. Future development would transform existing
commercial strips, which are predominantly lined with large expanses of pavement or
underperforming uses, to a pattern of centers and segments generating increased activity and
greater interaction between developments. As previously mentioned, the project site is located in the
Town Center Neighborhood segment of the Five Points District within the BECSP. The Five Points
District is designated as a potential City center characterized by convenience and urban vitality.
Development within the Town Center Neighborhood segment is encouraged to be revitalized through
infill development on underutilized properties. This segment is envisioned to have greater
development intensity than surrounding segments, including new apartments or condominiums with
shopfronts and parking areas screened from view. Development is to be more compact in this
segment in order to provide the activity expected in a vibrant urban district.
The table below shows an overview of the project’s conformance to the significant development
standards of the BECSP. In addition, a list of City Code Requirements of the applicable provisions of
the BECSP and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal
Code has been provided to the applicant and attached to this report (Attachment No. 19) for
informational purposes only.
Provision Town Center
Neighborhood
Proposed Project
2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residential
Commercial
42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1
one bedroom units 891 sf
commercial retail
2.2.2 Special Retail
Configuration
n/a n/a
2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of the
proposed 48 units 4.8 units
required
5 affordable units to be
constructed on-site
2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 stories
Ground floor retail - 14 ft.
min. floor to ceiling
Adjacent to housing
4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling
45° slope complies
2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max
2.3.4 Special Building
Length
Limited mid-block building -
max. 80 ft.
54 ft.
2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to
3L:1H
Complies with massing
range
2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to Ellis
Ave.
2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types including
shopfront, corner entry,
common lobby, etc.
Ellis Ave. elevation:
Shopfront - 24 ft. long
Internal elevation: Common
Lobby Entry
2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.
Upper story setback - 10 ft.
along front and sides of a
building for a depth of
minimum 100 ft. for
structures above the 3rd floor
30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.
setback for a depth of 101 ft.
10 in.
2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows
- 10 ft.
West side: 10 ft. East side:
33 ft. 7 in.
2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.
2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a
2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a
2.4.8 Space Between
Buildings
n/a n/a
2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a
2.5.1 Improvements to
Existing Streets
Neighborhood Streets
required - 12 ft. total
including 6 ft. wide planter
and 6 ft. wide sidewalk
12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter
6 ft. wide sidewalk
2.5.2 Provision of New
Streets
n/a n/a
2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a
2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a
2.5.5 Required East-West
Street Connection
n/a n/a
2.5.6 Residential
Transition-Boundary
Street
n/a n/a
2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a
2.6.1 Provision of Public
Open Space
Residential - min.50 sf. per
unit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.
50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.
2,444.5 sf. required
2,703 sf.
2.6.2 Special Public Open
Space
n/a n/a
2.6.3 Provision of Private
Open Space
Residential - 60 sf. per unit
x 48 total units = 2,880 sf.
4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =
2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281
sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor
units excluded from private
open space calculation due
to noncompliant porch type)
2.6.4 Public Open Space
Types
Provide either: Park, Linear
Green, Square, Plaza, Mid-
Block Green, Courtyard
Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or
Pocket Park/Playground
Plaza
2.6.5 Private Open Space
Types
Provide either: Courtyard,
Private Yard, Rooftop Deck
or Garden, or Balcony
1st floor units - noncompliant
porch (excluded from private
open space calculations) 2
nd - 4th floor units - balconies
4th floor - rooftop deck
2.6.6 Stormwater
Management
Best Management Practices
required
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.7 Stormwater BMP
Types
Source Control BMPs, Site
Design BMPs, Treatment
Control BMPs
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.8 Open Space
Landscaping
Required Public plaza furniture
Decorative stamped
concrete paving treatment
2.6.9 Setback Area
Landscaping Types
Perimeter Block Setback
Area -Sidewalk extension
required with Shopfront:
paving material consistent
with the public right-of-way
Interior Block Setback Area -
Groundcover required: cover
side and rear yard areas
with landscaping or other
pervious surfaces
Sidewalk extension
provided : decorative
stamped concrete paving to
provide continuity
w/sidewalk Side and rear
yards landscaped with
shrubs, trees, and
groundcover
2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12
required) 2 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84
required) Guest = 0.5 min/1
units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12
spaces provided 2 bedroom
= 84 spaces provided Guest
= 24 spaces provided Retail
= 5 spaces provided Total:
125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 10 of 17
powered by Legistar™695
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Town CenterNeighborhood Proposed Project2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residentialCommercial 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1one bedroom units 891 sfcommercial retail2.2.2 Special RetailConfiguration n/a n/a2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of theproposed 48 units 4.8 unitsrequired 5 affordable units to beconstructed on-site2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 storiesGround floor retail - 14 ft.min. floor to ceilingAdjacent to housing 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling45° slope complies2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max2.3.4 Special BuildingLength Limited mid-block building -max. 80 ft.54 ft.2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to
3L:1H
Complies with massing
range
2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to Ellis
Ave.
2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types including
shopfront, corner entry,
common lobby, etc.
Ellis Ave. elevation:
Shopfront - 24 ft. long
Internal elevation: Common
Lobby Entry
2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.
Upper story setback - 10 ft.
along front and sides of a
building for a depth of
minimum 100 ft. for
structures above the 3rd floor
30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.
setback for a depth of 101 ft.
10 in.
2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows
- 10 ft.
West side: 10 ft. East side:
33 ft. 7 in.
2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.
2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a
2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a
2.4.8 Space Between
Buildings
n/a n/a
2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a
2.5.1 Improvements to
Existing Streets
Neighborhood Streets
required - 12 ft. total
including 6 ft. wide planter
and 6 ft. wide sidewalk
12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter
6 ft. wide sidewalk
2.5.2 Provision of New
Streets
n/a n/a
2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a
2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a
2.5.5 Required East-West
Street Connection
n/a n/a
2.5.6 Residential
Transition-Boundary
Street
n/a n/a
2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a
2.6.1 Provision of Public
Open Space
Residential - min.50 sf. per
unit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.
50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.
2,444.5 sf. required
2,703 sf.
2.6.2 Special Public Open
Space
n/a n/a
2.6.3 Provision of Private
Open Space
Residential - 60 sf. per unit
x 48 total units = 2,880 sf.
4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =
2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281
sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor
units excluded from private
open space calculation due
to noncompliant porch type)
2.6.4 Public Open Space
Types
Provide either: Park, Linear
Green, Square, Plaza, Mid-
Block Green, Courtyard
Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or
Pocket Park/Playground
Plaza
2.6.5 Private Open Space
Types
Provide either: Courtyard,
Private Yard, Rooftop Deck
or Garden, or Balcony
1st floor units - noncompliant
porch (excluded from private
open space calculations) 2
nd - 4th floor units - balconies
4th floor - rooftop deck
2.6.6 Stormwater
Management
Best Management Practices
required
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.7 Stormwater BMP
Types
Source Control BMPs, Site
Design BMPs, Treatment
Control BMPs
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.8 Open Space
Landscaping
Required Public plaza furniture
Decorative stamped
concrete paving treatment
2.6.9 Setback Area
Landscaping Types
Perimeter Block Setback
Area -Sidewalk extension
required with Shopfront:
paving material consistent
with the public right-of-way
Interior Block Setback Area -
Groundcover required: cover
side and rear yard areas
with landscaping or other
pervious surfaces
Sidewalk extension
provided : decorative
stamped concrete paving to
provide continuity
w/sidewalk Side and rear
yards landscaped with
shrubs, trees, and
groundcover
2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12
required) 2 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84
required) Guest = 0.5 min/1
units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12
spaces provided 2 bedroom
= 84 spaces provided Guest
= 24 spaces provided Retail
= 5 spaces provided Total:
125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 11 of 17
powered by Legistar™696
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Town CenterNeighborhood Proposed Project2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residentialCommercial 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1one bedroom units 891 sfcommercial retail2.2.2 Special RetailConfiguration n/a n/a2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of theproposed 48 units 4.8 unitsrequired 5 affordable units to beconstructed on-site2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 storiesGround floor retail - 14 ft.min. floor to ceilingAdjacent to housing 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling45° slope complies2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max2.3.4 Special BuildingLength Limited mid-block building -max. 80 ft.54 ft.2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to3L:1H Complies with massingrange2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to EllisAve.2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types includingshopfront, corner entry,common lobby, etc.Ellis Ave. elevation:Shopfront - 24 ft. longInternal elevation: CommonLobby Entry2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.Upper story setback - 10 ft.along front and sides of abuilding for a depth ofminimum 100 ft. forstructures above the 3rd floor 30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.setback for a depth of 101 ft.10 in.2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows- 10 ft.West side: 10 ft. East side:33 ft. 7 in.2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a2.4.8 Space BetweenBuildings n/a n/a2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a2.5.1 Improvements toExisting Streets Neighborhood Streetsrequired - 12 ft. totalincluding 6 ft. wide planterand 6 ft. wide sidewalk 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter6 ft. wide sidewalk2.5.2 Provision of NewStreets n/a n/a2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a2.5.5 Required East-WestStreet Connection n/a n/a2.5.6 ResidentialTransition-BoundaryStreet n/a n/a2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a2.6.1 Provision of PublicOpen Space Residential - min.50 sf. perunit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.
2,444.5 sf. required
2,703 sf.
2.6.2 Special Public Open
Space
n/a n/a
2.6.3 Provision of Private
Open Space
Residential - 60 sf. per unit
x 48 total units = 2,880 sf.
4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =
2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281
sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floor
units excluded from private
open space calculation due
to noncompliant porch type)
2.6.4 Public Open Space
Types
Provide either: Park, Linear
Green, Square, Plaza, Mid-
Block Green, Courtyard
Plaza, Passage/Paseo, or
Pocket Park/Playground
Plaza
2.6.5 Private Open Space
Types
Provide either: Courtyard,
Private Yard, Rooftop Deck
or Garden, or Balcony
1st floor units - noncompliant
porch (excluded from private
open space calculations) 2
nd - 4th floor units - balconies
4th floor - rooftop deck
2.6.6 Stormwater
Management
Best Management Practices
required
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.7 Stormwater BMP
Types
Source Control BMPs, Site
Design BMPs, Treatment
Control BMPs
Provided - WQMP required
to ensure compliance
2.6.8 Open Space
Landscaping
Required Public plaza furniture
Decorative stamped
concrete paving treatment
2.6.9 Setback Area
Landscaping Types
Perimeter Block Setback
Area -Sidewalk extension
required with Shopfront:
paving material consistent
with the public right-of-way
Interior Block Setback Area -
Groundcover required: cover
side and rear yard areas
with landscaping or other
pervious surfaces
Sidewalk extension
provided : decorative
stamped concrete paving to
provide continuity
w/sidewalk Side and rear
yards landscaped with
shrubs, trees, and
groundcover
2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12
required) 2 bedroom @ 2
min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84
required) Guest = 0.5 min/1
units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12
spaces provided 2 bedroom
= 84 spaces provided Guest
= 24 spaces provided Retail
= 5 spaces provided Total:
125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 12 of 17
powered by Legistar™697
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
Provision Town CenterNeighborhood Proposed Project2.2 Use Regulations Multi-family residentialCommercial 42 - 2 bedroom units 6 - 1one bedroom units 891 sfcommercial retail2.2.2 Special RetailConfiguration n/a n/a2.2.3 Affordable Housing Required - 10% of theproposed 48 units 4.8 unitsrequired 5 affordable units to beconstructed on-site2.3.1 & 2.3.2 Height Min. 2 story/ Max. 4 storiesGround floor retail - 14 ft.min. floor to ceilingAdjacent to housing 4 stories 14 ft. retail ceiling45° slope complies2.3.3 Building Length Max. 300 ft.54 ft. max2.3.4 Special BuildingLength Limited mid-block building -max. 80 ft.54 ft.2.3.5 Building Massing All other streets - 1L:3H to3L:1H Complies with massingrange2.4.1 Building Orientation Orientation to street required Building oriented to EllisAve.2.4.2 Private Frontage Various types includingshopfront, corner entry,common lobby, etc.Ellis Ave. elevation:Shopfront - 24 ft. longInternal elevation: CommonLobby Entry2.4.3 Front Setback All other streets - min. 30 ft.Upper story setback - 10 ft.along front and sides of abuilding for a depth ofminimum 100 ft. forstructures above the 3rd floor 30 ft. 4th floor: 11 ft. 1 in.setback for a depth of 101 ft.10 in.2.4.4 Side Setback Min. w/living space windows- 10 ft.West side: 10 ft. East side:33 ft. 7 in.2.4.5 Rear Yard Setback Min. 10 ft.15 ft. 7 in.2.4.6 Alley Setback n/a n/a2.4.7 Frontage Coverage n/a n/a2.4.8 Space BetweenBuildings n/a n/a2.4.9 Build-to-Corner n/a n/a2.5.1 Improvements toExisting Streets Neighborhood Streetsrequired - 12 ft. totalincluding 6 ft. wide planterand 6 ft. wide sidewalk 12 ft. total 6 ft. wide planter6 ft. wide sidewalk2.5.2 Provision of NewStreets n/a n/a2.5.3 Block Size n/a n/a2.5.4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a2.5.5 Required East-WestStreet Connection n/a n/a2.5.6 ResidentialTransition-BoundaryStreet n/a n/a2.5.7 Street Types n/a n/a2.6.1 Provision of PublicOpen Space Residential - min.50 sf. perunit = 2,400 sf. Retail - min.50 sf. per 1,000 sf. = 44.5 sf.2,444.5 sf. required 2,703 sf.2.6.2 Special Public OpenSpace n/a n/a2.6.3 Provision of PrivateOpen Space Residential - 60 sf. per unitx 48 total units = 2,880 sf.4 (1 br) = 244 sf. 32 (2 br) =2,976 sf. Roof deck = 3,281sf. Total: 6,501 sf. (First floorunits excluded from privateopen space calculation dueto noncompliant porch type)2.6.4 Public Open SpaceTypes Provide either: Park, LinearGreen, Square, Plaza, Mid-Block Green, CourtyardPlaza, Passage/Paseo, orPocket Park/Playground Plaza2.6.5 Private Open SpaceTypes Provide either: Courtyard,Private Yard, Rooftop Deckor Garden, or Balcony 1st floor units - noncompliantporch (excluded from privateopen space calculations) 2nd - 4th floor units - balconies4th floor - rooftop deck2.6.6 StormwaterManagement Best Management Practicesrequired Provided - WQMP requiredto ensure compliance2.6.7 Stormwater BMPTypes Source Control BMPs, SiteDesign BMPs, TreatmentControl BMPs Provided - WQMP requiredto ensure compliance2.6.8 Open SpaceLandscaping Required Public plaza furnitureDecorative stampedconcrete paving treatment2.6.9 Setback AreaLandscaping Types Perimeter Block SetbackArea -Sidewalk extensionrequired with Shopfront:paving material consistentwith the public right-of-wayInterior Block Setback Area -Groundcover required: coverside and rear yard areaswith landscaping or otherpervious surfaces Sidewalk extensionprovided : decorativestamped concrete paving toprovide continuityw/sidewalk Side and rearyards landscaped withshrubs, trees, andgroundcover2.7.1 Provision of Parking Residential: 1 bedroom @ 2min/unit (6 units x 2 = 12required) 2 bedroom @ 2min/unit (42 units x 2 = 84required) Guest = 0.5 min/1units (48 units x 0.5 = 24
required) Retail: 5/1000 sf.
(891 sf. proposed) x
(5/1000) = 4 spaces
required
Residential: 1 bedroom = 12spaces provided 2 bedroom= 84 spaces provided Guest= 24 spaces provided Retail= 5 spaces provided Total:125 spaces required 128
spaces provided
2.7.2 Parking Types Permitted as: Surface Lot:
rear Structure: wrapped
ground level, wrapped all
levels, partially submerged
podium, underground
structure
Three level Underground
Structure proposed
2.8.1 Façade Regulations Top and Base - required Top: metal trim cornices and
varied roofline Base: brick
veneer at retail and
residential frontages
BECSP Conformance
The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Town Center Neighborhood segment of the
BECSP as stated above and overall objective of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach
Boulevard corridor by providing 48 residential units to support the commercial opportunities existing
and anticipated in the vicinity. The project also includes 891 sf. of commercial space to serve
residents of the project and nearby neighborhoods. The project site is also within close proximity to
other key developments including Five Points Plaza and Elan, which provide the commercial and
public services that the proposed development will support. The urban environment will further form
when there is sufficient supporting residential uses to accommodate the growing commercial uses.
Alternate modes of travel such as walking and bicycling become more appealing when enhanced
larger walkways are provided and integrated between developments. Proposed site improvements
will provide wider pedestrian sidewalks throughout the project and an open public plaza. As
discussed under the Zoning Conformance section of this report, the project complies with the BECSP
development code and does not include any requests to deviate from the development standards.
Adequate emergency access is provided in and around the site with the driveway from Ellis Ave.,
also functioning as the fire lane. Sufficient parking (exceeds code requirements) for the residential
and commercial portion of the project is incorporated in a subterranean parking structure which
supports the BECSP vision for quality urban spaces.
The project is within the allowable MAND in the BECSP. As of the 2015 BECSP amendment, the
Beach Boulevard corridor has 525 dwelling units approved of which 325 dwelling units have been
constructed. There is a remaining capacity of 200 units in the Beach Boulevard corridor. The Beach
Boulevard corridor also has a MAND of 532,000 sf. for retail development. The proposed project
includes 891 sf. of retail space and 48 dwelling units, which do not exceed the Beach Boulevard
corridor MAND.
Building Massing and Scale
The BECSP relies on massing and scale to dictate the desired building form and interaction with the
public experience. As the building expands horizontally, the height of the building is vertically
proportioned for orientation to the pedestrian environment. The flat plane of the façade is then
separated into volumes accented with insets, offsets, notches, material and colors changes. For the
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 13 of 17
powered by Legistar™698
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
separated into volumes accented with insets, offsets, notches, material and colors changes. For the
proposed design, the building facades incorporate a variety of attractive elements. The dominant
treatment along the exterior base involves brick veneer as well as the placement of metal trellises
and canopies on the ground floor building entrances. The top element of the facades applies
cornices and varied rooflines. Inset balconies and intermittent setbacks combine with rich
landscaping to beautify the street frontages creating an inviting pedestrian and public space.
The maximum allowable height for the subject site is four stories. The proposed building is four
stories high and 46 ft. tall at the highest point of the building cornice. As seen along the Ellis Ave.
frontage, the height is articulated from the pedestrian scale featuring a 20 ft. high retail portion of the
building and a notch at the residential entrance. The facades facing Beach Blvd. (west) and
Patterson Ln. (east) are further articulated with the addition of metal trellises and open railings on
third and fourth floor balconies. The pedestrian bridge provides architectural relief and reduces
visual massing via transmission of light and air through the building frontage.
Land Use Compatibility
The proposed four-story mixed-use development is compatible with existing and anticipated land
uses in the immediate vicinity. This includes the mixed-use Elan building which ranges in height from
4-6 stories on Ellis Ave. and is also composed of a mixture of commercial and residential land uses.
The project will be served by the existing commercial uses to the north, west, and south (Elan) of the
project site. Existing multi-family residential uses are located east of the site and existing single
family residential uses are located further east, beyond Patterson Ln. The project will not significantly
impact existing residential uses because the proposed building is located approximately 260 feet
away from the nearest single family residential building. Existing multi-family residences are buffered
from the proposed commercial use through perimeter setback areas of landscaping, sidewalks, and a
driveway. Interior noise would be minimized through noise attenuation features. Development of the
site would enhance the visual image of the Beach Boulevard corridor and expand the vision of the
specific plan.
Site Layout & Circulation
Access
Vehicular access to the project site is proposed via one primary entry point on Ellis Avenue. There
are no improvements necessary to the existing street or medians to accommodate vehicular access
to the project site. The driveway on Ellis Ave. is designed with two-way travel lanes which provide
entrance into the subterranean parking structure.
The project will enhance the pedestrian experience on Ellis Ave. by dedicating four ft. of property to
provide a 12 ft. wide public right-of-way. Pedestrian access to the project site will feature a six ft.
wide planter along the street frontage which buffers the adjacent six ft. wide sidewalk. The sidewalk
along Ellis Ave. is also adjacent to the proposed public plaza. The building is oriented towards the
street which connects the sidewalk to the shopfront retail entrance and the common lobby residential
entrance along Ellis Ave. Interior corridors connect the residential units to the parking garage and
roof deck via stairs/elevators. The sidewalk connects to a pathway which provides access to the
ground floor residential entrance and pedestrian security gates. The security gates will enclose the
residential area from the public open space through controlled access scan cards.
The project’s access points have been designed to comply with the requirements of the BECSP andCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 14 of 17
powered by Legistar™699
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
The project’s access points have been designed to comply with the requirements of the BECSP and
respond to the Fire Department’s request for emergency access. The site includes a fire truck
turnabout and marked fire lanes. The project has proposed an Alternate Means & Methods (AM&M)
strategy to satisfy exterior hose pull distance requirements. The AM&M has been reviewed and
conceptually approved by the HBFD.
Open Space
The 2,703 sf. public open space plaza is accessible via the public sidewalk on Ellis Ave. and visible
along the street frontage. The plaza includes seating areas for public use and decorative stamped
concrete pathways which encourages public use from the sidewalk. The inclusion of these
improvements creates an inviting pedestrian experience for both visitors and residents.
The project proposes porches as private open space for the ground floor residential units. Although
each of the ground floor residents will benefit from the enjoyment of open space accessible directly
from their unit, the porch type private open space is noncompliant with the Town Center
Neighborhood segment of BECSP. For this reason, the ground floor porches are excluded from
private open space calculations for the project. All residents will have access to the fourth floor roof
deck common area. Units on the fourth floor also have private balconies which are separate from the
common area.
Parking
The 2015 amendments to the BECSP increased the parking ratio requirements from the original
2010 adoption of the BECSP. The proposed project meets and exceeds the minimum amount of
required vehicle parking based on the current BECSP. A total of 125 parking spaces are required for
the project and a total of 128 parking spaces are provided. The project provides 120 parking spaces
for residences, including 24 spaces reserved for guests, and 5 spaces reserved for the retail tenant.
The subterranean parking structure will provide access to all 128 parking spaces. According to the
Parking Management Plan (Attachment No. 13), the parking garage will remain open between the
hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM and require a scan card for gate access outside these hours.
Affordable Housing
As required per the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) and Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 230.26 - Affordable Housing, 10% of the
proposed units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. Thus, 4.8 of the
proposed 48 units are required to be designated for sale at affordable income levels. The applicant
proposes to provide five affordable units on-site in order to comply with the Affordable Housing
requirement. Three of the affordable units will be made available to moderate income households
and two affordable units will be available to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section
230.26(B)(3). In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, five on-site units will be
designated as rentals affordable to low income households, as defined by HBZSO Section 230.26(B)
(2). In addition, there are requirements for a 45-year affordability period (for-sale units) and 55-year
affordability period (rental units) and the timing for which the affordable units shall be constructed.
The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 stipulates these
requirements to be recorded in an Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council.
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. ACity of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 15 of 17
powered by Legistar™700
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. A
detailed discussion of the project’s design is provided in the Analysis section of this staff report.
Environmental Status:
On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission certified Program Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) No. 08-008 for the proposed Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. EIR No. 08-008
concluded that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of
impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation,
transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems, which would remain significant and
unavoidable. The Planning Commission certified EIR No. 08-008 as adequate and complete with
modified mitigation measures, findings of fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to action on the GPA, ZMA,
and ZTA on March 1, 2010.
The project applicant has completed Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary
Hydrology Report/WQMP, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and a Geotechnical
Investigation (Attachments No. 17) to ensure the project will comply with the BECSP Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program. All potentially significant effects of the project have been analyzed
pursuant to the BECSP Program EIR and can be mitigated pursuant to applicable mitigation
measures adopted for the BECSP Program EIR (Attachment No. 15). Therefore, pursuant to Section
15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is covered under the program EIR and no
further environmental analysis is required.
Coastal Status:
Not Applicable.
Design Review Board:
Not Applicable.
Subdivision Committee:
Not Applicable.
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building, Economic Development, and Police have reviewed
the proposed development project. Recommended conditions from the Departments of Public
Works, Fire, Building and Police are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval and code
requirements have also been identified.
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on May 16, 2019, and notices were sent
to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property,
individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department’s Notification
Matrix), and applicant. Written communications received prior to the May 28, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration (Attachment
No. 16).
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
April 1, 2019 June 1, 2019City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 16 of 17
powered by Legistar™701
File #:19-545 MEETING DATE:5/28/2019
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
April 1, 2019 June 1, 2019
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the
following:
- Consistent with the M-sp (Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay) Land Use Designation of the
General Plan and the SP 14 - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan zoning designation.
- Implements the objectives of the BECSP to improve the vitality of the Beach Boulevard
corridor.
- Provides a mixed-use development that is consistent with the BECSP development code and
compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land uses.
- Creates an environment that supports pedestrian and bicycle activity and increases housing.
- The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
- The project contributes to the City’s housing stock, including affordable housing as required by
existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City’s overall housing goals.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Narrative received and dated May 1, 2019
4. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 received March 7, 2019
5. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations received April 23, 2019
6. Shadow Analysis
7. BECSP Completed Comparable Projects
8. Site Plan Revised for Clarity
9. Accident Rates in the Project Vicinity
10. Proposed Project and Elan Trip Generation Comparison
11. Summary of Volume/Capacity Ratio in Project Vicinity
12. Preliminary Grading Plan
13. Parking Management Plan received and dated April 22, 2019
14. Sustainability Narrative received and dated September 21, 2018
15. BECSP Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
16. Email Public Comment Received May 17, 2019
17. Air Quality/GHG Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Draft Water
Quality Management Plan, Phase 1 ESA, Geotech Investigation (not attached - see May 14, 2019
PC Study Session Staff Report)
18. Republic Will-Service Letter
19.Code Requirements Letter
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 5/29/2019Page 17 of 17
powered by Legistar™702
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-042
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the
environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457,
because the project is a mixed-use development that conforms with the Beach and Edinger
Corridors Specific Plan for which Program EIR No. 08-008 was adopted and implementation of
the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse environmental
impacts that were not considered in the Final EIR for the BECSP. Compliance with all
applicable mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan will be required of the project. In
light of the whole record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines are present and, therefore, no EIR or MND is required.
The Project, located on the north side of Ellis Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Patterson
Lane, consists of a four-story mixed-use building including 48 condominium residences with on-
site public and private open space, a three level subterranean parking structure and 891 square
feet of commercial space. The development site is located within the Town Center
Neighborhood Segment of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) area. The
City certified Program EIR No. 08-008 on December 8, 2009 and adopted the BECSP on March
1, 2010. In 2015, the City Council amended the BECSP to reduce the Maximum Amount of
New Development to 2,100 total new dwelling units including 725 units on Beach Boulevard.
There are 200 undeveloped units remaining within the MAND on Beach Boulevard. The 48
units contemplated by the project is within the total new dwelling units permitted on Beach
Boulevard under the approved BECSP. The project conforms to all standards and regulations
of the BECSP development code. Accordingly, no changes requiring revision of the previously
certified Program EIR are proposed as part of the project, nor have any circumstances changed
requiring revision of the previously certified Program EIR. In addition, no new information
identifies that implementation of the BECSP, including the project, will have significant effects
that were not discussed in the previously certified Program EIR or that the significant effects
identified in the certified Program EIR will be substantially more severe than determined in the
Program EIR. Nor is there new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives not
previously adopted would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for the consolidation of three parcels into one 0.95 acre
parcel is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on
the subject property. The project complies with all applicable code provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Beach and
Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The project will result in the demolition of an existing
commercial building, one dwelling unit, and a portion of a former car wash and facilitate the
development of a mixed-use building permitted by code. The proposed subdivision is
consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that
govern new subdivisions and residential development.
703
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development in that the project site
is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation,
and drainage perspective. The site is located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan, which permits mixed-use buildings and residential uses within close proximity
of commercial uses. The specific plan is a form-based code that does not rely on density to
limit development, but rather the building form to create an attractive public experience
appealing to pedestrians. By merging the three existing lots into one, the site will function
as an integrated development compatible with the vision of the growing urban Beach
Boulevard corridor.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health
problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat because the site has been previously used as a car wash, one
dwelling unit, and a convenience store. The site does not contain any significant habitat for
wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of
the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan will ensure that the subdivision will not
significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The
project will comply with applicable mitigation measures pursuant to Program EIR No. 08-
008.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. Vehicular
access is provided via a driveway along Ellis Avenue. The subdivision will provide all
necessary street, sidewalk, and utility easements to serve the new subdivision. The project
will dedicate four feet of land to widen the existing sidewalk (public right-of-way) along Ellis
Avenue. The project will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing
easements.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-
042:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the development of a mixed-use building consisting
of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of retail space and associated infrastructure and site
improvements will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in
the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood
because as conditioned, the project will result in less than significant impacts related to
traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and privacy of adjacent residences. Existing multi-family
residences adjacent to the east will be buffered from the project by an approximately 33 ft. 7
in. setback on the east side of the project site consisting of landscaping and a driveway.
Residents of the project and the general public, including nearby residents, will benefit from
the new commercial portion of the building and the public plaza. Based upon the conditions
of approval and BECSP mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts onto adjacent properties in that the project complies with setbacks, onsite
parking requirements, and allowable building height. The project is a four-story building that
is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of architectural design and scale
pursuant to the massing and scale requirements of the BECSP. The proposed mixed-use
development will be compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and
commercial uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. With the conditions of
704
approval imposed, the project’s grading and drainage pattern will result in compatible
finished grades between adjacent properties.
2. The proposed project will comply with the Town Center Neighborhood Segment of the
Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25
of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) because the project
complies with all other setback standards, building height, top and base architectural
element requirements, and parking.
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently M-sp
(Mixed Use – Specific Plan Overlay). Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 for the
development of a mixed-use building consisting of 48 condominium residences, 891 sf. of
retail space and associated infrastructure and site improvements is consistent with this
designation and the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan as follows:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is
coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall
goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use
designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and
use standards applicable to each land use designation.
Policy LU-1B: Ensure new development supports the protection and
maintenance of environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive
reuse of existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible
proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2D: Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding
encroachment of incompatible land uses.
Policy LU-3A: Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent
with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods
and city attractions.
Goal LU-4: A range of housing types is available to meet the diverse economic,
physical, and social needs of future and existing residents, while neighborhood
character and residences are well maintained and protected.
Policy LU-4A: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with
diverse housing needs.
Policy LU-4B: Improve options for people to live near work and public transit.
705
Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees
to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13A: Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services
provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
The proposed development is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan which encourages buildings to orient towards streets, wider
walkways, and large open space areas to enhance the pedestrian and public
experience. Approximately 2,703 sq. ft. of public open space will be provided in a
plaza accessible from Ellis Avenue. This area will be designed with enhanced
landscaping, seating areas, and visually appealing amenities. The architecture of
the building is contemporary, incorporating notches, major façade offsets, and
façade composition changes to break up the massing of the building at street
frontages. Brick veneer is applied along the base of the building with canopies at
entrances to cater to the pedestrian scale. The façade skyline is then capped with
parapets and articulating rooflines. Additionally, this mixed-use development will
provide an on-site commercial component and is proposed within close proximity
of new and existing commercial uses thus reducing the need for automobile use.
By permitting a mix of land uses closer together, greater interaction will occur
between developments and further the vision and viability of the BECSP.
Housing Element
Policy 2.1 Variety of Housing Choices: Provide site opportunities for development
of housing that responds to diverse community needs in terms of housing types,
cost and location, emphasizing locations near services and transit that promote
walkability.
Policy 2.2 Residential Mixed Use: Facilitate the efficient use of land by allowing
and encouraging commercial and residential uses on the same property in both
horizontal and vertical mixed-use configurations.
Policy 2.3 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Encourage and facilitate
the provision of housing affordable to lower income households within the Beach
and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
Policy 6.4 Transportation Alternatives and Walkability: Incorporate transit and
other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycling into the design of
new development, particularly in areas within a half mile of designated transit
stops.
The suggested conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 would
ensure that the project is developed in accordance with the proposed project
narrative and guarantee that the project provides 5 onsite affordable housing
706
units. The project represents new housing in the City that will help to fulfill the
City’s share of the regional housing need. The proposed project would
accommodate and is designed to appeal to different age groups and household
types. A minimum of ten percent of the units are required to be designated for
affordable housing. The project applicant proposes to provide five on-site
affordable housing units in order to comply with the affordable housing
requirement. Residents will benefit from the proximity of the project to different
activities and uses. The project provides opportunities and convenience for
many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and
public transit to complete their daily routines and run errands, thereby serving the
need for affordable housing for this segment of the population.
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-3a: Convenient and efficient connections between regional transit
and areas of employment, shopping, recreation, and housing will increase
ridership and active mobility, with a focus on first/last mile solutions.
Goal CIRC-6: Connected, well-maintained, and well-designed sidewalks, bike
lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day-to-
day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities.
Policy CIRC-6(C): Require new commercial and residential projects to integrate
with pedestrian and bicycle networks, and that necessary land area is provided
for the infrastructure.
The proposed streetscape will create continuity with new and existing
development along the Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sidewalk with
new landscaping to buffer pedestrians from the vehicular thoroughfare.
Pedestrian connectivity is improved with landscaping and architectural elements
through the proposed public open space and wider sidewalks. The project is
serviced by an existing bus stop at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Ellis Ave.
and also provides bicycle parking in the subterranean parking structure to
accommodate alternative methods of transportation.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157:
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 for consolidation of three existing parcels into a one-lot
subdivision for a mixed-use 48 unit residential and 891 square feet commercial development
received and dated April 23, 2019, shall be the approved layout, including the following:
a. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site’s westerly property line) for
Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the
proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to
eliminate any encroachments into said easement.
b. The existing 20-foot easement, over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject
site’s westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be
707
quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building or the
proposed building shall be relocated to eliminate any encroachments into said
easement.
2. The Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 18157 shall not be approved by the City Council
until Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 is approved and in effect.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and at least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the
applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants
of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The
notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated
timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone
number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
4. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final
Tract Map (HBZSO 230.84 (A) & 253.10 (K)) (PW):
a. A 4-foot right-of-way dedication for street purposes along the Ellis Avenue project
frontage for a curb to property line width of 12 feet. (BECSP)
5. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the
Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) shall be submitted to the Departments
of Community Development and Economic Development identifying three on-site units for-
sale as affordable for persons and families of moderate income and two on-site units for-
sale as affordable for persons and families of low income pursuant to Section 230.14 of the
HBZSO. The AHA shall identify five on-site units for rent as affordable for persons and
families of low income in the event the project is operated as rental apartment units. The
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council and
shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the tract. The Agreement shall comply with HBZSO Sections 230.14 and
230.26 and include:
i. A detailed description of the type, size and location of the five affordable housing for-
sale units on-site. The mix of designated affordable one bedroom and two bedroom
units shall be determined in the Agreement.
ii. There shall be three on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of
moderate income (up to 120% of the Orange County median income). There shall
be two on-site units for sale as affordable to persons and families of low income (up
to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median income
is adjusted for appropriate household size.
iii. In the event the project is operated as rental apartment units, the Agreement shall
identify five on-site units for rent as affordable to persons and families of low income
(up to 80% of the Orange County median income). The Orange County median
income is adjusted for appropriate household size.
iv. Continuous affordability provisions for a period of 45 years (for-sale units) and 55
years (rental units). Any required for-sale affordable units shall be owner-occupied
(not rented or leased).
708
v. Provisions for the affordable units to be constructed prior to or concurrent with the
primary project. Phasing and availability of the affordable units shall be concurrent
with final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit(s), or
contingent upon evidence of the applicant’s reasonable progress towards attainment
of completion of the affordable units.
6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map and at least 90 days before City Council action on the
Final Map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and
approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify:
a. The common driveway access easements
b. Maintenance of all walls, common landscape areas, and refuse management by
the Homeowners' Association
c. Management of the BMPs per the approved WQMP by the Homeowners'
Association
d. Management of the revised Parking Management Plan pursuant to CUP No. 17-
042 Condition No. 2 to ensure the ongoing control and availability of on-site
parking.
The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (HBZSO
Section 253.12.H)
7. Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No. 17-042 conditions of approval.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-
042:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 23, 2019 shall be the
conceptually approved design with the following modifications:
a. Depict the controlled access entry gate to the subterranean parking garage
discussed in the Parking Management Plan.
b. The proposed 10 ft. high perimeter block wall shall be revised to a maximum of 8 ft.
high, including up to 2 ft. of retaining wall in accordance with Condition of Approval
No. 6.a.
2. The Parking Management Plan dated April 22, 2019 shall be revised to include the
following:
a. Required parking shall be assigned to and reserved for each unit. Each unit shall be
assigned two reserved parking spaces.
b. The assigned residential parking spaces shall be provided with the rental of a
dwelling unit without any additional cost. (HBZSO 231.18 (D)(2))
3. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with
Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Ellis Ave. Condos.
4. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting
the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading
plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department.
709
Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with
adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common
property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the
applicant shall construct up to an eight (8’) foot tall wall (including up to 2 ft. of retaining
wall) located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum
separation from the property line. The plans shall include some mechanism to close and
secure any gaps. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted
identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Plans shall
depict any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common
walls and sidewalls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties.
The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage.
5. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide
notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot
radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general
description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and
completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the
grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department.
6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed:
a. The proposed drainage pattern and system shall be reevaluated to reduce potential
grading impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and west by
incorporating localized collection points and result in a maximum two ft. grade
differential and maximum two ft. high retaining wall. The retaining wall may be
topped with a maximum six ft. high block wall.
b. The existing 6-foot easement (along the subject site’s westerly property line) for
Public Utility Purposes shall be quitclaimed to eliminate any encroachment by the
proposed water quality basin or the proposed basin shall be relocated to eliminate
any encroachments into said easement. (PW)
c. The existing 20-foot easement over existing Parcels 1 and 2 (along the subject site’s
westerly property line) for Ingress and Egress Purposes shall be quitclaimed to
eliminate any encroachment by the proposed building. (PW)
d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Division to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for
employees, customers and contractors during the project’s construction phase and
that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The
property owner/developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the
Department of Public Works.
e. All design and construction shall be per the City Standard codes and street
configuration and specifications of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan.
The frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the “Neighborhood Streets”
configuration.
710
f. A lighting plan depicting the boulevard-scale street lighting and pedestrian-scale
street lighting along Ellis Ave. shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Planning Division and Public Works
Department.
7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first
three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits
(architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be
referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be
12 point.
b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Community
Development Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the
Fire Department.
c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s).
d. One set of project plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 and one 8 ½ inch by 11
inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette,
revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be
submitted for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning
Division.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. The applicant shall submit plans revised pursuant to Condition No. 1 to Republic
Services for review. Proof of Republic Services approval shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department.
b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to
Condition No. 1 for review, approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the
Community Development Department.
c. A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The
Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following:
i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type;
ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale;
iii. Fire hydrant locations, public and private;
iv. FDC locations;
v. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving;
vi. FACP locations;
vii. Knox box and knox switch locations;
viii. Gate locations, and opticoms if required;
711
ix. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and
circles/cul-dee-sacs;
x. Fire lane signage and striping.
xi. The conceptual Alternative Materials and Methods Strategy shall be finalized
to demonstrate compliance with exterior hose pull distance requirements.
(FD)
9. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the following shall be completed:
a. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be constructed per Public
Works Standard Plan No. 211. The driveway design shall include treatments for
right-turn in/right-turn out only as specified by Public Works. This may include raised
curb channelization, striping, and signage. (ZSO 230.84)
b. The Developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement for the
continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, street lighting,
furniture and hardscape that is located along the project frontage within the public
right-of-way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as
enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm
replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the
development plan improvements proposed. The agreement shall state that the
property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the City. (PW)
c. All existing overhead utilities that occur along the project’s Ellis Avenue frontage
shall be under-grounded. This includes the Southern California Edison (SCE) aerial
distribution lines (12kV) and poles along the entire length of the westerly frontage of
the subject project. This condition also applies to all utilities, including but not limited
to all telephone, electric, and Cable TV lines. If require, easements shall be
quitclaimed and/or new easements granted to the corresponding utility companies.
(PW)
10. The use shall comply with the following:
a. All ground floor entry points to residences shall be monitored by secured FOB type
entries. (PD)
11. The developer or developer’s representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy
of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval.
12. CUP No. 17-042 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of
the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a
written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days
prior to the expiration date.
13. Incorporating sustainable or “green” building practices into the design of the proposed
structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building
practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program
712
certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19) or Build It Green’s
Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/green-building-
guidelines-rating).
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different
from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney’s fees and
costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any
approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council,
Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense
thereof.
713
VICINITY MAP
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-004/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18157/ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 18-001
(ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS)
714
May 1, 2019
City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department
2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach
MCG Project No. 17.359.05
To whom it may concern:
Our client, THDT Investment, Inc. is proposing to redevelop 3-existing lots (totaling
approximately 41,200 s.f.) near the north-east corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard
within the Huntington Beach - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The new
development will demolish the existing liquor store at 8041 Ellis Avenue, the single
family residence behind the liquor store and part of the lot adjacent to the Metro car wash
at 18400 Beach Boulevard to build a new four story mixed use building with an
approximately 891 s.f. retail use on the ground floor along Ellis Avenue and a combination
of single and two bedroom condominium units throughout the remainder of the
approximately 79,000 s.f. building. The proposed unit mix would be 42- 2 bedroom units -
approximately 880 s.f. ea. and 6 single bedroom units - approximately 645 s.f. ea. for a
total of 48 units overall. The City of Huntington Beach Business Development staff
provided the total number of required affordable housing units to be 4.8. The developer is
seeking to provide 5-affordable units overall. Parking to serve the development will
consist of three sub-grade levels for a total of 128 parking stalls. The intention is for the
units to be sold to individual buyers so there will be no permanent on-site staff. Building
maintenance and regular up-keep and cleaning will be handled by the owners
management team via contracts with local services.
This new development will be an enhancement to the community by adding a modern
environmentally friendly & small scale mixed use complex with unit pricing sized to suit
the average consumer. The location allows owners to visit amenities such as Helme Park,
medical, dental and eye care centers as well as local markets all within a short walking
distance. Public transportation is close by as well via the existing bus stop on Beach
Boulevard in front of the Metro Car Wash. Owners on the upper floors of the south and
west side units will be afforded serene ocean views and breezes to help enhance their
lifestyles.
R E G A R D I N G
715
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach Condos, Ellis & Beach
May 1, 2019
Page 2
Yours truly,
MCG ARCHITECTURE
Jeff Herbst, Project Director
XXX:xx
Enclosures
C C
716
N00°18'18"E 422.00'
N00°18'18"E 422.00'N89°19'34"W 98.56'N89°19'34"W 98.56'LOT LINE TOBE REMOVEDLOT LINE TOBE REMOVED20'
40'88'PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EX. BUILDING TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDING TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDING TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDINGS TOBE REMOVEDEX. BUILDING TO
BE REMOVED3 4520'20'2'33'16'26'24-FOOTDEDICATIONTO BEQUITCLAIMEDTO BEQUITCLAIMEDTO BEQUITCLAIMEDASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S):157-341-004, 157-341-007, 157-341-0081. PREPARED: OCTOBER 20182. PROPOSED PROPERTY USE: MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOS; 2 LEVELS OFPARKING BELOW GROUND; BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR CONSISTENTTHROUGHOUT; 1 COMMON ROOF.3. GENERAL PLAN: M-SP-D MIXED USEZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN 144. PROPOSED ZONING: MIXED USE5. PROPERTY ACREAGE: 0.95 AC6. EXISTING BUILDINGS ONSITE TO BE REMOVED7. FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: 06059C0253J, FLOOD ZONE X8. TOPOGRAPHY BY FIELD SURVEY SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.NOT TO SCALEVICINITY MAPPROJECTSITEENGINEER:OWNER/DEVELOPER:EASEMENT NOTES:AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF A.W. FULLER AND NELLIEFULLER, RECORED SEPTEMBER 27, 1922, IN BOOK 437 OF DEEDS, PAGE 269. (OFFSITE DOESNOT AFFECT PROPERTY )AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1957 IN BOOK 4101, PAGE 501 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTEDHEREON/TO BE QUITCLAIMED)4321AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,RECORDED JUNE 23, 1971 IN BOOK 9689, PAGE 78 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTED HEREON)AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF PARCEL 2 OF A PARCELMAP RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1971, IN BOOK 38, PAGE 16, RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 1971 INBOOK 9905, PAGE 184 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTED HEREON/TO BE QUITCLAIMED)(951) 893-1900OC DEVELOPMENT, LLCCORONA, CA 928821307 W 6TH STREET, STE 202TAHIR SALIMLEGAL DESCRIPTION:PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 39, PAGE(S) 2, OF PARCELMAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA.PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 38, PAGE(S) 16, OF PARCEL MAPS,RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.LOT1AREA0.95 ACNUMBERED LOTS:WIDTH115'DEPTH422'GENERAL NOTES:L
O
T
1
5AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF PARCEL 1 OF A PARCELMAP RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 1971, IN BOOK 39, PAGE 2. (PLOTTED HEREON/TO BEQUITCLAIMED)KWC ENGINEERS1880 COMPTON AVENUE, SUITE 100CORONA, CA 92881-3370(951) 734-2130CONTACT: BRANDON BARNETT, P.E.717
ELLIS AVE
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'SIDEWALK
EXISTINGJACK-IN-THE-BOXEXISTING CAR WASH BUILDINGEXISTING CAR WASH TUNNELCAR WASH DRIVE THRU STACKINGEXISTING LANDSCAPINGDEMOLISHVACUUM CANOPYDEMOLISHEXISTING SHRUBS(E) DRIVE (E) DRIVEDEMOLISHEXISTING CURBS(E) DRIVE(E) DRIVE(E) DRIVE
EXISTING RESDIENCETO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING LIQUORSTORE TO BEDEMOLISHEDADJACENT RESIDENTIAL - NOT A PARTADJACENT RESIDENTIAL - NOT A PARTDEMOLISHEXISTING WALLDEMOLISHEXISTING TREEDEMOLISHEXISTING SHRUBSDEMOLISHEXISTING TREEDEMOLISHEXISTING TREESDEMOLISHEXISTING TREEBEACH BLVD.221'-4"R26'
-0
"
14'-11"R14'-0"12'-0"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0108/24/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0EXISTING/DEMOSITE PLANScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'12/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSA-103/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS718
HALLWAYHALLWAYPROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'A.1B.1C.1D.1E.1F.1F.4G.1H.127'-4"37'-3"37'-3"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"37'-6"37'-3"176'-7"ABCDEFGHI38'-6"27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"37'-6"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"371'-1"10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.31'-0"I.137'-6"112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGEOPEN14' RETAILCEILINGBELOWUNIT 2MUNIT 2NUNIT 2LUNIT 2BUNIT 2CUNIT 2FUNIT 2GUNIT 2JUNIT 2KUNIT 2PUNIT 2DUNIT 2HUNIT 2APROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"J37'-6"54'-0"12424'-0"24'-0"6'-0"11'-0"372'-0"9'-3"STAIRSELEV.LOBBY9'-6"FITNESSROOMTRASH
UNIT 2EPLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATHJ(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORGAS GAS
UNIT 1HUNIT 1JHALLWAYHALLWAY24'-0" WIDE DRIVEWAYSIDEWALKELLIS AVE
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"SIDEWALK
UNIT 1CUNIT 1LUNIT 1MA.1B.1C.1D.1E.1F.1F.4G.1H.127'-4"37'-3"37'-3"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"37'-6"37'-3"4'-0"31'-0"176'-7"54'-0"12424'-0"24'-0"6'-0"24'-0"5'-0"11'-0"ABCDEFGHI38'-6"27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"37'-6"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"16'-3"371'-1"MULTI PURPOSE ROOMMULTI PURPOSE ROOM33'-7"
23'-10"5'-0"4'-0"4'-7"
10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.33SCREENED AREA FORCONDENSORS,METERS & BACKFLOWSNEW DRIVE APPROACH -SEE CIVIL PLANS8" WATER LINE4" WATER LINE 8" SEWER LINE6" GAS LINE
WALL MOUNTED LEDSITE LIGHTING - 9'HIGHUNIT 1E15'-7"1'-0"I.137'-6"9'-3"112'-3"370'-1"UNIT 1APLAZAPublic Space2,703 S.F.Common Lobby Type Private Frontage6'-9"5'-3"SIDEWALK(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'DEDICATION
UNIT 1KUNIT 1GUNIT 1FRetail Space±891 SFREFUSE/RECYCLE ROOMJ37'-6"38'-6"A1'-0"72'-0"UTILITY AREASTAIRSELEV.LOBBY9'-6"SEELANDSCAPEPLANS FORDESIGNGASGASGASPROPOSED WATER,SEWER & GAS LINESPROPOSED ELECSERVICEEXISTING POWERPOLE4'-10"ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORSHALL BE RECESSED AMIN. OF 12" FROM FACEOF WALL12"R32'-0"6'-0"PLNTRR36'-0"TRASH
5'-0"10' HIGH CMU WALL6' HIGHSCREENWALLGAS METERS(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'26'-0"12'-14' HIGHDECORATIVEST. LIGHT, TYP.TO MATCH (E)FIXTURESACROSSELLIS AVE.FIRE STAND PIPETO BE USED IN LIEUOF HOSE PULLREQUIREMENT -ALTERNATIVEMEANS/METHOD PERFIRE CODE SEC. 104.9NO PARKING ALLOWEDALONG FIRE CURB, TYP.Common Lobby Type
Private Frontage
DECORATIVECONCRETE AT GRADE30' SETBACK LINE(N) FIREHYDRANTRAMP DOWN(NO FIRE TRUCKACCESS DOWN RAMP)FIRE TRUCKTURNABOUTLADDER PADLOCATION ATRESCUE OPENINGS6'-7"
MIN.JUNIT 1BUNIT 1DAANO PARKINGALLOWED ALONGFIRE CURB, TYP.150'150'150'R5
0
'
-
0
"R150'-0"TYPICAL FIRE HOSE MAXIIMUM DISTANCE OF 150'3'-0"PROPOSED RAMP & STAIRACCESS W/42" HIGH MAX.RAILINGS+0.0'+2.0'+0.0'+1.4'+2.0'23'-5"NEW RAILINGS 42" MAX.ABOVE FINISHED GRADENOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0104/02/2019MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCSTREET LEVELSITE SUMMARYLAND:41,210 S.F. 0.955 ACOCCUPANCY:R-2/MSTREET LEVEL12 UNITS2ND TO 3RD LEVEL29 UNITSROOF DECK LEVEL 7 UNITS48 UNITSNUMBER OF UNITS STREET LEVEL15,578 SFFLOOR AREA:SECOND LEVEL17,470 SFTHIRD LEVEL17,470 SFROOF DECK LEVEL 6,810 SFTOTAL FLOOR AREA57,328 SFTOTAL PARKING AREA64,296 SFPARKING AREA:2 ND FLOOR PLANPARKING LEVEL 1 26,751 SFPARKING LEVEL 2HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0SITE PLAN &FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANSScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'APN:157-341-04, 07 & 08ZONING:BEACH-EDINGER SPECIFIC PLAN - SP-14OWNERTHDT INVESTMENTS1307 W. 6TH ST. #202CORONA, CA 92882951.543.8665SALIMTHEONE@YAHOO.COMAPPLICANTMCG ARCHITECTURE/JEFF HERBST111 PACIFICA, #280IRVINE, CA 92618949.553.1117JHERBST@MCGARCHITECTURE.COMLEGAL DESCRIPTIONTRACT 7157, IN BOOK 157, PAGE 34 OF ORANGECOUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE.TOTAL UNITS* AHU = AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. 4.8- UNITSREQUIRED. DEVELOPER WILL BE PROVIDING 5UNITS.PARKING LEVEL 310,794 SF26,751 SFA-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE:III-ABUILDING:66,511 S.F.03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS04/16/19 CITY COMMENTS REVISION04/2919 REVISED # OF AHU'S05/01/19 REVISED AHU'S TO 5 TOTAL719
HALLWAYPROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'A.1B.1C.1D.1E.1F.1F.4G.1H.127'-4"37'-3"37'-3"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"37'-6"37'-3"176'-7"ABCDEFGHI37'-6"27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"37'-6"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"370'-1"10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.3I.137'-6"112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGETRASH
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"J37'-6"54'-0"24'-0"24'-0"6'-0"11'-0"UNIT 3CUNIT 3GUNIT 3HUNIT 3JUNIT 3KUNIT 3LUNIT 3MUNIT 3DUNIT 3EUNIT 3FUNIT 3NUNIT 3PUNIT 3QUNIT 3BUNIT 3A72'-0"J9'-3"ELEV.LOBBYSTAIRS9'-6"PLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATH(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORPROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 418'-0"B.1F.4H.137'-3"37'-6"37'-3"AFH37'-6"37'-6"370'-1"I.1112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGEJ37'-6"6'-0"UNIT 4BUNIT 4GUNIT 4E72'-0"I.1A.1C.1D.1E.1F.1G.137'-3"27'-4"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"176'-7"BCDEGI27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"10'-0"1'-0"F.2F.337'-6"TRASH
STAIRS11'-1"
*
54'-0"24'-0"24'-0"11'-0"* = UPPER STORY SETBACK PER SP14 SECT. 2.4.3.UNIT 4AUNIT 4CUNIT 4FUNIT 4D9'-3"ELEV.LOBBY10'-0"
*PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKROOF 6'-0"7'-0"9'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0"5'-0"
15'-6"
15'-6"10'-0"LOWER ROOF - 100' SETBACKAREA FOR 4TH FLOORPLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATHROOF DECK HOURSTO BE 8 AM TO 10 PMFOR NON-4TH FLOORTENANTS(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/27/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCROOF DECK3RD FLOOR PLANHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0THIRD FLOOR PLANAND ROOF PLANScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'A-306/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS720
PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 418'-0"B.1F.4H.137'-3"37'-6"37'-3"AFH37'-6"37'-6"370'-1"I.1112'-3"370'-1"BRIDGEJ37'-6"1426'-0"72'-0"I.1A.1C.1D.1E.1F.1G.137'-3"27'-4"37'-3"37'-6"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"176'-7"BCDEGI27'-7"27'-6"37'-3"90'-10"37'-3"37'-3"10'-0"F.2F.337'-6"TRASH
54'-0"24'-0"24'-0"311'-0"9'-3"10'-0"
*PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKLOWER ROOF 6'-0"9'-0"
9'-0"15'-6"
15'-6"10'-0"(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PLUMBING/HVACVENT THRU ROOFUNIT HVAC SYSTEMS TO BESPLIT TYPE SYSTEMS WITH FAUIN ATTIC AND CONDENSORSGROUND MOUNTEDNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/27/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCROOF ROOF PLANHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0ROOF PLANScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'A-406/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS721
PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'RAMP DOWNPROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"147RAMP UP9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"19'-0"9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"
14'-7"22'-2"PRIVATE STORAGEDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY22'-9"2'-2"10"10"159'-2"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"112'-3"10%10% 6'-3"A.1F.1F.4I.19'-0"5'-0"26'-2"BENCHBENCHLOBBYSTO.ELECTROOMF.2F.3212'-0"18"25' TURN RADIUS -TYP.RAMP DOWN
5% ELEV. LOBBY4-BIKE RACKS - 2BIKES PER RACK11CLEANAIRCLEANAIR17'-5"12'-10"GUEST PARKING (12 STALLS)GUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTSTORAGE ROOMDOORS TO BEEQUIPPED W/VISIONPANELS (TYP.)5'-0"91'-5"
5'-0"
14'-6"18'-5"58'-6"
(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE 2'-2"68'-8"27'-9"
5'-0"
10% 5% 5% 5% RAMP DOWN
5%
24'-0"5'-0"
15'-10"5'-0"65'-5"5'-0"27'-4"27'-4"5% 10%
32'-9"22'-2"CCBBRAMP DOWNPROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"147RAMP UP9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"19'-0"9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"PRIVATE STORAGEDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY22'-9"2'-2"10"10"159'-2"9'-3"56'-0"6'-9"112'-3"6'-3"A.1F.1F.4I.19'-0"5'-0"26'-2"BENCHBENCHLOBBYSTO.ELECTROOM2'-2"68'-8"27'-9"F.2F.3212'-0"18"25' TURN RADIUS -TYP.RAMP DOWN ELEV. LOBBY4-BIKE RACKS - 2BIKES PER RACK11CLEANAIRCLEANAIR17'-5"12'-10"GUEST PARKING (12 STALLS)GUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTGUESTRETAIL PARKING (5 STALLS)STORAGE ROOMDOORS TO BEEQUIPPED W/VISIONPANELS (TYP.)5'-0"91'-5"
5'-0"
14'-6"18'-5"58'-6"
(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
C14'-7"22'-2"10%10% 5'-0"5% 5% RAMP DOWN
5%
24'-0"5'-0"
5% 10%
32'-9"22'-2"5'-0"5'-10"5'-0"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0111/20/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0Parking LevelsScheme EScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'P1 PARKING LEVEL - 53 STALLSP2 PARKING LEVEL - 53 STALLSA-512/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS722
PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'PROPERTY LINE +/- 422'-0"11RAMP UP9'-0"19'-0"29'-0"
19'-0"+/- 23'-6"DRIVEWAY30'-5"6'-9"112'-3"10% MAX.6'-3"F.4I.19'-0"26'-2"F.3ELEV. LOBBY11CLEANAIRCLEANAIR5'-0"91'-5"
14'-6"18'-5"58'-6"9'-0"(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE(E) PROPERTY LINE +/- 98.56'AA149'-5"5'-0"22'-2"43'-0"3'-0"5'-0"RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ABOVERAMP10% MAX.PLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLFIRST FLOOR0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLPL5'-0"14'-7"5%10%5%-30'-0"-29'-9"-28'-4"-28'-1"5'-0"27'-4"27'-4"5'-0"65'-4"5%10%5%-28'-1"-27'-10"-21'-4"-21'-1"-18'-1"-17'-10"-11'-4"-11'-1"-8'-1"-7'-10"-0'-3"±0'-0"PARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLFIRST FLOOR0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFL22'-2"5'-0"5'-10"5'-0"5'-0"PL-21'-1"-20'-10"-20'-3"-20'-0"-11'-1"-10'-10"-10'-3"-10'-0"RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ABOVEPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLFIRST FLOOR0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLPL
±0'-0"5%10%5%NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0111/20/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0Parking LevelsScheme EScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'P3 PARKING LEVEL - 22 STALLSA-612/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSSECTION A-A11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTSSECTION B-BSECTION C-C03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS723
724
2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLELLIS AVENUEPL
PLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLSTREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLFRONTYARD SETBACKROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)B.O. RETAIL CEILING14'-0" FFL2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLELLIS AVENUEPL
PL
STREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)(RETAIL CEILING - SEE SHEET A-1)LADDER LOCATION ATRESCUE OPENINGS2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLDRIVEWAYPLPARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLSTREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPL 135°PARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLRETAILENTRANCEROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)20'-0"10'-0"
ADJACENT BLDGB.O. RETAIL CEILING14'-0" FFLDUAL KNOX BOX FORFIRE AND POLICE10'-0"2ND FLOOR LEVEL10'-0" FFL3RD FLOOR LEVEL20'-0" FFLROOF DECK LEVEL30'-0" FFLROOF40'-0" FFLPL
PARKING LEVEL 1-10'-0" FFLPARKING LEVEL 2-20'-0" FFLSTREET LEVEL0'-0" FFLPL
135°PARKING LEVEL 3-30'-0" FFLROOF46'-0" FFL(HIGHEST FEATURE)(RETAIL CEILING - SEE SHEET A-1)20'-0"10'-0"
ADJACENT BLDG
2"4"CALCULATION AREA - 100%OPEN AREA - 33%RETAILENTRANCECALCULATED AREA 2068 SF (100%)135 SF45 SF18 SF54 SF108 SF98 SFGLAZING AREA 458 SF (22.1%)15'-0"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA17.359.0108/22/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSScheme EScale : 1/16" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'EAST ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEA-7RAILING DETAILN.T.S.SOUTH ELEVATIONGLAZING AREA DIAGRAM09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS04/16/19 CITY COMMENTS REVISION725
135°RETAILENTRANCEB.O. RETAIL CEILING14'-0" FFLDUAL KNOX BOX FOR10'-0"30' SETBACK LINENOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA17.359.0108/22/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0BUILDING OFFSET/NOTCHES STUDYScheme EScale : 1/16" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'EAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEA-806/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTS09/11/18 REV. PER CLIENT COMMENTS/LC168'-4"16'-3"(100% HORISONTAL FACE SEGMENT)(10% OFFSET)5'-7"5'-0"9'-10"3'PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN (NOTCH)(NOTCH)11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS726
RESULTING BUILDING ELEVATIONHEIGHT (±46'-0")LENGTH (±54'-0")BUILDING ENVELOPEPRIMARY VOLUMESINTRODUCE OTHER SUB VOLUMESBUILDING MASSING PROPORTION 11'-0"46'-0"
34'-0"
23'-0"11'-0"14'-0"34'-0"12'-0"54'-0"29'-0"40'-0"RETAILENTRANCEHEIGHT (±46'-0")LENGTH (±372'-0")BUILDING ENVELOPEPRIMARY VOLUMES173'-0"46'-0"
33'-0"114'-0"RATIO = 1:5RATIO = 1:3.5PASEO145'-0"RATIO = 2.7:1
103'-0"RATIO = 2.7:1 RATIO = 1:3RATIO = 1:2.217'-0"17'-0"RESULTING BUILDING ELEVATIONINTRODUCE OTHER SUB VOLUMES33'-6"10'-6"27'-9"139'-8"98'-1"96'-0"9'-10"23'-6"36'-4"31'-7"16'-2"16'-2"7'-7"28'-7"16'-2"12'-8"12'-8"10'-6"7'-7"30'-10"
30'-10"30'-10"
34'-6"
34'-6"NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA17.359.0108/22/2018MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUEA-1012/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTS06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSBUILDING MASSING PROPORTIONSScheme EN.T.S.11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTS03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS727
ELLIS AVE PLAZA: Public Space2,703 S.F.(SEE LANDSCAPEPLANS FOR DESIGN)69'-7"30'-0"48'-3"UNIT 1APLAZAPublic Space2,703 S.F.Common Lobby Type Private Frontage(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'UNIT 1F(AHU)Retail Space±891 SF9'-6"(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE3'-0"4'-8"13'-0"PRIVATEBALCONYSPACE - 61 S.F.LIVING ROOMBEDROOMKITCHENBATH ROOM27'-1"16'-7"10'-1"3'-7"15'-5"2'-9"5'-0"9'-7"9'-0"23'-3"10'-7"PRIVATEBALCONYSPACE - 60 S.F.5'-8"6'-6"5'-2"PRIVATEBALCONYSPACE - 33 S.F.23'-1"
5'-6"9'-11"2'-9"5'-0"36'-10"3'-7"16'-2"9'-7"3'-0"5'-0"BEDROOMBEDROOMBATH ROOMBATH ROOMKITCHENLIVING ROOMJGROOF DECKPRIVATE OPEN SPACE1,773 S.F.FBTRASH PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIOROOF DECKPRIVATE OPEN SPACE1,508 S.F.NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/31/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0PUBLIC &PRIVATE SPACE PLANSScale : 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'A-1112/20/17 REVISED PER 12-6-17 COMMENTSPUBLIC OPEN SPACETYPICAL PRIVATE SPACE - SINGLE BEDROOM UNITTYPICAL PRIVATE SPACE - TWO BEDROOM UNIT06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSPUBLIC OPEN SPACE CALCULATION:50 SF X 48 UNITS = 2,400 SF REQUIRED891 SF RETAIL / 1,000 SF = 0.891 X 50 SF = 44.55 SF REQUIRED = 2,445.55 SF REQUIRED TOTAL OF 2,703 SF PROVIDEDPRIVATE SPACE CALCULATION:60 SF PER UNIT X 48 UNITS = 2,880 SF REQUIRED61 SF PER 1 BEDROOM X 4 UNITS = 244 SF PROVIDED93 SF PER 2 BEDROOM X 42 UNITS = 3,306 SF PROVIDEDROOF DECK PRIVATE OPEN SPACE = 3,281 SF PROVIDED TOTAL OF 6,831 SF PROVIDEDFIRST FLOOR UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CALCULATION.ROOF DECK SPACE TO BE USED IN LIEU OF FIRST FLOOR SPACEBEING NON-COMPLIANT.11/16/18 REVISED PER 10-17-18 COMMENTSROOF DECK PRIVATE OPEN SPACE03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS728
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0110/31/2017MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0ZONINGCONFORMANCE MATRIXScale : NONE10' 20' 40'ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIXSUBJECTCODE SECTIONREQUIREDPROPOSEDBUILDING USE TYPES2.2.1RETAIL/COMMERCIAL AT GROUND LEVELRETAIL PROVIDEDAFFORDABLE HOUSING 2.2.3MINIMUM 10% OF UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS5 UNITS PROVIDEDBUILDING MASSING2.3.5MASSING TO BE 1L:3H OR 3L:1HSEE PLANS FOR NOTCH, OFFSET AND ELEVATIONS FORMASSING MODELPARKING2.7.1.13125128LANDSCAPING232.08008% MIN.22%BUILDING HEIGHT 2:03:01 AMMIN. 2 STORY/MAX. 4 STORY4-STORIESPRIVATE FRONTAGETYPES2.4.2PROVIDE TYPE OF FRONTAGECOMMON LOBBYSETBACKS2.4.3 FRONT30'-0"30'-0"2.4.3 UPPERSTORY10' MIN.10'-0"2.4.4 SIDE10'-0" W/WINDOWS10'-0"2.4.5 REAR10'-0"10'-0"FRONTAGE2.4.790% MAX.54.79%IMPROVEMENTS TOEXISTING STREETS2.5.1PROVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS DESIGNSEE SITE/GROUND LEVEL PLANOPEN SPACE2.6.150 S.F./UNIT - 2,400 S.F.PLAZA = 2, 703 S.F.PRIVATE OPEN SPACE2.6.360 S.F./UNIT - 2,880 S.F.6,831 S.F.PUBLIC OPEN SPACETYPE2.6.4PROVIDE TYPE OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACEPLAZA - SEE STREET/GROUND LEVEL PLANPRIVATE OPEN SPACETYPES2.6.5PROVIDE TYPE OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PRIVATE YARD - SEE PLANSOPEN SPACELANDSCAPING2.6.8PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING LANDSCAPINGSEE LANDSCAPE PLANSSETBACK AREALANDSCAPING2.6.9PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING LANDSCAPINGSEE LANDSCAPE PLANSPARKING SPACEDIMENSIONSHBZSO 231.14 STALL STRIPING TO BE AS DEPICTED IN DIAGRAM "A"SEE PARKING LEVEL PLANSPARKING DESIGNSTANDARDSHBZSO 231.18 PROVIDE VEHICLE TURNAROUND SPACE AT DEAD END AISLESSEE PARKING LEVEL PLANS - 3' WIDE X 25' LONG SPACEPROVIDEDBICYCLE PARKING HBZSO 231.20ONE BIKE RACK PER 4 UNITS AND ONE FOR EVERY 25 PARKINGSTALLS - 3 MINIMUM20 PROVIDED - SEE PARKING PLANS.GENERAL PARKING2.7.3DRIVEWAYS TO BE SETBACK 5' MIN. FROM ADJOININGPROPERTY.SEE STREET/GROUND LEVEL PLAN.PARKING DESIGNSTANDARDHBZSO 231.18 PROVIDE MIN. 25' TURN RADIUS FOR DRIVEWAYS INTO GARAGE TURN RADIUS ADDED TO PARKING LEVEL PLANSFACADE HEIGHTARTICULATION2.8.1INCORPORATE ARTICULATION INTO BASE AND TOP ELEMENTSWINDOW/STOREFRONTS & PLASTER REVEALS AT BASEPROVIDE PEDESTRIAN SCALE. CORNICE PROVIDES TOPARTICULATION.ARCHITECTURALELEMENTSREGULATIONS2.8.2PROVIDE INFO REGARDING FACADE COMPOSITION,ENTRANCES, ROOF EQUIPMENT AND SCREENING.FACADE REVISED TO ADD GLAZING FOR MIN. 20% COMPLIANCE,REVISED SOUTH ELEVATION TO REFLECT RETAIL MAIN ENTRY,MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE WITHIN ATTIC SPACES NOTROOF MOUNTED - ONLY VENT FANS/PLUMBING VENTS ON ROOFWHICH WILL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW.ARCHITECTURALELEMENTSREGULATIONS2.8.2TRASH/RECYCLE ENCLOSURESTRASH/RECYCLE ROOM ADDED ON MAIN FLOOR WITHOVERHEAD DOOR FOR BIN DUMPING AND CHUTE PROVIDEDFOR RESIDENTSREFUSE STORAGEAREASHBZSO 230.78REFUSE STORAGE AREASTRASH/RECYCLE ROOM ADDED ON MAIN FLOOR WITHOVERHEAD DOOR FOR BIN DUMPINGSCREENING OFMECHANICALEQUIPMENTHBZSO 230.76UTILITY METERS & BACKFLOW DEVICES 2" OR SMALLER SHALLBE SETBACK 5' MIN. FROM PROPERTY LINE, OR 10' FOR DEVICESLARGER THAN 2" AND SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW.ADDED NOTE/LOCATION ON GROUND FLOOR PLAN ANDLANDSCAPE SCREENING ADDED ON LANDSCAPE PLANS.12/20/17 ADDED THIS SHEET06/12/18 REVISED PER 2-12-18 COMMENTSA-12729
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 1987
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"
LANDCADD 1987
NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to
adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and
Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of
any kind are given or implied by the Architect.
DATE:
MCG JOB #:
REVISIONSDATE
ELLIS AVENUE CONDOS
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
N13.177.01
02/28/2019
MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC
0
PRELIMINARY PLAN
Scale : 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32'
STREET LEVEL
Add public open space per City Requirement8-20-14
Only-Apt to Condo name change/Client request10-22-14
DECORATIVE ENTRY
CONCRETE PAVING
RAISED ROUND
CONCRETE
PLANTERS WITH
PALM PLANTINGS
ELLIS AVENUESite plan changes1-5-18
UTILITIES SCREENING SHRUBS
PUBLIC PLAZA FURNITURE
PUBLIC
PLAZA
POTTED PATIO
PLANTS
Wa! JOB #:14037
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
BECSP Residential Projects – Completed 5/2019
1. Name: Avalon (3.8 acres/mixed use)
Address: 7302-7400 Center Avenue
# Units: 378 units
2. Name: Boardwalk (12.5 acres/mixed use)
Address: 7441 Edinger Ave.
# Units: 487 units
3. Name: Luce (8.5 acres/MFR)
Address: 7262, 7266, 7280 Edinger Ave.
16001, 17091 Gothard Street
# Units: 510 units
4. Name: Oceana (2 acres/MFR)
Address: 18151 Beach Blvd.
# Units: 78 units
5. Name: Elan (2.7 acres/mixed use)
Address: 18502, 18508-18552 Beach Blvd.
# Units: 274 units
6. Name: Beach & Ocean (3.2 acres/MFR)
Address: 19891 Beach Blvd.
# Units: 173 units
Total Residential Units – 1,900
NTS
738
HALLWAYHALLWAYPROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'
(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'BRIDGEOPEN14' RETAILCEILINGBELOWUNIT 2MUNIT 2NUNIT 2LUNIT 2BUNIT 2CUNIT 2FUNIT 2GUNIT 2JUNIT 2KUNIT 2PUNIT 2DUNIT 2HUNIT 2APROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"STAIRSELEV.LOBBYFITNESSROOMTRASH
UNIT 2EPLANTER POTSON BRIDGE PATH(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'30' SETBACK LINE
TRASH CHUTEFOR TENANTSTYP. PER FLOORUNIT 1HUNIT 1JHALLWAYHALLWAY24'-0" WIDE DRIVEWAYSIDEWALKELLIS AVE
PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'PROPERTY LINE ± 422'-0"SIDEWALK
UNIT 1CUNIT 1LUNIT 1MMULTI PURPOSE ROOMMULTI PURPOSE ROOMSCREENED AREA FORCONDENSORS,METERS & BACKFLOWSNEW DRIVE APPROACH -SEE CIVIL PLANSWALL MOUNTED LEDSITE LIGHTING - 9'HIGHUNIT 1EUNIT 1APLAZAPublic Space2,703 S.F.Common Lobby Type Private FrontageSIDEWALK(P) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'DEDICATION
UNIT 1KUNIT 1GUNIT 1FRetail Space±891 SFREFUSE/RECYCLE ROOMUTILITY AREASTAIRSELEV.LOBBYSEELANDSCAPEPLANS FORDESIGNROLL-UP GARAGE DOORSHALL BE RECESSED AMIN. OF 12" FROM FACEOF WALLTRASH
10' HIGH CMU WALL6' HIGHSCREENWALLGAS METERS(E) PROPERTY LINE ± 98.56'12'-14' HIGHDECORATIVEST. LIGHT, TYP.TO MATCH (E)FIXTURESACROSSELLIS AVE.FIRE STAND PIPETO BE USED IN LIEUOF HOSE PULLREQUIREMENT -ALTERNATIVEMEANS/METHOD PERFIRE CODE SEC. 104.9NO PARKING ALLOWEDALONG FIRE CURB, TYP.Common Lobby Type
Private Frontage
DECORATIVECONCRETE AT GRADE30' SETBACK LINE(N) FIREHYDRANTRAMP DOWN(NO FIRE TRUCKACCESS DOWN RAMP)FIRE TRUCKTURNABOUTLADDER PADLOCATION ATRESCUE OPENINGSUNIT 1BUNIT 1DAANO PARKINGALLOWED ALONGFIRE CURB, TYP.150'150'150'TYPICAL FIRE HOSE MAXIIMUM DISTANCE OF 150'PROPOSED RAMP & STAIRACCESS W/42" HIGH MAX.RAILINGS+0.0'+2.0'+0.0'+1.4'+2.0'NEW RAILINGS 42" MAX.ABOVE FINISHED GRADENOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE ELLIS AVENUE CONDOSHUNTINGTON BEACH, CAN17.359.0104/02/2019MCG ARCHITECTS 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCSTREET LEVELSITE SUMMARYLAND:41,210 S.F. 0.955 ACOCCUPANCY:R-2/MSTREET LEVEL12 UNITS2ND TO 3RD LEVEL29 UNITSROOF DECK LEVEL 7 UNITS48 UNITSNUMBER OF UNITS STREET LEVEL15,578 SFFLOOR AREA:SECOND LEVEL17,470 SFTHIRD LEVEL17,470 SFROOF DECK LEVEL 6,810 SFTOTAL FLOOR AREA57,328 SFTOTAL PARKING AREA64,296 SFPARKING AREA:2 ND FLOOR PLANPARKING LEVEL 1 26,751 SFPARKING LEVEL 2HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926488041 ELLIS AVENUE0SITE PLAN &FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANSScale : 1" = 20'-0"10' 20' 40'APN:157-341-04, 07 & 08ZONING:BEACH-EDINGER SPECIFIC PLAN - SP-14OWNERTHDT INVESTMENTS1307 W. 6TH ST. #202CORONA, CA 92882951.543.8665SALIMTHEONE@YAHOO.COMAPPLICANTMCG ARCHITECTURE/JEFF HERBST111 PACIFICA, #280IRVINE, CA 92618949.553.1117JHERBST@MCGARCHITECTURE.COMLEGAL DESCRIPTIONTRACT 7157, IN BOOK 157, PAGE 34 OF ORANGECOUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE.TOTAL UNITS* AHU = AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. 4.8- UNITSREQUIRED. DEVELOPER WILL BE PROVIDING 5UNITS.PARKING LEVEL 310,794 SF26,751 SFA-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE:III-ABUILDING:66,511 S.F.03/04/19 REVISED PER 12-26-18 COMMENTS04/16/19 CITY COMMENTS REVISION04/2919 REVISED # OF AHU'S05/01/19 REVISED AHU'S TO 5 TOTAL739
Accident Rates Before and After Elan
Development
Location
Accident Rate
Before
Accident Rate
After
Elan Development Elan Development
Beach Blvd/Ellis Ave* 0.68 0.62
Ellis Ave/Patterson Ln* 0.11 0.15
Beach Blvd (Ellis Ave - Graziadio Dr)** 7.5 6.4
Ellis Ave (Beach Blvd - Goodwin Ln)** 12.7 12.4
*intersection accident rate per million entering
vehicles
**street segment accident rate per million
vehicle miles traveled
Before rates calculated based on 3 years of data prior to
development
After rates calculated based on 3 years of data after development
740
Project Trip Generation Compared to Elan Development Ellis Condo Project Trip Generation: Elan Development Trip Generation: Daily Trips - 351 Daily Trips - 1,822 AM Peak Hour Trips - 22 AM Peak Hour Trips - 140 PM Peak Hour Trip - 27 PM Peak Hour Trip - 169 741
Intersection
Level-of-
Service (LOS)
Analysis*
Intersection
Existing
AM Peak
Hour LOS*
Existing PM
Peak Hour
LOS*
Acceptable
LOS per City
Policy
Volume/Capacity Ratio
Remaining at Acceptable
LOS (D) with Project (AM
Peak Hour/ PM Peak Hour)
Beach Boulevard /
Talbert Avenue B D D 0.31 / 0.10
Beach Boulevard /
Garfield Avenue B C D 0.25 / 0.18
Beach Boulevard /
Ellis Avenue A B D 0.37 / 0.29
* Intersection
Capacity
Utilization
Methodology (ICU)
742
℄
743
744
745
746
747
Ellis Condos748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
1
Aube, Nicolle
From:Pamela Mccay <pmccay85@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 2:19 PM
To:Aube, Nicolle
Subject:Ellis Ave Condos
Hi Nicolle,
I will unfortunately not be able to make it to the city council meeting as I am a nightshift RN and work that
night. I'm hoping that my email is as sufficient at voicing my concerns for this complex.
I am born and raised in Huntington Beach and I currently live at 18311 Patterson Ave, #2.This is my third time
living on this street in the last ten years and I have currently been in my apartment for 4 years. My
neighborhood, which is directly behind this proposed site, already has horrendous parking due to the entire
neighborhood being fourplexes. We have been having a problem with Elan parking on our street because they
do not want to pay for the monthly parking fee to park there on top of their astronomical rent. I have actually
spoken to residents while they park in front of my house. They also told me that they tell their guest to park on
our street as well. We see people every day walking to and from their cars and Elan. (And no, they are not using
the crosswalk on beach) I have been petitioning to get our neighborhood permit parking and all of the residents
are in favor of this. On top of the terrible parking, getting in and out of the neighborhood is horrendous. I can't
even come out on my own street because the traffic is often backed up all the way to the next exit. Sometimes I
can't even get out on that street (Goodwin). This intersection is already a dangerous area and I was almost t-
boned coming into my tract on Monday morning on my way home from work. Adding even more traffic and
congestion to this intersection will be a disservice to the city and increase the amount of accidents that already
occur here. I personally know someone who was side swiped due to someone making a left turn out of the
DK/jack in the box parking lot, which is I'm sure the proposed driveway for this complex.
I know these complexes are all about making money for the developers, who have already greased the palms of
numerous council members to push this through. Our residents do not want this! Most of these complexes have
rent so high that most people can't even afford it.
I really hope this email helps keep this eye sore off this corner and keep traffic and accidents to a minimum and
safety as the highest priority.
Thank you for your time,
Pamela McCay, BSN, RN
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1400 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
Subject:
Consider adopting Resolution No. 2020-13 related to the Joint Exercise of Powers for
Membership in the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT), and authorize the City
Manager to execute the Orange County Housing Finance Trust Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
Agreement
Statement of Issue:
Jamboree Housing, which is currently pursuing the development of a 43-unit senior permanent
supportive housing project at 18431 Beach Boulevard, recently requested that the City of Huntington
Beach consider joining the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (“OCHFT”), in order to allow them
the opportunity to pursue affordable housing funds available through that particular entity. OCHFT
was formed in 2019 as a Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”) between the County of Orange and cities
throughout the County. Enacted by Assembly Bill 448, the OCHFT is intended to provide a greater
opportunity for Orange County cities to attract and secure funding for affordable housing and
supportive housing. Services associated with supportive housing may include social services, mental
health services, health care, counseling, job placement, veterans' affairs, and life and budget
planning. The State has provided additional funding for affordable housing and is providing several
billion dollars for eligible efforts and projects. The City’s membership in the OCHFT would provide
affordable housing developers access to gap funding for projects located in Huntington Beach as this
source of funding is not available within nonmember municipalities. This added source of funding
makes it more likely that affordable housing projects proposed within Huntington Beach would be
financially viable. Adopting the proposed City Council Resolution and the executing the Joint Powers
Agreement would enable the City to join the OCHFT.
Financial Impact:
The estimated fiscal impact, effective, 7/1/2020, would be approximately $21,060 annually. If
approved, the City will identify a funding source for this expenditure as part of the budget process.
Additional information related to this expenditure follows.
Administration of the OCHFT will be funded through a combination of grants as well as annual
payments from the County and the member cities on a pro-rata share basis based on population.
Staffing for the first year of the OCHFT (Fiscal Year 2019-2020) includes contract employees and
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™810
File #:20-1400 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
consultants. The County is assuming all administrative costs incurred during Fiscal Year 2019-2020.
Moving forward, the OCHFT’s administrative costs are calculated through an allocation formula
where the County pays for 4/9 of the total annual costs and the member cities pay the remaining 5/9
share.
Preliminary cost estimates provided by the OCHFT estimate Huntington Beach would contribute
$21,060 per year (Attachment 1). Variables affecting cost include the number of member cities,
funding sources that can be used to cover administrative expenses, and the adopted
administrative budget.
If costs exceed a certain threshold, the City would have the option to terminate its membership.
The City maintains the right to withdraw from the JPA subject to a written resolution and by
providing a six-month notice.
Recommended Action:
A)Adopt Resolution No. 2020-13, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Relating to the Joint Exercise of Powers for Membership in the Orange County Housing Finance
Trust;” and,
B) Authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Joint Powers Agreement to join the Orange
County Housing Finance Trust.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not pass the Resolution to join the OCHTF.
Background:
In June 2018, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a Housing Funding Strategy in
response to the shortage of affordable housing in Orange County. The Housing Funding Strategy
set a target for the development of 2,700 new supportive housing units within seven years and
identified a need for an additional 2,700 affordable housing units during the same time period. The
County estimated the capital funding requirements for the 2,700 supportive housing units at $930
million. Given the potential funding sources known at the time, a capital gap of $353 million was
identified, along with an estimated $350 million funding gap in operating and rental subsidies (per
the Orange County Community Resources: Housing Funding Strategy report).In September 2018,
the Association of California Cities, Orange County (“ACC-OC”) worked with state legislators to pass
Assembly Bill 448 (Attachment 2).
AB 448 allows Orange County cities and the County to work together to form the OCHTF and
provide Orange County with greater opportunity to attract and secure competitive funding for
affordable housing projects, such as state bond funds, grants and private contributions. The
OCHFT applies for and receives funding from federal and state agencies and then awards funding
to individual projects in Orange County based on certain criteria. Examples of funding sources
include Proposition 1, Senate Bill 2, and Community Development Block Grant funds. Funding
sources approved by the Governor through the State Budget or legislation could provide additional
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™811
File #:20-1400 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
funding opportunities.
The OCHFT is structured as a JPA that shares, among city members and the County of Orange, the
power to secure and allocate funding for affordable housing projects and programs. The JPA
Agreement (Attachment 3) sets forth the powers, generally to fund affordable and support housing
projects that the member cities and County would share. The OCHFT Board of Directors includes
nine total members. There are four representatives from the County of Orange and five
representatives from member cities. Currently, the County Appointed Representatives include
Supervisors Do and Chaffee, Treasurer/Tax Collector Shari Friedenrich, and Sheriff Don Barnes.
City Representatives include Anaheim Councilmember Stephen Faessel, Dana Point
Councilmember Jamey Federico, Laguna Niguel Mayor Mark Jennings, Mission Viejo
Councilmember Ed Sachs, and Santa Ana Councilmember David Penaloza. Per the terms of the
JPA, the OCHFT does not build, own, or manage projects. OCHFT cannot require projects be
located in specific cities, require member cities to take an allocation of supportive housing units, or
require that cities provide a local funding match. The OCHFT Board of Directors determines whether
a funding application meets its criteria. The local jurisdiction maintains land use control and
processes the entitlement consistent with its municipal code requirements.
The County of Orange became a member of the OCHFT on March 12, 2019. As of the writing of this
staff report, there are twenty-two member cities of the OCHFT, including Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena
Park, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, La Habra, Laguna Beach,
Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, San
Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Stanton, Tustin and Westminster. If the attached Resolution
(Attachment 4) is adopted by the City Council, Huntington Beach would be able to become a member
of the OCHFT.
Current Status
The OCHFT Board of Directors held its inaugural meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2019. During this
meeting, the Board of Directors adopted its Conflict of Interest Code and received presentations
related to the OCHFT. On August 30, 2019, the Board of Directors held its second meeting. During
this meeting, the Board adopted the Trust By-laws (Attachment 5), elected officers of Chair and Vice
Chair, and authorized the OCHFT to start applying for funding opportunities.
Over the next few months, the OCHFT will apply for state funding specifically allocated to local
housing trusts. The OCHFT will also lobby for additional discretionary state and federal funding.
To date, the County of Orange approved $5 million to the OCHFT towards the development of
supportive housing. Additionally, the State of California recently approved $1 million to OCHFT
for the same purpose. On January 24, 2020, the OCHFT issued its first Notice of Funding
Availability (“NOFA”) that would total up to $11.5 million.
The OCHFT allows the Orange County region to be more competitive for federal or state funds. This
regional approach is intended to bring back to Orange County tax dollars that would otherwise be
distributed to other jurisdictions. Membership in the OCHFT allows developers building affordable
housing to access additional sources of gap funding for projects. A city must be a member of the
OCHFT for a developer to apply for funds for a project within that city.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™812
File #:20-1400 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Discussion:
Huntington Beach, our Housing Element, and the OCHFT
In late January of 2020, Jamboree Housing Corporation (“Jamboree”) closed on the property
located at 18431 Beach Boulevard (Beach and Main). The City provided a $3 Million acquisition
loan to subsidize affordable housing for extremely low seniors. Jamboree has requested the City
apply for membership to the OCHTF so that their proposed Huntington Beach project can qualify
for available funds under the NOFA issued in January 2020. (Attachment 6)
On February 3, 2020, the City Council approved amendments to the City’s Housing Element and
Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan which put the City’s Housing Element in compliance with
state housing law and eligible for Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) certification. With
this approval, the City is now in compliance with state law and is able to access state funding
through the OCHFT, as well as other funding sources.
Environmental Status:
Staff has determined the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) the activity is not a project as defined
in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Attachment(s):
1.OCHFT Administrative Expense Allocation Formula Policy and Procedures
2. OCHFT Authorizing Bill - AB 448 (2018)
3. Resolution No. 2020-13, w/Exhibit “A” OCHFT Joint Powers Authority Agreement
4. OCHFT Joint Powers Authority By-laws
5. Request to Join OCHFT from Jamboree
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1432 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor/Chair, and City Council/Board Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager/Executive Director
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Authorize and direct the City Manager/Executive Director to execute a Purchase and Sale
Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for acquisition of real property located at
17631 Cameron Lane by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Shigeru Yamada,
Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru
Yamada Living Trust; Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute an Option Agreement,
in a form approved by the City Attorney, to acquire real property located 17642 Beach Blvd. by
and between the City of Huntington Beach and Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru
Yamada Living Trust, and Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust; and
approve allocation of funds necessary to complete the transaction to acquire the property
located at 17631 Cameron Lane
Statement of Issue:
The City Council/ Housing Authority is asked to authorize the acquisition of real property commonly
referred to as 17631 Cameron Lane (the “Property”) utilizing restricted funds for the purpose of
affordable housing and authorize an option to acquire the adjacent property located at 17642 Beach
Blvd. (the “Option Property”) for future acquisition for the same purpose.
Financial Impact:
The total acquisition costs for the Property are estimated to be $3,159,550 consisting of the following:
$3,077,010 (purchase price), $61,540 (broker commission); $8,000 (due diligence studies) and
$13,000 (closing costs) (collectively, the “Acquisition Costs”).
The Acquisition Costs are proposed to be funded through the City’s restricted Low-Moderate Income
Housing Asset Fund (Fund 352) (the “LMIHAF”). The LMIHAF represents the former Redevelopment
Agency’s (the “Successor Agency’s) Housing Set-Aside funds, which are restricted for developing
affordable housing within the City.
Based on current State Health & Safety Code Section 34176.1(d), and the estimated ~$4.5 million in
LMIHAF dollars that the City is projected to have on hand at the end of FY 2019/20, the City will find
itself in an “Excess Surplus” situation, whereby the State will take back all Excess Surplus funds
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™871
File #:20-1432 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
(estimated at ~$3 million), unless the City encumbers those dollars by June 30, 2020.
Therefore, in order to avoid having the State take back our local affordable housing dollars, it is
recommended that the City Council authorize the purchase of the Property, which will enable the
Housing Authority to avoid an Excess Surplus situation, while also allowing the City substantial
influence in dictating the terms of any future development on the identified site.
Furthermore, a future purchase and sale agreement for the Option Property won’t be executed
without sufficient funds identified through a budget amendment which will come to the City Council/
Housing Authority for approval.
Recommended Action:
CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION:
A) Authorize and direct the City Manager/ Executive Director to execute a Purchase and Sale
Agreement and any additional necessary documents to consummate the transaction, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Huntington Beach/ Housing Authority and
Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the
Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust to acquire the Property; and,
B) Authorize and direct the City Manager/ Executive Director to execute an Option Agreement, in a
form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Huntington Beach/ Housing Authority
and Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of
the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust to acquire the Option Property; and ,
C) Appropriate funds of $3,250,000 from Fund 352 for acquisition of the Property.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not authorize the City Manager/ Executive Director to acquire the Property or the Option Property.
Analysis:
On February 3, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolutions No. 2020-06 and 2020-07 approving
General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) No. 19-003 (the “Housing Element Amendment”), Zoning Text
Amendment (“ZTA”) No. 19-006 (Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Amendment, the
“BECSP”) and approved the 2019 Housing Element Progress Report. The Housing Element
Amendment has identified how the City will address its proportionate share of regional housing needs
for all economic segments of the community (“RHNA”) for the current cycle, in accordance with
Government Code Section 65588. Currently, the City has exceeded all of the RHNA targets with the
exception of 413 low and very-low income units. The Housing Element Amendment also contains an
affordable housing overlay (“Overlay”) within the BECSP that identifies six (6) properties that can
accommodate the RHNA shortage. The Overlay allows for by-right development (i.e. no
discretionary permits) for projects that provide a minimum of 30% very-low and low income units.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™872
File #:20-1432 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
Two adjacent parcels, the Property and the Option Property (located on the eastside of Beach Blvd,
between Slater Ave and Warner Ave) (collectively, the “Properties”), were identified as one of the six
sites identified as part of the Overlay. The Properties are owned by Shigeru Yamada, Trustee of the
Shigeru Yamada Living Trust, and Mitsuru Yamada, Trustee of the Mitsuru Yamada Living Trust
(collectively, the “Owners”). The Owners listed the Properties for sale with an asking price of $3.4
million each. Staff submitted a conditional Letter of Intent to Purchase (Attachment 1) with the
following salient terms:
·Purchase Price: Three million seventy seven thousand ten dollars ($3,077,010) for 34,189
square feet of vacant land;
·Security Deposit: Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) non-refundable after the 45-day due
diligence (contingency) period expires. If escrow is cancelled prior to expiration of contingency
period, then the security deposit shall be returned, in full. to the City;
·Close of escrow: 10-days after the expiration of due diligence period;
·Broker Commission: The City and Sellers will split the 4% commission fee, each paying 2%
($61,540.20);
·Closing Costs: The City and Sellers have agreed to split closing costs, (estimated City portion
is $13,000);
·Option to Purchase: Sellers will grant the City an option to purchase the Option Property
(34,325 square feet) for $3,089,250. The option to purchase the Option Property shall expire
on July 31, 2021. A separate option agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney’s Office
with similar salient terms.
If the City Council/Housing Authority authorizes and directs the acquisition of the Properties, staff will
coordinate the review of all title matters with the City Attorney’s Office and initiate site assessments.
Upon the close of escrow, the City will prepare a Request for Proposal to solicit qualified affordable
housing developers to submit proposals to design and construct the developments. By acquiring the
site, the City can dictate terms, conditions, including aesthetics and density beyond the requirements
set forth in the Overlay.
Environmental Status:
The acquisition of the properties is exempt in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines as the purchase will not cause a significant effect on
the environment. A future project contemplating the residential development of affordable housing
may be exempt in accordance with Section 15194 subject to requirements listed in Sections 15192
and 15194 of the CEQA Guidelines. Such environmental analysis will be conducted once an
application is submitted and a project description is defined.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™873
File #:20-1432 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
1. Letter of Intent dated January 16, 2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™874
875
876
877
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1421 MEETING DATE:2/18/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Councilmember Mike Posey
Subject:
Submitted by Councilmember Posey - Direct Staff to Institute a Free Handicap Beach Parking
Program
BACKGROUND
Currently, the City coordinates a Beach Parking Pass program. Through that initiative, individuals
who purchase a Beach Parking Pass are allowed to park, at no additional cost, in the following City
facilities:
§All beach parking lots on PCH from Beach Boulevard to the Pier
§The Pier Plaza “Pay & Display” lots
§Hourly parking lots between Goldenwest Street and Seapoint Street
§Metered parking spaces along Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard
§The parking lot adjacent to the Warner Avenue Fire Station where the boat ramp is located
§The Main Promenade Parking Structure at 200 Main Street
Pursuant to the City’s current fee schedule, Disabled Beach Parking Passes currently cost $75.00 /
year ($6.25 / month).
Recently, the City changed its policy regarding how handicap parking regulations are managed. To
that end, I am requesting that the City Council consider directing staff to institute downtown parking
program modifications that would result in those with a disabled parking placard being able to park in
the City’s beach parking lots along PCH and downtown parking structures for free.
Recommended Action:
Based on my assessment of the situation, I am requesting that the City Council vote to direct staff to
institute parking program modifications that would allow those with a disabled parking placard to park
for free in our beach parking lots located along PCH and our downtown parking structures.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 2/13/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™878