Fountain Valley denies zoning amendment for high-density housing project

The Fountain Valley City Council on Tuesday upheld a Planning Commission decision to deny entitlements for a proposed high-density housing development in a commercial district.

The proposed Parkside FV project called for a 72-unit apartment complex, spanning three stories and 76,076 square feet with an 800-square-foot, one-story clubhouse building, to be built on a 2.1-acre site at 8550 Warner Ave. The site is home to an 18,782-square-foot commercial shopping center.

On March 25, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to have resolutions prepared supporting the denial of the entitlements, including a proposed precise plan and conditional use permit, both of which depended on amendments to the general plan and the zoning map.

Commissioners approved those resolutions on April 8, and the applicant appealed the project to the City Council on April 20.

Councilmembers on a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Ted Bui abstaining, sided with the recommendation of city staff to deny the amendments to the general plan and the zoning map.

Steven Ayers, the city’s principal planner, noted that findings determined the project would not be compatible in character and scale of the surrounding area.

“The proposed land use is incompatible with the surrounding development pattern, which consists of an established commercial corridor extending from Newland Street past the 405 Freeway to Bushard Street, as well as adjacent low-density for single-family residential neighborhoods,” Ayers said. “The requested general plan amendment and zoning map amendment would represent a significant departure from the city’s established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue, undermining its intended commercial function.”

Robert Franklin, who submitted an application on behalf of the property owner — FV Center, LP — said the existing one-story commercial center was no longer economically viable in the present commercial marketplace.

The site had largely housed service businesses, he said, but now had a vacancy rate of 80%.

“For years, the center was commercially viable with a healthy mix of retail, service, office and restaurant uses,” Franklin said. “In the early 2000s, things began to change. Competition from surrounding big-box retailers, the emergence of internet sales, and shifting buying patterns have made it very difficult for small retail businesses to survive. Over the past 20 years, the tenant mix has shifted away from retail sales to services uses, such as chiropractors, dentists, martial arts, and such. Currently, the center is 80% vacant with no significant retail uses.”

Community Development Director Omar Dadabhoy, when asked by the council, said the city has a modest 1.2% vacancy rate in its retail spaces.

“We’re at 1.2% vacancy rate, so for [the owner] to be at 80%, that’s not a Fountain Valley problem, that’s an owner problem,” Councilmember Glenn Grandis said. “He doesn’t upkeep, he has been, my understanding, terminating leases and telling tenants they’re not going to renew.”

Multiple council members argued the commercial center needed to be given a chance to succeed, advocating that refurbishment could aid in that cause.

“The general plan, as we sort of designed it, considers the long term of the city,” Vice Mayor Patrick Harper said. “To start rezoning on a project-by-project basis, it goes, sort of, against the long-term vision of the general plan, and so I think, although it might be appropriate in certain circumstances, I think we need to be very careful with if we decide to do that, because it … can set a precedent, and the people who are surrounding the property, who invested thinking it’s a certain zoning, now all of a sudden have a different zoning.”

Fountain Valley’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment dictates the city plan for 4,839 units within the current cycle, running from 2021 to 2029. The city adopted a housing element with 11 opportunity sites that could accommodate new residential development.

The applicant questioned why their site was never identified as a possibility for building additional housing. Franklin said the owner was never notified of the process.

Grandis found that hard to believe, adding that the city adopted what he called “a very unpopular housing element” to satisfy the state mandate.

“I’m not against housing, and I’m not against affordable housing,” Grandis said. “But what I’m against is that we made a commitment and a promise and worked for five years to put together that housing element, and for you to come in after the fact and say, ‘Whoa, wait, wait. I didn’t know, I didn’t know,’ well, you know what, we’re going to have another housing element coming up in just a few years. The state may tell us to add more.”

Mayor Jim Cunneen, looking back on his time on the general plan advisory committee, also said it did not “sit well” with him that the applicant was claiming they did not know about the efforts undertaken by the community to consider the future of the city.

“We made every effort to invite every landowner, because I was there, and we hopped on a bus, and we went around, and we looked at all the properties,” Cunneen said. “We said, ‘Hey, raise your hand if you want us to take a look at your property.’ … That was probably the biggest effort to update our general plan, that I remember, living here 33 years.”

“I’m still not happy with the community outreach,” Cunneen added. “I think other developments have been successful, or have had better chances of success, because they took the community outreach as serious as they did the design, as serious as they did for all of the studies, if not more.”

Councilman Ted Bui asked the applicant team how much had been spent in pursuit of the project. Franklin estimated that amount to be close to $500,000 between preparation of a mitigated negative declaration, plus attorney and consultant fees and those required to do business with the city.

Bui said he wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to work with the city and the residents in explanation for his abstention.

“For me, it is very discouraging to hear that the applicant has spent over $500,000 for this project,” Bui said. “I don’t want to send a message that we’re not a business-friendly city, but at the same time, we need to address our residents’ concerns,” adding that the applicant could have done a better job of reaching out to the residents, learning their concerns and then trying to mitigate those concerns.