OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Huntington Beach Planning Commission Meeting – September 24, 2024

City Council — Tuesday, September 24, 2024
BodyHuntington Beach, California
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, September 24, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:42

Meeting to order.

0:46

Welcome to the September 24th, 2024 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting.

0:52

While the Planning Commission welcomes public involvement in free speech, it rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise not protected by speech.

1:04

Protected free speech.

1:06

Those comments will not inform nor be considered by the planning commission and maybe cause for the chair to interrupt the speaker.

1:13

Such comments will not be consented to or otherwise adopted by the Planning Commission in its discussions and findings for any matter tonight.

1:23

Thank you.

1:54

Commissioner Adam.

1:55

Present.

1:56

Commissioner Pellman.

1:57

Vice Chair Kennedy.

1:59

Here.

1:59

Chair Twining?

2:00

Here.

2:01

Commissioner Wood?

2:02

Here.

2:02

Commissioner Rodriguez?

2:03

Here.

2:03

Commissioner Costa Galvan.

2:04

Here.

2:05

We have a quorum.

2:08

Thank you.

2:09

Now's the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda this evening.

2:14

Do we have any public comments?

2:16

We currently have one uh public comment signed up to speak for items that are not on the agenda.

2:21

We do have several public comments that are signed up to speak for the Bolsa Chica Senior Project.

2:27

Um and so they were waiting to see whether or not you guys were going to reopen the public hearing.

2:31

Do you want me to call those now or to wait?

2:32

Do we want to do the public hearing?

2:34

I mean the not the public hearing, but the one the non-agendized item first.

2:38

Yes.

2:38

And then I'll make an announcement.

2:40

Okay.

2:40

Robert Greinger, please come down.

3:11

So if those members that weren't there, I'd go back and look at that meeting again because specifically the topic we're talking about is the Kettler Education Center near my home has been operating as a maintenance yard for the last six years without any conditional use permit at all.

3:34

They've been essentially operating without permission from the city in an unhoused fashion, making lots of noise and causing havoc, up uh turning the lights on at 5 a.m., waking us up, um, not even thinking that they think they're their authority because they're the state is um above the city.

3:58

Well, it's not when you read through the state laws.

4:04

We have all these title five and title five is for education.

4:09

When you read through Title V of the Education Code, this is the California Code of Civil Procedures.

4:14

It's nothing I'm hiding here.

4:15

Five three zero nine four.

4:17

It talks about how the state has authority to put schools wherever they want.

4:23

So for classroom facilities, yeah, they five three zero nine four does give them the right to build schools.

4:31

But in subsection B of that state code, it talks about non-classroom facilities.

4:38

And interestingly, it says, you know, if you have a non-classroom facility, you can't just do whatever you want.

4:46

What if that non-classroom facility is a painting contractor or a blacksmith shop, something that doesn't fit within that area.

5:00

And their proposal for a maintenance yard is against the state code.

5:04

They're not exempt.

5:06

And they must get back in line with every other business that operates a commercial business and apply with the planning commission once again the right way, just like any other citizen who is operating a business would have to stand in line and ask for a conditional use permit.

5:24

They have never got one.

5:26

They claim they're existing, but they were able to get right through the planning department, right through zoning and get it approved without any oversight whatsoever.

5:39

Because they made that little mistake, they thought they were exempt from any oversight.

5:44

And it led them to make a notice of declaration that they're they're exempt from any CEQA investigation.

5:55

So CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act.

5:58

Before May, I knew nothing about CEQA.

6:01

But it I sent out an email earlier to the council, and I wish you'd read through it.

6:05

It's good information.

6:07

Thank you, Mr.

6:08

Granger.

6:09

We also have um Mark Curry here to speak for public comments.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planning and Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████46%
Procedural██████████████14%
Public Comments██████████████14%
Public Safety██████6%
Economic Development█████5%
Affordable Housing█████5%
Public Health███3%
Personnel Matters███3%
Public Works██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Huntington Beach Planning Commission Meeting – September 24, 2024

The Huntington Beach Planning Commission held a regular meeting on September 24, 2024, at 6:00 PM. The meeting included public comments on non-agenda items, two continued public hearing items (Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community and Midway Concepts Mixed Use Project), and approval of prior meeting minutes. The Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community project (which includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit) and also approved the Midway Concepts Mixed Use Project with a 4-3 vote. A motion to require Commissioner Rodriguez to recuse himself due to his impending move was ruled invalid.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes of July 23, 2024: Approved 5-0-2 (Commissioners Pellman and Acosta-Galvan abstained).
  • Minutes of September 10, 2024: Approved 6-0-1 (Commissioner Acosta-Galvan abstained).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Non‑Agenda Items: Two residents (Robert Greinger and Mark Curry) spoke about the Kettler Education Center operating as a maintenance yard without necessary permits, alleging noise, traffic, and lack of CEQA review. They urged the Commission to place the matter on a future agenda.
  • Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community: 23 speakers signed up; the hearing was reopened by a 5-2 vote (Commissioners Adam and Wood dissenting).
    • Opponents: Many residents (e.g., Jonathan Bonwitt, Henry Good, David Goodwin, Ann Palmer, Tom Dillman, Brian Thenis, Christine Pedesky, Kathleen Mooney, Marcy Zeller, Deborah Cohen, Jim Murray, John Carrington, Becky L., Emma Clay) cited concerns about:
      • Height (four stories, ~50 ft) being out of scale with surrounding single-story homes.
      • Insufficient parking (104 spaces for 159 units; comparisons to Clearwater portfolio’s 0.77 spaces/unit).
      • Traffic congestion, safety at the intersection, and proximity to the Bolsa Chica wetlands.
      • Misinformation from a circulating petition that described a “five-story condominium.”
      • Questionable need: four similar facilities within five miles have vacancies.
      • Potential conversion to high‑rent apartments.
      • Lack of infrastructure improvements (power outages, sewer, water).
    • Supporters: Perry Clitherow (economic community) argued the project would generate fees and property taxes, helping fund services; he urged approval. Tom Lawless (applicant) defended parking adequacy (52 cars at peak), noted no independent living, and said the project complies with height limits.
  • Midway Concepts Mixed Use Project: Four speakers supported the project:
    • Bao Pham, Connie Wynne, Leah Sorano, and Anthony Tran cited the vacant lot’s blight (graffiti, homelessness), need for rental housing, and modern design. Ann Palmer opposed, arguing the specific plan is overused and that the project would overshadow nearby single‑family homes on Spear Drive.

Discussion Items

  • Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community (Item 24‑665):
    • Staff presented the revised EIR, General Plan Amendment (CG to MU with Specific Plan Overlay), Zoning Map Amendment (to SP‑19), Zoning Text Amendment (new Specific Plan), and Conditional Use Permit for a 159‑unit convalescent facility with on‑site alcohol sales, 49.5 ft height, 215,000 sq ft, 104 parking spaces.
    • Commissioners disclosed conversations with staff, developer, and community members.
    • Debate centered on floor area ratio (FAR of 1.68 vs. 1.5 in CG zone), parking adequacy, height, and conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Pellman expressed concerns about community misinformation; Commissioner Wood argued the project fits zoning except for use. Commissioner Twining stated the project fell “just a little bit short.”
    • Commissioner Kennedy made a supplemental motion to recuse Commissioner Rodriguez (who is moving), citing loss of vested interest; the motion was ruled invalid by the City Attorney.
  • Midway Concepts Mixed Use Project (Item 24‑683):
    • Staff presented the CUP request for a four‑story mixed‑use building with 15 rental units (two affordable at very low income), 1,000 sq ft commercial, and 27 parking spaces. Two concessions are needed: reduced front yard setbacks (20 ft on Beach, 19 ft on Spear) and a density bonus waiver of height limit for adjacency to residential.
    • Commissioners questioned parking ratios, setback rationale, and pedestrian safety. Commissioner Kennedy expressed concern about reduced setbacks on high‑speed Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Rodriguez requested clarification on affordable unit sizes.
    • Public comments highlighted the vacant lot’s negative impacts and need for housing.

Key Outcomes

  • Bolsa Chica Senior Care Community: Motion to approve the entitlements (EIR, GPA, ZMA, ZTA, CUP) passed 4-3.
    • Ayes: Commissioners Adam, Wood, Rodriguez, Acosta‑Galvan.
    • Nays: Commissioners Pellman, Kennedy, Twining.
    • The CUP decision is appealable to City Council within 10 calendar days; the other actions will be forwarded to the Council for final action.
  • Midway Concepts Mixed Use Project: Motion to approve the CUP (with CEQA exemption and conditions) passed 4-3.
    • Ayes: Commissioners Adam, Wood, Rodriguez, Acosta‑Galvan.
    • Nays: Commissioners Pellman, Kennedy, Twining.
    • The decision is appealable to City Council within 10 calendar days.
  • Consent Calendar: Both sets of minutes approved as noted above.
  • Adjournment: The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2024.

Meeting Transcript

Meeting to order. Welcome to the September 24th, 2024 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting. While the Planning Commission welcomes public involvement in free speech, it rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise not protected by speech. Protected free speech. Those comments will not inform nor be considered by the planning commission and maybe cause for the chair to interrupt the speaker. Such comments will not be consented to or otherwise adopted by the Planning Commission in its discussions and findings for any matter tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Adam. Present. Commissioner Pellman. Vice Chair Kennedy. Here. Chair Twining? Here. Commissioner Wood? Here. Commissioner Rodriguez? Here. Commissioner Costa Galvan. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Now's the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda this evening. Do we have any public comments? We currently have one uh public comment signed up to speak for items that are not on the agenda. We do have several public comments that are signed up to speak for the Bolsa Chica Senior Project. Um and so they were waiting to see whether or not you guys were going to reopen the public hearing. Do you want me to call those now or to wait? Do we want to do the public hearing? I mean the not the public hearing, but the one the non-agendized item first. Yes. And then I'll make an announcement. Okay. Robert Greinger, please come down. So if those members that weren't there, I'd go back and look at that meeting again because specifically the topic we're talking about is the Kettler Education Center near my home has been operating as a maintenance yard for the last six years without any conditional use permit at all. They've been essentially operating without permission from the city in an unhoused fashion, making lots of noise and causing havoc, up uh turning the lights on at 5 a.m., waking us up, um, not even thinking that they think they're their authority because they're the state is um above the city. Well, it's not when you read through the state laws. We have all these title five and title five is for education. When you read through Title V of the Education Code, this is the California Code of Civil Procedures. It's nothing I'm hiding here. Five three zero nine four. It talks about how the state has authority to put schools wherever they want. So for classroom facilities, yeah, they five three zero nine four does give them the right to build schools. But in subsection B of that state code, it talks about non-classroom facilities. And interestingly, it says, you know, if you have a non-classroom facility, you can't just do whatever you want. What if that non-classroom facility is a painting contractor or a blacksmith shop, something that doesn't fit within that area. And their proposal for a maintenance yard is against the state code. They're not exempt. And they must get back in line with every other business that operates a commercial business and apply with the planning commission once again the right way, just like any other citizen who is operating a business would have to stand in line and ask for a conditional use permit. They have never got one.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com