Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting on Housing Element Update – October 11, 2022

Planning Commission — Tuesday, October 11, 2022

BodyHuntington Beach, California

SessionPlanning Commission

DateTuesday, October 11, 2022

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:30:43

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:54

Staff, may we have the roll call.

0:59

Commissioners.

1:01

Commissioner Adam?

1:02

Here.

1:03

Commissioner Mandic.

1:05

Vice Chair Acosta Gabon.

1:07

Here.

1:08

Chair Perkins.

1:09

Here.

1:10

Commissioner Scandura.

1:12

Commissioner Rodriguez.

1:13

Here.

1:13

Commissioner Ray.

1:14

Here.

1:15

We have a quorum.

1:16

Thank you.

1:16

Oh, Chair Perkins.

1:18

Yes.

1:20

Hi.

1:21

Commissioner Mandick asked me to uh make a little announcement on her behalf, and I'll repeat this when we're at the six o'clock as well.

1:28

Um came up at the last study session.

1:32

Uh Commissioner Mandick does have a commercial property located within 500 feet of a parcel that's proposed for inclusion and the affordable housing overlay, which is an item H on the main um the main regular session agenda tonight on the planning uh the planning the housing element project.

1:47

So in the absence of time for a formal FPPC advice letter regarding whether item H may be segmented or voted on separately from the rest of the items.

1:56

Commissioner Mandick decided to exercise an abundance of caution and um decided to recuse herself from the entire housing element project decision, and so that is um the reason that she is absent today.

2:07

Okay, thank you for making that announcement.

2:10

Uh do we have anyone signed up for study session public comments?

2:14

We do have one public comment, Gerald Chapman.

2:27

Good evening, planning commissioners.

2:30

My name is Gerald Chapman, and I'm one of the original owners and residents in on Edwards Hill for in the uh Ellis Golden West quarter section that you're talking about putting an overlay on.

2:46

Affordable housing overlay.

2:48

I I would like to have staff answer a few questions for you before your meeting.

2:55

The first one is that I have questions about whether or not this the meeting tonight will be a legitimate meeting because we can find no one within the 300-foot uh dissidence notification distance that received written notification of this meeting.

3:17

So I don't think it's legal for you to have the meeting tonight because of improper notification.

3:25

Uh the other issue that I'd like to talk about is the fact that placing this overlay on the Holly or the Ellis Golden West specific plan at this time.

3:39

Uh seems to be in conflict with what the specific plan says.

3:45

It says that uh if you read the first two paragraphs in the specific plan, you'll see that it talks about the equestrian preserving the equestrian nature of the area, preserving the topography, and preserving the uh state residential.

4:01

So it would seem to me that a more logical step would be to that you would have to amend that portion of the specific plan before you can place an overlay changing the type of building that goes on it.

4:17

The other question that I have that just dawned on me while I was here is Mr.

4:22

Gates owns a piece of part, lives in a piece of property within the Ellis Golden West quarter section.

4:30

And I just wonder if perhaps his whole staff should be recused from have making any comments on this uh because certainly he has the final say as far as what comes out of his office.

4:45

Thank you.

4:49

Thank you, staff.

4:51

Do we have a uh presentation?

4:56

Uh we do.

4:57

Uh Alyssa Matthews will be leading the presentation for the study session.

5:01

Thank you.

5:02

Good evening, Commissioners.

5:03

This evening we will be discussing the environmental impact report that was prepared for the housing element update.

5:23

Okay, the purpose of the study session is to provide an overview of the analysis and conclusions in the program's subsequent environmental impact report that was prepared for the housing element, and to answer any questions that you may have pertaining to the environmental impact report.

5:39

Before we discuss the EIR that was prepared for the project, I'd first like to provide some background on the California Environmental Quality Act, otherwise known as CEQA, which is a statute that requires preparation of environmental documents for projects.

5:54

The purpose of CEQA is to inform decision makers about significant environmental impacts associated with the project, to identify those to identify ways those impacts can be avoided or reduced, to prevent impacts through mitigation or alternatives, and to disclose why a project is approved despite having potentially significant environmental impacts.

6:20

In addition to understanding what CEQA requires, it is equally responsible, it is equally important to understand what it does not require.

6:28

First, CEQA does not argue for or against a project.

6:35

It also does not require an exhaustive treatment of issues nor perfection, but should allow for informed decision making.

6:42

And finally, it does not require agreement among experts.

6:48

Now that we have gone over CEQA, we'll discuss the draft program environmental impact report that was prepared for the housing element.

6:57

So why prepare a program EIR?

7:01

The EIR that was prepared for the project is what's called a program EIR, which means that impacts are assessed at a programmatic or high level rather than at a detailed project level.

7:13

A program EIR is an appropriate document because there are not specific projects associated with future housing developments under the housing element update.

7:22

And as such, assessing impacts would be too speculative and would potentially paint an inaccurate picture of potential environmental impacts.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Affordable Housing██████████████████████████████████████38%

Planning and Zoning██████████████████████████26%

Public Comments████████████12%

Environmental Protection█████████9%

Procedural█████5%

Public Engagement█████5%

Public Safety██2%

Public Health█1%

Transportation Safety█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting on Housing Element Update – October 11, 2022

The Huntington Beach Planning Commission held a study session at 5:00 PM and a regular meeting at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, October 11, 2022, in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. The primary agenda item was the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and associated implementation actions, including a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR), General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and the creation of Affordable Housing Overlays. The Commission voted to recommend approval of all items to the City Council, with one commissioner voting against one of the zoning text amendments.

Consent Calendar

No items were on the consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

Gerald Chapman (Edwards Hill resident): Questioned the legality of the meeting due to alleged lack of written notification for property owners within the Ellis Golden West quarter section. He argued that the overlay conflicts with the specific plan's equestrian and open-space character and suggested that the City Attorney’s staff should recuse themselves due to a potential conflict of interest.
Gigi Jackson (homeowner since 2008): Supported the housing element, noting the city's transparency efforts and citing research that affordable housing can decrease crime and increase property values.
Diana Bentley: Expressed support for the housing element, stating that it helps maintain local control and benefits the community.
Iori Suzuki (president of Edwards Hill HOA): Opposed the Ellis Golden West overlay, arguing it contradicts the 1989 specific plan that promised single-family homes and would harm neighborhood character, property values, and horse trails.
Anna Gendler (20-year resident): Opposed high-density affordable housing, claiming it leads to increased crime, traffic, and lower property values, referencing negative experiences in Los Angeles.
Chris LaHaj (Steeplechase Circle resident): Opposed the overlay for SP7, citing incompatible land uses, traffic, parking shortages, and safety risks for pedestrians and equestrians.
Julia Cheika (homeowner backing the Brindle property): Opposed the rezoning, stating she received no notification and that the project would degrade the neighborhood's aesthetics and local school quality.
Peter Zoofrey (Polo Circle resident): Requested the Commission postpone the decision, citing inadequate notification, insufficient EIR analysis (traffic, schools, utilities), and the potential for 1,400 units causing parking and congestion issues.
Galen Pickett: Supported the housing element, calling opposition "renaphobia" and noting that past housing element updates did not cause the predicted negative outcomes.
Robert Kramer (Alameda Circle resident): Opposed the overlay, citing concerns about safety, school overcrowding, traffic, and loss of park access.
Eleni Hapsis: Read an article about California's drought and water crisis, arguing that the city cannot support additional housing without first securing water supply, and criticized the rejection of a desalination plant.
Gerald Chapman (second comment): Highlighted traffic and parking consequences, noting that limiting parking in affordable projects would force residents to park on streets, creating hazards for children walking to school.
Cindy Berrios: Opposed the overlays for SP7 and SP9, raising concerns about building heights, loss of green space, equestrian access, and potential overcrowding at Seacliff Elementary School.
Diane Kotinski (30-year Seacliff resident): Opposed the overlay, questioning why high-density housing is proposed in a single-family neighborhood and criticizing the lack of community notification.
Shirley Detloff (former planning commissioner): Supported the housing element, emphasizing that the city must comply with state law to avoid fines, loss of land-use authority, and lawsuits.
Martha Morrow (original Edwards Hill owner): Opposed the Brindle property overlay, arguing it would decrease property values, increase crime, and strain city services.
Denise Menichello (32-year resident): Expressed shock at learning about the proposal through word-of-mouth and argued that the change would devalue homes that residents purchased with the expectation of low-density development.
Greg Strayer (30-year resident): Criticized the lack of mailed notification to nearby property owners, stating that he received a letter about a cell tower but not this re-zoning.
Risa Kubian: Opposed the Brindle property overlay, questioning why the EIR was incomplete and why the city is exceeding state requirements.
Karen Carroll (retired teacher): Supported the housing element, noting that 62% of employed residents are very low- or low-income and that workforce housing is needed.
Byron Constantinidis (28-year Edwards Hill resident): Opposed the overlay, arguing it is inappropriate to place high-density housing in a neighborhood of large single-family homes and that better locations exist near commercial areas.
Adam Chamoun (engineer): Opposed the rezoning from a technical standpoint, citing environmental and traffic impacts and noting the site's distance from the freeway.
Dennis Holloway (resident since 1975): Opposed the change, stating that the general plan was previously considered unchangeable and that high-density housing does not belong there.
James Sharoff (HOA board member): Noted that none of the seven HOAs received notification, and suggested removing the Brindle property from the overlay to resolve all complaints.
Brian Solson: Opposed the overlay, arguing that high-density affordable housing is a flawed solution that damages education and infrastructure, and calling for better planning.
Mike Mastropaolo: Urged caution and additional community engagement, stating the proposal undermines trust and that the city should not exceed state requirements.

Discussion Items

Study Session (5:00 PM): Staff presented an overview of the Program Subsequent EIR (No. 22-002). Key points: The EIR analyzed 15 topic areas; five significant unavoidable impacts were identified (air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, noise, utilities/service systems). Two alternatives were considered: the no-project alternative (does not meet RHNA) and a concentrated development alternative (does not equitably distribute housing). A statement of overriding considerations is required. The EIR was released for a 45-day public review; five comment letters were received from agencies. No comments from the general public.
Commissioner Questions:
- Commissioner Scandura asked about public notification requirements for the meeting. Staff responded that expanded newspaper notification and mailed notices to property owners within affected areas were conducted.
- Vice Chair Acosta-Galvan confirmed that the concentrated alternative would not comply with state fair housing law.
- Commissioner Rodriguez asked about environmental justice; staff noted that analysis is included in the housing element document itself.
- The Commission discussed the statement of overriding considerations, which will be considered by City Council.
Regular Meeting (6:00 PM): Staff presentation covered the housing element update, RHNA allocation (13,368 units), site inventory methodology, affordable housing overlays, and the specific amendments. The city's RHNA includes 5,215 units for above moderate-income, 2,315 for moderate, 2,631 for low, and 3,207 for very low-income households. The city cannot meet the RHNA with existing projects and ADUs alone. The proposed overlays and rezonings provide adequate capacity, including a buffer (15-30% above RHNA). The EIR's significant unavoidable impacts were reiterated.
Commissioner Deliberation:
- Commissioner Scandura proposed clarifying language in the housing element to specify that ministerial approval (by-right) applies citywide for projects with at least 20% affordable units, and to require notification to residents within 500 feet of any project receiving ministerial approval.
- Commissioner Ray expressed interest in a straw vote to recommend the City Council challenge the RHNA number in court, but other commissioners opposed, noting that the city already appealed administratively and that a court challenge could increase the number. Commissioner Ray requested that his individual recommendation be noted in the minutes.
- The Commission discussed whether to impose a condition that future projects in the Ellis Golden West overlay take access from Golden West Avenue rather than neighborhood streets. Chair Perkins and others preferred not to predetermine project specifics, but agreed that the city should review access proposals through the planning process. The Commission also discussed ensuring adequate community notification for future developments under the overlay.
- Staff noted that any changes to the housing element or implementing ordinances that affect the site inventory or affordability assumptions could require additional HCD review and delay certification.

Key Outcomes

Motion 1: Recommend approval of Subsequent EIR No. 22-002 with findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations (Resolution 2022-63). Passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mandic recused).
Motion 2: Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-003 (Housing Element Update) with the changes approved by straw vote (clarifying ministerial approval and notification requirements). Passed 6-0.
Motion 3: Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22-001 (Land Use Element Affordable Housing Overlay). Passed 6-0.
Motion 4: Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment No. 22-002 (Affordable Housing Overlay map) with findings, via Ordinance No. 4269. Passed 6-0.
Motion 5: Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-008 (Chapter 229 Affordable Housing Overlay) with findings, via Ordinance No. 4272. Passed 6-0.
Motion 6: Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment No. 22-001 (RMH Rezoning of three properties) with findings, via Ordinances 4262, 4263, and 4264. Passed 6-0.
Motion 7: Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-009 (Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan AHO expansion) with findings, via Resolution 2022-59. Passed 6-0.
Motion 8: Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-007 (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan AHO) with findings, via Ordinance No. 4271. Passed 6-0.
Motion 9: Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-006 (Ellis Golden West Specific Plan RH Overlay) with findings, via Ordinance No. 4265. Passed 5-1 (Commissioner Ray voted no; Commissioner Mandic recused).
All actions are recommendations to the City Council, which will hold a public hearing on November 15, 2022.
The staff will incorporate the notification requirement into the zoning text amendments for City Council consideration.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 25, 2022, at 6:00 PM.

Meeting Transcript

Staff, may we have the roll call. Commissioners. Commissioner Adam? Here. Commissioner Mandic. Vice Chair Acosta Gabon. Here. Chair Perkins. Here. Commissioner Scandura. Commissioner Rodriguez. Here. Commissioner Ray. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Oh, Chair Perkins. Yes. Hi. Commissioner Mandick asked me to uh make a little announcement on her behalf, and I'll repeat this when we're at the six o'clock as well. Um came up at the last study session. Uh Commissioner Mandick does have a commercial property located within 500 feet of a parcel that's proposed for inclusion and the affordable housing overlay, which is an item H on the main um the main regular session agenda tonight on the planning uh the planning the housing element project. So in the absence of time for a formal FPPC advice letter regarding whether item H may be segmented or voted on separately from the rest of the items. Commissioner Mandick decided to exercise an abundance of caution and um decided to recuse herself from the entire housing element project decision, and so that is um the reason that she is absent today. Okay, thank you for making that announcement. Uh do we have anyone signed up for study session public comments? We do have one public comment, Gerald Chapman. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Gerald Chapman, and I'm one of the original owners and residents in on Edwards Hill for in the uh Ellis Golden West quarter section that you're talking about putting an overlay on. Affordable housing overlay. I I would like to have staff answer a few questions for you before your meeting. The first one is that I have questions about whether or not this the meeting tonight will be a legitimate meeting because we can find no one within the 300-foot uh dissidence notification distance that received written notification of this meeting. So I don't think it's legal for you to have the meeting tonight because of improper notification. Uh the other issue that I'd like to talk about is the fact that placing this overlay on the Holly or the Ellis Golden West specific plan at this time. Uh seems to be in conflict with what the specific plan says. It says that uh if you read the first two paragraphs in the specific plan, you'll see that it talks about the equestrian preserving the equestrian nature of the area, preserving the topography, and preserving the uh state residential. So it would seem to me that a more logical step would be to that you would have to amend that portion of the specific plan before you can place an overlay changing the type of building that goes on it. The other question that I have that just dawned on me while I was here is Mr. Gates owns a piece of part, lives in a piece of property within the Ellis Golden West quarter section. And I just wonder if perhaps his whole staff should be recused from have making any comments on this uh because certainly he has the final say as far as what comes out of his office. Thank you. Thank you, staff. Do we have a uh presentation? Uh we do. Uh Alyssa Matthews will be leading the presentation for the study session. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. This evening we will be discussing the environmental impact report that was prepared for the housing element update. Okay, the purpose of the study session is to provide an overview of the analysis and conclusions in the program's subsequent environmental impact report that was prepared for the housing element, and to answer any questions that you may have pertaining to the environmental impact report. Before we discuss the EIR that was prepared for the project, I'd first like to provide some background on the California Environmental Quality Act, otherwise known as CEQA, which is a statute that requires preparation of environmental documents for projects.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com