From: sgalvin
To: [email protected]
Subject: High density
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:49:20 AM
Dear city council members, please keep your word and keep Huntington Beach high density free. Please say no and vote no on the HD project planned at Bolsa chica. We believe in you guys! Thank you for all you do.
Sincerely,
Stacey
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: mbjunk
To: [email protected]
Subject: Please vote NO on the HDD at Bolsa Chica & Warner. You all campaigned against HDD now stick to your promises !! The people of HB are watching your every move.
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:59:28 AM
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: Joe Creazzo
To: [email protected]
Subject: HDD
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:19:00 AM
I am against HDD development in Huntington Beach, CA
Joe Creazzo
Sent from my iPhone
From: Joe Creazzo
To: [email protected]
Subject: HDD
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:19:27 AM
Sent from my iPhone
I am against HDD in Huntington Beach,CA
Joe Creazzo
From: Kathy Kay
To: [email protected]
Subject: HDD
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:38:02 AM
We have lived in Huntington Beach for over 25 years. We are opposed to the HDD plan for Bolsa Chica. The traffic signal at Bolsa Chica and Warner currently has traffic backed up to turn left or north onto Bolsa Chica from Warner. An HDD complex near that intersection would be disastrous.
Kathy Kay
5092 Tasman Drive
Huntington Beach CA 92649
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: HDD
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:52:20 AM
I have lived in Huntington Beach for over 25 years. I am against HDD, especially in areas where the traffic is already congested. The intersection of Warner and Bolsa Chica may take two or three rotations before a car can turn onto Bolsa Chica from Warner Avenue. To add an HDD development near this intersection will be unmanageable. Vote against this project.
Alfonso Valencia
5092 Tasman Drive
Huntington Beach CA 92649
From: Alice L
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Cc: Estanislau, Robin; [email protected] Subject: Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040 Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:03:01 PM
Dear Huntington Beach City Councilmembers,
I urge you to Vote NO and Deny Approval for the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 (cross streets: Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street). I strongly object to this project for many valid reasons that include but are not limited to the following objections:
1. This high-density Big Box High Rise Apartment Building is too massive in size, proportion, scope, and density for the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed apartment rent prices will range from $5,000 to $10,000 per month ($120,000 per year) and is not considered to be affordable housing.
3. This monstrosity will be 6 stories high measuring 72 feet from the curb to the rooftop parapet in a neighborhood of predominantly 2 story high structures.
4. Built on a Zero Lot line with only a 10 feet setback from the curb, this Big Box will sprawl over 3.5 acres crowding a busy major traffic intersection in Huntington Beach.
5. It will be an astonishing 69 dwelling units-per-acre behemoth that is 5.4x larger than the surrounding structures when most other projects in HB are limited to 25 dwelling units-per-acre.
6. The grossly inadequate 189 parking spaces for 202 apartment units do not provide any parking spaces for visitors, customers of the proposed ground floor businesses, and a myriad of delivery and service trucks. Spillover parking will saturate the area with overflow parking on streets that are already overcrowded. There is extremely limited street parking in this predominantly red-curbed area that is a major gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.
7. The “Senior Living Community” label for this Big Box is intentionally misleading as only 100 out of the 202 apartment units are designated for assisted care (less than half). The remaining 102 units will be rented to wealthy adult tenants who will presumably require 2 parking spaces per unit.
8. This Big Box is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow other developers to saturate this area with more Big Box high rises that will destroy our quiet “Surf City” beach community. 9. The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for this project fails to adequately identify, analyze, or mitigate the many significant environmental impacts of this project; and the EIR fails to provide and analyze an accurate and complete project description; and the EIR fails to disclose significant adverse impacts in Violation of CEQA; and the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts is deficient; and the EIR’s analysis of alternatives is deficient; and the EIR fails to support its findings with substantial evidence; and the Final EIR fails to adequately respond to Public comment amongst multiple other violations of the EIR and CEQA too numerous to list all herein. 10. This project is a blatant and improper attempt to Spot Zone which is the oldest recognized form of zoning scheming and corruption. The City of Huntington Beach lacks substantial evidence to support the “findings” for Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit amongst multiple other violations of Huntington Beach City Code, regulations, and established and accepted practices.
Please VOTE NO and DENY THIS INSANE PROJECT!
Alice Lastuvka
6812 Marilyn Drive
Huntington Beach
CA 92647
From: Fikes, Cathy
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: NO to 23-994
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:34:24 PM
From: Taylor Haug <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 11:12 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: NO to 23-994
Please vote no on agenda item 23-994. The building is way too big for the surrounding area.
Thanks,
Taylor
From: Fikes, Cathy
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Item 21 -- Senior Living Complex Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:34:48 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: tarrik and paula Shawa <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:05 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Public Hearing Item 21 -- Senior Living Complex Hi Council Members,
I kindly ask that you reject this item as presented. It does not meet the General Plan, it is too big and tall and could be converted in the future. This reeks of High Density Housing.
Also, please try to drive down Warner at Bolsa Chica at 3pm on any weekday. The roadways are already over capacity.
Thank you for your “NAY” vote in advance.
Best wished for the Holiday and New Year.
Respectfully,
Tarrik Shawa
ps. Uphold the appeal and deny the project.
From: Bob
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bolsa Chica Senior Living Project Dec 19th Vote.
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 1:25:46 PM
Tony,
During your campaign for City Council, you gave some somewhat vague and slippery answers regarding your commitment to vote against High Density development in Huntington Beach.
Using nuanced language to state your position. Because you were aligned with 3 others whom gave firm commitments to fight High Density in our city, the electorate voted the slate and you were
elected to office.
I considered not voting for you, even though I am a conservative Republican, due to your alignment with the old guard establishment swamp that seems to still maintain a hold on the party.
I held my nose and voted for you, hoping for the best. The Shawn Steele /Scott Baugh / Dave Garafalo contingent, the ones that ran the OC GOP into the ground and lost our majority after years of absolute dominance
under the leadership of Tom Fuentes. The shift was due to a miserable program of outreach and education, not demographics. No attempt was made to counter the leftist narrative that the OCGOP was the home
of Big Business centered, back slapping good old boys.
You are attached to that faction. It was apparent in your appointment of Michelle Schuetz who is a swamp dwelling spokeshole for Shopoff, a low life developer poised to unleash multiple projects detrimental to Huntington Beach, including the redevelopment of the Westminster Mall, slated to include massive ugly HD development and is directly bordered by Huntington Beach.
I felt it necessary to communicate to you the certain outcome of any Yes vote or attempt to vote "Abstain" regarding the Bolsa Chica "Senior Housing" project on Dec 19, 2023.
Should you choose to vote in the affirmative or vote to abstain so that the decision reverts to the Planning Commision vote, You will be recalled and the effort will begin immediately.
The Notice of Intent has already been prepared and signed by enough voters to initiate the process. I will bring it with me to the Council meeting and serve you personally on December 19th, 2023
if it becomes necessary.
People don't like liar's nor posers, especially when they are politicians.
At least you know where Kalmick and Moser stand despite their weasley identity politics, whiny diatribes and support for any leftist culture war initiative. They are true believers in the "Grand March" towards a
utopian progressive future... just like the Venezuelans ...
It would be a shame to see your political career end in such a pitiful and pathetic way.
Anything but a no vote will piss off more than enough conservatives who will then align with the "progressives"
who are frothing at the mouth over any opportunity to take you out and alter the makeup of the Council. Such a move, while it may benefit you in the short term and fatten your bank account, will only result in an
ignominious end to what has already been a chequered political career.
Since the consensus seems to be that you consider yourself a viable candidate for a return to the assembly once Janet Nguyen terms out, and / or you may have a backup strategy of a potential position in the Ca GOP Hierarchy,
both jobs that will make your wallet fatter, you may not be concerned about any of this..
But rest assured that if you vote Yes or abstain, you will be unceremoniously shown the door by those you have betrayed and have to deal with the stain on your political shirt for the remainder
of your life. Not to mention the fact that you will provide ammo to the left by sliming Gracey Van der Mark, Pat Burns and Casey McKeon due to their close association with you. No doubt Kalmick, Moser and Bolton
are lying in wait to scuttle the remainder of your political career. The distinct possibility of being run out of town by an angry mob should concern you. I hear it is not easy to remove the tar and feathers.
It's your call, Tony.
Do the right thing.
Respectfully,
Bob
From: Linda Garrett
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 2:39:37 PM
please vote no on the proposed Bolsa Chica development
From: Tricia Thienes
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Opposition Letters - Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040 located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Ave.
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 2:55:05 PM
Attachments: 20231206111053139.pdf
FYI
Tricia Thienes | Sr. Executive Assistant
Carrington Holding Company
25 Enterprise, 5th Floor | Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Office: (949) 517 - 5514 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Tricia Thienes
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 2:09 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Opposition Letters - Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040 located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Ave.
Good afternoon,
I do not see these 6 opposing letters that I forwarded to you on 12/6/23 on the "communication thru 12/13/23". Can you please add them?
Thank you,
Tricia Thienes | Sr. Executive Assistant Carrington Holding Company 25 Enterprise, 5th Floor | Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Office: (949) 517 - 5514 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Tricia Thienes
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:26 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Opposition Letters - Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040 located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Ave.
Good morning,
Please see the attached 6 letters opposing this project.
Thank you,
Tricia Thienes | Sr. Executive Assistant Carrington Holding Company 25 Enterprise, 5th Floor | Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Office: (949) 517 - 5514 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Tricia Thienes <[email protected]>
Subject: Message from "RNP002673874B96"
Attention: This message was sent by an external sender. Please be mindful before clicking a link or opening attachments
This E-mail was sent from "RNP002673874B96" (MP C5503).
Scan Date: 12.06.2023 11:10:53 (-0700)
Queries to: [email protected]
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This message, including any attachment(s), may contain confidential information protected by law. The information contained herein is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender at the e-mail address listed above and destroy all copies of the original message, including any attachments. Thank you.
From: Nick Botelho
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Objection: Bolsa Chica Senior Living
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 3:23:11 PM
Attachments: Objection_HBCityCouncil.pdf
Thank you,
Nicholas Botelho
Photographer • Graphic Designer
Nicholas Botelho Photography & Design
774.628.6622
www.nicholasbotelho.com
www.facebook.com/NicholasBotelhoPhotography
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nick Botelho <[email protected]
>
Date: Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:21 PM
Subject: Objection: Bolsa Chica Senior Living
To: <[email protected]
>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Hello City Council members,
I must urge you to vote "no" during today's meeting in regards to the Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040. Please see the attached objection letter that I was provided by one of our community members, expressing local disapproval of this project.
In addition to what is already listed in this document, this project is also very harmful to local businesses, many of which are being forced to relocate due to this reconstruction and others which will suffer the congestion that is bound to take place if this proposal passes. I personally have several clients located in the office buildings at the proposed location, many of which have been there for several years and are very upset at being forced to relocate (not to mention the potential loss of business).
While more housing is needed in our community, this location is NOT the location for this project, and this proposal has many things that could be improved upon, as mentioned in the attached opposition document.
As a local resident, living right on Dunbar and directly affected by this project, I hope your vote reflects the best interests of our community.
Thank you,
Nicholas Botelho
Photographer • Graphic Designer
Nicholas Botelho Photography & Design
774.628.6622
www.nicholasbotelho.com
www.facebook.com/NicholasBotelhoPhotography
From: Paula Shawa
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: No on Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project / Agenda Item 21 / City Council mtg. Dec. 19 Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 5:54:32 PM
Folks,
Please uphold the appeal and deny approval of this proposed development for the following reasons:
This is an upscale project for affluent clients; it will not provide the affordable housing that Huntington Beach needs.
The scope and scale of the development is completely at odds with the surrounding neighborhood. I'm scratching my head as to how the Planning Commission and city staff rationalized that the proposed architecture was complementary to the adjacent properties. Four stories versus one-, two- and some three-stories? It doesn't compute.
Traffic is going to be greatly impacted with this project. Again, how are the developer's - and the city's - studies rationalizing that there will be no impact?Nearly 200 residences, 100 employees, and visitors and deliveries coming and going at all hours? Of course there's going to be an impact!
I, and many other neighbors, would be much more supportive of this project if the scale was three stories or less. Please consider this as you deliberate over the project. Thank you, Paula Shawa, 16822 Edgewater Lane, HB
From: Paula Shawa
To: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: No on Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project / Agenda Item 21 / City Council mtg. Dec. 19 Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 5:56:02 PM
Folks,
Please uphold the appeal and deny approval of this proposed development for the following reasons:
This is an upscale project for affluent clients; it will not provide the affordable housing that Huntington Beach needs.
The scope and scale of the development is completely at odds with the surrounding neighborhood. I'm scratching my head as to how the Planning Commission and city staff rationalized that the proposed architecture was complementary to the adjacent properties. Four stories versus one-, two- and some three-stories? It doesn't compute.
Traffic is going to be greatly impacted with this project. Again, how are the developer's - and the city's - studies rationalizing that there will be no impact?Nearly 200 residences, 100 employees, and visitors and deliveries coming and going at all hours? Of course there's going to be an impact!
I, and many other neighbors, would be much more supportive of this project if the scale was three stories or less. Please consider this as you deliberate over the project. Thank you, Paula Shawa, 16822 Edgewater Lane, HB
From: Marcia Morrell
To: [email protected]
Subject: Please!
Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 8:36:11 AM
Please remember that you all REPRESENT your constituents in HB! No more HDD here! Promises made should be promises KEPT!!! KEEP HB the wonderful hometown we all love.
Frank and Marcia Morrell
Sent from my iPhone
Objection Letter to Huntington Beach City Councilmembers
Dear Huntington Beach City Councilmembers, I urge you to Vote NO and Deny Approval for the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040 located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 (cross streets: Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street).
I strongly object to this project for many valid reasons that include but are not limited to the following objections:
1. This gigantic high-density Big Box High Rise Apartment Building is too massive in size, proportion, scope, and density for the surrounding neighborhood and violates established city building codes.
2. The proposed apartment rent prices will range from $5,000 to $10,000 per month ($120,000 per year) and is not considered to be affordable housing.
3. This monstrosity is the equivalent of 6 stories high measuring 72 feet tall from the sidewalk at the intersection of Warner and Bolsa Chica to the rooftop parapet plus an additional 6 feet higher for rooftop equipment in a neighborhood of predominantly 2 story tall structures. It will tower over most nearby structures by 3x.
4. Built on a Zero Lot line within 5 feet of the property line with as little as a 10 feet setback (subterranean structure is only 5 feet from property line). This Big Box will sprawl over 2.8 acres crowding a busy major traffic intersection at Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street in Huntington Beach.
5. It will be an astonishing 69 dwelling units-per-acre behemoth that is 5.4x larger mass than the surrounding structures when most other projects in HB are limited to 25 dwelling units-per-acre.
6. The grossly inadequate 189 parking spaces for 202 apartment units provide limited parking spaces for visitors, customers of the proposed ground floor businesses, and a myriad of delivery and service trucks.
Spillover parking will saturate the area with overflow parking on streets that are already overcrowded. There is extremely limited street parking in this predominantly red-curbed area that is a major parking area and gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.
7. The “Senior Living Community” label for this Big Box is intentionally misleading as only 100 out of the 202 apartment units are designated for assisted care (less than half !). The remaining majority 102 units offer no senior care and will be rented to 55+ years old tenants who presumably require 2 parking spaces per unit.
8. This Big Box is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow other developers to saturate this area with more Big Box high rises that will destroy our quiet “Surf City” beach community.
9. The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for this project fails to adequately identify, analyze, or mitigate the many significant environmental impacts of this project; and the EIR fails to provide and analyze an accurate and complete project description; and the EIR fails to disclose significant adverse impacts in Violation of CEQA; and the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts is deficient; and the EIR’s analysis of alternatives is deficient; and the EIR fails to support its findings with substantial evidence; and the Final EIR fails to adequately respond to Public comment amongst multiple other violations of the EIR and CEQA too numerous to list all herein.
10. This project is a blatant and improper attempt to Spot Zone which is the oldest recognized form of zoning scheming and corruption. The City of Huntington Beach lacks substantial evidence to support the “findings” for Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit amongst multiple other violations of Huntington Beach City Code, regulations, and established and accepted practices. _________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ (Signature) (Date)
_______________________________________________________________ __________ (Print Name)
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ (Print Home Address)
_____________________________________________________________________________________ _______________ (Print Email Address)
Email to HB City Council: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
From: Estanislau, Robin
To: Moore, Tania; Switzer, Donna
Subject: FW: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:32:00 PM
Attachments: embed0
SC
From: Thieneseng - Project <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:17 PM
To: Estanislau, Robin <[email protected]> Subject: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Email: [email protected]
Menu: Huntington Beach, CA. I would like to provide comments to the statements and findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Related to the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project, SCH No. 2022110040 Located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. I would also like to be listed as a Interested Individual and receive all future correspondence, technical information and hearing notices.
First and foremost, I object to the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from CG to mixed-use (MU) and I object to the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan (SP). I also object to the increase in allowable floor area ratio to 2.5 and I object to raising the maximum building height to 65 feet. I believe the impact to the environment has not been reasonably assessed and I have a strong disagreement to several statements made in the draft EIR. The project’s inconsistency with the city of Huntington Beach policy and zoning will cause significant physical environmental impacts to our neighborhood.
My comments and concerns to the draft environmental impact report are as follows:
1.4 significant and unavoidable impacts:
I firmly disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the existing environmental setting” the proposed project would create a precedent for future development, the draft environmental impact report does not consider the approval of the project will open the door to future similar developments in the area. The effects of allowing a specific plan to subvert zoning regulations would cause extreme interest in developing surrounding projects of similar nature. This project needs to study the long-term accumulative impact of increasing the code required maximum density, the lack of code required parking and the effect on the adjoining neighborhood and the ability for the adjoining neighborhoods to absorb the street parking that would result in the deficiency of the required parking. The environmental impact report should also study the long-term effects of the sewer capacity and water capacity of the surrounding existing development of similar nature that could be redeveloped if this project were approved. The draft environmental impact report failed to provide a sewer capacity and water capacity study.
1.5.2 identification of the environmentally superior alternative:
I disagree with the alternate project, an alternate project could be proposed that complies with the existing adjacent zoning that is consistent with the surrounding community.
I firmly disagree “the no project alternative would result in greater environmental impacts to air quality and transportation to the surrounding circulation system due to the greater number of vehicle trips to and from the project site” zoning similar to the adjacent properties would result in less impact than the proposed project but would still achieve the goal of providing senior housing.
4.1; aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not conflict with relevant goals and policies in terms of preserving the visual quality in the city” the city has developed zoning standards which does not allow for a 65-foot-high building structure. The building structure would tower over the existing residence which are only 2 stories tall. The proposed structure is not compatible in proportion, scale or character to the adjoining uses.
4.7 land use and planning
I believe the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to the conflict with the existing land use plan. Approval of this project would lead to approval of multiple projects in the area which would have a massive accumulative impact on the community which include aesthetics, traffic, noise, solar access, wind access, impacts to the infrastructure such as water and sewer capacities and street parking. The proposed project is inconsistent with the city’s establishd development standards which have been used to design the surrounding infrastructure. The surrounding infrastructure was not designed to handle the proposed densities. I disagree that the overall impact to surrounding community would be less than significant when the cumulative effect of future developments similar to the proposed project is considered.
4.10: utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with electric power and natural gas”. The cumulative effect of approving this project would cause a landslide of similar developments in the area which would have a major impact to the available electric energy and natural gas, the existing infrastructure did not consider increasing the bulk density and mass of the proposed development. Approval of this project would cause additional projects of a similar nature that would have a cumulative effect on the availability of electricity and gas.
2.4.1 Aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “not create a source of substantial light or glare”. Security and patio lighting on the 5th floor would be seen from the entire neighborhood. Nothing in the EIR evaluated the lighting spillover into the wetlands which requires dark sky. The Brightwater development respects the dark sky requirements of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, this project should address the impact to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve. The proposed building elevations shown in the draft EIR appear to show exterior lighting fixtures that are not properly shielded. It is impossible to provide adequate lighting for the patio areas and shield all of the light spillover.
2.4.8 hydrology and water quality
Bolsa Chica Road Street of Warner Avenue lacks sufficient storm drain facilities to capture runoff from the East that flows to the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Dunbar Avenue, as a result this intersection experiences flooding during normal rain events. The adjacent existing parking lot serves as an incidental detention basin and helps protect the surrounding properties. The EIR fails to analyze and address the effect of construction over the parking lot which would reduce the available ponding space and could cause flooding on adjacent properties. I believe this project will increase the depth of flooding at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and Dunbar Avenue.
2.4.14 recreation
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project does not include recreational facilities nor require the construction or expensing of recreational facilities that would result in a significant adverse physical effect to the environment, therefore project related impacts with respect to recreation are not evaluated further in this draft EIR”. The proposed project is significantly under parked according to existing zoning, the city of Huntington Beach has established parking standards that eliminate the need for street parking. If developed, this project would cause excessive street parking which would inhibit access to the trail system. There is already a shortage of parking for people who are visiting the Bolsa Chica wetlands, this project would severely impact the available street parking leading to the trailhead at the southerly terminus of Bolsa Chica Street. The proposed project only considers parking spaces for the residential units and fails to address the required parking spaces for the estimated 110 employees who will work at the proposed multiple restaurants, wellness centers and studio spaces. It is not reasonable to assume 62 units are parked at a ratio of 0.65 spaces per unit when there is no mechanism stated to control whether a unit is assisted living or normal senior housing. I believe the parking should be evaluated as worst-case senior housing and a separate calculation added for the multiple restaurant style dining venues, wellness centers and studio spaces. Due to the lack of parking this development does not support the protection and maintenance of environmental open-space resources. The lack of on-site parking will prohibit access to the Bolsa Chica trail system.
2.4.16 utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “therefore, impacts related to the construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities would be less than significant”. Recently the Orange County sanitation District upgraded the sewer force mains and lift stations throughout the city, these systems should have been designed to comply with the existing zoning and did not consider the increased density this project is proposing. This project should consider the cumulative effect of increasing the density of existing sites within the vicinity to verify the additional sewer capacity is available to serve this site and future developments of this nature. The environmental impact report failed to provide an adequate sewer and water capacity study.
4.1.6 project impacts
I disagree with the statement “given the current visual quality of the project site, implementation of the proposed project consistent with the development standards and design guidelines specified in the specific plan would promote a cohesive community identity and enhance the visual quality of the project site to viewers on an off-site”. Increasing the maximum height of the building to 65 feet would block the skyline view from the public way, the open sky view at the corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner would be forever impacted and would effect every person visiting the neighborhood, the view would be replaced by a massive apartment building. Replacing a blue-sky view with an apartment building would have a negative impact on the community by destroying public view of the sky.
I also disagree with the statement “therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant shade or shadow impacts to nearby residential uses. The shade and shadow study prepared by CRTKL is seriously flawed, a 65 foot tall structure will cast a shadow in the easterly and westerly directions during sunrise and sunset during the spring and fall equinox, only the winter solstice was studied. This study proposes a shadow less than the building height. A study of the spring and fall equinox would prove Expensive shadows would be cast on the residential properties to the east and west of the proposed development.
4.1.10 cumulative impacts
I disagree with the statement “approval of the general plan amendment and zoning amendment would render the proposed project consistent with the city’s establish development standards and no mitigation would be required.” The existing zoning has been adopted by the residents for years and has been relied on by the residents to protect the integrity of the community.
Allowing the general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan would cause long-term environmental impacts to the community. If this project is approved there will be a landslide of similar developments that will forever change the density of the community, this is evidenced by the recent development at Bella Terra and downtown Huntington Beach. This project should evaluate the cumulative impact of all sites of similar nature that would be subject to redevelopment. This project is not compatible with the long-term established development standards in the area.
4.2.3.1 air pollutants and health effects
The draft EIR failed to study the air quality in the vicinity of the project and used air quality data from Anaheim California, approximately 10 miles from the proposed development.
As stated in the initial study “occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.” The air quality study fails to consider the proposed development and the residents who will be living in the proposed development.
Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are both 3 lane major highways that produce a significant amount of emissions. The study should consider the effect of these emissions on the people who will be living in the proposed development. As stated in the environmental impact report “high-volume roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentration.” Obviously, this site is not suitable for senior housing due to the proximity of the high-volume roadways.
Table 4.7.B: Gen. plan consistency analysis ERC-A
I disagree with the statement “these recreational and open-space elements would be for private use by residents and not open to the public but are anticipated to reduce the strain on surrounding parks and open spaces as residents would be more likely to use the on-site facilities.” The proposed project does nothing to maintain the current Park per capita ratio of
5.0 acres per 1000 persons, the proposed development does not include any public open space for parks.
We trust the city of Huntington Beach will not allow the certification of the environmental impact report and deny this project for the reasons stated above.
Signature :
From: Estanislau, Robin
To: Moore, Tania; Moore, Tania; Switzer, Donna
Subject: FW: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:33:00 PM
Attachments: embed0
SC … probably a duplicate
From: Thieneseng - Project <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Estanislau, Robin <[email protected]> Subject: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Email: [email protected]
Menu: Huntington Beach, CA. I would like to provide comments to the statements and findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Related to the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project, SCH No. 2022110040 Located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. I would also like to be listed as a Interested Individual and receive all future correspondence, technical information and hearing notices.
First and foremost, I object to the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from CG to mixed-use (MU) and I object to the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan (SP). I also object to the increase in allowable floor area ratio to 2.5 and I object to raising the maximum building height to 65 feet. I believe the impact to the environment has not been reasonably assessed and I have a strong disagreement to several statements made in the draft EIR. The project’s inconsistency with the city of Huntington Beach policy and zoning will cause significant physical environmental impacts to our neighborhood.
My comments and concerns to the draft environmental impact report are as follows:
1.4 significant and unavoidable impacts:
I firmly disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the existing environmental setting” the proposed project would create a precedent for future development, the draft environmental impact report does not consider the approval of the project will open the door to future similar developments in the area. The effects of allowing a specific plan to subvert zoning regulations would cause extreme interest in developing surrounding projects of similar nature. This project needs to study the long-term accumulative impact of increasing the code required maximum density, the lack of code required parking and the effect on the adjoining neighborhood and the ability for the adjoining neighborhoods to absorb the street parking that would result in the deficiency of the required parking. The environmental impact report should also study the long-term effects of the sewer capacity and water capacity of the surrounding existing development of similar nature that could be redeveloped if this project were approved. The draft environmental impact report failed to provide a sewer capacity and water capacity study.
1.5.2 identification of the environmentally superior alternative:
I disagree with the alternate project, an alternate project could be proposed that complies with the existing adjacent zoning that is consistent with the surrounding community.
I firmly disagree “the no project alternative would result in greater environmental impacts to air quality and transportation to the surrounding circulation system due to the greater number of vehicle trips to and from the project site” zoning similar to the adjacent properties would result in less impact than the proposed project but would still achieve the goal of providing senior housing.
4.1; aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not conflict with relevant goals and policies in terms of preserving the visual quality in the city” the city has developed zoning standards which does not allow for a 65-foot-high building structure. The building structure would tower over the existing residence which are only 2 stories tall. The proposed structure is not compatible in proportion, scale or character to the adjoining uses.
4.7 land use and planning
I believe the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to the conflict with the existing land use plan. Approval of this project would lead to approval of multiple projects in the area which would have a massive accumulative impact on the community which include aesthetics, traffic, noise, solar access, wind access, impacts to the infrastructure such as water and sewer capacities and street parking. The proposed project is inconsistent with the city’s establishd development standards which have been used to design the surrounding infrastructure. The surrounding infrastructure was not designed to handle the proposed densities. I disagree that the overall impact to surrounding community would be less than significant when the cumulative effect of future developments similar to the proposed project is considered.
4.10: utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with electric power and natural gas”. The cumulative effect of approving this project would cause a landslide of similar developments in the area which would have a major impact to the available electric energy and natural gas, the existing infrastructure did not consider increasing the bulk density and mass of the proposed development. Approval of this project would cause additional projects of a similar nature that would have a cumulative effect on the availability of electricity and gas.
2.4.1 Aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “not create a source of substantial light or glare”. Security and patio lighting on the 5th floor would be seen from the entire neighborhood. Nothing in the EIR evaluated the lighting spillover into the wetlands which requires dark sky. The Brightwater development respects the dark sky requirements of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, this project should address the impact to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve. The proposed building elevations shown in the draft EIR appear to show exterior lighting fixtures that are not properly shielded. It is impossible to provide adequate lighting for the patio areas and shield all of the light spillover.
2.4.8 hydrology and water quality
Bolsa Chica Road Street of Warner Avenue lacks sufficient storm drain facilities to capture runoff from the East that flows to the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Dunbar Avenue, as a result this intersection experiences flooding during normal rain events. The adjacent existing parking lot serves as an incidental detention basin and helps protect the surrounding properties. The EIR fails to analyze and address the effect of construction over the parking lot which would reduce the available ponding space and could cause flooding on adjacent properties. I believe this project will increase the depth of flooding at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and Dunbar Avenue.
2.4.14 recreation
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project does not include recreational facilities nor require the construction or expensing of recreational facilities that would result in a significant adverse physical effect to the environment, therefore project related impacts with respect to recreation are not evaluated further in this draft EIR”. The proposed project is significantly under parked according to existing zoning, the city of Huntington Beach has established parking standards that eliminate the need for street parking. If developed, this project would cause excessive street parking which would inhibit access to the trail system. There is already a shortage of parking for people who are visiting the Bolsa Chica wetlands, this project would severely impact the available street parking leading to the trailhead at the southerly terminus of Bolsa Chica Street. The proposed project only considers parking spaces for the residential units and fails to address the required parking spaces for the estimated 110 employees who will work at the proposed multiple restaurants, wellness centers and studio spaces. It is not reasonable to assume 62 units are parked at a ratio of 0.65 spaces per unit when there is no mechanism stated to control whether a unit is assisted living or normal senior housing. I believe the parking should be evaluated as worst-case senior housing and a separate calculation added for the multiple restaurant style dining venues, wellness centers and studio spaces. Due to the lack of parking this development does not support the protection and maintenance of environmental open-space resources. The lack of on-site parking will prohibit access to the Bolsa Chica trail system.
2.4.16 utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “therefore, impacts related to the construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities would be less than significant”. Recently the Orange County sanitation District upgraded the sewer force mains and lift stations throughout the city, these systems should have been designed to comply with the existing zoning and did not consider the increased density this project is proposing. This project should consider the cumulative effect of increasing the density of existing sites within the vicinity to verify the additional sewer capacity is available to serve this site and future developments of this nature. The environmental impact report failed to provide an adequate sewer and water capacity study.
4.1.6 project impacts
I disagree with the statement “given the current visual quality of the project site, implementation of the proposed project consistent with the development standards and design guidelines specified in the specific plan would promote a cohesive community identity and enhance the visual quality of the project site to viewers on an off-site”. Increasing the maximum height of the building to 65 feet would block the skyline view from the public way, the open sky view at the corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner would be forever impacted and would effect every person visiting the neighborhood, the view would be replaced by a massive apartment building. Replacing a blue-sky view with an apartment building would have a negative impact on the community by destroying public view of the sky.
I also disagree with the statement “therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant shade or shadow impacts to nearby residential uses. The shade and shadow study prepared by CRTKL is seriously flawed, a 65 foot tall structure will cast a shadow in the easterly and westerly directions during sunrise and sunset during the spring and fall equinox, only the winter solstice was studied. This study proposes a shadow less than the building height. A study of the spring and fall equinox would prove Expensive shadows would be cast on the residential properties to the east and west of the proposed development.
4.1.10 cumulative impacts
I disagree with the statement “approval of the general plan amendment and zoning amendment would render the proposed project consistent with the city’s establish development standards and no mitigation would be required.” The existing zoning has been adopted by the residents for years and has been relied on by the residents to protect the integrity of the community.
Allowing the general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan would cause long-term environmental impacts to the community. If this project is approved there will be a landslide of similar developments that will forever change the density of the community, this is evidenced by the recent development at Bella Terra and downtown Huntington Beach. This project should evaluate the cumulative impact of all sites of similar nature that would be subject to redevelopment. This project is not compatible with the long-term established development standards in the area.
4.2.3.1 air pollutants and health effects
The draft EIR failed to study the air quality in the vicinity of the project and used air quality data from Anaheim California, approximately 10 miles from the proposed development.
As stated in the initial study “occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.” The air quality study fails to consider the proposed development and the residents who will be living in the proposed development.
Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are both 3 lane major highways that produce a significant amount of emissions. The study should consider the effect of these emissions on the people who will be living in the proposed development. As stated in the environmental impact report “high-volume roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentration.” Obviously, this site is not suitable for senior housing due to the proximity of the high-volume roadways.
Table 4.7.B: Gen. plan consistency analysis ERC-A
I disagree with the statement “these recreational and open-space elements would be for private use by residents and not open to the public but are anticipated to reduce the strain on surrounding parks and open spaces as residents would be more likely to use the on-site facilities.” The proposed project does nothing to maintain the current Park per capita ratio of
5.0 acres per 1000 persons, the proposed development does not include any public open space for parks.
We trust the city of Huntington Beach will not allow the certification of the environmental impact report and deny this project for the reasons stated above.
Signature :
From: Estanislau, Robin
To: Switzer, Donna
Subject: FW: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:33:00 PM
Attachments: embed0
Another …
From: Thieneseng - Project <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:28 PM
To: Estanislau, Robin <[email protected]> Subject: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Email: [email protected]
Menu: Huntington Beach, CA. I would like to provide comments to the statements and findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Related to the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project, SCH No. 2022110040 Located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. I would also like to be listed as a Interested Individual and receive all future correspondence, technical information and hearing notices.
First and foremost, I object to the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from CG to mixed-use (MU) and I object to the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan (SP). I also object to the increase in allowable floor area ratio to 2.5 and I object to raising the maximum building height to 65 feet. I believe the impact to the environment has not been reasonably assessed and I have a strong disagreement to several statements made in the draft EIR. The project’s inconsistency with the city of Huntington Beach policy and zoning will cause significant physical environmental impacts to our neighborhood.
My comments and concerns to the draft environmental impact report are as follows:
1.4 significant and unavoidable impacts:
I firmly disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the existing environmental setting” the proposed project would create a precedent for future development, the draft environmental impact report does not consider the approval of the project will open the door to future similar developments in the area. The effects of allowing a specific plan to subvert zoning regulations would cause extreme interest in developing surrounding projects of similar nature. This project needs to study the long-term accumulative impact of increasing the code required maximum density, the lack of code required parking and the effect on the adjoining neighborhood and the ability for the adjoining neighborhoods to absorb the street parking that would result in the deficiency of the required parking. The environmental impact report should also study the long-term effects of the sewer capacity and water capacity of the surrounding existing development of similar nature that could be redeveloped if this project were approved. The draft environmental impact report failed to provide a sewer capacity and water capacity study.
1.5.2 identification of the environmentally superior alternative:
I disagree with the alternate project, an alternate project could be proposed that complies with the existing adjacent zoning that is consistent with the surrounding community.
I firmly disagree “the no project alternative would result in greater environmental impacts to air quality and transportation to the surrounding circulation system due to the greater number of vehicle trips to and from the project site” zoning similar to the adjacent properties would result in less impact than the proposed project but would still achieve the goal of providing senior housing.
4.1; aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not conflict with relevant goals and policies in terms of preserving the visual quality in the city” the city has developed zoning standards which does not allow for a 65-foot-high building structure. The building structure would tower over the existing residence which are only 2 stories tall. The proposed structure is not compatible in proportion, scale or character to the adjoining uses.
4.7 land use and planning
I believe the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to the conflict with the existing land use plan. Approval of this project would lead to approval of multiple projects in the area which would have a massive accumulative impact on the community which include aesthetics, traffic, noise, solar access, wind access, impacts to the infrastructure such as water and sewer capacities and street parking. The proposed project is inconsistent with the city’s establishd development standards which have been used to design the surrounding infrastructure. The surrounding infrastructure was not designed to handle the proposed densities. I disagree that the overall impact to surrounding community would be less than significant when the cumulative effect of future developments similar to the proposed project is considered.
4.10: utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with electric power and natural gas”. The cumulative effect of approving this project would cause a landslide of similar developments in the area which would have a major impact to the available electric energy and natural gas, the existing infrastructure did not consider increasing the bulk density and mass of the proposed development. Approval of this project would cause additional projects of a similar nature that would have a cumulative effect on the availability of electricity and gas.
2.4.1 Aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “not create a source of substantial light or glare”. Security and patio lighting on the 5th floor would be seen from the entire neighborhood. Nothing in the EIR evaluated the lighting spillover into the wetlands which requires dark sky. The Brightwater development respects the dark sky requirements of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, this project should address the impact to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve. The proposed building elevations shown in the draft EIR appear to show exterior lighting fixtures that are not properly shielded. It is impossible to provide adequate lighting for the patio areas and shield all of the light spillover.
2.4.8 hydrology and water quality
Bolsa Chica Road Street of Warner Avenue lacks sufficient storm drain facilities to capture runoff from the East that flows to the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Dunbar Avenue, as a result this intersection experiences flooding during normal rain events. The adjacent existing parking lot serves as an incidental detention basin and helps protect the surrounding properties. The EIR fails to analyze and address the effect of construction over the parking lot which would reduce the available ponding space and could cause flooding on adjacent properties. I believe this project will increase the depth of flooding at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and Dunbar Avenue.
2.4.14 recreation
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project does not include recreational facilities nor require the construction or expensing of recreational facilities that would result in a significant adverse physical effect to the environment, therefore project related impacts with respect to recreation are not evaluated further in this draft EIR”. The proposed project is significantly under parked according to existing zoning, the city of Huntington Beach has established parking standards that eliminate the need for street parking. If developed, this project would cause excessive street parking which would inhibit access to the trail system. There is already a shortage of parking for people who are visiting the Bolsa Chica wetlands, this project would severely impact the available street parking leading to the trailhead at the southerly terminus of Bolsa Chica Street. The proposed project only considers parking spaces for the residential units and fails to address the required parking spaces for the estimated 110 employees who will work at the proposed multiple restaurants, wellness centers and studio spaces. It is not reasonable to assume 62 units are parked at a ratio of 0.65 spaces per unit when there is no mechanism stated to control whether a unit is assisted living or normal senior housing. I believe the parking should be evaluated as worst-case senior housing and a separate calculation added for the multiple restaurant style dining venues, wellness centers and studio spaces. Due to the lack of parking this development does not support the protection and maintenance of environmental open-space resources. The lack of on-site parking will prohibit access to the Bolsa Chica trail system.
2.4.16 utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “therefore, impacts related to the construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities would be less than significant”. Recently the Orange County sanitation District upgraded the sewer force mains and lift stations throughout the city, these systems should have been designed to comply with the existing zoning and did not consider the increased density this project is proposing. This project should consider the cumulative effect of increasing the density of existing sites within the vicinity to verify the additional sewer capacity is available to serve this site and future developments of this nature. The environmental impact report failed to provide an adequate sewer and water capacity study.
4.1.6 project impacts
I disagree with the statement “given the current visual quality of the project site, implementation of the proposed project consistent with the development standards and design guidelines specified in the specific plan would promote a cohesive community identity and enhance the visual quality of the project site to viewers on an off-site”. Increasing the maximum height of the building to 65 feet would block the skyline view from the public way, the open sky view at the corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner would be forever impacted and would effect every person visiting the neighborhood, the view would be replaced by a massive apartment building. Replacing a blue-sky view with an apartment building would have a negative impact on the community by destroying public view of the sky.
I also disagree with the statement “therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant shade or shadow impacts to nearby residential uses. The shade and shadow study prepared by CRTKL is seriously flawed, a 65 foot tall structure will cast a shadow in the easterly and westerly directions during sunrise and sunset during the spring and fall equinox, only the winter solstice was studied. This study proposes a shadow less than the building height. A study of the spring and fall equinox would prove Expensive shadows would be cast on the residential properties to the east and west of the proposed development.
4.1.10 cumulative impacts
I disagree with the statement “approval of the general plan amendment and zoning amendment would render the proposed project consistent with the city’s establish development standards and no mitigation would be required.” The existing zoning has been adopted by the residents for years and has been relied on by the residents to protect the integrity of the community.
Allowing the general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan would cause long-term environmental impacts to the community. If this project is approved there will be a landslide of similar developments that will forever change the density of the community, this is evidenced by the recent development at Bella Terra and downtown Huntington Beach. This project should evaluate the cumulative impact of all sites of similar nature that would be subject to redevelopment. This project is not compatible with the long-term established development standards in the area.
4.2.3.1 air pollutants and health effects
The draft EIR failed to study the air quality in the vicinity of the project and used air quality data from Anaheim California, approximately 10 miles from the proposed development.
As stated in the initial study “occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.” The air quality study fails to consider the proposed development and the residents who will be living in the proposed development.
Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are both 3 lane major highways that produce a significant amount of emissions. The study should consider the effect of these emissions on the people who will be living in the proposed development. As stated in the environmental impact report “high-volume roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentration.” Obviously, this site is not suitable for senior housing due to the proximity of the high-volume roadways.
Table 4.7.B: Gen. plan consistency analysis ERC-A
I disagree with the statement “these recreational and open-space elements would be for private use by residents and not open to the public but are anticipated to reduce the strain on surrounding parks and open spaces as residents would be more likely to use the on-site facilities.” The proposed project does nothing to maintain the current Park per capita ratio of
5.0 acres per 1000 persons, the proposed development does not include any public open space for parks.
We trust the city of Huntington Beach will not allow the certification of the environmental impact report and deny this project for the reasons stated above.
Signature :
From: Estanislau, Robin
To: Switzer, Donna
Subject: FW: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:33:00 PM
Attachments: embed0
Another …
From: Thieneseng - Project <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:34 PM
To: Estanislau, Robin <[email protected]> Subject: Thieneseng - Project "test"
Email: [email protected]
Menu: Huntington Beach, CA. I would like to provide comments to the statements and findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Related to the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project, SCH No. 2022110040 Located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. I would also like to be listed as a Interested Individual and receive all future correspondence, technical information and hearing notices.
First and foremost, I object to the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from CG to mixed-use (MU) and I object to the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan (SP). I also object to the increase in allowable floor area ratio to 2.5 and I object to raising the maximum building height to 65 feet. I believe the impact to the environment has not been reasonably assessed and I have a strong disagreement to several statements made in the draft EIR. The project’s inconsistency with the city of Huntington Beach policy and zoning will cause significant physical environmental impacts to our neighborhood.
My comments and concerns to the draft environmental impact report are as follows:
1.4 significant and unavoidable impacts:
I firmly disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the existing environmental setting” the proposed project would create a precedent for future development, the draft environmental impact report does not consider the approval of the project will open the door to future similar developments in the area. The effects of allowing a specific plan to subvert zoning regulations would cause extreme interest in developing surrounding projects of similar nature. This project needs to study the long-term accumulative impact of increasing the code required maximum density, the lack of code required parking and the effect on the adjoining neighborhood and the ability for the adjoining neighborhoods to absorb the street parking that would result in the deficiency of the required parking. The environmental impact report should also study the long-term effects of the sewer capacity and water capacity of the surrounding existing development of similar nature that could be redeveloped if this project were approved. The draft environmental impact report failed to provide a sewer capacity and water capacity study.
1.5.2 identification of the environmentally superior alternative:
I disagree with the alternate project, an alternate project could be proposed that complies with the existing adjacent zoning that is consistent with the surrounding community.
I firmly disagree “the no project alternative would result in greater environmental impacts to air quality and transportation to the surrounding circulation system due to the greater number of vehicle trips to and from the project site” zoning similar to the adjacent properties would result in less impact than the proposed project but would still achieve the goal of providing senior housing.
4.1; aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would not conflict with relevant goals and policies in terms of preserving the visual quality in the city” the city has developed zoning standards which does not allow for a 65-foot-high building structure. The building structure would tower over the existing residence which are only 2 stories tall. The proposed structure is not compatible in proportion, scale or character to the adjoining uses.
4.7 land use and planning
I believe the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to the conflict with the existing land use plan. Approval of this project would lead to approval of multiple projects in the area which would have a massive accumulative impact on the community which include aesthetics, traffic, noise, solar access, wind access, impacts to the infrastructure such as water and sewer capacities and street parking. The proposed project is inconsistent with the city’s establishd development standards which have been used to design the surrounding infrastructure. The surrounding infrastructure was not designed to handle the proposed densities. I disagree that the overall impact to surrounding community would be less than significant when the cumulative effect of future developments similar to the proposed project is considered.
4.10: utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with electric power and natural gas”. The cumulative effect of approving this project would cause a landslide of similar developments in the area which would have a major impact to the available electric energy and natural gas, the existing infrastructure did not consider increasing the bulk density and mass of the proposed development. Approval of this project would cause additional projects of a similar nature that would have a cumulative effect on the availability of electricity and gas.
2.4.1 Aesthetics
I disagree with the statement “not create a source of substantial light or glare”. Security and patio lighting on the 5th floor would be seen from the entire neighborhood. Nothing in the EIR evaluated the lighting spillover into the wetlands which requires dark sky. The Brightwater development respects the dark sky requirements of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, this project should address the impact to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve. The proposed building elevations shown in the draft EIR appear to show exterior lighting fixtures that are not properly shielded. It is impossible to provide adequate lighting for the patio areas and shield all of the light spillover.
2.4.8 hydrology and water quality
Bolsa Chica Road Street of Warner Avenue lacks sufficient storm drain facilities to capture runoff from the East that flows to the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Dunbar Avenue, as a result this intersection experiences flooding during normal rain events. The adjacent existing parking lot serves as an incidental detention basin and helps protect the surrounding properties. The EIR fails to analyze and address the effect of construction over the parking lot which would reduce the available ponding space and could cause flooding on adjacent properties. I believe this project will increase the depth of flooding at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and Dunbar Avenue.
2.4.14 recreation
I disagree with the statement “the proposed project does not include recreational facilities nor require the construction or expensing of recreational facilities that would result in a significant adverse physical effect to the environment, therefore project related impacts with respect to recreation are not evaluated further in this draft EIR”. The proposed project is significantly under parked according to existing zoning, the city of Huntington Beach has established parking standards that eliminate the need for street parking. If developed, this project would cause excessive street parking which would inhibit access to the trail system. There is already a shortage of parking for people who are visiting the Bolsa Chica wetlands, this project would severely impact the available street parking leading to the trailhead at the southerly terminus of Bolsa Chica Street. The proposed project only considers parking spaces for the residential units and fails to address the required parking spaces for the estimated 110 employees who will work at the proposed multiple restaurants, wellness centers and studio spaces. It is not reasonable to assume 62 units are parked at a ratio of 0.65 spaces per unit when there is no mechanism stated to control whether a unit is assisted living or normal senior housing. I believe the parking should be evaluated as worst-case senior housing and a separate calculation added for the multiple restaurant style dining venues, wellness centers and studio spaces. Due to the lack of parking this development does not support the protection and maintenance of environmental open-space resources. The lack of on-site parking will prohibit access to the Bolsa Chica trail system.
2.4.16 utilities and service systems
I disagree with the statement “therefore, impacts related to the construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities would be less than significant”. Recently the Orange County sanitation District upgraded the sewer force mains and lift stations throughout the city, these systems should have been designed to comply with the existing zoning and did not consider the increased density this project is proposing. This project should consider the cumulative effect of increasing the density of existing sites within the vicinity to verify the additional sewer capacity is available to serve this site and future developments of this nature. The environmental impact report failed to provide an adequate sewer and water capacity study.
4.1.6 project impacts
I disagree with the statement “given the current visual quality of the project site, implementation of the proposed project consistent with the development standards and design guidelines specified in the specific plan would promote a cohesive community identity and enhance the visual quality of the project site to viewers on an off-site”. Increasing the maximum height of the building to 65 feet would block the skyline view from the public way, the open sky view at the corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner would be forever impacted and would effect every person visiting the neighborhood, the view would be replaced by a massive apartment building. Replacing a blue-sky view with an apartment building would have a negative impact on the community by destroying public view of the sky.
I also disagree with the statement “therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant shade or shadow impacts to nearby residential uses. The shade and shadow study prepared by CRTKL is seriously flawed, a 65 foot tall structure will cast a shadow in the easterly and westerly directions during sunrise and sunset during the spring and fall equinox, only the winter solstice was studied. This study proposes a shadow less than the building height. A study of the spring and fall equinox would prove Expensive shadows would be cast on the residential properties to the east and west of the proposed development.
4.1.10 cumulative impacts
I disagree with the statement “approval of the general plan amendment and zoning amendment would render the proposed project consistent with the city’s establish development standards and no mitigation would be required.” The existing zoning has been adopted by the residents for years and has been relied on by the residents to protect the integrity of the community.
Allowing the general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment to change the zoning from CG to specific plan would cause long-term environmental impacts to the community. If this project is approved there will be a landslide of similar developments that will forever change the density of the community, this is evidenced by the recent development at Bella Terra and downtown Huntington Beach. This project should evaluate the cumulative impact of all sites of similar nature that would be subject to redevelopment. This project is not compatible with the long-term established development standards in the area.
4.2.3.1 air pollutants and health effects
The draft EIR failed to study the air quality in the vicinity of the project and used air quality data from Anaheim California, approximately 10 miles from the proposed development.
As stated in the initial study “occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.” The air quality study fails to consider the proposed development and the residents who will be living in the proposed development.
Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are both 3 lane major highways that produce a significant amount of emissions. The study should consider the effect of these emissions on the people who will be living in the proposed development. As stated in the environmental impact report “high-volume roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentration.” Obviously, this site is not suitable for senior housing due to the proximity of the high-volume roadways.
Table 4.7.B: Gen. plan consistency analysis ERC-A
I disagree with the statement “these recreational and open-space elements would be for private use by residents and not open to the public but are anticipated to reduce the strain on surrounding parks and open spaces as residents would be more likely to use the on-site facilities.” The proposed project does nothing to maintain the current Park per capita ratio of
5.0 acres per 1000 persons, the proposed development does not include any public open space for parks.
We trust the city of Huntington Beach will not allow the certification of the environmental impact report and deny this project for the reasons stated above.
Signature :
Objection Letter to Huntington Beach City Councilmembers
Dear Huntington Beach City Councilmembers, I urge you to Vote NO and Deny Approval for the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project SCH No. 2022110040 located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 (cross streets: Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street).
I strongly object to this project for many valid reasons that include but are not limited to the following objections:
1. This gigantic high-density Big Box High Rise Apartment Building is too massive in size, proportion, scope, and density for the surrounding neighborhood and violates established city building codes.
2. The proposed apartment rent prices will range from $5,000 to $10,000 per month ($120,000 per year) and is not considered to be affordable housing.
3. This monstrosity is the equivalent of 6 stories high measuring 72 feet tall from the sidewalk at the intersection of Warner and Bolsa Chica to the rooftop parapet plus an additional 6 feet higher for rooftop equipment in a neighborhood of predominantly 2 story tall structures. It will tower over most nearby structures by 3x.
4. Built on a Zero Lot line within 5 feet of the property line with as little as a 10 feet setback (subterranean structure is only 5 feet from property line). This Big Box will sprawl over 2.8 acres crowding a busy major traffic intersection at Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street in Huntington Beach.
5. It will be an astonishing 69 dwelling units-per-acre behemoth that is 5.4x larger mass than the surrounding structures when most other projects in HB are limited to 25 dwelling units-per-acre.
6. The grossly inadequate 189 parking spaces for 202 apartment units provide limited parking spaces for visitors, customers of the proposed ground floor businesses, and a myriad of delivery and service trucks.
Spillover parking will saturate the area with overflow parking on streets that are already overcrowded. There is extremely limited street parking in this predominantly red-curbed area that is a major parking area and gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.
7. The “Senior Living Community” label for this Big Box is intentionally misleading as only 100 out of the 202 apartment units are designated for assisted care (less than half !). The remaining majority 102 units offer no senior care and will be rented to 55+ years old tenants who presumably require 2 parking spaces per unit.
8. This Big Box is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow other developers to saturate this area with more Big Box high rises that will destroy our quiet “Surf City” beach community.
9. The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for this project fails to adequately identify, analyze, or mitigate the many significant environmental impacts of this project; and the EIR fails to provide and analyze an accurate and complete project description; and the EIR fails to disclose significant adverse impacts in Violation of CEQA; and the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts is deficient; and the EIR’s analysis of alternatives is deficient; and the EIR fails to support its findings with substantial evidence; and the Final EIR fails to adequately respond to Public comment amongst multiple other violations of the EIR and CEQA too numerous to list all herein.
10. This project is a blatant and improper attempt to Spot Zone which is the oldest recognized form of zoning scheming and corruption. The City of Huntington Beach lacks substantial evidence to support the “findings” for Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit amongst multiple other violations of Huntington Beach City Code, regulations, and established and accepted practices. _________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ (Signature) (Date)
_______________________________________________________________ __________ (Print Name)
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ (Print Home Address)
_____________________________________________________________________________________ _______________ (Print Email Address)
Email to HB City Council: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]