Huntington Beach Planning Commission Study Session - October 10, 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.