Huntington Beach Planning Commission Study Session – Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan Amendment – October 27, 2026

The Huntington Beach Planning Commission met in study session on October 27, 2026, to receive information on General Plan Amendment No. 25-001, Zoning Text Amendment No. 25-002, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 25-001, and Environmental Impact Report No. 25-002, related to the Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan Amendment. The item was informational only; no public hearing or formal action was taken. Staff and the applicant, California Resources Corporation (CRC), presented a proposed land-use framework for the 92-acre CRC portion of the specific plan, located east of Pacific Coast Highway near Dog Beach.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public signed up to speak during the public comment period.

Study Session Presentation

• Staff planner Joanna Cortes explained that the proposed amendment affects only the 92-acre CRC portion of the Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan, not the existing 54-acre Boardwalk residential community. The site is currently one of the city's largest remaining oil fields.
• The proposal would add residential uses and expanded open space while retaining hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses. Staff described three planning areas: 16 acres of commercial visitor uses; residential medium density on 22.4 acres and 30.8 acres; and open space including a 1.2-mile esplanade along PCH and a 1.15-mile green belt.
• Staff stated the current commercial entitlement is approximately 614,000 square feet; the amendment would reduce it to 348,000 square feet. Maximum average daily trips would be capped at 10,000, down from 21,909. A 75-foot habitable structural setback from the Boardwalk community would be maintained.
• The applicant, CRC Senior Vice President Bob Grunström, said CRC is the largest oil and gas producer in California and that the long-term highest and best use for this oceanfront property is not continued oil drilling. He noted existing operations include onshore facilities, platform Emmy offshore, and obligations in the Bolsa Chica wetlands.
• Land-use consultant Ed Mountford said the project was shaped by the Coastal Act, market studies by Jones Lang LaSalle and WATG, and extensive community outreach with over 1,000 residents. He noted the Coastal Commission has final approval authority and that CRC has had four or five meetings with Coastal Commission staff.
• The applicant proposed up to 350 hotel rooms, 25% of them affordable; 10% of residential units affordable, with an employee preference; approximately 23 acres of public open space; a non-gated community; a 12-foot-wide multi-use path; and about 100 public parking spaces in the esplanade with revenue going to the city.
• The applicant estimated $3.2 billion in project value at build-out, $12.2 million in gross annual fiscal benefit to the city, $9.2 million net annual fiscal benefit, 1,700 construction jobs, 100 permanent jobs, about $10 million in park fees, and about $8.3 million in school fees.
• Note: In the staff presentation, the maximum residential units were stated as up to 1,800. The applicant's presentation stated a maximum of 800 dwelling units. The record does not reconcile this discrepancy.

Commissioner Questions and Concerns

• Commissioners asked about the number of stores and restaurants, parking revenue, signals and turning movements on PCH, possible widening of PCH, pedestrian bridge options, transit stops, underground parking, and whether the 800 units were already counted in the city's housing element.
• Commissioner Thienes raised concerns about trip generation assumptions, the need for a 16-acre hotel site, unclear public/private street maintenance language, a 10-year conservancy grant term, Palm Avenue width and parking, HOA maintenance of the PCH median, differing setbacks for privacy walls, storm drain capacity language, the need for a water supply assessment, and the lack of detailed site-level planning.
• Commissioner Goldberg asked about the transportation hub reference, confirmed future discretionary coastal development permits would provide another public review opportunity, and suggested commissioners tour the site. Staff and the applicant said site tours could be arranged.
• The chair reminded commissioners to refrain from expressing opinions on the merits or indicating future votes to avoid due process concerns.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action, motion, or vote was taken; the item was a study session for future consideration.
• Staff announced a tentative study session on the draft EIR for November 10, 2026, and a tentative public hearing for December 8, 2026.
• The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting was set for November 10, 2026.