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.