REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Travis Hopkins, Acting City Manager
VIA: Jennifer Villasenor, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY: Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner
Subject:
title
Adopt Ordinance No. 4327 approving Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003 -- Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Project (Approved for Introduction on October 15, 2024 by a vote of 4-3 (Burns, Van Der Mark, McKeon-No)
body
Statement of Issue:
For City Council’s consideration is a request by Hines to establish the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Specific Plan to enable the redevelopment of an approximately 3.10 acre project site consisting of two parcels into a new four-story 215,000 square foot convalescent facility with on-site alcohol sales and consumption at a maximum overall height of 49.5 ft., consisting of 159 total units, a subterranean parking garage, and associated hardscape and landscape improvements on a property with a grade differential above three feet.
On September 24, 2024, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit (CUP) and recommended approval of a proposed Specific Plan and associated legislative amendments to the City Council, for the proposed project. The CUP for the project was subsequently appealed to the City Council (Attachment Nos. 11 & 12). The appeals of the CUP and the legislative amendments are presented within this staff report for action by the City Council.
On November 7, 2023, the original project was scheduled for action by the City Council. Prior to the opening of the public hearing, the applicant requested that the item be continued to the December 19, 2023, meeting to conduct additional community outreach. Following two public open house meetings with the surrounding neighborhood, a reduced version of the original project was presented to the City Council on December 19, 2023. Following discussion between the Council and the applicant, a continuance to a date uncertain was granted.
As a result of the discussions with the community, the applicant has voluntarily modified the original project to the revised project, as summarized by Table 1 below. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the original project was also revised to reflect the revised project and was recirculated for public review and comment prior to the September 10, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.
Table 1 - Original Project Compared to Revised Project (Proposed)
|
Standard |
Current Code |
Original Project |
Revised Project (Proposed) |
|
Maximum Height |
50 ft. |
65 ft. |
49.5 ft. |
|
Stories |
N/A |
5 |
4 |
|
# of Units |
N/A |
202 |
159 |
|
Unit Mix |
N/A |
102 Independent Living 72 Assisted Living 28 Memory Care |
0 Independent Living 134 Assisted Living 25 Memory Care |
|
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) |
1.5 |
2.42 |
1.68 |
|
Gross Square Feet |
N/A |
298,000 |
215,000 |
|
Parking |
207 - Original 118 - Revised |
193 Spaces* |
104 Spaces* |
*Per Parking Demand Study (82 subterranean; 26 at-grade)
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
recommendation
Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003 by adopting City Council Ordinance No. 4327, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property Generally Located on the Southwest Corner of Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street from CG (Commercial General) to SP-19 (Specific Plan No. 19) (Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-003)” (Attachment No. 1).
end
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applicant: Tom Lawless, Hines, 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 2100, Los Angeles CA 90071
Property Owners: Manny Khoshbin, 18071 Fitch, Suite 100, Irvine CA 92614; and
FKOA Warner, LLC, 17280 Hampton Lane, Huntington Beach CA 92649
The project includes the following requests:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-004 to amend the land use designation of the project site from Commercial General (CG) to Mixed Use (MU) with a Specific Plan Overlay;
Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 21-003 to amend the zoning designation of the project site from Commercial General (CG) to Specific Plan (SP-19);
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 22-005 to establish the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community Specific Plan (BCSLC) for the subject site;
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 21-024 to demolish 50,000 sq. ft. of existing commercial space and construct a new four-story 215,000 sq. ft. convalescent facility with on-site alcohol sales and consumption at a maximum overall height of 49.5 ft., consisting of 159 total units, a subterranean parking garage, and associated hardscape and landscape improvements on a 3.10-acre property with a grade differential above three feet; and,
Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 21-004 to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the revised project.
The proposed EIR, GPA, ZMA, and ZTA are prerequisites to allow the applicant to develop the proposed project. Construction of the project is subject to the approval of a CUP pursuant to the requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and was processed through the Planning Commission along with the other project requests. The staff report for the September 24, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing (Attachment No. 17) provides a more detailed description and analysis of the revised project.
At the September 24, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 21-024 with findings and conditions of approval. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP No. 21-024 was filed within the 10-day appeal period that ended on October 4, 2024. The appeals of CUP No. 21-024 are presented for Council consideration concurrently with the other applications that make up the project request.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On September 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project. After staff and applicant presentations, there were a total of 29 public speakers with a majority in opposition, citing concerns with the project’s potential traffic impacts, neighborhood incompatibility, and scale and massing. The Planning Commission continued the item to the next meeting to provide additional review time of public comments submitted before the hearing. On September 24, 2024, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing and a total of 15 public speakers participated, 6 in favor and 9 in opposition. Speakers shared support of the project providing new senior housing opportunities given the present state of the commercial property market. Many speakers were opposed to the proposed project, sharing similar concerns from the previous hearing regarding the proposed project’s height and location as it pertains to perceived impacts to traffic and neighborhood compatibility. After discussing the height of the project and the scope of the environmental analysis, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the EIR, GPA, ZMA, and ZTA to City Council and to approve the CUP.
On a motion made by Chair Twining and seconded by Commissioner Wood, the Planning Commission voted to approve CUP No. 21-024 and to recommend to the City Council approval of EIR No. 21-004, GPA No. 21-004, ZMA No. 21-003, and ZTA No. 22-005 by the following vote:
AYES: Adam, Wood, Rodriguez, Acosta-Galvan
NOES: Pellman, Kennedy, Twining
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
MOTION PASSED
C. APPEALS
Two appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval of the subject CUP were filed within the 10 day appeal period (Attachments No. 11 and 12). The first was filed by Mr. Brian Thienes on Friday, September 27, 2024 (Attachment No. 11) and a second filed by Mr. Brian Flynn of the Lozeau Drury LLP (Attachment No. 12). As such, the CUP is presented to the Council for consideration concurrently with the other requests (GPA, ZMA, ZTA and EIR). The letter outlines multiple comments, including comments on the suggested findings for the Conditional Use Permit, and voting authority of the Planning Commission. The appellant’s comments are outlined in italics and provided with staff responses below.
Mr. Brian Thienes
1. “As the Planning Commission is aware, findings in support of land use decisions must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. There is a complete absence of such required supporting evidence for this project.”
While Mr. Thienes is entitled to disagree with one or more of the suggested findings to support the project, his statement that there is an absence of supporting evidence for the project’s suggested findings is erroneous. Suggested findings are conclusory statements and are directly supported by the entirety of the administrative record of this project including, but not limited to the staff reports, project plans, draft Specific Plan, the Draft Revised EIR including its appendices, and the Final Revised EIR including the Response to Comments, which have been made publicly available on the City’s website. The comment portends to provide the appellant’s opinion as fact, which is in and of itself unsupported by evidence. The administrative record for this project is substantial and every processing requirement by law has been met.
2. “This project is certainly not compatible with adjacent uses; this project is almost double the density of any nearby development.”
The letter cites General Plan land use compatibility policies LU-1(D) and LU-2(B) and references a 2013 assisted living facility which was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. Policies LU-1(D) and LU-2(B) identified by the above comment are together an appropriate reference from the Land Use Element of the General Plan to support approval of the project in that the project is compatible in proportion, scale, and character to adjoining uses and that the projects design is complementary to the City’s beach culture and compatible with the surrounding development and public spaces. The revised project is an infill project on an underutilized commercial property in response to a community need for additional senior housing opportunities. The revised project has been intentionally designed to be consistent with the existing development standards of the existing Commercial General zoning designation, with exceptions to floor area ratio (FAR), and a revised parking requirement supported by a parking demand study. Further, the letter compares the revised project in terms of density (# of units per net lot size) to other residential only developments. It should be noted that density in terms of dwelling units per lot size is not applicable to a public/semi-public land use like a convalescent facility, and under the proposed Mixed Use General Plan Land Use designation, building FAR range and residential densities (if applicable) are established per Specific Plan, as in the proposed revised project. Finally, the letter cites a 2013 project that the Planning Commission ultimately continued to a date uncertain (has not been re-scheduled), which was the Autumn Care Convalescent facility. The suggested findings for denial of that project reference the same General Plan Land Use Element policies; however, the subject site is/was landlocked, and included a grade differential of more than 8 feet, rendering any future development extremely challenging. Nonetheless, the comparison between the referenced project and the subject revised project is not relevant due to contrasting circumstances between properties.
3. “The project would have substantial cumulative impacts, as long-standing zoning has been relied upon by the residents to protect the integrity of the community. Proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Map would cause long-term environmental impacts on the community. If this Project is built, a landslide of similar developments will forever change the character and density of the community, as evidenced by the recent development at Bella Terra and downtown Huntington Beach. The Project is not compatible with the long-established development standards in the area.”
The appellant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the claim that the subject revised project would either inspire or enable future development in the area. Further, the Revised EIR for the proposed revised project adequately discusses potential cumulative impacts and offers sufficient and accurate alternatives for consideration. Future development in the surrounding area of a development project bound by the standards as established by Specific Plan would not be cumulatively considerable as associated with the proposed revised project.
The remaining portions of the appeal letter contain comments and concerns regarding the project’s Revised EIR analysis. Staff’s recommendation to certify the Revised EIR as adequate and complete is based on the requirements of Section 15151 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, the appeal letter does not raise new information that was not previously addressed in the Draft and Final Revised EIR. All findings of the Revised EIR are supported by substantial evidence contained within the administrative record.
Finally, the appellant claims that the Planning Commission “did not have authority to approve or conditionally approve the conditional use permit, by doing so, the planning commission violated CEQA”. Staff has previously addressed the fact that the Planning Commission does have the authority to act on a Conditional Use Permit when processed concurrently with other applications that are subject to the review and approval of the City Council. By appealing the Planning Commission’s action on the subject revised project’s CUP, the appellant is generating a de novo hearing before the City Council, rendering this issue moot.
Mr. Brian Flynn
Within the second appeal letter, Mr. Flynn attaches, as Exhibit A, a letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated September 10, 2024 which asserts that “despite SAFER’s (Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility) timely submitted comment on the Draft REIR (Revised Environmental Impact Report), the Final REIR does not include SAFER’s comment or the City’s response.” Prior to the September 10, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing, a draft Final Revised EIR, including a Response to Comments which did not include SAFER’s subject comment letter, was posted to the City’s Environmental Reports website, under the proposed project’s headline. However, at that time, Mr. Flynn had brought it to staff’s attention and the matter was quickly rectified in that both A. the comment letter was attached to the staff report for Planning Commission review, and B. the City’s consultant LSA had reviewed the contents of the public comment letter and provided a formal response which was also circulated to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. Accordingly, SAFER’s comment letter, and LSA’s response as a formal comment of the Final REIR has been included in the FEIR’s Response to Comments that is posted online as a matter of record. The City Attorney’s Office agrees that no violation of CEQA occurred as a result of the accidental omission of SAFER’s REIR comment letter.
Secondly, Mr. Flynn asserts that “the Planning Commission cannot approve the CUP until a legally adequate Final REIR - that responds to SAFER’s timely submitted comment - has been prepared.”
In response, a legally adequate Final REIR that responds to SAFER’s comment letter has in fact been prepared and published prior to the City Council’s consideration of the proposed project in accordance with applicable processing procedure. As stated above, the Planning Commission does have the authority to act on a Conditional Use Permit when processed concurrently with other applications that are subject to the review and approval of the City Council. No actions or modifications are required, and the record for Final REIR and proposed project is complete and prepared for action by the City Council.
D. STAFF ANALYSIS
The staff report for the September 10, 2024 Planning Commission hearing (Attachment No. 15) provides a more detailed description and comprehensive analysis of the original project, including the GPA, ZMA, ZTA and EIR requests before the City Council, as well as the CUP that was approved by the Planning Commission.
As of the date of publication for the October 15, 2024 City Council meeting, City staff has reviewed the revised project plans and updated draft Specific Plan and evaluated the proposed revisions for consistency with the analysis contained within the Draft Final EIR, Planning Commission recommended findings, and legislative requests. The proposed revisions constitute an overall reduction of the original project, resulting in a proposed project that is 15.5 feet lower (1 story), contains 43 fewer units and 83,000 square feet less than the original, and does not include any independent senior living units. As such, the resulting proposed project as compared to the original project would result in fewer potential impacts and greater compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
In summary, after consideration of the project and all testimony during the public hearing, the City Council is requested to take action on the project. Actions to approve the project (GPA, ZMA, ZTA, CUP, and EIR) may be based on the following:
- EIR No. 21-004 is adequate and complete in that it has identified all potential environmental impacts associated with the project.
- All significant environmental impacts which can be feasibly mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by incorporation of Project Design Features, standard regulatory requirements, and mitigation measures.
- The EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.
- The GPA, ZMA, and ZTA are consistent with the General Plan and its goals and policies.
- The request will allow development of a new senior living community on the subject site to service senior residents in need of opportunities to age in place with professional care services.
- The project will enhance the local economy, create jobs, and provide additional living options for seniors.
Environmental Status:
The proposed revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or cause a substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental effect such that new mitigation is required. The City Council may certify the Revised EIR because it is adequate and complete in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the project. All significant environmental impacts which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project Design Features, standard code requirements, and mitigation measures. The Revised EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance No. 4327 for ZMA No. 21-003