Public Meetings - Huntington Beach, California

The Huntington Beach City Council met on October 17, 2023, starting with a closed session at 2:30 PM, a study session at 4:00 PM, and a regular business meeting at 6:00 PM. The packed agenda included a study session on library book selection and circulation, a resolution to establish a community review board for library materials with sexual content (Item 20), three charter amendment ballot measures for the March 2024 election (Item 19), and a resolution supporting Israel and condemning Hamas attacks (Item 21). Over 128 public speakers addressed the council, with hundreds of email communications received. Key votes split 4-3 along majority lines on the library and charter items, while the Israel resolution passed unanimously. Consent Calendar - Items 14-18 were approved as a block with a vote of 7-0, except Item 16 (response to Orange County Grand Jury on Animal Welfare) was pulled by Councilmember Bolton, amended to clarify mayoral signing authority, and then approved 7-0. Public Comments & Testimony - Study Session (Item 23-8789): 18 speakers addressed the library book selection, display, and circulation. Most opposed the proposed resolution, citing trust in librarians, existing review processes, and concerns about censorship. A few speakers supported increased parental controls. - Regular Meeting (Items 19-21): 128 speakers signed up. On Item 20 (library policy), speakers were sharply divided: supporters argued it was about protecting children from sexually explicit material and giving parents more control, while opponents called it a book ban that would lead to censorship and harm LGBTQ+ youth. On Item 19 (charter amendments), many speakers opposed the March 2024 special election, citing costs and potential illegality of voter ID requirements. On Item 21 (Israel resolution), speakers expressed support for Israel and condemnation of Hamas, but several urged inclusion of Palestinian civilian suffering and denounced anti-Palestinian rhetoric. Discussion Items - Item 19 – Charter Amendment Ballot Measures: The council considered three charter amendments for the March 5, 2024 primary election: voter identification (ID), flag display restrictions, and a government efficiency measure. A substitute motion to table the items failed 4-3 (Kalmick, Moser, Bolton in favor; Strickland, Van Der Mark, McKeon, Burns opposed). The original motion passed 4-3, with amendments to change "voter ID" to "voter identification" and to correct a date from 2022 to 2024. Councilmembers were assigned to write arguments: Burns for the flag and budget measures, Strickland and Van Der Mark for voter ID; Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton for opposition. The total cost was budgeted at $459,628 from General Funds. - Item 20 – Library Materials Policy (Resolution 2023-41): Introduced by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, the resolution would establish a 21-member community parent/guardian review board to approve or reject new children's books with sexual content, and require parental consent for minors to access such materials. After extensive debate, Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton raised First Amendment concerns, citing court cases like PICO and Sun v. City of Wichita Falls, and questioned the feasibility and legal risks. City Attorney Gates argued children have different First Amendment protections and that the policy is legal. The motion passed 4-3 (Strickland, Van Der Mark, McKeon, Burns in favor; Kalmick, Moser, Bolton opposed). Staff will implement the policy, but details on board qualifications, appeals, and operational logistics remain undefined. - Item 21 – Resolution in Support of Israel (Resolution 2023-50): Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark and Mayor Strickland co-authored a resolution supporting Israel and condemning Hamas attacks. Councilmember Kalmick requested an amendment to include sympathy for Palestinian civilians and denounce anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The amendment was not accepted by the movers, but the resolution passed 7-0 as introduced. Councilmembers were allowed to sign on if they wished. Key Outcomes - Item 19 – Charter Amendments: Approved 4-3. The March 5, 2024 special election will include three measures: voter identification (effective 2026), flag display restrictions (only specified flags unless unanimous council vote), and government efficiency (two-year budget, vacancy procedures, etc.). Arguments in favor and opposition assigned to councilmembers. - Item 20 – Library Policy: Approved 4-3. Staff directed to implement Resolution 2023-41, establishing a community review board for children's library materials with sexual content. No appeal process defined; meetings will not be Brown Act compliant but may be public. - Item 21 – Israel Resolution: Approved 7-0. City formally supports Israel, condemns Hamas attacks, expresses sympathy for Israelis, and calls for an end to the war. No mention of Palestinian civilians. - Next Meeting: The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 7, 2023.

Meeting Overview On Tuesday, October 10, 2023, at 5:00 PM, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission held a study session in Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street. The sole agenda item was a presentation on the Mapping Consistency Project (Zoning Map Amendment No. 21-002 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 23-001), which proposes to rezone 141 parcels citywide to align their zoning designations with the General Plan. The study session allowed for public comment and commissioner discussion; no votes were taken. Commissioners directed staff to conduct additional outreach and return with a more detailed presentation before bringing the item to a public hearing. Public Comments & Testimony - Vanessa Martinez (resident of the 600 block of Main Street): Expressed concern that only three of 141 parcels were shown as examples and that neighbors on her block did not receive proper notice. She requested the item be tabled for more community input and transparency, stating her block wants the same zoning as the rest of Main Street and does not want to "sacrifice our homes so developers can split our lots and build three-story monstrosities." - Ann Palmer (resident): Agreed with Ms. Martinez and urged the Commission to preserve the character of Huntington Beach as a beach town. She warned that rezoning could lead to loss of local culture and small businesses, and supported more discussion and neighborhood involvement. - Patricia Pappas (resident of 43+ years): Questioned the city's long-term vision and expressed disappointment with recent high-rise developments. She supported tabling the project for more input, noting that the city is "losing the whole face of Huntington Beach." Study Session Item: Mapping Consistency Project - Staff Presentation – Madeline Willich, Associate Planner, presented the project. The 141 parcels currently have non-conforming zoning that does not match the General Plan (last updated in 2017). California Government Code Section 65860 requires zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. The amendment would correct these inconsistencies; 25 parcels are in the coastal zone, requiring a Local Coastal Program amendment. Three examples were provided: 1. Six residential properties on Main Street currently zoned General Commercial (CG) but intended for Single-Family Residential (RMHA). 2. Bartlett Park, zoned General Commercial, but intended as Open Space for Parks and Recreation (OSPR). 3. A commercial property at Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue and a fire station, both zoned General Commercial but intended for Commercial Visitor (CV) and Public Semi-Public (PS), respectively. - Commissioner Kennedy expressed strong opposition to voting on all 141 parcels as a single bundle, stating it was unacceptable to be "handcuffed" to a holistic decision. He raised concerns about property owners who may have purchased under the current zoning expecting future development rights, and noted that non-conforming parcels restrict improvements (e.g., over 10% expansion is prohibited). He requested that properties with potential adverse impacts be identified and that notices be hand-delivered. - Commissioner Twining echoed the need for more detailed visual examples for each parcel, saying, "I came here today saying I'd like 138 more of those [examples] to equal 141." - Commissioner Rodriguez asked whether property owners could opt out of the rezoning. Staff confirmed that owners can request to remain non-conforming but must acknowledge the limitations. He also inquired about legal risks; Deputy City Attorney Connor Hyland stated the main risk is a property owner suing to force conformance. Commissioner Rodriguez supported additional outreach. - Chair Pellman agreed with other commissioners that the current information was insufficient and noted the need for more time. She questioned how residential development occurred on commercially zoned land and learned that the homes predated the zoning changes. She asked if Measure C (related to park development) applied; staff clarified it does not apply to zoning changes alone. - Commissioner Adam, Acosta-Galvan, and Wood were absent. - Staff remarks – Deputy Director Jennifer Villasenor clarified that no development proposals are pending for any of the 141 parcels, and the zoning cleanup simply reflects existing uses and the General Plan. She noted that maintaining non-conforming status could limit property owners' ability to improve their homes. Staff expressed willingness to conduct more outreach and provide a more detailed package. Key Outcomes - No vote taken. The study session was for discussion only. - Consensus among attending commissioners (Pellman, Kennedy, Twining, Rodriguez) to not bring the item to a public hearing on October 24, 2023, as originally scheduled. - Direction to staff: 1. Conduct additional outreach to affected property owners, especially those where zoning changes could have adverse impacts. 2. Provide a more detailed presentation with maps, photos, and overlays for each of the 141 parcels, or at least for those most likely to cause concern. 3. Improve notification procedures (e.g., door-to-door delivery for high-value targets) to ensure all neighboring property owners receive notice. 4. Explore options for neighborhood conservation or historic overlay designations if property owners desire additional protections. 5. Return to the Commission at a future study session once the additional materials and outreach are complete. - Chair Pellman noted that a regular Planning Commission meeting is still scheduled for October 24, 2023, but the item will not be on that agenda unless staff is prepared to bring it back with the requested information.

The Huntington Beach City Council held a special meeting on October 5, 2023 to discuss and vote on proposed Charter amendments for the March 5, 2024 Statewide Primary Election. After extensive public comments, the council voted 4-3 along majority/minority lines to place a voter ID measure and a flag ordinance on the ballot as standalone items, and to bundle a set of administrative amendments (Measure L) with a biennial budget change as a third measure. A nepotism/cronyism amendment failed, and Measure C (parkland protection) was tabled for further community input. The meeting was marked by strong public opposition—approximately 95% of comments opposed the charter amendments. Public Comments & Testimony - Over 33 speakers addressed the council, with the vast majority opposing the proposed charter amendments. Key concerns included: - Voter ID: Many speakers argued there is no evidence of voter fraud in Orange County, that the measure would suppress turnout among low-income, elderly, and minority voters, and that it conflicts with state law (citing letters from the ACLU, Disability Rights California, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State). Several speakers noted the high cost (estimated $500,000–$5 million) and the city’s budget deficit. - Flag amendment: Speakers called it a thinly veiled ban on the LGBTQ+ pride flag, requiring an unprecedented unanimous council vote, and argued it would enshrine exclusion into the charter. - Process: Multiple residents criticized the rushed timeline, lack of a citizen charter review committee, and the council majority’s failure to listen to public input. Former mayor Shirley Detloff and others urged the council to follow proper procedures. - Nepotism amendment: A few speakers supported it, but others felt it was already covered by existing rules. - Measure C: Speakers urged caution and more community deliberation before altering the voter-approved parkland protection measure. - Supporters (approximately 5% of comments) argued voter ID increases election integrity, flags should be limited to official city/national/military flags, and that the amendments would strengthen local control. Discussion Items 1. Voter ID Amendment (Charter Section 705) - Councilmember Kalmick made a substitute motion to table all amendments until 2024 and seek community input on Measure C first. This motion failed 3-4 (Kalmick, Mosier, Bolton ayes; Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns noes). - The council then debated the voter ID measure. Councilmember Mosier presented research showing 29 million U.S. citizens lack a driver’s license, with disproportionate impacts on young, low-income, and minority voters. She argued the measure would lead to voter suppression and costly litigation. - Mayor Pro Tem Van der Mark countered that requiring ID is not racist, pointing to her own low-income Hispanic background. She played a video of people of color stating they have no problem with voter ID. - Councilmember McKeon noted that the language had been changed from "shall" to "may" to allow flexibility and reduce cost. - Councilmember Kalmick questioned the legality based on the ACLU letter, and raised technical issues with the “ADA compliant” language. - Vote on the voter ID amendment: Passed 4-3 (Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns ayes; Kalmick, Mosier, Bolton noes). 2. Flag Amendment - Councilmember Bolton opposed enshrining a flag policy in the charter, arguing it is an exclusionary measure and that the current ordinance can be amended by a simple council vote. - Councilmember McKeon defended the process, stating the public has had maximum engagement, and the amendment limits flags flown by the city itself, not private entities. - Vote on the flag amendment: Passed 4-3 (Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns ayes; Kalmick, Mosier, Bolton noes). 3. Nepotism/Cronyism Amendment (Councilmember Bolton’s Item) - Councilmember Bolton explained the intent to prohibit cronyism for all elected officials, not just council members. She noted Oakland has a similar ban. - Councilmember Kalmick felt the existing administrative regulations already cover this. - Vote: Failed 2-3-2 (Kalmick, Mosier ayes; Vandermark, McKeon, Burns noes; Strickland abstained, Bolton abstained). 4. Measure L (Administrative Amendments) and Biennial Budget - Councilmember Kalmick moved to bundle revisions to charter sections 303, 304, 311, 312, 400, 601, 604, 801, 804 (cancellation of meetings, council vacancies, etc.) with the biennial budget change into one measure. The motion also included an amendment to require four affirmative votes for council vacancies. - Councilmember Bolton abstained, noting concerns with the rushed process. - Vote on bundling (Measure L + budget): Passed 6-1 (Kalmick, Mosier, Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns ayes; Bolton noe). 5. Measure C (Parkland Protection) - Councilmember McKeon proposed tabling Measure C for further study, with community input through study sessions and meetings with the original framers. He favored a multi-pronged approach involving the Community Services Commission. - The council agreed to table Measure C without objection, directing staff to develop a plan for public engagement. Key Outcomes - Voter ID amendment (standalone): Approved 4-3 to place on the March 5, 2024 ballot. - Flag amendment (standalone): Approved 4-3 to place on the March 5, 2024 ballot. - Measure L (administrative amendments) bundled with biennial budget: Approved 6-1 to place on the March 5, 2024 ballot as a single measure. - Nepotism/cronyism amendment: Failed 2-3-2. - Measure C: Tabled indefinitely for further community input and study session(s). - Direction to staff: The council voted 4-3 to direct the City Attorney and staff to prepare ballot measure language and all materials for the October 17, 2023 meeting, where formal instructions for the special election will be finalized. - Fiscal note: The cost of placing items on the March primary ballot was estimated at $400,000; future election administration costs were not fully determined but could reach millions.

The Huntington Beach City Council met on Tuesday, October 3, 2023, at 5:00 PM for a Closed Session and reconvened at 6:00 PM for the Regular Business Meeting. The agenda included labor negotiations, amicus support, public comments on a range of topics, consent calendar items, a public hearing for the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID), adoption of a strategic plan, and a resolution declaring Huntington Beach a "No Mask and No Vaccine Mandate City." Key votes were split along ideological lines, with several items passing by narrow margins. Consent Calendar - Items 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 were approved as amended by the City Clerk (minutes, BCC updates, public works contracts, etc.). - Item 7 (Dissolution of Boards/Commissions): Adopted Ordinances 4296–4301 to dissolve the Jet Noise Commission, Mobile Home Advisory Board, Environmental and Sustainability Board, Youth Board, and to modify the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Board/Public Works Commission, Fourth of July Executive Board, and Specific Events regulations. The motion passed 4-3 (Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns in favor; Mosier, Bolton, and Kalmick [partial dissent] opposed). - Item 8 (Cannabis Retail Access Grant): Failed 3-4 (Kalmick, Mosier, Bolton in favor; Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns opposed). The $325,000 state grant for a cannabis retail access program was not accepted. - Item 12 (Emergency Bike Regulations): Adopted unanimously 7-0 as an emergency ordinance effective immediately. Public Comments & Testimony Over 30 speakers addressed the council. Key positions included: - Economic impact of air show: A speaker challenged the accuracy of a brochure claiming $3.7 million in city revenue, arguing the actual figure is closer to $1 million. - Dissolution of citizen commissions: Several speakers opposed the removal of boards, citing loss of community input and increased hate crimes (e.g., Orange County hate crimes up 75% over five years). - Charter amendments (voter ID, etc.): Many speakers urged rejection, calling the proposals unnecessary, costly, and potentially illegal. Some argued for separate ballot measures rather than bundled items. - No Mask/No Vaccine Mandate resolution: Supporters defended individual liberties; opponents called it "virtue signaling" and pointed out that the city has no current mandates and that the resolution contains exemptions for hospitals, schools, and Cal/OSHA. - E-bike safety: A resident complained about dangerous behavior on Utica Avenue, asking for removal of the bicycle boulevard. - Affordable housing: One speaker criticized the strategic plan for lacking a certified housing element, warning that state intervention could result in larger developments. Discussion Items - Item 7 (Dissolution of Boards/Commissions): Council debated the name change of the Fourth of July parade to Independence Day parade and the structure of the new youth committee. Staff clarified that the youth group would not be Brown Act-bound. - Item 8 (Cannabis Grant): Councilmember Kalmick argued the city should first ask voters whether to allow cannabis sales before accepting planning funds. The item failed. - Item 12 (Bike Regulations): Staff noted that 53% of bicycle collisions now involve e-bikes, with children under 18 the most injured group. The emergency ordinance was passed to give police immediate enforcement tools. - Item 13 (Downtown BID): Staff reported that 21 protests were received (9.1% of total assessment value), well below the 50% threshold. The council approved the annual assessment for FY 2023-2024 by a vote of 5-1 (McKeon opposed, Kalmick absent). - Item 14 (Strategic Plan 2023-2027): Consultant Carol Jacobs presented the plan, which includes 8 goals and 23 strategies. Councilmember Mosier noted the omission of a housing element and urged adding it as a "small rock" strategy. The resolution was adopted unanimously. - Item 15 (No Mask/No Vaccine Mandate): Mayor Pro Tem Vandermark sponsored the resolution, stating it was a preemptive measure against future mandates. Councilmembers Bolton and Mosier criticized it as inconsistent and politically motivated. The resolution passed 4-3 (Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns in favor; Mosier, Bolton, and Kalmick opposed). Key Outcomes - Closed Session: The council voted 7-0 to support amicus brief in Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa. - Consent Calendar: Items 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 approved; Item 7 (board dissolutions) adopted 4-3; Item 8 (cannabis grant) failed 3-4; Item 12 (bike regulations) adopted 7-0. - Public Hearing (Item 13): Downtown BID annual assessment approved, 5-1. - Strategic Plan (Item 14): Resolution 2023-46 adopted unanimously. - No Mask/No Vaccine Mandate (Item 15): Resolution 2023-48 adopted, 4-3. Next Meetings: Special meeting October 5, 2023, at 6:00 PM; regular meeting October 17, 2023.

The Huntington Beach City Council held a special meeting on September 28, 2023, at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers to discuss and conduct straw votes on potential charter amendments for the March 5, 2024 Statewide Primary Election ballot. The meeting featured extensive public testimony (37 speakers in the first round) and prolonged council deliberation on over a dozen proposed amendments, including voter ID, city attorney authority, city clerk qualifications, flag display, and nepotism. The council received a letter from California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber warning that the voter ID and ballot drop box monitoring proposals likely violate state law. City Attorney Michael Gates argued the letter was "specious" and cited case law (City of Redondo Beach v. State) supporting charter city authority over municipal elections. Several amendments advanced on straw votes, while others were defeated or deferred to the next meeting on October 5, 2023. Public Comments & Testimony - First Round (37 speakers): Speakers were split, with many opposing the proposed voter ID and election changes, citing costs, lack of evidence of fraud, and concerns about disenfranchisement. Supporters argued voter ID restores integrity and that the silent majority backs the council's efforts. Specific topics included flag display, library policies, and the city attorney's role. One speaker accused council members of ignoring public input, while another thanked the majority for their transparency. - Second Round (after administrative items): Additional speakers criticized the rush to place amendments on a primary ballot, urged unbundling measures, and called for a written legal opinion from the city attorney. A speaker highlighted Redondo Beach's costs for running its own local elections (estimated $5 million startup, plus translation and recount expenses). One resident quoted a 2022 email from the Orange County GOP chair stating Orange County elections are "simple, safe, and secure." Discussion Items Voter ID and Election Administration (Section 705) - Council debated amending the charter to require voter ID and 20 polling locations (initially including residential sites). Councilmember McKeon proposed changing "shall" to "may" to allow flexibility for a pilot program starting in 2026. Mayor Strickland agreed to specify 2026 and to require all 20 polling locations be ADA-compliant (removing "residential"). City Attorney Gates defended the legality under charter city authority, citing the Redondo Beach case. Councilmembers Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton opposed, citing costs, lack of evidence of fraud, and potential litigation. Straw vote passed 4-3 (Strickland, Van Der Mark, McKeon, Burns yes; Kalmick, Moser, Bolton no). City Attorney Authority and Budget (Sections 309, 315) - The ad hoc committee proposed giving the elected city attorney control over the legal department's budget and work product, with a 3% annual budget reduction guardrail and extending similar protections to the city clerk and treasurer. Supporters argued it prevents future councils from defunding elected offices (citing past budget cuts to the treasurer's office). Opponents (Kalmick, Moser, McKeon, Bolton) said it ties the council's hands during budget crises and conflates elected officials with other employees. City Attorney Gates noted the combined budgets of the three offices are less than $6 million of a $350 million total budget. Straw vote failed 3-4 (Van Der Mark, Strickland, Burns yes; Kalmick, Moser, McKeon, Bolton no). City Clerk Qualifications (Section 302) - Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark proposed striking "in business, public administration or a related field" from the required bachelor's degree, arguing the current clerk lacks such a specific degree but performs well. Councilmember McKeon said the item had become "tainted" by controversy. Straw vote failed 3-4 (Van Der Mark, Strickland, Burns yes; Kalmick, Moser, McKeon, Bolton no). Flag Display on City Properties (Section 806) - Councilmember Burns proposed enshrining in the charter that city properties may fly only the official government flags (U.S., California, City, and POW/MIA). He said it prevents "identity politics" and makes the policy more permanent. Opponents argued it bans displays like Pride flags at libraries and is unnecessary since an ordinance already exists. Straw vote passed 4-3 (Kalmick, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns yes; Moser, Bolton no). Biennial Budget (Sections 401, 601-605) - A proposal to move from annual to two-year budgeting, supported by the CFO, was introduced to improve planning. Straw vote passed unanimously 7-0 to continue discussion. Measure C (Coastal Protection) - Council deferred action to October 5, with Councilmember McKeon requesting more time to develop clean language. Councilmember Bolton suggested a public charter review committee rather than rushing amendments. Unanimous 7-0 to continue. Council Meeting Cancellations (Section 303) - A clean-up measure allowing the mayor or majority of council to cancel a meeting for lack of quorum was advanced, with Councilmember Kalmick seeking additional language to prevent abuse. Straw vote passed 7-0 to bring back refined language on October 5. Library Non-Interference - Councilmember Bolton proposed adding language prohibiting the council from ordering librarians to make books unavailable. After debate over whether staff policy updates were premature, straw vote failed 3-4 (Kalmick, Moser, Bolton yes; Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon, Burns no). Nepotism (Section 313) - Councilmember Bolton proposed closing a loophole to prevent appointment of a council member's spouse to an elected department head position (not applicable to elective vacancies). Councilmember Burns objected, saying it could disqualify qualified candidates like the city attorney's wife (Kelly Gates). City Attorney Gates clarified his wife was asked to run for city clerk but no appointment was discussed. Continue to October 5 passed 4-2-1 (Kalmick, Moser, Strickland, Bolton yes; Van Der Mark, Burns no; Strickland abstained). Council Staff and Salaries (Sections 302, 307) - Councilmember Kalmick proposed allowing the council to budget for personal staff and to raise council salaries to attract a more diverse pool of candidates. Opponents said it promotes self-service and is philosophically opposed. Both items failed on straw votes: council staff (3-4), council salaries (3-4). Appointed vs. Elected Charter Officers - Councilmember Kalmick proposed asking voters whether the city attorney, clerk, and treasurer should be appointed rather than elected. Opponents said voters want elected officials. Straw vote failed 3-4. City Attorney Political Participation - Councilmember Kalmick proposed prohibiting the elected city attorney from endorsing other city candidates, citing conflicts of interest. City Attorney Gates argued it violates First Amendment free speech. Straw vote failed 3-4. Council Vacancies (Section 312) - A proposal to require that council appointees serve only until the next regularly scheduled election (saving costs of a special election) was introduced. Straw vote passed unanimously 7-0. Key Outcomes - Voter ID/Elections proposal advanced (4-3), with amendments to use "may," specify ADA locations, and begin in 2026. - Flag display amendment advanced (4-3). - Biennial budget and council vacancies advanced unanimously. - City attorney budget, clerk qualifications, library non-interference, council staff, council salaries, appointed officers, and city attorney endorsements all failed or were deferred. - Nepotism and meeting cancellations continued to October 5, 2023, for language refinement. - Measure C continued to October 5, with Councilmember Bolton advocating for a public charter review committee. - A request to seek an Attorney General opinion on the legality of placing employee-related charter amendments on a primary ballot failed 3-4. - The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 PM. The next regular council meeting is scheduled for October 3, 2023.

The Planning Commission held a regular meeting on September 26, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The primary agenda item was a public hearing on the Bolsa Chica Senior Living Community project, which included multiple entitlement requests: Environmental Impact Report No. 21-004, General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning Map Amendment No. 22-003, Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005, and Conditional Use Permit No. 21-024. The project proposes demolishing 55,000 square feet of existing commercial space and constructing a five-story, 298,000 square foot convalescent facility with 202 units (28 memory care, 72 assisted living, 102 independent living), a subterranean parking garage, and on-site alcohol sales, at a maximum height of 65 feet. The site is located at 4952 & 4972 Warner Avenue, southwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. The Commission also considered approval of planning commission minutes from July 25, 2023, and August 22, 2023. Consent Calendar - July 25, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes: Approved 6-0-1 (Chair Pellman abstained). - August 22, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes: Approved unanimously (7-0). Public Comments & Testimony - Applicant/Proponent Testimony: Thomas Lawless (Heinz) and Christopher Hilbert (Clearwater Senior Living) presented the project. They emphasized Huntington Beach’s severe need for senior housing, noting that 1 in 4 residents are over 60, the over-65 population is projected to reach 70,000 by 2025, and current senior living supply is approximately 600-650 units. They argued the project would reduce traffic (net reduction of 410 daily trips vs. existing commercial use), free up existing single-family homes, and provide a continuum of care allowing seniors to age in place. They stated that 80% of independent living residents move from larger homes, and that only about 30% of independent living residents bring a car. - Public Speakers in Support (7 letters, multiple speakers): - Paul Geary: Long-time resident, supported the project based on personal family experience. - John Via: Executive director of Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy, HB Council on Aging, and Chamber of Commerce member; resident of a senior living facility; emphasized the need for facilities that allow seniors to remain in HB and avoid difficult transitions. - Brian Genovese: Realtor and resident; highlighted the need for inventory and the social benefits of senior communities. - Phil Smith: Long-time resident; supported the tiered care model. - Taylor Friend: Commercial real estate agent; noted the decline of office properties post-COVID and the high vacancy rate (29% in HB vs. 14% countywide); argued the project is better than potential by-right alternatives (e.g., medical office, retail) that would generate many more trips. - Additional speakers in support (Rebecca Logan Walter on behalf of Melissa Key, and others) expressed support but raised concerns about height and traffic. - Public Speakers in Opposition (11 letters, multiple speakers): - Lisa (last name not given, resident of immediate vicinity): Opposed, citing traffic congestion (only one road in/out), inadequate EIR metrics, safety at the busy intersection, fears of increased ambulance/fire truck traffic, and the building's height (65 feet) being incompatible with the one- and two-story neighborhood. - Rebecca Logan Walter (homeowner on Bolsa Chica): Opposed the height (especially 10-foot setback), loss of sunlight, safety concerns, and emergency evacuation access. - Amy Santos: Opposed; noted notification was not mailed to some single-family homes; raised concerns about daily vendor deliveries, medical supplies, and 24/7 operations impacting the residential area. - Randall Muhera (Brightwater resident): Opposed; called the building “ginormous” and argued it would ruin the landscape; noted that most opponents live in the area while supporters may not; also stated that notices were sent only to the applicant's site, not independently. - Louis Barbari (resident near site): Opposed; cited loss of ocean breeze, shading, noise, light pollution, and that the building is six times larger than existing. - Paul Glunt (resident of HB): Emotionally opposed; argued the project would chip away at what makes Huntington Beach special. - Christine Wendell (Brightwater resident): Opposed “urban sprawl” and the height; said the intersection is already too busy. - Alison Meyer (resident half a block away): Opposed; said the area cannot support more traffic and the building is out of character. - Barb Chang Holt (Brightwater resident): Opposed; presented winter solstice shading study showing deep shade on four lanes of traffic by 2 PM, and concerns about light pollution affecting wildlife. - Tom Dillman (resident): Opposed; suggested the project belongs in Long Beach or LA; asked to reduce the building to three stories, citing voter-approved limits on tall buildings. - Other speakers echoed concerns about traffic, height, parking, and the need for better hospitals. Discussion Items - Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Hayden Beckman presented the project details, including the five applications, existing site conditions, proposed development standards (height 65 ft, FAR 2.42, parking 189 spaces), and the EIR process. He noted that the initial study found no significant unavoidable impacts, and that the project would result in a net reduction of 410 daily trips compared to existing commercial uses. Staff recommended approval of the CUP and recommendation to City Council for the other entitlements. - Commissioner Questions and Comments: - Commissioner Rodriguez asked about affordable housing contribution (staff clarified independent living units could be counted retroactively for housing element purposes) and the unit count (202 approved, but specific plan allows up to 215). He also raised pedestrian safety upgrades at the intersection. - Commissioner Adam clarified the alternatives analysis and asked about the maximum buildout under existing zoning (200,000 sq ft, 50 ft height, potential 7,500 daily trips). - Commissioner Twining asked about floor area ratio and noted the project's FAR is 2.42 vs. 1.5 in CG zone. - Commissioner Wood noted a typo in excavation quantities (25,000 vs 55,000 cubic yards); staff clarified 55,000 refers to existing square footage. - Commissioner Kennedy expressed strong opposition, citing the 2017 General Plan (only six years old), concerns about the applicant writing the specific plan (with passive city edits), the project's high cost (estimated rents north of $5,000/month, potentially $8,000-$10,000), and that the building is too large and out of scale. He suggested a compromise of a three-story building but stated he could not support the project. - Commissioner Acosta-Galvan questioned whether a similarly sized by-right commercial project would come before the commission (staff said it likely would due to grading). She noted that the project would reduce trips compared to existing zoning and that the EIR properly compared current vs. proposed traffic. - Commissioner Twining expressed being on the fence but ultimately leaned toward support, noting Huntington Beach is 95% built out, only 29 square miles, and that a senior facility is socially responsible. He argued that a by-right multifamily or commercial project could be worse. - Commissioner Adam shared that he independently evaluated hydrology (found project would reduce runoff to streets) and water/sewer (identical demand to existing zoning). He conducted a personal neighborhood survey and found about half supportive, half opposed. He noted his parents left HB partly due to lack of suitable senior housing and declared his support. - Commissioner Rodriguez supported the project, citing the need to repurpose declining commercial property, bring jobs, and provide senior housing. He noted that similar opposition occurred with Brightwater but it ultimately benefited the community. - Commissioner Wood supported the project, citing the city’s housing element policy 5.2 supportive of senior housing, the EIR’s limited impacts, the architectural design that mitigates massing, and the trend of older office buildings being redeveloped. - Chair Pellman supported the project, acknowledging that change is hard but the project meets a critical need. She recalled her own experience with a mother-in-law’s housing and noted that Brightwater, once opposed, is now accepted. - Applicant Clarifications: In response to Chair Pellman, the applicant clarified that independent living serves residents averaging 82 years old, and that the project includes only two three-bedroom units. He stated that the facility provides services (dining, transportation, care) unlike age-restricted housing such as Landmark. Key Outcomes - Motion 1 – Certify EIR: Motion to recommend City Council certification of EIR No. 21-004 as adequate and complete. Passed 6-1 (Commissioner Kennedy dissenting). - Motion 2 – Recommend General Plan/Zoning Amendments: Motion to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning Map Amendment No. 22-003, and Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-005. Passed 6-1 (Commissioner Kennedy dissenting). - Motion 3 – Approve Conditional Use Permit: Motion to approve CUP No. 21-024 with findings and conditions of approval. Passed 6-1 (Commissioner Kennedy dissenting). - Appeal Deadline: The CUP decision may be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days. The other actions are recommendations to the City Council and are not directly appealable. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:35 PM. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2023, at 6:00 PM with a study session at 5:00 PM.

The Huntington Beach City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, September 21, 2023, at 6:00 PM to discuss potential charter amendments proposed by the Charter Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Councilmember Burns) for the March 5, 2024, Statewide Primary Election. The meeting included a presentation from the Ad Hoc Committee, extensive public comments, and council debate on each proposal. No final decisions were made on the amendments; the council voted 6-0 (with Councilmember Burns absent) to receive and file the staff report, and the discussion will continue at a special meeting on September 28, 2023. Public Comments & Testimony - Approximately 46 emails were received, with 40 uploaded by the filing deadline. 25 speakers signed up in person. - Overwhelming opposition to the proposed charter amendments was expressed. Speakers represented themselves as residents and homeowners, many with decades-long residency. - Key concerns included: lack of evidence of voter fraud, high costs of implementing voter ID and running city elections, rushing the process for a March primary (low turnout), bundling of unrelated measures, potential lawsuits, and the perception that the council was ignoring public input. - Some speakers supported specific items (e.g., cleaning up the city clerk qualifications, flag ordinance, measure C updates) but opposed the overall bundle. - Several speakers requested that the council drop the amendments, slow down, and form a citizen-led charter review committee. - A few speakers expressed support for voter ID and flag restrictions, arguing for election integrity and respect for the U.S. flag. Discussion Items Ad Hoc Committee Presentation (Mayor Strickland and Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark) - Voter ID: Proposed requiring photo ID for in-person voting, aligned with county practices. Estimated cost of $1.1 million if the city must run its own elections; staff later clarified a range of $1.3–$1.65 million, excluding cybersecurity and tracking. Debate centered on whether voter ID suppresses turnout, legal risks under state law, and lack of demonstrated voter fraud. - Additional Polling Locations: At least 20 residential polling places to increase in-person voting opportunities. The county currently provides 13 vote centers; staff questioned the need and feasibility of residential locations. - Drop Box Monitoring: Camera or technology monitoring for ballot drop boxes to build confidence. - City Attorney Changes: Clarify roles per state law, make the elected city attorney the exclusive legal counsel, protect attorney-client privilege, and prevent defunding of the office (similar to Long Beach charter). Councilmember Kalmick cited a case where the city attorney refused to share a settlement agreement with him as an individual councilmember, raising concerns about accountability. - City Clerk Qualifications: Remove the bachelor’s degree requirement (currently a B.A. in business, public administration, or related field) because no other charter city requires a four-year degree for an elected clerk. Councilmembers disagreed on ambiguity; some argued for keeping qualifications to ensure competence. - Investigations of Malfeasance: Require investigations of elected officials to be conducted by outside agencies to avoid conflicts of interest. Councilmember Kalmick suggested an ordinance might be a better vehicle. - Flags: Enshrine current flag policy in charter, allowing only Olympic flags and others by unanimous council vote. Discussion deferred because Councilmember Burns was absent. - Biennial Budget: Switch to a two-year budget for better planning and predictability, supported by the CFO. Councilmembers generally supported the concept. - Clerk and Treasurer Election Cycle: Align elections with the city attorney (gubernatorial cycle). Mayor Strickland withdrew this item in favor of a vacancy election proposal. - Property Tax/Real Estate Transactions: Require voter approval for transactions that forgo more than $100,000/year in property tax revenue, aimed at preventing deals like the 2020–2021 JPA that cost $500,000/year. Critics argued this would hamstring affordable housing and other beneficial projects; suggested an ordinance instead. - Measure C Update: Loosen restrictions on park and beach improvements (e.g., restrooms, playgrounds) by removing dollar and square footage thresholds, and allow pre-development concepts to go to voters before detailed plans. Staff noted that defining “structure” remains a challenge. Councilmembers Moser and Bolton urged more time to draft precise language. - Cancellation of Meetings: Allow the mayor to change meeting days/times without charter amendment. Council agreed to add guardrails for minimum meeting frequency. Additional Proposals from Councilmembers - Councilmember Kalmick: Proposed charter amendments to prohibit censorship of library materials (non-interference with administration) and to strengthen nepotism rules for elected officials. Language to be drafted for the next meeting. - Councilmember McKeon: Suggested adding council staff (to allow hiring of administrative support), increasing council pay (pegged to a formula like 40% of a superior court judge’s salary), term limits for elected staff (city attorney, clerk, treasurer), and an independent legislative counsel for the council. Also proposed an ethics committee (by ordinance) and a charter provision allowing the city clerk to make minor technical amendments without a vote. Key Outcomes - Motion to Receive and File the Ad Hoc Committee Report: Passed 6-0 (Councilmember Burns absent; Councilmember Kalmick initially voted no, then changed to yes). This procedural motion did not approve any amendments. - No Final Votes on Charter Amendments: The council will continue discussion at a special meeting on September 28, 2023, and potentially at the regularly scheduled meeting on October 3, 2023. The majority indicated they intend to finalize a package for the March 2024 ballot. - Direction to Staff: Staff was asked to provide legal analysis, cost estimates, and draft language for several items (e.g., meeting cancellation, library non-interference, nepotism) for the next meeting. - Next Meeting: Special meeting on Thursday, September 28, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.

This regular meeting spanned from 4:00 PM (study session and closed session) to an open session beginning at 6:00 PM. Key topics included a study session on the Mobility Implementation Plan (HB in Motion), the quarterly homeless report, approval of consent calendar items, amendments to the Harbour Commission’s navigation channel recommendation, tabling of the Grand Jury response on animal welfare, and introduction of an e-bike ordinance. Councilmember Pat Burns was absent with prior permission. The meeting saw extensive public comment on charter amendments, library policies, housing element non-compliance, homelessness, and e-bike regulations. Consent Calendar - Items 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 were approved unanimously (6-0). These included reappointments of City Historian and Archivist, CDBG/HOME grant performance report (CAPER), Harbour Commission recommendation (pulled and voted separately), responses to Grand Jury animal welfare report (pulled and tabled), I-405 improvement cooperative agreement, T-Mobile site license amendment, Police Canine Facility construction contract, and Goldenwest/Graham Street bridge maintenance project. - Item 10 (CDBG/HOME CAPER) was pulled by Councilmember Moser and approved 6-0 after discussion about the tenant-based rental assistance program’s challenges due to high rents and low vacancies. The unused funds will roll over. - Item 11 (Harbour Commission recommendation on Anaheim Bay navigation) was pulled by Councilmember Kalmick. He moved to amend the recommendation by striking “California” from vessel registration language and adding personal watercraft (jet skis) back as allowed. The amendment passed 6-0. - Item 12 (Grand Jury response on animal welfare) was pulled by Councilmember Bolton and tabled for further review after she noted public concerns about Orange County Animal Care’s spay/neuter programs. An extension has been granted. Public Comments & Testimony - General public comments (13 speakers) addressed multiple topics. Several speakers criticized the council majority (referred to as the “FAB four”) for broken campaign promises, lack of transparency, proposed charter amendments, budget concerns, and failure to adopt a housing element. One speaker urged the council to drop litigation over the housing element. Others expressed support for the current council’s actions on homeless enforcement, flag policies, and mask mandate opposition. A speaker questioned the mayor’s handling of parliamentary procedure and requested release of an air show settlement document via PRA. Another speaker warned of impending costs if the city bans books, citing examples from other states. One speaker supported the e-bike ordinance as a safety measure. Another emphasized the need for safe routes to school and better bike infrastructure. A speaker criticized the police chief’s absence and helicopter operations. Discussion Items - Mobility Implementation Plan – HB in Motion Survey Results (Study Session, 4:00 PM). Staff presented preliminary results from Phase 2 surveys (nearly 600 respondents). Key findings: strong support for separated beach path (similar to Sea Point–11th Street), separated bike lanes, crosswalk improvements, speed feedback signs, and 10 mph zones. About 46% of respondents viewed e-bikes as an issue on roadways, a higher percentage on the beach path. Top areas needing improvement: Westside/downtown and Huntington Harbor. Staff outlined a toolbox of near-term and transformative improvements, including buffered bike lanes, leading pedestrian intervals, median refuge islands, and rumble strips. The plan will leverage grant funding. Councilmembers supported the approach, emphasizing safety, connectivity, school routes, and regional coordination (e.g., with Costa Mesa). A future virtual public meeting is planned for fall 2023. Council requested cost breakdowns and an active transportation committee. - Quarterly Homeless Report (City Manager’s Report). Lieutenant Brian Smith and Social Services Supervisor Jessica Kelly presented the Q2 2023 update. Highlights: 543 homeless task force contacts; 40 navigation center referrals; 135 myHB complaints; calls for service down slightly (11% of total vs. 10.3% in Q1). B Well Mobile Crisis Team now covers 7 days/week, 21 hours/day (6 a.m.–3 a.m.), with 1,287 contacts (93% involved homeless individuals, 91% resolved without police co-response). Navigation center averaging 95% capacity; 5 clients housed in Q2 (4 additional in July). Barriers to housing: landlord reluctance to accept vouchers, credit scores, lack of supportive services. Success stories included housing a veteran, a 73-year-old woman, and a couple via faith-based groups. Staff secured $1.1 million state funding for the navigation center and a SAMHSA grant extension. Council discussed data collection, need for standardized terms, upcoming Jamboree Housing meeting for permanent shelter, and the potential of a street medicine program via CalOptima. Councilmember Moser noted 11% of calls is consistent with historical data and cautioned against dismantling programs prematurely. - Ordinance No. 4302 – Bicycle Regulations (Item 17). Lieutenant Toby Archer presented the ordinance updating Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.84. The update adds definitions for e-bike classes (CVC 2015 update) and closes loopholes for vehicles like “Cyron” (electric motorcycles without pedals), which are illegal on city streets. It allows officers to issue civil citations ($125 first offense, $250 second, $500 third) or criminal citations (infraction) for riding in an unsafe manner (examples: no hands, wheelie, wrong-way on sidewalk, excessive speed). It also provides authority to impound e-bikes operated by juveniles and enforce on private property open to public (e.g., shopping centers). Councilmembers expressed support but clarified intent is to target reckless behavior, not casual cyclists. A typo (duplicate subsection) will be corrected. Council requested data collection on e-bike collisions and asked staff to bring back emergency ordinance language for the next meeting to expedite effect. The ordinance was approved for introduction 6-0. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Items 9, 13-16 approved 6-0. Item 10 (CAPER) approved 6-0. Item 11 approved 6-0 with amendments. Item 12 tabled. - Ordinance 4302: Introduced 6-0; second reading and potential emergency ordinance to be considered at the next meeting (September 21, 2023 special meeting or October 3 regular meeting). - Next Steps: Staff to bring back a draft Mobility Plan for public comment and council adoption; report on e-bike data; discuss emergency ordinance findings; continue homeless program metrics and Jamboree Housing planning; the council will hold a special meeting on September 21, 2023, at 6:00 PM.

This special meeting on September 14, 2023, was the first of four scheduled sessions to gather public input on potential charter amendments for the March 5, 2024 primary election. The meeting was primarily a listening session, with over 39 public speakers and limited council deliberation. A motion by Councilmember Kalmick to abandon the entire charter amendment process was voted down, and the next meeting was set for September 21, 2023. Public Comments & Testimony - Majority opposition: 34 of the first 39 speakers opposed the proposed charter amendments, citing costs (estimated $1.2 million to place on the ballot), lack of evidence of voter fraud, bundling of unrelated measures, and the process being rushed. Many criticized the council majority for breaking campaign promises not to change the charter. - Specific concerns: Speakers questioned the feasibility and cost of city-run elections, voter ID requirements, and the reduction of city clerk qualifications. Several demanded financial and legal analyses before proceeding. - Support for some amendments: A few speakers supported voter ID requirements, arguing that ID is required for many activities and that election integrity is important. One speaker also supported requiring special elections for council vacancies. - Procedural criticism: Several speakers expressed frustration that the meeting was announced only as a listening session, not a discussion, despite the agenda stating "discussion." They felt their time was wasted. Discussion Items - Process overview: City staff presented the timeline for four special meetings (Sept 14, 21, 28, and Oct 5) to gather public input, refine amendments, conduct straw votes, and finally place measures on the March 2024 ballot. The September 14 meeting was intended as a listening session without council deliberation. - Motion to abandon charter process: Councilmember Kalmick moved to "abandon the entire charter amendment process" and not place any measures on the ballot. Councilmember Bolton seconded. The motion failed 3-3 (Kalmick, Moser, Bolton voting aye; Vandermark, Strickland, McKeon voting no; Burns absent). - Disagreement over meeting format: Councilmember Kalmick argued the agenda called for discussion, not just listening. Mayor Strickland defended the listening session format, stating it maximizes public participation. Councilmember McKeon supported the process to encourage public input. City Attorney Gates noted he had no comment on the schedule. Key Outcomes - Motion to abandon charter amendments failed (3-3). - The series of four meetings will continue as planned. The next meeting is September 21, 2023, at 6:00 PM. - No formal decisions on charter amendments were made. Council will receive staff analyses (fiscal impacts, legal opinions) at the next meeting and will begin discussion and fine-tuning.