10/15 Sup Com - emails — City Council/Public Financing Authority, October 15, 2024

From: Preeti Ghuman
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Oppose Revised Senior Living Project
Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 5:03:22 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
This is the third letter I am sending regarding the Senior Community proposed on Bolsa Chica and Warner. Please limit the size of this development to at most three stories consistent with land use and all other multi-family buildings in the area. There is no structure in this neighborhood that is the height of the proposed structure. This development will alter the character of the neighborhood. In addition, I am concerned about citing this facility so far from a hospital and noise impacts to current residents with ambulances. I do not support any waivers, variances, or rezoning for this development. It should comply with all current land use and zoning requirements including the number of parking spots, height limitations, etc. A better location for this facility would be on Beach Blvd near the existing hospitals.

This is a residential area with single family homes and 2-3 story multi-family buildings. We do not want a high-rise building in this area.

I support the current lawsuit against the State for charter cities to determine their own land use.

That has served Huntington Beach well. My family and I have lived in Huntington Beach for almost 50 years. I do not want it to turn into a Santa Monica or Venice.

Sincerely,
Preeti Ghuman
4571 Warner Ave. #305
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
10/15/2024
18 (24-710)
From: Tricia Thienes
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection Letter - Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 7:08:40 PM
Attachments: 20241011184852808.pdf
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Good evening,
Attached is my objection letter to 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: Friday, October 11, 2024 5:49 PM
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: 10.11.2024 18:48:52 (-0600)
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: Tim Schultz
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Please say “NO” to the high density Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue
Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 7:58:35 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members,
As a long standing and concerned resident of the great city of Huntington Beach, I urge you to Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) No. 21-004; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003;Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005; and Conditional Use Permit No. 21- 024 for the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649.

This Project requires a Specific Plan because it is a high-density 159 apartment unit complex featuring separate and independent residential dwelling units that happens to offer extra amenities under the auspices of “senior care” to tenants. Nonetheless; regardless of its label, it is still a high-density residential apartment project which is considered mixed use which mandates the residential portion must conform with adjoining residential uses.

Commercial General zoning does not apply to a Specific Plan. However, residential densities do apply since this Project is indeed high-density according to the General Plan and zoning guidelines for residential development.

Residents welcome the general “concept” of building a new senior care facility, but please reduce its density, cap it at 3-stories tall, and maintain existing setback codes so that it’s compatible with adjoining uses and complies with Land Use Elements LU-1(D) and LU-2(B). The number of parking spaces should also be significantly increased to eliminate traffic congestion during surge visitor times.

The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024 will adversely affect the General Plan as follows:

1. This is a 4-story tall high-density residential apartment buildingregardless of what the developer calls it.

2. This Project requires a Specific Plan due to its mixed-use designation which means the general plan requires this project to comply with the adjoining use residential density. It must conform to adjoining use.

3. Its 56.6 units-per-acre far exceeds our City General Plan’s definition of High-Density being greater than30 units-per-acre.This project isalmost double the density of all adjoining uses and nearby structures.

4. When factoring in the grade differential, this Project will be 56-feet tall due to its 3’-6’ feet rooftop parapets.

5. While Commercial Zoning (CZ) allows a 50-feet tall building, this new zoning should comply with the adjacent residential zoning which only allows 35-feet in height to match neighboring 3-story condominiums.

6. Developer refers to it as a “Residential” project throughout his filings so residential high-density limits apply.

7. Developer refers to its 159 residential “units” which confirms it’s amixeduse residential apartment building rather than a typical medical facility or hospitaltype project which would count number of beds, not units.

8. Clearwater, who will manage day-to-day operations after its built also describes all of their facilities as “apartment homes”, “apartment rates” and “apartment types” on their websites for each respective facility.

9. Clearwater refers to their “residents” not “patients”, and requires every tenant to sign an Apartment Rental Agreement in order to live in their apartments which also proves this is an apartment building plus that offers extra amenities and services to its tenants. So high-density apartment building and zoning codes do apply.

10. This Project does not meet existing City Codes so the developer requests a Special Plan to change City Zoning Codes to accommodate it. However, I object to changing zoning codes just to satisfy thisdeveloper.

11. City Code requires a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5, yet this Project wants an excessively dense 1.88 FAR.

12. The overall footprint of this building (aka, its envelope) will be a massive 264,546 square feet. It’s Gigantic.

13. Developer wants to reduce the 45-feet setback on the south side to only 32-feet which will place this monstrosity “right in the faces” of the families living next door.

14. Special Plans are created to support the existing General Plan, not to change said General Plan. This project proposes a complete change to the General Plan which should be rejected.

15. Since this Project requires a Special Plan, City Land Use Policies must be applied here.

16. Land Use Element Policy LU-1(D) mandates: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses.

17. Land Use Element Policy LU-2(B) mandates: Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context sensitive, creative, complementary of the city’s beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.

18. This 4-story tall giant will tower over the four adjoining 1-story tall homes that are directly across the street from it on Bolsa Chica Street,and it will tower over adjoining 2 and 3-story tall structures on Warner Avenue.

19. This Project is grossly under-parked and has insufficient parking spaces for visitors, customers of the proposed ground floor businesses, employees, and a myriad of daily delivery and service trucks.

20. An estimated 110 employees will work in 3 shifts at this complex so during shift change overlaps there will be approximately 70 employees during shift changes who simultaneously need onsite parking spaces. That leaves only 34 parking spaces for 159 residential units, their visitors, and customers of the businesses.

21. The original plan proposed an insufficient 189 parking spaces which have been significantly reduced in this revision to only 104 parking spaces (0.65 spaces per unit) which exacerbates street parking in this vicinity.

22. There is essentially no available street parking near this particular intersection.

There is no street parking on Warner Avenue. And Bolsa Chica Street is a predominantly “red-curbed” zone with extremely limited street parking that also serves as a major parking area and gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.Bolsa Chica Street is the only two-way ingress and egress access point to the Brightwater, Sandover, and Los Patos Avenue communities which makes Bolsa Chica Street a vital high-traffic-volume thorofare that this project will adversely affect and it will inhibit our flow of traffic.

23. This project will result in substantial impacts to biological resources requiring mitigation. Project site is located on the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory bird corridor that uses our nearby state-protected Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve which is a Global Biodiversity Hotspot that supports 23 endangered species of birds and raptors. This complex will be the tallest building in the area and undoubtedly cause numerous endangered species fatalities from bird strikes into its upper 4th-floor andextended rooftop parapets.

24. This Big Box apartment complex is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow future developers to use this building as a benchmark“compatible in proportion, scale and character” to build more large projects.

25. 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.

26. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for this project fails to adequately identify, analyze, or mitigate the many significant environmental impacts of this project; EIR fails to provide and analyze an accurate and complete project description; EIR fails to disclose significant adverse impacts in Violation of CEQA; EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts is deficient; EIR’s analysis of alternatives is deficient; and the EIR fails to support its findings with substantial evidence amongst multiple other violations of the EIR and CEQA too numerous to list all herein. The Revised Draft EIR must be rejected and the Specific Plan denied.

27. Project applicant has proposed a Specific Plan as a creative means to overcome noncompliance with governing land use policies.

This High-Density Project is clearly
not compatible in proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses and is certainly not complementary of our city’s beach culture. * I am sure you will do the right thing and reject this project’s current plan and force the developer to re-submit a new plan that meets the city’s mandated building codes and requirements as currently written.

Thank you for your Consideration,
Tim Schultz
President
Impact Aesthetics, Inc.
310-486-2082
[email protected]
From: Steven Mink
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection Letter to Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project Date: Saturday, October 12, 2024 7:00:32 AM
Attachments: Objection Letter to HB City Council Members _SMink 2024-10-08.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Huntington Beach City Council Members,
Thank you for taking the time to record my OBJECTION to the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project.

I respectfully urge you to REJECT the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 21-004, General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003, Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005, and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024, regarding the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (Southwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue).

The data clearly indicates that this project VIOLATES existing City Codes and fails to comply with governing land use policies. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the proportion, scale, and character of the surrounding area and does not complement the values or culture of our community.

As a 27-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and a committed resident whose family values the unique offerings of this city, I am motivated to support developments that strengthen our community and uphold its integrity. However, I strongly OPPOSE this project, which undermines these goals. I fully support city council members who stand by our values and reject corporate gamesmanship that negatively impacts the lives of real people.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust you will consider the long-term impact on our city and make the right decision to reject this project.

Steven S. Mink, Maj, USAF(ret)
4592 Winthrop Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

From: Matthew Fertal
To: [email protected]
Subject: October 15th City Council Meeting- Agenda Item 24-710 Date: Saturday, October 12, 2024 11:29:58 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
My name is Matthew Fertal. I am a 31 year resident of Huntington Beach and a member of the City's Design Review Board. I am also a former City Manager and Community Development Director for the City of Garden Grove. I am submitting this written communication in support of the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project.

I understand some members of the City Council have concerns about "High Density " residential projects in the City. I agree, to a point about concerns regarding high density residential projects; especially if not located in the most appropriate areas in the City. I do believe, however, based on my Planning education and 35 years in the field of Planning and Redevelopment, that there are locations in a City that are better suited for a more dense project. I believe we have to acknowledge that the City of Huntington Beach, with a population of over 200,000, serves as a major residential, commercial and tourist center for Orange County. As such, there is an expectation that Huntington Beach will provide a variety of development opportunities to serve to meet both the residential and commercial demands.

The proposed Senior Care Project , as modified, has successfully addressed the concerns of those who argued that the project is too dense. The project is located at a major commercial intersection at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, where the current Zoning and General Plan already permits a more intense development. The proposed Senior Care Center will produce significantly less traffic than the uses currently permitted in the zone as well as create far less parking demands. The 3 and 4 story building is not "High Density" per any applied Planning or Architecture standard. Just because a building exceeds two stories, doesn't make it high density. The proposed project, and its architectural enhancements, creates a well planned and architecturally pleasing development. Furthermore, the proposed Senior Care use is in much demand and will help serve a large segment of the Huntington Beach senior population.

For these reasons, I encourage the City Council to deny the Appeal and approve the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project. Thank you for your consideration.

Matthew Fertal
From: DesignEngine
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection Letter to EIR No. 21-004 From Neighboring Cabo Del Mar Homeowner Date: Saturday, October 12, 2024 11:55:36 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

From: Camila Morais
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection Letter to EIR No. 21-004 From Neighboring Cabo Del Mar Homeowner Date: Saturday, October 12, 2024 12:01:59 PM
Algunos contactos que recibieron este mensaje no suelen recibir correos electrónicos de [email protected]. Por qué es esto importante

From: Wendy Cho
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection Letter - Bolsa Chica Senior Living Facility Date: Saturday, October 12, 2024 3:14:39 PM
Attachments: Objection_Letter_to_City_Council_for_Senior Living 10-12-24.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important HB City Council members & AssociatesPlease see enclosed Objection Letter.

Thanks,
Wendy Cho
1 Objection Letter to Huntington Beach City Council
October 8, 2024
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, I urge you to Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) No. 21-004; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003; Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005; and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024 for the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649.

This Project requires a Specific Plan because it is a high-density 159 apartment unit complex featuring separate and independent residential dwelling units that happens to offer extra amenities under the auspices of “senior care” to tenants. Nonetheless regardless of its label, it is still a high-density residential apartment project which is considered mixed use which mandates the residential portion must conform with adjoining residential uses.

Because of multiple city code, zoning, and architectural and site design issues, this Big Box Project still fails to meet city planning requirements and must be rejected in its current “as is” submission format and sent back to the developer for further revisions. Residents welcome the general “concept” of building a new senior care facility, but please reduce its density, cap it at 3-stories tall, and maintain existing setback codes so that it’s compatible with adjoining uses and complies with Land Use Elements LU-1(D) and LU-2(B). The number of parking spaces should also be significantly increased to eliminate traffic congestion during surge visitor times.

The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024 will adversely affect the General Plan as follows:

1. This is a 4-story tall high-density residential apartment building regardless of what the developer calls it.

3. Its 56.6 units-per-acre far exceeds our City General Plan’s definition of High-Density being greater than 30 units-per-acre. This project is almost double the density of all adjoining uses and nearby structures.

4. When factoring in the grade differential, this Project will be 56-feet tall due to its 3’-6’ feet rooftop parapets.

6. Developer refers to it as a “Residential” project throughout his filings so residential high-density limits apply.

7. Developer refers to its 159 residential “units” which confirms it’s a mixed-use residential apartment building rather than a typical medical facility or hospital-type project which would count number of beds, not units.

11. City Code requires a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5, yet this Project wants an excessively dense 1.88 FAR.

12. The overall footprint of this building (aka, its envelope) will be a massive 264,546 square feet. It’s Gigantic.

13. Developer wants to reduce the 45-feet setback on the south side to only 32-feet which will place this monstrosity “right in the faces” of the families living next door.

14. Special Plans are created to support the existing General Plan, not to change said General Plan. This project proposes a complete change to the General Plan which should be rejected.

15. Since this Project requires a Special Plan, City Land Use Policies must be applied here.

16. Land Use Element Policy LU-1(D) mandates: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses. 2 17. Land Use Element Policy LU-2(B) mandates: Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context sensitive, creative, complementary of the city’s beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.

18. This 4-story tall giant will tower over the four adjoining 1-story tall homes that are directly across the street from it on Bolsa Chica Street, and it will tower over adjoining 2 and 3-story tall structures on Warner Avenue.

22. There is essentially no available street parking near this particular intersection. There is no street parking on Warner Avenue. And Bolsa Chica Street is a predominantly “red-curbed” zone with extremely limited street parking that also serves as a major parking area and gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Bolsa Chica Street is the only two-way ingress and egress access point to the Brightwater, Sandover, and Los Patos Avenue communities which makes Bolsa Chica Street a vital hightraffic-volume thorofare that this project will adversely affect and it will inhibit our flow of traffic.

24. This Big Box apartment complex is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow future developers to use this building as a benchmark “compatible in proportion, scale and character” to build more large projects.

[email protected]__________________________________________________________________________ (Legibly Print Email Address)
3 Email to City Council: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: Prem Kumar
To: [email protected]
Subject: October 15, 2024 City Council Agenda Item 18 Report No. 24-710 Date: Saturday, October 12, 2024 8:17:17 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Council Members
Regarding Agenda Item 18 Report No. 24-710, I urge you to deny the appeal and approve the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project as the developer has done an excellent job to modify the original proposal after meeting with the surrounding community. This project is so important and needed as the country's population ages. We need a place like this in Huntington Beach so residents like me have the opportunity to transition as we age and continue to live in this city, we all love and cherish.

Prem Kumar (16 year property owner and resident)
From: Jessica Morales
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection Letter to the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project Date: Sunday, October 13, 2024 12:38:58 PM
Attachments: Revised Objection Letter to City Council for Neighbors to Sign_09-29-2024.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Hello,
Please see attached Objection letter.

Thank you,
Jessica Morales
5101 Tortuga Drive #206
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Objection Letter to Huntington Beach City Council
September 29, 2024
Dear Huntington City Council Members, I urge you to Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) No. 21-004; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003; Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005; and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024 for the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 (Southwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue).

This Project requires a Specific Plan because it is a high-density 159 apartment unit complex featuring separate and independent dwelling units that happens to offer extra amenities under the auspices of “Senior Care” to tenants. Nonetheless regardless of its label, it is still a high-density project which is considered mixed use which mandates the residential portion must conform with adjoining residential uses.

Because of multiple city code, zoning, and architectural and site design issues, this Big Box Project still fails to meet city planning requirements and must be rejected in its current “as is” submission format and sent back to the developer for further revisions. Residents welcome the general “concept” of building a new senior care facility, but please cap this monstrosity at 35-feet tall, maintain exiting setback codes, and reduce its density so that it’s compatible with adjoining uses and complies with Land Use Elements LU-1(D) and LU-2(B). The number of parking spaces should also be significantly increased to eliminate traffic congestion during surge visitor times.

1. Land Use Element Policy LU-1(D) mandates: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses.

2. Land Use Element Policy LU-2(B) mandates: Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context sensitive, creative, complementary of the city’s beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.

3. This Revise Project is still too tall and massive in scale, bulk, proportion, and size for our neighborhood. 4.

This 4-story, 53-feet tall, 205,308 ft
2 building which is over 250,000 ft2 viewed from the outside (2.04 FAR) with 159 living units sprawling over 3.1 acres will tower over the three 1-story tall homes across the street on Bolsa Chica Street, and tower over the adjoining 2-story on Warner, and the 3-story Condo’s on Bolsa Chica. 5. When factoring in the grade differential, this Project will be 56-feet tall due to its 3’-6’ feet rooftop parapets. 6. This Project requires a Specific Plan due to its mixed-use designation whereby the general plan requires this project to comply with the adjoining residential density. This Project is almost double the adjoining density. 7. High Density Residential is defined in the 2017 general plan, which Dan Kalmick as Planning Commissioner approved, as 30 or more units-per-acre, yet this Project proposes 56.6 units-per-acre. It is clearly high-density. 8. While Commercial Zoning (CZ) allows a 50-feet tall building, this new zoning should comply with the adjacent residential zoning which only allows 35-feet in height to match neighboring 3-story condominiums. 9. The 32-feet setback will place this towering monstrosity right in the faces of families living in the apartments on the south side of it on Warner Avenue. And it will tower over all other adjoining uses. 10. This Project is grossly under-parked and has insufficient parking spaces for visitors, customers of the ground floor businesses, onsite employees, and a myriad of daily delivery and service trucks. 11. Insufficient parking is due to the developer incorrectly applying parking spaces-per-bed rather than using the correct standards required by the general plan for mixed-use projects which in turn requires significantly more spaces per unit for the residential unit portion of this Project. This mixed-use Project needs to apply a combo of residential parking standards for its residential portion, and apply commercial standards for its commercial use portion in order to calculate the total required number of parking spaces. Parking needs recalculation. 12. There is essentially no available street parking near this particular intersection. There is no street parking on Warner Avenue. And Bolsa Chica Street is a predominantly “red-curbed” zone with extremely limited street parking that also serves as a major parking area and gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Bolsa Chica Street is the only two-way ingress and egress access point to the Brightwater, Sandover, and Los Patos Avenue communities which makes Bolsa Chica Street a vital high traffic-volume thorofare that this project will adversely affect and inhibit the flow of traffic.
1 13. An estimated 110 employees will work in 3 shifts at this complex so during their shift change overlaps there will be approximately 70 employees during shift changes who simultaneously need onsite parking spaces out of the 104 available spaces. That leaves only 34 available parking spaces for its 159 residential units, all of their visitors, outside 3
rd party workers, and potential customers of the commercial ground floor businesses.

14. The “Senior Care Community” label for this Big Box is intentionally misleading since it will feature commercial restaurants that serve and provide on-site liquor sales. True convalescent care facilities do not serve liquor or include 1,700 - 2,000 square feet apartment units. The developer conveniently uses the designation of “convalescent care” in order to apply for reduced parking in their specific plan which they hope will give them the fewest number of spaces required by our city for any residential use.

15. This project will result in substantial impacts to biological resources requiring mitigation. Project site is located on the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory bird corridor that uses our nearby state-protected Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve which is a Global Biodiversity Hotspot that supports 23 endangered species of birds and raptors. This complex will be the tallest building in the area and undoubtedly cause numerous endangered species fatalities from bird strikes into its upper 4 th
-floor and extended rooftop parapets. 16.

This high-density apartment complex is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow other developers to saturate this area with more high density Big Boxes that will destroy our quiet “Surf City” beach community.

17. This project is a blatant attempt to Spot Zone which is the oldest recognized form of zoning scheming and corruption. The City lacks substantial evidence to support the “findings” for Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit amongst multiple other violations of City Code, regulations, and established and accepted practices. Approval of this Project can only be obtained by significant abuse of the City’s discretionary approval process.

18. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) fails to provide and analyze an accurate and complete project description, 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 amongst multiple other violations of the EIR and CEQA that include but are not limited to inadequate traffic, sewer capacity, water capacity, storm drain, loss of scenic vista, project alternatives, and shadow studies that reflect the true height of the structure. The EIR must be revised and recirculated.

19. This Project is located in the City Designated “Preserve Zone” (not a Transform Zone) where land use changes are not envisioned and are not necessary to implement the Community Vision.

20. The project fails to comply with the City’s governing land use policies and codes. The project applicant has proposed a Specific Plan as a creative means to overcome such non-compliances. This ploy must be rejected in favor of protecting and preserving the proportions and character of our local neighborhood community.

This Revised Project is not compatible in proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses, and is certainly not complementary of our city’s beach culture. This Project violates LU-1(D) and LU-2(B).

Please Vote NO and Reject this High-Density Project in its current format and design. _____________________________________Jessica Morales 10/13/2024______________________________________ __________________________________ (Signature) (Date)
____________________________________Jessica Morales 10/13/2024 _________________________________________________________________ (Legibly Print Name) ________________5101 Tortuga Drive #206, Huntington Beach, CA 92649______________________________________________________________________________ (Legibly Print Home Address) [email protected]_____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ (Legibly Print Email Address) Email to City Council: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 From: PCI INC
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) No. 21-004; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003; Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005; and Conditional Use Permit No. 21- 024 for the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Co
Date: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:25:01 PM
Attachments: page 1.pdf
page 2.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Sent from Outlook

From: Stacey
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: General Plan Amendment / EIR N. 21-004
Date: Sunday, October 13, 2024 7:33:29 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members,
I am 60 (turning 61 in November) and I have spent the last 25+ years working to pay off my Condo in Huntington Beach. My unit is located at 5146 Dorado Drive, Huntington Beach.

When I purchased my condo years ago in Cabo Del Mar, I chose this location because it was on a quiet street that already had homes and shops. This was a big part of my decision to purchase in this area of Huntington Beach, as it was already developed. I recently found out about the Newport Beach developer that is trying to change the area by adding a huge oversized high density senior apartment complex to the corner lot directly across the street from Cabo Del Mar. A development of this magnitude will bring a concentrated number of people, care givers, visitors, traffic, noise and pollution to the already frail Bolsa Chica wetlands area. This is not the peaceful environment that many people living in this area had planned for when purchasing their condo or home in this neighborhood. As I am approaching my senior years, I cannot afford to move out of the area if the noise and traffic becomes a problem.

Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, please vote no on the Bolca Chica Senior care community project. Thank you so much.

I urge you to Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) No. 21-004; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003; Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005; and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024 for the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 (Southwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue).

Because of multiple city code, zoning, and architectural and site design issues, this Big Box Project still fails to meet city planning requirements and must be rejected in its current “as is” submission format and sent back to the developer for further revisions. Residents welcome the general “concept” of building a new senior care facility, but please cap this monstrosity at 35-feet tall, maintain exiting setback codes, and reduce its density so that it’s compatible with adjoining uses and complies with Land Use Elements LU-1(D) and LU-2(B). The number of parking spaces should also be significantly increased to eliminate traffic congestion during surge visitor times.

1. Land Use Element Policy LU-1(D) mandates: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and character to complement adjoining uses.

3. This Revise Project is still too tall and massive in scale, bulk, proportion, and size for our neighborhood.

4. This 4-story, 53-feet tall, 205,308 ft2 building which is over 250,000 ft2 viewed from the outside (2.04 FAR)
with 159 living units sprawling over 3.1 acres will tower over the three 1-story tall homes across the street on
Bolsa Chica Street, and tower over the adjoining 2-story on Warner, and the 3-story Condo’s on Bolsa Chica.

5. When factoring in the grade differential, this Project will be 56-feet tall due to its 3’-6’ feet rooftop parapets.

6. This Project requires a Specific Plan due to its mixed-use designation whereby the general plan requires this
project to comply with the adjoining residential density. This Project is almost double the adjoining density.

7. High Density Residential is defined in the 2017 general plan, which Dan Kalmick as Planning Commissioner
approved, as 30 or more units-per-acre, yet this Project proposes 56.6 units-per-acre. It is clearly high-density.

8. While Commercial Zoning (CZ) allows a 50-feet tall building, this new zoning should comply with the
adjacent residential zoning which only allows 35-feet in height to match neighboring 3-story condominiums.

9. The 32-feet setback will place this towering monstrosity right in the faces of families living in the apartments
on the south side of it on Warner Avenue. And it will tower over all other adjoining uses.

10. This Project is grossly under-parked and has insufficient parking spaces for visitors, customers of the ground
floor businesses, onsite employees, and a myriad of daily delivery and service trucks.

11. Insufficient parking is due to the developer incorrectly applying parking spaces-per-bed rather than using the
correct standards required by the general plan for mixed-use projects which in turn requires significantly more spaces per unit for the residential unit portion of this Project. This mixeduse Project needs to apply a combo of residential parking standards for its residential portion, and apply commercial standards for its commercial use portion in order to calculate the total required number of parking spaces. Parking needs recalculation.

12. There is essentially no available street parking near this particular intersection. There is no street parking on Warner Avenue. And Bolsa Chica Street is a predominantly “red-curbed” zone with extremely limited street parking that also serves as a major parking area and gateway to the public hiking trails in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Bolsa Chica Street is the only two-way ingress and egress access point to the Brightwater, Sandover, and Los Patos Avenue communities which makes Bolsa Chica Street a vital high- traffic-volume thorofare that this project will adversely affect and inhibit the flow of traffic. 1 13. An estimated 110 employees will work in 3 shifts at this complex so during their shift change overlaps there will be approximately 70 employees during shift changes who simultaneously need onsite parking spaces out of the 104 available spaces. That leaves only 34 available parking spaces for its 159 residential units, all of their visitors, outside 3rd party workers, and potential customers of the commercial ground floor businesses.

15. This project will result in substantial impacts to biological resources requiring mitigation.

Project site is located on the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory bird corridor that uses our nearby state-protected Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve which is a Global Biodiversity Hotspot that supports 23 endangered species of birds and raptors. This complex will be the tallest building in the area and undoubtedly cause numerous endangered species fatalities from bird strikes into its upper 4th-floor and extended rooftop parapets.

16. This high-density apartment complex is a precedent-setting Trojan Horse that will allow other developers to saturate this area with more high density Big Boxes that will destroy our quiet “Surf City” beach community.

Approval of this Project can only be obtained by significant abuse of the City’s discretionary approval process.

19. This Project is located in the City Designated “Preserve Zone” (not a Transform Zone) where land use changes are not envisioned and are not necessary to implement the Community Vision.

20. The project fails to comply with the City’s governing land use policies and codes. The project applicant has proposed a Specific Plan as a creative means to overcome such noncompliances. This ploy must be rejected in favor of protecting and preserving the proportions and character of our local neighborhood community.

Please Vote NO and Reject this High-Density Project in its current format and design.

Sincerely,
Stacey McDonald (Keller)
From: jjreed85
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected] Subject: Fw: Again Reject The Senior Living Project Warner/Bolsa Chica Date: Sunday, October 13, 2024 8:15:58 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Nothing has changed from my below message. I cannot believe we've had to make this same request so many times. This project does not fit the area, and they clearly do not care how they are going to impact everyone's lives.

You've already disappointed the residents of HB this month already. Don't do it again. We will not forget when it comes time to voting... as I said before, no matter what office you are running for in the future. Stop putting money hungry developers first over the residents of this city. ------- Forwarded Message -------
From: jjreed85 <[email protected]>
Date: On Tuesday, July 30th, 2024 at 9:19 AM
Subject: Again Reject The Senior Living Project Warner/Bolsa Chica To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> In addition to the information in the letter below -This project is still completely obnoxious to the surrounding area. Why are buildings like this not required to be built so that they do not interfere with the community. This project is WAY too close to the street for its height, I do not care what the 'minimum required' is. For every story the project has, it should have to be set back even further (although this still should be less stories either way). The minimum is NOT SUFFICIENT, as is clear by the Elan and Luce buildings. They tower over everything and cause a dark depressing shadow across the streets all day. Your 'shadow study' is an absolute fabrication. We can see what happens to the other buildings with our own eyes.

I support everything below that is discussed in the letter.

I am in support of having a TRUE assisted living facility in HB, but anyone who has ever had family in one knows that the amenities they are including are not something assisted living facilities would have at this scale. And a true assisted living unit would never need to be 2,000 square feet - that is far bigger than the average single story home in HB is. The developer is clearly going to do a bait and switch to have a regular 55+ community, which means the number of cars and traffic will increase.

I will also not support any business that would try to gain favor by donating to a candidate. Yes, we notice.

Any council member that votes in favor of this, will not be forgotten when it comes time to vote... no matter which office you are running for.

JJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Objection Letter to Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dear Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners, I urge you to Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the modified Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 (cross streets: Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street).

The developer’s Revised Draft EIR for this Project fails to adequately identify, analyze, or mitigate the numerous significant environmental impacts from this Project. It is imperative that additional studies be conducted and that a revised EIR be prepared and recirculated, and appropriate additional mitigation measures imposed, and the identified environmental impact issues resolved before this project can be responsibly considered by the Planning Commission.

1. The EIR fails to provide and analyze an accurate and complete project description and all of the substantial environmental impacts that will be caused by its estimated 3-year long construction period.

2. An Adequate Traffic Impact Study, Transportation Safety Study, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) were not prepared for this Project which needs to be corrected. Accurate studies must be submitted for analysis and review.

3. There is no assurance that this project will operate completely as a traditional congregate care and assisting living facility.

With units up to 2,177ft² in size, it is reasonable to presume there are traditional residential units in this complex.

4. If each of the 159 units received just one delivery per day (parcel, food, medical supply, etc.) or invited guests to the multiple proposed restaurants, the number of daily trips would spike which skews the VMT which must be corrected.

5. EIR fails to include substantive analysis of potential transportation safety hazards.

6. EIR fails to provide a detailed description of the hazardous chemicals, biological wastes, and medical wastes that the medical services to be provided by this facility will generate during the course of its operational lifespan.

7. The project fails to comply with the City’s governing land use policies and codes. The project applicant has proposed a Specific Plan as a creative means to overcome such non-compliances. For meaningful public input and full disclosure, the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated including a table comparing standard City “Commercial General” zoning standards for setbacks, height, bulk, and scale, with those that will be more lenient vis a vis the Specific Plan.

8. This project will result in substantial impacts to biological resources requiring mitigation. Project site is located on the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory bird corridor very near our state-protected Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve which supports 23 endangered species of birds and raptors. This complex will be the largest and tallest building in the area and undoubtedly cause numerous endangered species fatalities from bird strikes into its upper 4th-floor and rooftop parapets.

9. While the revised Plan somewhat reduces the original project size, it is still far too tall and large in scale for this area and will tower over and dominate the nearby 2-story tall historic homes and buildings.

10. The fact that it will feature a fitness center, swimming pool, 4 restaurants, a theater, activity room, dining room, arts & crafts room, nail salon, admin office, mailroom and more, indicate it is designed more for active tenants and visitors than convalescing seniors. These onsite amenities are a sure “Tell” this is a camouflaged upscale big box apartment complex.

11. In summary, the Draft 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 amongst multiple other violations of the EIR and CEQA too numerous to list all herein. The Revised Draft EIR must be rejected and the Specific Plan denied. Thank you.

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

From: Melissa Ke
To: Burns, Pat; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Estanislau, Robin; [email protected]; Bolton, Rhonda Subject: Re: Opposition Letter to Proposed Development at Bolsa Chica and Warner Ave Date: Sunday, October 13, 2024 10:22:54 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission, I have been actively attending open houses and meetings from the developer since 2021 when they first reached out to me to attend their first opening house meeting and I've been attending city council and planning commission meetings for the last 1.5 years concerning this Bolsa Chica project. I was not able to attend the last city council meeting, yet I was updated by my colleagues and neighbors, nor the one coming up this Tuesday, October 15, 2024, yet they will keep me posted as I will be with my aging mother in the South Bay area again since I also manage my mom's medical appointments and am partially her caregiver as well as she is aging. I did go to the meeting with the city planning commission public meeting 2-3 weeks ago and I was frustrated and upset that the young man who has just moved to Santa Ana and given his 2-weeks notice actually decided to vote yes and not respectfully abstain or not vote since he is not going to be (such as now, 2 weeks later) in the city or on that team anymore AND it won't affect him at all or long term since he doesn't actually live in the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica intersection area as I live here (7 years) and my families properties' tenants all live here in the 8 buildings (41 units) we have owned for 40+ years and I manage for my family. As you can see we are extremely invested in what is decided for this quadrant of this intersection area personally in both the family business and having 2 aging parents of my own in their 80's.

I have gone to visit several Senior Living facilities in the South Bay areas of Palos Verdes Peninsula and Redondo Beach with my mom to check out her options. Very much like Huntington Beach, these 2 areas are also beach cities and actually have similar codes and building requirements as Huntington Beach. None of the facilities I have gone to visit are more than 3 residential stories high, which is only 35 feet. The height of the Bolsa Chica Senior Living Facility proposal is still an issue with me. We have 3 apartment buildings on Dunbar Drive. 5021 Dunbar Drive is the 1st building on the left when you turn onto Dunbar from Bolsa Chica. That building is 2 stories and our tenants enjoy the sunlight they get since sunset shadow does not start these days till 5-6pm as we are in autumn season going into winter soon. If the proposed building stays at 45 feet, then the shadow will start around 3pm in mid-winter, especially since the setback from the street curb is only 10 feet. I urge the council to please vote no on this current proposal so the builder can create something that is 35 residential feet.

The 2nd issue we still have major concerns for is the parking of the employees and visitors of the senior residents. Street parking is already so congested on the mixed residential street of Bolsa Chica and the apartment residential street of Dunbar. I'm pretty sure the single family home communities off Los Patos and Brightwater do not want the congestion. I urge you to PLEASE vote no so the builder can add more underground parking to their plan for both the employees and visiting families.

Once again, my family and all of our residents/tenants really appreciate all of your time and consideration in our objection to this project as it still needs some changes that we had asked for since the beginning. We still want to work together to get there and we urge you for voting no for these 2 issues we continue to have.

Thanks much,
Melissa Ke, Esther Ke, and all 41 of our apartment residents On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:41 AM Melissa Ke <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Pat Burns, Robin Estanislau, and All Other City Council Members:

My email letter from November 5, 2023, still stands for my opposition to the projecting you are voting for at Bolsa Chica and Warner Avenue intersection area as my family owns and manages 8 apartment complexes for 40+ years in this intersection area on Jib Circle, Hoskins Lane, Moody Circle and Dunbar Drive. I, myself, also live in the building I own at 16891 Hoskins Lane, so as a fellow resident of the area I also object and have signed and now sending the Objection Letter to Huntington Beach City Council Members. Please see attachment, thanks. I was at the November 7, 2023, City Council Meeting and I will also be at the meeting tomorrow evening, December 19, 2023. I greatly appreciated the gentleman who was a member of the planning commision that originally voted yes on this project apologizing and explaining that he should've voted no on this project. As for me, public speaking is currently difficult for me due to my stutter disorder that has come back recently for personal reasons so I do not plan to speak, but writing is where I am doing my best to state my opposition and explanations. I and several other residential property owners reached out to our tenants/residents, most of whom also already heard about this, and they were more than happy to sign and email the objection letter as well as they also do not want this very tall, high-density, building in this intersection! On Monday evening, November 27, 2023, I attended the Open House that was offered by the builder and their projected/estimated statistics and statements were not correct at all.

They made it all seem so much less intrusive than it will be concerning the height/shadow, traffic of everyday vendors, emergency vehicles, staff parking, visitor parking, and other environmental impacts and footprints it will cause. My family has done land development as builders and managers for decades in another major international city and I also worked as an urban planning photographer for a time so I know the builder's projections/estimates are incorrect. I am also dealing with a mom who is in the early stages of dementia so in the last 3 years I have been going on tours with her to visit senior living facilities in the South Bay area (Torrance, Redondo Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula). All had a nice movie theater room, several areas inside and outside to dine or lounge, a hair/nail salon, fitness/gym studio and were only 3 stories high! They charge $6-10K/month depending on the needs of your loved one. Some of these are old and have had wonderful renovations done in recent years and some of them are new, built in the last 3-10 years. The builders of the Bolsa Chica Senior Living Facility claim the 2 separate restaurants, higher end and larger movie theater, salon/spa, larger fitness/gym and 60 feet long pool are all needed and wanted now-a-days for seniors and this why they needed it to be commercial zoned as well as residential zoned. I easily beg to differ on this need/want from all of my visits in official tours and also going to actual everyday and special events with my mom to truly get a real feel of the place and speaking to other staff members and residents at these events. I was a journalist and special education teacher for 16+ years so I know what kinds of questions to ask and what to observe/look for when I go to formal and informal visits to these senior living facilities.

Other property owners and I also found it interesting that even though the shadow will start on our properties at 2pm from the height of this building, they of course put their 60-foot pool on the west side of the building so it is not affected by early shadow (aside from the pool being heated). The Bolsa Chica Senior Facility also claims there will be little to no impact to the neighborhood parking and traffic. Parking is obviously going to highly impact first Bolsa Chica, then Dunbar Drive, then everywhere else. They only have 40 parking spots in their underground garage for staff, yet 80 staff will be working per/day at a time.

Then there is all the visiting family and some friends. Street parking is already premium and difficult just for the residents of the area. We do not need this to add to it. Traffic is greatly impacted in this intersection with the daily/weekly service trucks, staff and visitors. and with seniors there is of course a greater percentage of emergency vehicles.

I'm sure you have heard this several times, but please please please vote NO on this project! We are not against senior living facilities, but we do need to make sure we find the best match and use of this intersection space from ALL fronts (HEIGHT is #1 issue, parking and traffic is #2 issue, and environmental impact is #3).

Once again, we, my family and all of our residents/tenants, really appreciate all of your time and consideration in our objection to this project.

Thanks much,
Melissa
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:52 PM Melissa Ke <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Pat,
Thank you so much for your response and agreement. Look forward to the meeting tomorrow evening.

Take care and thanks,
Melissa Ke
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:01 PM Burns, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:

I agree. Pat Burns
From: Melissa Ke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 8:23 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition Letter to Proposed Development at Bolsa Chica and Warner Ave Dear Huntington Beach City Council,
I am writing this letter on behalf of the 8 residential apartment buildings that are owned by myself and the rest of my family (Esther Ke, Miranda Ke Cheung, Malcolm Ke, Nai Chao Hsu and Hatfield Investment Inc.) and all managed by me the last 6 years and currently, and by my mother for almost 35 years before I took over. We have 3 buildings on Dunbar Drive, 2 buildings on Moody Circle, 2 buildings on Hoskins Lane and 1 building on Jib Circle. My family has owned our residential apartment buildings in the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica intersection area for 40 years since the early 1980's and we will continue to do so into the following decades and generations. We have been and will continue to be invested in our residential and commercial neighbors and community. Not only do I own one of my families' buildings, but I also live in my building so I have been a resident of this area for 6 years since I moved back to Southern California to take over the family business of property investment and management from my aging mom. I will continue to live and work here for many years to come. I was not able to attend the meeting on September 26, 2023, as I was traveling during that time. However, I will be present at the city council meeting this Tuesday evening, November 7, 2023. However, I am writing this letter as official written opposition since I may not be able to speak at the meeting.

I am writing this letter to oppose the proposed senior living facility that might be developed at the intersection of Bolsa Chica and Warner Avenue. I have read all of the documents pertaining to this development including building/planning municipal codes for zoning change, safety, aesthetics, air pollutants and health effects, traffic flow, land use and planning, and the environmental impact report. First, I am so very shocked that the city was willing to change the zoning for this development in order for it to be a 5- story building. In the 4 quadrants of land of this intersection area of residential and commercial buildings there are only single-story, 2-story and 3-story buildings due to building code/zoning. My family and I do not approve of a building to be more than 3 commercial stories high per the original zoning of the intersection area, which would already be taller than any other building in this intersection area. This will block the natural light especially since the area the senior facility is to be built on is on the west side of the intersection and the sun sets to the west. Second, we are extremely worried of the congestion that it would bring to the intersection and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.

This development will bring so much more foot and car traffic to an intersection that does not need that to be that much more for the worst. The senior facility proposes 80 staff members and if you include all of those, plus all the delivery and other service trucks, the 213-426 seniors living in the building and all of the visiting family members and other guests of the seniors living there that will be expected to go through the facility each day, week, month and year. We truly do not believe this will be good for the fragile environment of the nearby wetlands to have and definitely not for the car traffic of the intersection and street parking once the facility guest spots are filled.

Furthermore, there are 4 single family homes and 3 of my families' apartment buildings are on Dunbar Drive that are all directly across the street from the proposed senior facility. This will have a very big negative impact on the 4 houses and Dunbar Drive for all the reasons I have already stated above. Additionally, we already have 22 other senior living facilities in Huntington Beach. All are serving the Huntington Beach communities very well and NONE of them are higher than 3-stories.

My family strongly opposes the approval of the current building plan of this senior facility for all the reasons stated above. Please vote no on this proposal. We would be open to another proposal in future that is a better fit for the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica area community in building code/height and residential and/or commercial suitability to the current residential and commercial owners and tenants of the neighborhood. We appreciate your high consideration to this and all the other letters of opposition concerning this matter.

Most sincerely and take care,
Melissa Ke
--
Melissa Ke
Work (714) 454-7434
--
Melissa Ke
Work (714) 454-7434
--
Melissa Ke
Work (714) 454-7434
--
Melissa Ke
Work (714) 454-7434
From: Christine Magar
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Strickland, Tony; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: No to high rise!!!
Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:27:26 AM
Attachments: Revised_Objection_Letter_to_City_Council_for_Neighbors_to_Sign_10-08-2024.docx God bless,
Christine Magar
1 Objection Letter to Huntington Beach City Council
October 8, 2024
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, I urge you to Reject the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) No. 21-004; General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003; Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005; and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024 for the Revised Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project located at 4952 and 4972 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA. 92649.