1 G:\ADMIN\AdmLtr\2024\101124 Late Communications - Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community HB2.docx
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
Community Development Department
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
VIA: Eric Parra, Interim City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Villasenor, Director of Community Development DATE: October 11, 2024
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR ITEM 18 (BOLSA CHICA SENIOR
CARE COMMUNITY PROJECT)
______________________________________________________________________ For your review and consideration, staff is attaching two documents as Late Communications to Item 18 on the October 15, 2024 agenda.
First, are Findings and a Statement in Support of Findings for the draft Final Revised Environmental Impact Report No. 21-004, to be included in the record as Exhibit B to Draft Resolution No. 2024-52.
These findings have been prepared in compliance with title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091, subdivision (a) regarding potentially significant effects identified in the proposed project’s Revised Final Environmental Impact Report.
Second, the applicant has submitted an updated parking demand analysis for the proposed project, prepared by Keil D. Maberry of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers.
If you have any questions, please contact Hayden Beckman at ext. 5561.
JV:HB:kdc
xc: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk
Tania Moore, Deputy City Clerk
Kim De Coite, Senior Administrative Assistant
Cathy Fikes, Senior Administrative Assistant
10/15/2024
18 (24-710)
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
Exhibit B
To
Resolution No. 2024-52
Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach
Regarding Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-004
Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community Project
Revised Final Environmental Effect Report
SCH No. 2022110040
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (“City”) adopts these Findings and Statement in Support of Finding in compliance with title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15091, subdivision (a) (“CEQA Guidelines”) regarding potentially significant effects identified in Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (“RFEIR”) for the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project, and changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Project to reduce the effects to less than significant.
Section 15091, subdivision (a) of the CEQA”) Guidelines section 15091(a) provides that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. [“Finding No. 1”]
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. [“Finding No. 2”] (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. [“Finding No. 3”] The RFEIR evaluated the “modified project” proposed by the project applicant in response to public comments on the originally proposed project. As described in detail in the RFEIR, the modified project reduced the number of units proposed in the originally proposed project, eliminated independent living units, reduced the scale and height of the of the originally proposed project, and made other changes to
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
reduce the effects of the Project in response to public comments. The RFIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable adverse effects of the modified project.
For every effect of the modified project that could have a significant effect, the RFEIR describes and evaluates measures and/or project changes (collectively, “Mitigation”) to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects to less than significant. The following sets forth those potentially significant environmental effects identified in the RFEIR, makes Finding No. 1 above with regard to each significant effect, describes the Mitigation to avoid or reduce the significant effect to less than significant, and describes the facts in support of the Findings.
This Findings document does not repeat the analysis in the RFEIR of each significant environmental effect or the measures to avoid or lessen those effects. Please refer to the RFEIR for more detail in support of the Findings. The RFEIR is on file with the City of Huntington Beach, at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The RFEIR is hereby incorporated by reference. The Findings described herein are also supported by other evidence in the record of proceedings concerning the modified project including, but not limited to, the changes to the originally proposed project included in the modified project.
I. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Threshold 4.3.1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource Pursuant to Section 15064.5
The Project site is currently developed with two commercial buildings, located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, that were constructed in 1977 and 1979. No cultural resources or buildings with historical significance were identified in the Project site. Although there are no archeological resources on the Project site qualifying as “historical resources” under CEQA, the whole Bolsa Chica Mesa is considered a “Sacred Lands Site Complex” by Native Americans. To date, no artifacts have been recorded in the immediate Project site, but subsurface excavations associated with the Project have the potential to unearth previously unknown cultural or historical resources. (RFEIR, pp. 4.3-6 to 4.3-8.) Finding No. 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as determined in the RFEIR (CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1).) The following Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated effects.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project RFEIR to reduce this effect to a less-than-significant level (RFEIR, p. 4.3-9):
CUL-1. Archeological Site Monitoring.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a City of Huntington Beach (City)-approved archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology shall prepare an Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (AMMP) for the proposed Project. The AMMP shall include protocols for mitigation of any finds through a Research Design and Recovery Plan outlining significance testing of the inadvertent finds, laboratory analyses, curatorial requirements, and reporting
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
requirements. The AMMP shall include language that all work must be stopped within 50 feet of an archaeological find while the find is assessed by the archaeologist and any Native American monitors.
The City-approved archaeologist shall oversee archaeological monitoring of construction-related ground disturbance. Monitoring shall continue until the archaeologist determines that there is a low potential for encountering subsurface archaeological, cultural, or tribal cultural resources. In the event that archaeological cultural resources are identified during ground-disturbing Project activities, the protocols outlined in the Project’s AMMP shall be implemented.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant (RFEIR, p. 4.3-9).
Consistent with the originally proposed Project, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 as part of the modified Project, potential effects to subsurface archaeological and historical cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. All anticipated effects to cultural resources would be considered less than significant.
B. Threshold 4.3.2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archeological Resource Pursuant to § 15064.5.
Desktop surveys were conducted within the Project site and a 1-mile radius of the Project site. The results of the record search indicated that no archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the Project site; all Project actions would occur exclusively within the Project site. Soils on the Project site have been previously disturbed from development of the existing two commercial buildings on the site, landscaping, parking, and associated infrastructure, and no artifacts have been recorded on or around the immediate Project site. Although there are no archeological sites or artifacts that have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the whole Bolsa Chica Mesa is considered a “Sacred Lands Site Complex” by Native Americans. Given this information, there is an elevated potential for the Project site to contain subsurface archaeological resources. (RFEIR, p. 4.3-8.) Finding No. 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as determined in the RFEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated effects.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project RFEIR to reduce this effect to a less-than-significant level (RFEIR, pp. 4.3-9):
Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Archeological Site Monitoring Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant (RFEIR, p. 4.3-9).
With incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 as part of the modified Project, potential effects to subsurface archaeological and historical cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. All anticipated effects to cultural resources would be considered less than significant.
II. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
A. Threshold 4.5.6: Direct or Indirect Destruction of Unique Paleontological Resources or Site or Geologic Features.
The records search, as well as geologic mapping in the area, indicate that there is the potential for Pleistocene sediments to be located at or near the surface on the Project site. Nearby Pleistocene sites have produced vertebrate as well as invertebrate fossils. Therefore, this background information suggests there is high potential that near surface excavations on the Project site could produce Pleistocene fossils which would be considered significant paleontological resources. (RFEIR, p. 4.5-9.) Finding No. 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as determined in the RFEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated effects.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project RFEIR to reduce this effect to a less-than-significant level (RFEIR, p. 4.5-10):
GEO-1. Approved Paleontologist Observation of Grading Activities.
A City-approved paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading activities during grading or trenching activities that cut into the Pleistocene wave-cut marine terrace units. Prior to issuance of any permits the paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Effect Management Plan (“PRIMP”) to orient the protocols for monitoring and fossil recovery.
GEO-2. Paleontological Resource Surveillance and Reporting.
The City-approved paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference and shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and procedures for temporarily halting and redirecting work to permit sampling and identification and evaluation of fossils. If the resources are deemed to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Full-time monitoring and salvage efforts will be necessary whenever previously undisturbed sediments are being disturbed (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). Once the earth moving is 50 percent completed, monitoring may be reduced if no fossils are being recovered. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be necessary to salvage any micro-vertebrate remains. If a deposit of micro-vertebrates is discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to allow for further screening without delaying construction activities. Collected fossils shall be prepared to the level of identification, and all fossils shall be identified to the most specific taxonomic level possible. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data shall go to an institution with a research interest in the materials. A final report that details methods, fossils recovered, and their significance shall be prepared and submitted to the City and the institution curating the fossils. This document shall also show compliance with any and all requirements.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant (RFEIR, p. 4.5-11).
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
With incorporation of MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 as part of the modified project, potential effects related to unique paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. All anticipated effects related to geology and soils would be considered less than significant.
III. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Threshold 4.9.1(b): Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.
A cultural resources Record Search, a Sacred Lands File (“SLF”) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”), and Native American consultation per AB 52 and SB 18 were conducted for the proposed Project. The purpose of these efforts was to identify known tribal cultural resources on or near the Project site. No tribal cultural resources were identified as part of the records search. Although no human remains are known to be on the Project site or are anticipated to be discovered during Project construction, there is always a possibility of encountering unanticipated human remains. Consultation occurred with three Native American Tribes, resulting in mitigation measures and the presence of a Tribal Monitor onsite during the ground-disturbing activities. (RFEIR, pp. 4.9-8 to 4.9-
9.)
Finding No. 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as determined in the RFEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated effects.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project RFEIR to reduce this effect to a less-than-significant level (RFEIR, pp. 4.9-9 to 4.9-14):
TCR-1. Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.
The Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation (Acjachemen Nation). The monitors shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground- disturbing activity” for the subject Project at all Project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the Project description/definition and/or required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the earlier commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
The monitors shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground- disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Kizh Nation and the Acjachemen Nation. Monitor logs will identify and describe any
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
discovered tribal cultural resources, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCRs”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the Applicant and City upon written request to the Kizh Nation and the Acjachemen Nation.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation and the Acjachemen Nation from a designated point of contact for the Applicant that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh Nation and the Acjachemen Nation to the Applicant and City that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the potential to effect Kizh Nation and Acjachemen Nation TCRs.
Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Nation and Acjachemen Nation monitor and/or archaeologist. The Kizh Nation and Acjachemen Nation shall recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the tribal groups deem appropriate and for any purpose the tribes deem appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
TCR-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects.
Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the Coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC, and Public Resources Code section 5097.98 shall be followed.
Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code sections 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh Nation and Acjachemen Nation monitors determine that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the Project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh Nation and Acjachemen Nation monitors and/or archaeologists deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f).)
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non- TCR) shall be curated at a public, non- profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
TCR-3. Procedures for Funerary Remains.
If the NAHC designates the Kizh as the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”) for any human remains discovered or recognized on the project site, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Kizh Nation, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Kizh Nation will make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
In the event that preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the Project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within 6 months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project site but at a location agreed upon between the Kizh Nation and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Findings and Statement in Support of Findings
(CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a))
Nossaman_LLP\504144\0001\63056736.v1-10/10/24
The Kizh Nation will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Kizh Nation, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches.
All data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Kizh Nation. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Kizh Nation and the NAHC. The Kizh Nation does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant (RFEIR, p. 4.9-14).
With implementation of Mitigation Measures the proposed modified project would result in less than significant effects to tribal cultural resources.
B. Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Effects.
Potential effects of the proposed Project to unknown tribal cultural resources, when combined with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City, could contribute to a cumulatively significant effect due to the overall loss of tribal cultural resources unique to the region. However, each discretionary development proposal received by the City is required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there were any potential for significant effects to tribal cultural an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources, and identify appropriate. When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, effects to these resources are less than significant. (RFEIR, pp. 4.9-14 to 4.9-15.)
Finding: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as determined in the RFEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation is adopted to reduce associated effects.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project RFEIR to reduce this effect to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level (RFEIR, pp. 4.9-14 to 4.9-15):
Implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than cumulatively considerable (RFEIR, p. 4.9-15).
Implementation of Mitigation Measures would ensure that the incremental effects of the proposed modified Project are less than cumulatively considerable, and the Project effects would not result in a significant cumulative effect to tribal cultural resources or previously undiscovered buried human remains.
October 10, 2024
Mr. Blair Boyce
Hines
12101 W Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
LLG Reference: 2.24.4881.1
Subject: Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed
Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mr. Boyce:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of this Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located on the site currently occupied with an approximately 55,000 square - foot (SF) retail shopping center in Huntington Beach, California . This letter report supports the proposed parking supply recommended for the Project and address es community concerns regarding the proposed parking conditions for the Project.
This analysis applies three different approaches to quantifying the parking needs of the Project and then compares these findings with the proposed supply to identify any parking surplus or deficiency with development of the Project. Therefore, the three aforementioned approaches were employed in the study to provide solid and reasonable validation that the proposed on- site parking supply for the Project would meet the peak “design-level” demand.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project site is currently occupied with a ±5 5,000 SF retail shopping center with driveway access on both Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a four -story assisted living facility with 159 dwelling units of which 25 will be memory care units and 134 assisted living units consisting of a total of 189 beds . The project will employ a total of 110 employees with a maximum of 80 employees on a typical day spread over three shifts within a 24 hour day. The development will include 104 parking spaces for staff, residents and visitors within a combination of 22 surface parking spaces and 82 subterranean parking spaces. Lastly, the Project will include a shuttle van operating 24 hours a day 7 days a week to transport residents to off-site destinations/appointments.
Mr. Blair Boyce
October 10, 2024
N:\4800\2244881 - Hines Senior Living, Huntington Beach\Report\4881 - Parking Demand Analysis - HB, 10-10-24 (2).doc
PARKING SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION
As part of the proposed Specific Plan for the Project ( Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community: Specific Plan No. 19) and based on detailed evaluation of the proposed assisted living facility and experience with similar assisted living facilities as well as coordination with City Staff, the developer is recommending a parking rate of 0.65 parking spaces per dwelling unit, when applied to the 159 dwelling units results in a proposed parking supply of 104 parking spaces. In addition, as part of the evaluation and justification process for determining the recommended parking ratio for the Project, the following summarizes current parking supply rates at assisted living facilities owned and operated by the Project’s operator, Clearwater:
Clearwater Sonoma Hills (94 DU) 44 spaces 0.47 spaces/DU Clearwater Newport Beach (101 DU) 53 spaces 0.52 spaces/DU Clearwater Glendora (117 DU) 61 spaces 0.52 spaces/DU Clearwater South Bay (93 DU) 70 spaces 0.75 spaces/DU Average: (101 DU) 57 spaces 0.57 spaces/DU
PEAK DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR THE PROJECT
Table 1, attached, presents the parking demand analysis methodology and approaches for the proposed Project based on Industry S tandard reference material, operational characteristics of the proposed facility, and data from comparable developments.
Approach #1: Using the ITE Parking Generation Manual
The latest ITE Parking Generation Manual (6th Edition, January 2021) includes peak parking demand ratios for “Assisted Living” communities, which are expressed in terms of the number of beds , square -footage, and number of employees . ITE describes the land use as:
“An assisted living complex is a residential setting that provides either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to mentally or physically limited persons…Alzheimer’s and ALS care are commonly offered by these facilities…”
Based on the above, the proposed Project , which consists of 164 assisted living beds and 25 memory care beds, is better represented by ITE’s land use description compared to City Code.
Mr. Blair Boyce
October 10, 2024
N:\4800\2244881 - Hines Senior Living, Huntington Beach\Report\4881 - Parking Demand Analysis - HB, 10-10-24 (2).doc
It should be noted that given the number of empirical studies (41) contained within the ITE Parking Generation Manual for Land Use 254: Assisted Living based on the “beds” independent variable, the number of beds at an Assisted Living facility is the most the appropriate variable application for determining the parking demand. Also, the application of ITE ratios result in total demand estimates that account for the parking needs of employees , residents, and visitors. (See attached excerpt of the ITE Parking Generation Manual for Land Use 254: Assisted Living parking rate graph).
Table 1 summarizes the parking requirements for the proposed Project using Approach #1, which indicates that the application of ITE’s average (50 th percentile) parking rate of 0.40 spaces per bed to the proposed total number of beds (189) results in a peak total demand of 76 spaces. This 76- space demand is considered to be the most representative of the Project’s total parking needs (employee , resident, and visitor demand), and the greatest number of employees (based on peak shift/load) and visitors during a typical weekday. Parking needs during all other hours of a typical weekday and weekend are expected to be considerably less than the 76- space peak demand.
Table 1 indicates that by comparing the 76- space peak demand against a proposed parking supply of 104 spaces, a parking surplus of 28 parking spaces is forecast for the Project using Approach #1, which validates the recommended parking supply rate of 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit for the proposed Project.
It should be noted that as shown in the ITE graph, the 85 th percentile parking rate is
0.55 spaces per bed, which equates to a parking demand of 104 parking spaces, which matches the recommended parking rate of 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
Approach #2: Practical Estimation of Parking Demand
This approach identifies and quantifies all sources of parking demand from the Project based on operational parameters anticipated for the Project (i.e., the number of staff, registered resident vehicles , and visitors anticipated to be present during a given hour). Table 2, attached, presents a typical weekly matrix of the hourly parking demand on a daily basis for employees, visitors, and resident vehicles based on the estimated operational characteristics for the proposed Project.
As reported by the Applicant, the proposed Project will include a maximum of 110 employees, of which a maximum of approximately 80 employees will be on- site throughout a typical 24- hour period, and assumes 95% of the employees will need a parking space. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, there is estimated to be a maximum of 58 employee vehicles parked during the peak condition between employees on the current shift and overlap with employees from the prior shift . Next, based on Mr. Blair Boyce
October 10, 2024
N:\4800\2244881 - Hines Senior Living, Huntington Beach\Report\4881 - Parking Demand Analysis - HB, 10-10-24 (2).doc
information provided by the proposed Assisted Living facility operator (Clearwater) at five (5) of their existing facilities in the region , it is anticipated that no more than 10% of the assisted living dwelling units (134) will have a resident that own s a car, which equates to 14 vehicles (parking spaces) . It should be noted that none of the memory residents will have a vehicle since these residents are under 24/7 supervision.
Lastly, based on operational information also provided by the proposed Assisted Living facility operator (Clearwater), it is anticipated that no more than 1 5% of the total dwelling units (159 DU) will have visitors at any one time on a typical weekday, which equates to a peak visitor parking demand of 24 parking spaces during visitor hours (8:00 AM to 6:00 PM).
As a result and shown in the middle of Table 1, under Approach #2, the total Project peak demand totals 96 parking spaces , which is the absolute peak demand for the Project based on 58 employees (42 current shift employees plus a 16 prior shift employee overlap), 24 visitors, and 14 resident vehicles). It should be noted that the parking demand will be considerably less during all other hours of a typical weekday and weekend day and this analysis assumes 100% occupancy and Staff, which is typically ±90%, such that the peak parking demand will likely be less than the 96 parking spaces indicated above.
Comparing the 96-space peak demand against the future on-site supply of 104 spaces results in a surplus of 8 spaces using Approach #2, as indicated on Table 1.
Approach #3: Parking Demand Comparative Analysis
Notwithstanding the application of the ITE parking ratio for assisted living communities, and the practical estimation of parking demand (which takes a conservative assumption that each employee and visitor present at the site would require one space), as described in the prior sections, empirical information from existing assisted living communities were compiled from available sources. The following presents a summary of available data obtained:
• Trip Generation and Parking – Proposed Oakmont of Valencia, Santa Clarita, CA - Assisted Living Facility dated January 17, 2017, prepared by Crane Transportation Group. Oakmont of Valencia is a proposed assisted living facility that will accommodate 90 units and up to 95 beds. That study presents a summary of parking ratios calculated based on actual Use Permit approvals of assisted care facilities in various California cities (Alameda, Corte Madera, Danville, Novato, San Francisco, Concord, Upland, Mr. Blair Boyce
October 10, 2024
N:\4800\2244881 - Hines Senior Living, Huntington Beach\Report\4881 - Parking Demand Analysis - HB, 10-10-24 (2).doc
Carmichael, Thousand Oaks , Pleasant Hill, and Moraga ). In addition, the findings from the American Seniors Housing Association’s (ASHA’s) study of assisted living residences we re presented in that study. The parking demand ratios reported are as follows:
CA sampling
0.41 spaces/bed 100th percentile rate (maximum ratio)
0.37 spaces/bed 80th percentile rate (design ratio)
0.33 spaces/bed 50th percentile rate (average ratio)
ASHA
0.22 spaces/bed
• Oakmont Assisted Living , 18922 Delaware Street, Huntington Beach. This community has a supply of 37 parking spaces and 89 beds , resulting in a parking supply ratio of:
0.42 spaces/bed
• Oakmont Assisted Living, 433 W. Bastanchury Road, Fullerton. Based on LLG’s Traffic and Parking Study (dated September 13, 2017) , the total parking demand was estimated to be 52 spaces with a parking supply of 73 parking spaces for 112 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of:
0.65 spaces/bed
• Oakmont Assisted Living, 630 The City Drive South, Fullerton. This community has a supply of 61 parking spaces and 118 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of:
0.52 spaces/bed
As indicated on Table 1, e xcluding the ASHA demand ratio of 0.22 spaces per bed (as a conservative step in the estimation procedure) , but taking the average of the 100th percentile rate for California cities, Oakmont Huntington Beach, and the two Oakmont Fullerton sample sites (0. 41, 0.42, 0.65, 0.52) results in a parking demand/supply ratio of 0.50 spaces per bed. This empirical ratio derived from four existing assisted living communities is less than the Project’s supply ratio of 0.55 spaces per bed (derived by dividing the proposed on- site supply of 104 spaces by 189 beds).
Table 1 indicates that, compared against the proposed supply of 104 spaces, the 95- space demand corresponds to a surplus of 9 parking spaces using Approach #3.
Mr. Blair Boyce
October 10, 2024
N:\4800\2244881 - Hines Senior Living, Huntington Beach\Report\4881 - Parking Demand Analysis - HB, 10-10-24 (2).doc
CONCLUSION: PARKING DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY
Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed parking supply of 104 on-site spaces will be adequate in meeting the Project’s total parking needs.
Based on the demand estimation Approach #1, comparing the average peak parking rate of 0. 40 spaces per bed calculated per the application of the ITE Parking Generation Manual ratio against a parking supply provision for 75 spaces results in adequate parking supply, which validates the recommended parking supply rate of
0.65 spaces per dwelling unit for the proposed Project.
Based on Approach #2, comparing the 96- space peak demand calculated from an operational/practical standpoint against the 104 -space supply ( 8 surplus spaces) results in a 8% parking supply contingency.
Based on Approach #3, comparing the 95- space peak demand calculated from the parking demand comparative analysis based on existing facilities against the 104- space supply (9 surplus spaces) results in a 9% parking supply contingency.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this Parking Demand A nalysis. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 825-6175.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Keil D. Maberry, P.E.
Principal
Attachments
Beds
Employees or Parking
Description Visitors/DU's Spaces
Approach #1: ITE Parking Calculation
ITE 6th Edition (Average rate): 0.40 sp per bed 189 beds 76 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #1): 76
Proposed Supply: 104
Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-): 28
Approach #2: Practical Estimation of Parking Demand
Employee parking demand during peak condition 58 employees 58 Visitor parking demand (10% of 159 DU at any one time) 24 visitors 24 Resident parking demand (15% of 134 DU) 14 dwelling units 14 96 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #2): 96
Proposed Supply: 104
Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-): 8
Approach #3: Parking Demand Comparative Analysis
Oakmont Valencia, Santa Clarita: 0.41 sp per bed
Oakmont Huntington Beach: 0.42 sp per bed
Oakmont Bastanchury, Fullerton: 0.65 sp per bed
Oakmont City Drive, Fullerton: 0.52 sp per bed
Average of Sample Sites Above: 0.50 sp per bed 189 beds 95 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #3): 95
Proposed Supply: 104
Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-): 9
TABLE 1
PARKING SUMMARY
BOLSA CHICA SENIOR CARE COMMUNITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH
Parking
Generation
Manual
6th Edition
Institute of Transportation Engineers
October 2023
177
Assisted Living
(254)
Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Beds
On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday)
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 41
Avg. Num. of Beds: 85
Peak Period Parking Demand per Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval
Standard Deviation
(Coeff. of Variation)
0.40 0.24 - 0.74 0.34 / 0.55 0.36 - 0.44 0.12 ( 30% )
Data Plot and Equation
0 100 2000
20 40
60 80
Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.88 Ln(X) - 0.39 R²= 0.57 X = Number of Beds
P = Parked Vehicles
Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots
Clearwater Huntington Beach
Parking Analysis
Assumptions
% Employees Drive 95% 159 2PM
Visitors / Deliveries Per day 80 0.65x 96 Cars
% units with visitors @ peak 15% 104 Provided Spaces 104 Visitor / Delivery Hours 8AM - 6PM 8 Extra (Short) Spaces 8 Total units 159
AL occupancy 100%
AL Units (Occupied) 134 18
AL Residents with Cars 10%
Time 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM 6AM 7AM 8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM 11PM 12AM Hour Hr 1 Hr 2 Hr 3 Hr 4 Hr 5 Hr 6 Hr 7 Hr 8 Hr 9 Hr 10 Hr 11 Hr 12 Hr 13 Hr 14 Hr 15 Hr 16 Hr 17 Hr 18 Hr 19 Hr 20 Hr 21 Hr 22 Hr 23 Hr 24 Monday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 21 33 38 39 43 42 42 42 40 29 24 23 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 13 5 2 3 0 2 13 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 36 72 76 78 80 81 82 93 84 79 67 62 37 27 27 35 23 24 Tuesday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 21 33 38 38 42 41 41 41 39 28 23 23 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 13 5 1 2 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 36 72 76 77 78 80 81 95 79 78 66 61 37 27 27 35 23 24 Wednesday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 21 32 37 38 40 39 39 39 38 27 22 22 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 12 5 1 2 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 36 71 75 76 78 78 79 93 77 77 65 60 36 27 27 35 23 24 Thursday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 21 33 38 39 42 41 41 41 39 28 23 22 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 13 5 2 2 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 36 72 76 78 79 80 81 95 79 78 66 61 36 27 27 35 23 24 Friday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 22 33 38 39 43 42 42 42 39 29 24 23 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 6 12 5 2 3 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 37 72 76 78 80 81 82 96 80 78 67 62 37 27 27 35 23 24 Saturday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 21 32 37 38 42 41 41 41 39 29 24 23 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 12 5 2 3 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 36 71 75 77 79 80 81 95 79 78 67 62 37 27 27 35 23 24 Sunday
Scheduled Employees 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 21 33 38 39 43 42 42 42 40 29 24 23 13 13 13 9 9 Shift Change Overlap 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 12 5 2 3 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL Residents with Cars 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Daily Max Cars 23 23 23 23 23 39 36 71 76 78 80 81 82 96 80 79 67 62 37 27 27 35 23 24 Max of Each Hour 23 23 23 23 23 39 37 72 76 78 80 81 82 96 84 79 67 62 37 27 27 35 23 24
PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS MATRIX
BOLSA CHICA SENIOR CARE COMMUNITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH
TABLE 2
Sufficient Parking
Parking Spaces
Total Units
Parking Ratio
Provided Parking
Max Cars
Higest Parked Hour
Max Cars