11/19 - Sup Com — City Council/Public Financing Authority, November 19, 2024

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Fikes, Cathy
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: No more high density housing
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 5:56:35 PM
From:

Rickie Hulsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 4:54 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: No more high density housing
To HB Council,

We citizens, of Huntington Beach DO NOT WANT ANYMORE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING!

Though I don't agree with the new ADU laws,
the ADU's being built should satisfy the states push for high density housing.

You know we don't want this. It will ruin the quaintness of Huntington Beach.

Respectfully,

Rickie Hulsey
17202 Cornina Ln
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 11/19/2024
13 (24-778)
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Fikes, Cathy
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Senior Living Project at Warner and Bolsa Chica Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:30:06 PM

From: mpaullins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 5:57 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Senior Living Project at Warner and Bolsa Chica

Dear City Council Members, current and newly elected.

The proposed senior living project at the corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner is high density housing. It is not a hospital. It is a high density housing project.

As stated in the last City Council meeting, the location at Bolsa Chica and Warner, is too small for the proposed project.

As seen from the last election, for the new City Council members, the majority of the voters in the City are opposed to high density housing in HB.

The City is spending a lot of money to fight Sacramento on the high density requirements for the City of HB. Why are we even spending time discussing this project? It is simple, the project is high density housing and should be rejected at Tuesday's meeting.

I live across the street from the project. I have worked very hard to live, work and now retire in HB. I agree the corner needs to be upgraded, but not with 3 and 4 story buildings with minimal setbacks. The traffic, parking and zoning changes have all been discussed and debated at great lengths.

When individuals run for City Council and tell the voters they are opposed to high density housing in Huntington Beach, it is the obligation of those individuals to vote on the City issues as they have promised the voters. City Council members should not vote on City issues according to personal gain or personal preferences. City Council members should vote on City issues according to how they have promised voters they would vote.

And that is, the opposition to high density housing in HB.

From my understanding, Tuesday, 11/19, is last opportunity for our City Council to vote on a project that is opposed by the majority of the voters of Huntington Beach. Please vote “no” on the high density Senior Project at the corner of Warner and Bolsa Chica.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Melinda Paullins
45 year resident of HB

From: Estanislau, Robin
To: Switzer, Donna; Moore, Tania
Subject: Fwd: OBJECTION TO HB CITY COUNCIL SECOND READING Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 10:46:24 PM
Attachments: Objection to Huntington Beach City _Council Second Reading.pdf

20. Land Use Element Policy LU-2(B) mandates Ensurg that new and renovated structures and building.pdf

20. Land Use Element Policy LU-2(3) mandates Ensure that new and renovated structures and building.pdf Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: SurfnSand <[email protected]>
Date: November 18, 2024 at 10:21:04 PM PST
To: "Kalmick, Dan" <[email protected]>, "Van Der Mark, Gracey" <[email protected]>, "Burns, Pat" <Pat.Burns@surfcity- hb.org>, "McKeon, Casey" <[email protected]>, "Strickland, Tony" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Kennedy, Don" <[email protected]>, "Twining, Butch" <[email protected]>, "Bolton, Rhonda" <Rhonda.Bolton@surfcity- hb.org>, "Estanislau, Robin" <[email protected]> Subject: OBJECTION TO HB CITY COUNCIL SECOND READING

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City Council Members,
Please take the time to read through the objections of the HB community! Thank you,
Anna Fenn

From: Jonathan Bonwit
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey
Cc: Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Strickland, Tony; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; Twining, Butch; Kennedy, Don; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; Estanislau, Robin Subject: Objection to Second Reading for Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project_from Jonathan Bonwit Date: Saturday, November 16, 2024 10:38:07 AM
Attachments: Objection to City Council Second Reading submitted by Jonathan Bonwit_11-16-2024.pdf Clearwater Residential Apartment Rental Agreement.pdf
Objection to Approving the Second Reading 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).

November 16, 2024

Greetings Mayor Van Der Mark and Esteemed City Council Members,

Further research and new discovery have revealed that Hines the developer and Clearwater the project operator have misled, mischaracterized, and misrepresented important critical facts that will affect your vote on the upcoming Second Reading for the above referenced project scheduled at your city council meeting Tuesday, November 19 th.

Please carefully read and consider my attached Objection Letter to the approval of the Second Reading.

I am confident you will vote no and reject approving the Second Reading based upon the facts detailed in my attached objection letter.

This project should be sent back to the developer for further revisions and downsizing to be compatible with adjoining uses, or else invite the developer to build it elsewhere in our city on a larger lot better suited to accommodate its bulk and scale.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Bonwit
Member of Huntington Beach for Responsible Growth Alliance 4622 Oceanridge Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
714-412-2222
[email protected]

Attachment: Clearwater’s Residential Rental Agreement, aka their combined “Residence and Care Agreement”

1 Objection to Huntington Beach City Council Second Reading November 16, 2024
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, I strongly urge you to Vote No and Reject the Second Reading of 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.

It's rare that we get a second chance in life to correct things that we prefer to have done differently in our past, but this Second Reading is one of those rare opportunities for our esteemed City Council.

And this includes this aforementioned Bolsa Chica Senior Care residential project referenced above that we residents hold as yet another high-density development. Your prior vote to approve this HDD is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, hence the message your constituents sent to this Council in the recent election.

Please remember that we are your neighbors and we elected you to represent our interests in HB, not your own personal wishes and desires. So please be a good neighbor and honor and respect our mandate for no more HDD.

Most residents welcome the development of new senior care residential facilities in HB as long as they comply with the existing General Plan, zoning, and other applicable codes. It’s quite reasonable for residents to ask that this Project either be downsized to 3-stories tall using proper setbacks and adequate parking spaces, or else build it on a larger lot elsewhere that can better accommodate such a massive structure. It’s not right to force a 4-story tall building next to 1-story homes and 2-story neighboring buildings. It’s not compatible with adjoining uses.

We residents, including myself have come together and joined the Huntington Beach for Responsible Growth Alliance to hold the City Council accountable to fulfil this mandate for no more high-density development in HB.

City Council’s approval of this HDD Project is such a contentious issue in HB that a law suit was filed in Superior Court of Orange County against the City on Thursday, 11/12/2024 for multiple causes including, but not limited to violations of CEQA, violations of multiple City policies, Municipal Code, and the General Plan, and Abuse of Discretion, and failure to comply with applicable law.

Hines, the developer, and Clearwater the operator of this Project manipulated and misled our City Council, residents of Huntington Beach, and the general public in order to get this Project approved. So, let’s break it down and see how we were all misled [please stay with me here]:

Hines and Clearwater would have the City Council believe this is a commercial hospital-type facility and not residential in order to cleverly circumvent our HB General Plan, Zoning Plan, and Land Use Elements to their benefit. But their filings, documents, plans, website and advertising brochures prove this is not accurate.

In Contract Law, specific definitions, words, and verbiage are important. The four corners of a contract specifically define the terms and conditions of said contract or agreement. We must carefully pay attention to the words, phrases and verbiage that Hines and Clearwater use in their legal documents, filings, contracts, website, and advertising to determine if this Project is a residential apartment building that offers added amenities and services, or if it is a commercial hospital or hospital-type medical facility.

Hines’ and Clearwater’s filings, plans, advertising, and contracts tell it all. There’s no hiding the truth.

When we drill down on these documents and contracts, it becomes clear this is a residential apartment complex that offers extra amenities and services to its residential tenants.

2 Hospitals and hospital-type facilities use “patient” intake forms to onboard new “patients”, and subsequently use discharge forms when those patients check out and depart the facility. Patients are called “patients”, not “residents”. Patients’ length of stay is determined by the medical staff and facility, not by the patient. Patients do not have the right to stay in said facility for a pre-defined period of time, i.e. month-to-month. Tenant’s rights do not apply. Patients’ length of stay varies from 1-2 days to as long as the medical staff determines is necessary for treatment. These facilities can discharge their patients at any time and for any reason the facility chooses with or without cause. These facilities refer to and count their number of beds, not their number of units.

Residential apartments use Residential Rental Agreements to onboard new “tenants” or “residents” and subsequently must abide by real estate landlord-tenant law and file 30-day eviction notices to force nonpaying residents to vacate their apartment units. Rental Agreements are for very defined period of time, i.e. month-to- month leases. Residents are called “resident”, not “patients”. Management counts the number of units, not beds.

This Project was mischaracterized as a hybrid hospital type project at the last City Council meeting to circumvent city planning and zoning codes. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. At what hospital does one sign a residential rental agreement granting a specified length of residence? At what hospital do you move in and bring your own furniture and decorations? What hospital features a fitness center, swimming pool, 4 restaurants, a theater, activity room, a simulated golf course, dining room, arts & crafts room, and nail salon? If you ask any resident living in one of the Clearwater units, they will tell you, “it’s my residence”, or “it’s my home”, which makes it a residential unit. The place at which one chooses to live is a residential unit. Clearwater refers to their tenants as “residents”, not patients, in all of their brochures, documents, and website. Hines the developer refers to “residents”, not patients throughout their filings. Hines counts the number of residential “units” in his filings, not the number of beds as do hospitals. Hines even names this Project a “Community” as in a residential community in their “Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project”.

Danielle Morgan, Chief Operating Officer of Clearwater completely misled City Council at the last meeting when Morgan stated that, “We use this term home, apartment in our marketing materials because, let’ s be real, nobody wants to live their final days in a facility”, implying that Clearwater is not really a residential apartment complex.

If Morgan’s statement is true and these are not apartments for rent, then Clearwater is guilty of False Advertising and will be held accountable. On their website, in all of their brochures, and in their Residential Rental Agreement they refer to their “residents” and “apartments” and “homes” so if these are not residential apartment rentals, then they are falsely advertising. Morgan did not tell the truth to City Council.

Morgan went on to say “we require our residents to sign a resident services agreement, not a residential lease” which is not accurate since their “Residence and Care Agreement” contains similar clauses to a standard rental agreement. And they are subject to California landlord-tenant law as discussed in the following paragraphs below.

The four corners of Clearwater’s Residence and Care Agreement prove beyond a shadow of doubt that their facilities are residential apartment facilities that offer extra amenities and services to their tenants.

Here's an overview of Clearwater’s Residential Rental Agreement which proves our point

Please open and read the attached sample Clearwater Residential Rental Agreement which clearly defines their facilities as residential rental apartments. Again, Contract Law states the four corners of this legal Contract define the classification of this residential rental agreement and its residents, apartments, and this facility.

As you read the summary below, ask yourself what hospital or hospital-type facility operates as follows?

Clearwater requires their “residents” to sign a month-to-month Residential Rental Agreement, aka their combined “Residence and Care Agreement” which notably uses very similar terms and conditions to the California Association of Realtors’ Residential Rental Agreement. The Term of Agreement is a month-to-month lease. Their 3 Rental Agreement assumes a minimum 90-day occupancy. Throughout this Agreement Clearwater only uses the terms, “resident” over a hundred times, and never uses the term, “patient”. They use the term, “apartment” over a hundred times. Their residents may bring in their own furniture and decorations to furnish their apartment rentals.

Clearwater acknowledge that more than one person may occupy a room. Residents may add extra beds to their units to allow spouses, relatives, and roommates to share their apartment with them, aka “a second resident”.

Clearwater issues every tenant a “Resident Handbook”. They refer to “The Community” as in a “residential community”. Hospitals don’t refer to their number of beds as a community.

Residents may come and go as they please and remain absent from their apartment for lengthy periods of time while on vacation or staying elsewhere. Their residents are protected by Tenant’s Rights Law.

Real estate landlord-tenant law applies to their Rental Agreements. Clearwater must give 30-day legal Notice to Vacate and evict their tenants in order to remove them from the facility for nonpayment. In order to evict a resident who remains in their apartment after the effective date of termination, Clearwater must file an Unlawful Detainer Action in Superior Court and receive a written judgment signed by a judge.

Clearwater “strongly recommends” their tenants obtain a Homeowner’s Rental Insurance Policy to protect their furniture and personal property.

Residents may hire and bring in their own outside, third party vendors to work on premise for them.

Clearwater must give reasonable advance Notice if they wish to enter a tenant’s apartment to make repairs.

Tenants may own pets.

Their Rental Agreement recognizes California Civil Code 1953 which establishes that residential tenants shall not be subject to arbitration.

- End of our Clearwater Residential Rental Agreement Overview - ____________________________________________________________

Likewise, Hines refers to “residential units”, not beds throughout all of their filings, brochures, plans, and schematics.

Hines even names this Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community project a “community” as in a residential community.

Hospitals don’t refer to their number of beds as a community.

4 Zoning Change: The underlying zoning is abandoned with a specific plan. To establish new zoning, the specific plan must follow the general plan, not the underlying zoning. The Specific Plan creates its own zoning standards.

The city incorrectly assumed this residential care facility is a commercial use. While a convalescent care facility is allowed in the Commercial General zoning that does not make it a commercial use. It simply allows a residential use to be located on a commercially zoned property, it does not determine the use classification.

Use classification is determined by City of Huntington Beach zoning code chapter 204, USE CLASSIFICATIONS. 204.06 F. - Residential Use Classifications. This is the only place you will find a use classification for “residential care facilities”. HB zoning code chapter 204.06 F states:
“residential care facility. A residential care facility licensed by the State where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities include, but may not be limited to, the following: ...Residential care facilities for the elderly [RCFE]…” [emphasis added] It should be noted that Clearwater discloses they are a licensed “Residential Care Facility for the Elderly [RCFE]” on page #11 of their Apartment Rental Agreement, aka “Residence and Care Agreement” (see attached).

The project description of the architectural plans submitted by Hines state: Project Description: The proposed General plan land use designation for specific plan area is mixed use, which shall allow for the proposed Senior care community, to include senior care residential units.

The specific plan was incorrect in using the floor area ratio (FAR) to approve this Project. The general plan clearly indicates density applies to residential uses. The specific plan should have indicated the maximum units per acre, not the floor area ratio. The density of this Project is 57 units per acre. The city of Huntington Beach general plan Division II, land use designation for residential designations defines high density residential as being greater than 30 units per acre.

Hence, this is a high-density residential project according to the General Plan and zoning guidelines for residential development. This Big Box Project 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.

As previously stated, we 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.

Approving the Second Hearing adversely affects the General Plan as follows:

2. HB City Planning Commission and HB City Council ignore substantial evidence that significant unmitigated impacts will result from the development of this Project. 5 3. HB City Planning Commission and HB City Council ignore the lack of substantial evidence to support its various approvals of this Project, and they intentionally ignore the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, as well as their own policies, General Plan and Municipal Code.

4. The EIR fails to fairly, fully and honestly disclose and analyze the potential impacts that will result from this Project.

6. 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.

7. The EIR fails to adequately analyze how 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.

8. The 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.

9. The intensity of this Project is significantly understated, including the estimated population/density of residents of the Project. The understated intensity causes an improper and inadequate analysis of traffic and parking impacts from the Project, including potential impacts to surrounding neighborhood due to overflow on-street parking onto already crowded streets.

10. An Adequate Traffic Impact Study, Transportation Safety Study, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) were not prepared for this Project which needs to be corrected. The number of estimated residents is significantly under counted. Every tenant has the right to bring a second resident into their unit which doubles the density.

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

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

13. 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 its operational lifespan.

14. 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 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.

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

16. 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.

17. Specific 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 must be rejected.

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

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

20. 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.

21. Its 57 units-per-acre density 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. 6 22. When factoring in the grade differential, this Project will be 56-feet tall due to its 3’-6’ feet rooftop parapets.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 HDD projects.

31. 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.

32. Project applicant has proposed a Specific Plan as a creative means to overcome non-compliance 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.

33. The City cannot approve a project that is not consistent with its General Plan. The Specific Plan approval is not in compliance with the General Plan; the Project does not meet the parking standards of the Municipal Code; the Project does not meet the density and intensity standards of the Municipal Code; the Project does not meet the height limits of the Municipal Code.

34. This Project fails to conform with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code/Municipal Code thereby ignoring and violating our City’s own laws enacted for the protection of the environment and the public.

Please be a good neighbor. Honor our mandate and Vote No and Reject this Second Reading.

Send this Project back to the developer to further revise and downsize to be compatible with adjoining uses, or else invite him to build it elsewhere in our city on a larger lot better suited to accommodate its bulk.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Bonwit
Jonathan Bonwit November 16, 2024
Member of Huntington Beach for Responsible Growth Alliance 4622 Oceanridge Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
714-412-2222
[email protected]

Attachment: Clearwater’s Residential Rental Agreement, aka their combined “Residence and Care Agreement”

From: Lynette Kent
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Strickland, Tony; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; Twining, Butch; Kennedy, Don; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity- hb.org; Estanislau, Robin; [email protected]
Subject: Objecting to multi story building
Date: Saturday, November 16, 2024 5:03:46 PM
Attachments: Objection to City Council Second Reading for Neighbors to Sign_11-16-2024.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Attached please find my objection to this project.

Lynette Kent
Objection to Huntington Beach City Council Second Reading November 16, 2024
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, I strongly urge you to Vote No and Reject the Second Reading of 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.

Hines’ and Clearwater’s filings, plans, advertising, and contracts tell it all. There’s no hiding the truth.

When we drill down on these documents and contracts, it becomes clear this is a residential apartment complex that offers extra amenities and services to its residential tenants.

Hospitals and hospital-type facilities use “patient” intake forms to onboard new “patients”, and subsequently use discharge forms when those patients check out and depart the facility. Patients are called “patients”, not “residents”. Patients’ length of stay is determined by the medical staff and facility, not by the patient. Patients do 1 not have the right to stay in said facility for a pre-defined period of time, i.e. month-to-month. Tenant’s rights do not apply. Patients’ length of stay varies from 1-2 days to as long as the medical staff determines is necessary for treatment. These facilities can discharge their patients at any time and for any reason the facility chooses with or without cause. These facilities refer to and count their number of beds, not their number of units.

Here's an overview of Clearwater’s Residential Rental Agreement which proves our point Please open and read the attached sample Clearwater Residential Rental Agreement which clearly defines their facilities as residential rental apartments. Again, Contract Law states the four corners of this legal Contract define the classification of this residential rental agreement and its residents, apartments, and this facility.

As you read the summary below, ask yourself what hospital or hospital-type facility operates as follows? Clearwater requires their “residents” to sign a month-to-month Residential Rental Agreement, aka their combined “Residence and Care Agreement” which notably uses very similar terms and conditions to the California Association of Realtors’ Residential Rental Agreement. The Term of Agreement is a month-to-month lease. Their Rental Agreement assumes a minimum 90-day occupancy. Throughout this Agreement Clearwater only uses the terms, “resident” over a hundred times, and never uses the term, “patient”. They use the term, “apartment” over a hundred times. Their residents may bring in their own furniture and decorations to furnish their apartment rentals. 2 Clearwater acknowledge that more than one person may occupy a room. Residents may add extra beds to their units to allow spouses, relatives, and roommates to share their apartment with them, aka “a second resident”.

As a sidenote, this clause significantly skews Hine’s estimated occupancy rate and Hine’s parking and traffic study. Hines claims only 159 residents will live here, yet each tenant can add an additional bed to their unit for “a second resident” and double Hines estimated occupancy rate and density! Please read this paragraph again! Clearwater issues every tenant a “Resident Handbook”. They refer to “The Community” as in a “residential community”. Hospitals don’t refer to their number of beds as a community.

Clearwater “strongly recommends” their tenants obtain a Homeowner’s Rental Insurance Policy to protect their furniture and personal property.

Residents may hire and bring in their own outside, third party vendors to work on premise for them.

Clearwater must give reasonable advance Notice if they wish to enter a tenant’s apartment to make repairs.

Tenants may own pets.

Their Rental Agreement recognizes California Civil Code 1953 which establishes that residential tenants shall not be subject to arbitration.

Change of Use: In their Contract, Clearwater retains the right to change the use of their facilities so this Project may not remain a Senior Care facility for very long. Please read this paragraph again! (see Appendix E entitled, “Termination Due to License Forfeiture or CHANGE OF USE) - End of our Clearwater Residential Rental Agreement overview - ____________________________________________________________ Likewise, Hines refers to “residential units”, not beds throughout all of their filings, brochures, plans, and schematics.

Hines even names this Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community project a “community” as in a residential community.

Hospitals don’t refer to their number of beds as a community.

Zoning Change: The underlying zoning is abandoned with a specific plan. To establish new zoning, the specific plan must follow the general plan, not the underlying zoning. The Specific Plan creates its own zoning standards.

The citywide adopted general plan must be followed when determining how to establish the new zoning for the Specific Plan. A General Plan Amendment for a parcel of land only changes the general plan designation for that property, it does not change the citywide General Plan. 3 The city incorrectly assumed this residential care facility is a commercial use. While a convalescent care facility is allowed in the Commercial General zoning that does not make it a commercial use. It simply allows a residential use to be located on a commercially zoned property, it does not determine the use classification.

City of Huntington Beach municipal code chapter 211.06 (A) for the Commercial General zone states:
“dwelling units shall be subject to the standard for minimum setbacks, height limits, maximum density, open space, balconies and bay windows, and parking for the RMH district. The setback standards shall apply only to the stories of a building that are intended for residential use.” Use classification is determined by City of Huntington Beach zoning code chapter 204, USE CLASSIFICATIONS. 204.06 F. - Residential Use Classifications. This is the only place you will find a use classification for “residential care facilities”. HB zoning code chapter 204.06 F states:
“residential care facility. A residential care facility licensed by the State where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities include, but may not be limited to, the following: ...Residential care facilities for the elderly [RCFE]…” [emphasis added] It should be noted that Clearwater discloses they are a licensed “Residential Care Facility for the Elderly [RCFE]” on page #11 of their Apartment Rental Agreement, aka “Residence and Care Agreement” (see attached).

Approving the Second Hearing adversely affects the General Plan as follows:

2.HB City Planning Commission and HB City Council ignore substantial evidence that significant unmitigated impacts will result from the development of this Project.

3.HB City Planning Commission and HB City Council ignore the lack of substantial evidence to support its various approvals of this Project, and they intentionally ignore the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, as well as their own policies, General Plan and Municipal Code.

4.The EIR fails to fairly, fully and honestly disclose and analyze the potential impacts that will result from this Project.

5.HB City Planning Commission and HB City Council fail to adequately consider and adopt entirely feasible and environmentally superior alternatives to building this Project. There are a reasonable range of viable alternatives that must first be considered before approving this Project. 4 6.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.

7.The EIR fails to adequately analyze how 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.

8.The 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.

9.The intensity of this Project is significantly understated, including the estimated population/density of residents of the Project. The understated intensity causes an improper and inadequate analysis of traffic and parking impacts from the Project, including potential impacts to surrounding neighborhood due to overflow on-street parking onto already crowded streets.

10.An Adequate Traffic Impact Study, Transportation Safety Study, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) were not prepared for this Project which needs to be corrected. The number of estimated residents is significantly under counted. Every tenant has the right to bring a second resident into their unit which doubles the density.

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

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

13.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 its operational lifespan.

14.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 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.

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

16.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.

17.Specific 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 must be rejected.

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

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

20.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.

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

23.This new zoning should comply with the adjacent residential zoning which only allows 35-feet in height to match neighboring 3-story condominiums that are located further down the street from this site. 5 24.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.

25.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.

26.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.

27.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.

28.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.

29.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.

30.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 HDD projects.

31.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.

32.Project applicant has proposed a Specific Plan as a creative means to overcome non-compliance 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.

33.The City cannot approve a project that is not consistent with its General Plan. The Specific Plan approval is not in compliance with the General Plan; the Project does not meet the parking standards of the Municipal Code; the Project does not meet the density and intensity standards of the Municipal Code; the Project does not meet the height limits of the Municipal Code.

34.This Project fails to conform with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code/Municipal Code thereby ignoring and violating our City’s own laws enacted for the protection of the environment and the public.

[email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Legibly Print Email Address)
6 From: Dan Grommersch
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Strickland, Tony; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; Twining, Butch; Kennedy, Don; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity- hb.org; Estanislau, Robin
Subject: Objection to Huntington Beach City Council Second Reading Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 7:34:35 AM
Attachments: objection.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 ]

From: Robert Tummolo
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Strickland, Tony; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; Twining, Butch; Kennedy, Don; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity- hb.org; Estanislau, Robin
Subject: Objection Letter to Proposed High Density Development Project at 4952 and 4972 Warner Ave H.B. Ca. 92649 Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 8:24:25 AM
Attachments: Objection Ltr HBCC 2024-11-18.pdf
Dear City Council Members
Attached please find my objection letter to the proposed project mentioned above.

We implore you to RECONSIDER your approval ot this project for many reasons as stated in the attached letter.

However, the 2 most compelling reasons that this project should not move forward is that it far exceeds the allowable density for the site and is not compatible with the existing residential homes in the community, in addition, for the reasons I have stated in the attached objection letter numbered 1-34.

The people of community have sent a clear message to our City County in the recent election that we oppose HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT within our residential communities.

Therefore, as a taxpaying resident of the community for over 20 years I ask you to please impose the will of the majority of the residents in the community and reconsider to DENY the approval of this project as it is currently planned. Please put the wishes of the people first and not the money grabbing developers and operators of this proposed Albatross and preserve the Integrity and Quality of life for we the people of the community.

Sincerly
Robert Tummolo
17312 Tidalridge Ln
HB CA 92649

From: Markelle Pineda
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Strickland, Tony; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; Twining, Butch; Kennedy, Don; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity- hb.org; Estanislau, Robin; [email protected] Subject: Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 11:47:14 AM
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 (Specifically Tony Strickland whom I voted for and strongly support),
I strongly urge you to Vote No and Reject the Second Reading of 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 is a horrible idea! I'm a homeowner and have lived in this area for over 30 years. It makes zero sense to place a 4 story big box facility, representing itself as a hospital, but is really an overpriced apartment complex at this intersection! Have you driven down Edinger at Gothard lately? What a nightmare! We don't want or need this in our costal residential backyards.The only ones that wins if this is approved are the INVESTORS who live out of state and keep their fortunes hidden offshore.

Results of the recent city council election on 11/05/2024 gives our City Council a clear mandate that we residents of HB do not want and will not tolerate any more high-density development in any form in Huntington Beach. And this includes this aforementioned Bolsa Chica Senior Care residential project referenced above that we residents hold as yet another high-density development. Your prior vote to approve this HDD is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, hence the message your constituents sent to this Council in the recent election. Please remember that we are your neighbors and we elected you to represent our interests in HB, not your own
personal wishes and desires. So please be a good neighbor and honor and respect our mandate for no more HDD.

Please be a good neighbor. Honor our mandate and Vote No and Reject this Second Reading, Markelle Pineda
Po Box 1114 Sunset Beach CA 90742
[email protected]
From: Patricia Hegeman
To: Van Der Mark, Gracey; Burns, Pat; McKeon, Casey; Strickland, Tony; Kalmick, Dan; Moser, Natalie; Bolton, Rhonda; Twining, Butch; Kennedy, Don; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity- hb.org; Estanislau, Robin
Subject: Please vote no
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 12:33:35 PM
Attachments: Objection to City Council Second Reading for Neighbors to Sign_11-16-2024.pdf [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Sent from my iPhone
1 Objection to Huntington Beach City Council Second Reading November 16, 2024
Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, I strongly urge you to Vote No and Reject the Second Reading of 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.